lea

FICGS - Search results for lea

There are 1915 results for lea in the forum.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-04 03:54:36)
FICGS forum is open !

The forum is open to all discussions. Feel free to suggest and debate all kinds of improvements for the website. Please speak english only.

Have good games... :-)

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-08 13:37:17)
Class tournaments overlap

Hello Hannes. Thank you for support :)

The overlap offers the possibility for players to register to several class tournaments, at least to choose. I think it won't be used a lot, but it could be something more for the stronger players who will choose to register to "under-class" tournament as well as other players who may play sometimes with stronger players.

Feel free to tell me what you think.

Thibault

Scott Ligon    (2025-01-07 18:55:30)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?

I am running an experiment where each move will be selected by Stockfish 17 in a deterministic configuration, so it will be possible to predict my response to any given move with certainty. I believe Stockfish 17 at these settings is so strong that it will be difficult if not impossible to exploit this strategy. However, if I reach a position where it looks like this strategy is going to lose, I reserve the right to deviate. If this happens, I will message my opponent to let them know that I am no longer following this system.

I'm using a python script to interact with Stockfish, but you should be able to get the same results running Stockfish 17 from the command line. I am currently running the search with the parameter nodes = 10 million (previously I tried nodes = 5 million but I found a way for white to win against Stockfish at that setting). From the command line:

go nodes 10000000

In order for Stockfish to be deterministic, it needs to be running on just 1 thread and from the command line that's the default. If for some reason Threads has a different value on your machine:

setoption name Threads value 1

I'm using the default size for the hash table, but if you run the search a second time without clearing the hash, you will get a different search result. So either close and restart Stockfish between searches or else clear the hash table:

setoption name Clear Hash

Lastly you need to be able to input the position before running the search. It is important that you enter the position via FEN string rather than by inputting the moves, because you might get different search results otherwise. Use only the first four fields of the FEN string, like this to get black's response after 1 e4:

position fen rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq -

From that position if you run Stockfish with nodes = 10 million, the last two lines of text output should say:

info depth 32 seldepth 46 multipv 1 score cp -26 lowerbound nodes 10000376 nps 462252 hashfull 999 tbhits 0 time 21634 pv c7c5
bestmove c7c5 ponder g1f3

I think only the values of "nps" and "time" will vary, everything else should be identical between runs / machines. So in this case Stockfish 17 recommends the Sicilian Defense and gives an evaluation of +0.26. (cp -26 is the evaluation in centipawns from the perspective of the side to move, but usually evals are given from white's POV).

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-08 14:49:23)
FICGS titles

As you may have read on TCCMB forum, ICCF officials reacted when they learnt about FICGS titles. My idea was it first to be informative (titles from ICCF/IECG/FIDE), because I think players like to know who they play against, particularly if their opponents are titled. It seems obvious to me that FICGS titles are FICGS ones, not "official", not ICCF or FIDE.. even if words are quite the same (titles are FICGS IM, not IM).

I would like to know what you think about that. Do you think FICGS titles should be renamed (ie. FEM, FIM, FSM, FGM), or do you think there's no possible confusion between FIDE/ICCF/IECG/FICGS titles ? This is an interesting debate I invite you to follow :

http://pub11.bravenet.com/forum/924995304/fetch/552912/

Thank you for your advices.

Sebastian Boehme    (2011-04-28 11:02:40)
Active rating lists

Mr Meraiya, please also consider that much effort wss put into this site to bring it to life.
I can not understand how you can use such rude words then, one can also say it in another tone! Words make people.

Hannes Rada    (2006-04-08 19:32:44)
vacations

40 days is fine for me. I've 31 days leave in a year and I ususaly use them all for travelling and visiting foreign countries. I had no experience with rapid tournaments on the cfc - server. However they also allowed 40 days in a year. Maybe otherwise many player would not participate. I for one had to go several times on business trips for a few days and in this case it would risk losing games in a rapid tournament if there is no possibility for taking leave.

Per Lea    (2006-04-08 23:03:27)
Vacations

In this modern world, not even travelling abroad will stop you from being able to play: you will probably find an internet cafe near by. Or you may have internet access in your hotel room, or if you visit business colleagues, they will probably give you access to a PC. Too bad if you're TOO dependent on Fritz, of course, but....

Per Lea    (2006-04-08 23:09:40)
Titles

A provocative question: Do we really need titles at all? Isn't rating more informative than a title that maybe has been won when the player was at the top of his playing strength, many years ago? I admit the rating system isn't perfect, but I still claim it tells me more than a title. Being a Norwegian I am possibly less obsessed with titles (within all walks of life) than people from other countries?

Per Lea    (2006-04-08 23:15:01)
Elo overlap

I think the overlap is a great idea. The ratings may come from a lot of different sources and are therefore not necessarily compatible. My ICCF rating is 2136 (why I was given 5 extra points on FICGS, I cannot explain...), but my Norwegian OTB rating is 1631 or thereabouts. That number is probably more realistic....

Per Lea    (2006-04-08 23:23:25)
My messages/My games

I found it extremely confusing that when I wanted to make a move, my games are found under "My messages". To me, the logical place to look is under "My games"... It took me nearly 10 frustrating minutes before I managed to make my first move! Of course, once I know where to look, there's no problem. But it may be a problem for new players!

Hannes Rada    (2006-04-09 00:43:50)
Travel destinations

>In this modern world, not even > travelling abroad will stop you from > being able to play: you will > probably find an internet cafe near > Or you may have internet access in > your hotel room, or if you visit > business colleagues, they will > probably give you access to a PC. > Too bad if you're TOO dependent on > Fritz, of course, but.... Normally I spend my holiday far away from the so called civiliations. Destinations like Papua New Guinea, Micronesia or Ethiopia are my favorite places. So there is no chance for communications and also no interest for playing chess. In 2 weeks I am heading to Vanuatu .....

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-09 10:16:50)
Duplication

Hello Marc ! I thought players (I first) precisely would appreciate something different and this totally "live" concept. I don't think many correspondence chess players will try to cheat this way... Furthermore, I already did implement processes to DETECT 'double' games.. and rules clearly forbid these methods.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-09 11:12:49)
FICGS council / staff

Hello to all.

As I just said on TCCMB about the server, I clearly don't want to reproduce the Chessfriend waste... For obvious reasons, I won't administer alone the whole server forever. That's why I want to create a council-staff and to turn FICGS at least partly towards a IECG-like structure...

Feel free to tell me if you're interested to take part of the adventure !

Best wishes.

Per Lea    (2006-04-09 11:37:05)
Titles

In my opinion, there are only 2 official sets of titles in the chess world, belonging to the only officialy accepted world-wide chess organisations: ICCF and FIDE.

Per Lea    (2006-04-09 11:41:46)
Rating improvement...

2141? Now you mention it... I had simply forgotten the latest list! (Hooray! I am 5 points stronger than I thought! Everyone in A_000001 beware!)

Per Lea    (2006-04-09 11:50:32)
Vacations

OK, Hannes, you're right. When you leave "The modern world" my comments no longer apply... And, by the way: I fully support the idea of some sort of "vacation". After all, not everyone is obsessed with chess 24 hours/day. There are other valuable things in life as well! Often, it can be fun just to relax, and forget all about difficult middle-games, irritating colleagues at work and the disappointments of your local football team and just go away - to Vanuatu (wherever that mey be)

Per Lea    (2006-04-09 21:51:02)
Suggested improvement

When clicking on "My games", only a list with one line representing each game should appear (as on ICCF, Chessfriend and I think all other servers I have encountered - and there are quite a few!) With many games running, a short overview is sufficient. Now I have to scroll down to a particular game, even though I only have 6 games running. I definitely think you should look to ICCF and Chessfriend to get some good ideas in this respect.

Per Lea    (2006-04-10 01:32:41)
Games overview

Thibault: Thanks for quick and positive response. Hannes: thanks for the support (I've also had support from Håkon Anda, in a personal mail)! I hope others agree as well.

Per Lea    (2006-04-10 09:52:36)
Games appearing in short list

Thanx for obeying my wish - now the "My games" list is much easier to read. But why can't I just click on one of the games in this list when I want to make a move? If you prefer, you could put a symbol (such as the white or black rook) next to the games where it is my move, to make it easier to see where it is my move. Then there is really no need to list the games (where it is my move) under "My messages" as well.

Patrice Verdier    (2006-04-10 11:59:55)
FICGS council / staff

I am very pleasant to takepart in this new adventure Best wishes, Patrice

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-11 05:18:57)
FICGS council / staff

About job specification, as I said, I would like FICGS to be a place that fits to the most, and not under a dictatorship (even mine :)), so the idea to create a council with all members who want to be part of it, voting all decisions relating server rules, tournaments, wch cycles, titles... (or simply opinion poll on the website ? or both...)

The FICGS staff should be able to manage the server (registering new members, moderating the forum, referees...) Nothing difficult, just needs motivation. Most important is that it could completely work without me. Of course, if developers want to help, making a drag & drop interface ie. or improving whatelse..) About "go", we'll see later, Hannes :) (it's a fine game, you should learn !)

Anyway I'll send an email to all players responding in this thread soon. We will discuss about that.

Best wishes & thank you !

Jose Carrillo    (2006-04-11 23:28:13)
Chess960 Challenge

I'm new to the site, and learning how to use it. Anyone interested can challenge me to a Chess960 game. Thanks.

Dinesh De Silva    (2006-04-12 07:24:22)
TITLES

I think the answer is obvious. FICGS titles should be named FICGS EM, FICGS IM etc, so that it's clear from where the titles are got from. By putting the organization's name in front of the title this way, I don't see any problems. I think the majority are bound to agree, and there won't be any sorta arguments with other organizations. After all, the world is a very big place.... there's enough room for everybody! I find FICGS a very friendly place. Also, organizations like IECG, ICCF, LIAPE etc. are very hardworking, dedicated organizations too, and I enjoy playing in them too. My thanks to you all.

Hakon Anda    (2006-04-14 16:52:42)
Some wishes

I think this server works great after so short time online. However I think there are som possible improvements that could be done: 1. Option that can disable e-mail notification of one own moves. 2. It should be possible to take leave. 3. A better list of our own games, like when last move was done, reflection time left and so on. 4. A flag for every player that shows the nationality and other information that could be found in the rating list. Best regards, Hakon Anda

Hannes Rada    (2006-04-14 19:34:41)
Vacation

I agree with Hakon's proposal. In my opinion the possibiliy to take leave is absolutely essential. Happy Easter !

Per Lea    (2006-04-14 21:24:42)
Fancyful nicknames

What about Woody Woodpusher? Was (s)he real?

Walter Rattay    (2006-04-14 22:01:49)
Last moves and coordinates on board

When opening our games, the game boards do not show the last moves. We have to scroll down to learn our opponent's move, then scroll back to view the board. Also, because there are no coordinates on the board, we are more likely to make a mistake, especially when playing black.

Per Lea    (2006-04-14 23:43:10)
Coordinates

I didn't even notice that there were no coordinates until I read your posting! If you move directly on the screen, this should be no problem. I do not see any reason to maintain the option of entering your move by writing it in English notation instead.

Per Lea    (2006-04-15 00:01:42)
Minor notational bug...

In game 8, I had Rooks on f8 and b8. I played 18...Ra8 on the screen, but when I list the game, the move is recorded as Rba8. The "b" is superfluous, the f8 Rook can't move to a8. In game 13, I had Rooks on d6 and d1 and played 18.Rxd8. This came out as R6xd8. The "6" is superfluous. These are not serious errors, but it is a bit irritating....

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-04-15 16:46:29)
Vacation

I agree with Hannes. And I would like to take a leave in one or another but not necessarily in all of my tournaments.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-16 09:25:33)
Implemented & vacation

Hello to all.

Cookies, last move & board coordinates have been implemented. Thanks !

Still thinking about vacation, but it doesn't seem obvious to me that it is essential. There's objectively no difference between "vacation" & time for move... Rules on other servers are often a bit hard and to manage vacations is something more to do (and not so easy when you have few time). I would prefer not to hurry players and allow a 2 months time limit per move (= 1 month + 1 month leave by default) Quite more flexible. (!?)

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-16 12:21:01)
Håkon & Glen

Håkon, you're right (no need to receive his own moves). It will be changed this hour.

Glen, you can change board color in preferences. At least you have choice : Grey, Red, Blue, Green. About the size & other pieces, not impossible, I'll see that.

Glen D. Shields    (2006-04-16 12:37:05)
Thanks Thibault

Thank you Thibault. Please don't rush to make changes. You can only do so much. Just offering suggestions because you genuinely want to listen to the players. We all appreciate that. Thank you :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-16 18:42:59)
Two players matches

Question about 2 players matches will be discussed too. I first decided not to offer these formulas because it may lead to cheating problems, at least unfair results. I have implemented processes to detect cheaters, but avoiding temptations is probably best for all :)

Elmer Valderrama    (2006-04-18 23:15:46)
30 d max

I agree with Glen, 'resign' is the hardest word, and some prefer the server (or the time control rules) _gradually_ pronounce it.. 30 days max, with time doubled at move 10th + optional leave of 30 days would be more than reasonable to me.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-19 19:13:56)
Vacation implemented

Dear chessfriends, a major update on FICGS : Vacation has been implemented. You now have 30 days leave per year (for all games !)

Be careful using it, as days can't be took back (or vacation stopped before the end date) by playing a move for example. But you can add days to your vacation simply taking days more. You can play while you're in vacation, the days leave you take are simply added to your clock for all your running games. A message tells your opponent you're in vacation in the viewer page.

Also please note this new rule : Time accumulated is now limited to 100 days ! (taking effect at your next move) The 60 days limit per move is kept for the player's convenience.

Have good games !

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-19 21:09:11)
After the tournament name...

Hello Graham.

When you are on the tournament page, please try to click the magnifying glass just after the tournament name. A window (popup) will appear with the crosstable.

Best wishes.

Elmer Valderrama    (2006-04-22 15:44:16)
bug?

Dear Thibault On-going game 49 has "6.Nb5" although both knights (from c3 and d4) could move to b5 (correct is either 6.Ncb5 or 6.Ndb5)
Anyway, the interface (or the player Ghisi) moved the knight from c3 (more obvious was to move the knight from d4, according to theory at least) and, as a result, the move 7...e5 won a piece..(can't see a post from the concerned players so it could have been played as intended, but the "Nb5" needs correction for sure)

Karlheinz Weber    (2006-04-23 11:13:11)
Download of games

I still think the possibility to download my own tournament, or at least my own games in pgn files would be very, very helpfull. For example many chessplayers handle their games with ChessBase. Ciao! Karlheinz

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-23 13:43:17)
Websites / Links

A thread where I'll post many various links.

Everyone can post URLs here, of course. Please don't forget to use the html < br > tag to jump a line. < a href=" " ..> is not recognized (yet) :/

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-23 17:03:16)
Spanish / Deutsch (help...)

Hello to all.

As you can see, the home page is now "translated" (thanks babelfish :)) in 4 languages... It would be helpful if players speaking well spanish and deutsch can tell me about the faults... Please email me : info (at) ficgs.com

Thanks in advance :)

Michael Aigner    (2006-04-24 20:20:09)
Spanish / Deutsch (help....)

Hello Thibault! I had a look for the german parts of the website and I have unfortunately to say the babelfish german is horrible. You can (if you like) send me all the english text you like to have in german and I will translate it for you. michael10013@lycos.com Give me please an mail adress where I schould send the translation to. Have a nice day Michael

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

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-25 23:47:35)
Waiting lists / Delay

Usually, the delay before a tournament start is at least one week in other big organizations... Be patient, tournaments will start more often as time passes and players join us. (the next month could be "surprising") Anyway this is correspondence chess after all :)

David Angeli    (2006-05-01 18:42:19)
Tournament class

Hi thibault About the "tounaments" topic (je sais pas comment on dit rubrique en anglois ! ;o) ) One thing not very clear for a newcomer like me is the difference between the different classes of tournaments : A, M, etc...it is certainly explained somewhere but i'm a bit lazy and it would be easier if it was explained on the same page . Thanks to your site i'm back to correspondence chess :)

Jose Carrillo    (2006-05-03 00:19:03)
Repetition???

Why? It defeats the purpose of Chess960. Everyone in the tournament is just playing a Chess960 game, not the same opening position. Using the same opening position simulates a regular chess tournament (i.e. repetition). Anyway, at least it should be an option to have differnt opening position per game in the same tournament. It's more in line with the "purpose" of Fischerandom Chess.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-05 15:19:03)
FICGS world championship

Hello to all.

Please post here all your questions / suggestions about the FICGS world championship rules.

There are many answers to bring yet : about the building of groups, who exactly will play which stage, etc...

It seems that many players like this scheme : knockout / round-robin tournament, that is more fair and much more interesting than a pure round-robin cycle. The final match rules are particularly hard (24 games, 30 days + 1 day / move), but I think it's a good way to make it different and give value to the title. Rules are not far from the old classical world championship, the champion will only play the next final match against the challenger...

FICGS WCH Rules :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#tournament

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-05 16:35:18)
Question...

... from a player :

Who (how many players from each tournament) will play the next stages of the wch ?

Indeed, rules are not clear enough yet, I'll bring changes soon. About "how many players", from ie. a 11 players round-robin tournament : It's stated only one, the player with the highest rating in case of equality. Maybe that's not fair enough, I have to simulate other possibilities.

As June is very near already (too short delay), if there are no players enough at this time, we could pass the first stage but I think it would be better to wait, postponing (one month or two) could be considered...

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...

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-08 04:38:51)
F.A.Q.

Hello Konstantin. As Trent said, your opponent has to resign. Please take a look at this thread : http://www.ficgs.com/forum_read_185.html

I'll make a F.A.Q. very soon.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-09 16:46:25)
Qualifying

I didn't know this system !? Is it really efficient ? How to designate the (4) winners of the round-robin cycle ? Then the semi-final (players bye :/) seems to be a stage more... Means at least 6 months more to end the cycle.

I think the combined round-robin / knockout cycle is fast and fair enough... The 2 first players (designated by the highest ratings in case of equality) of each round-robin tournament will be qualified for the next stage.

The rules for world championship have been updated.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-11 09:34:03)
Wikichess !

Hello to all.

You may have noticed this novelty on FICGS :) .. no need to say more.

Thanks in advance for feedback and suggestions. Please note that transpositions are not supported yet.

Marius Zubac    (2006-05-13 00:08:19)
Please remove my name

I have opened an oening topic by mistake 1.e4-e6 2.d4-d5 and now my name has been added to the original author. Please remove my name (Marius Zubac). Thanks

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-15 13:48:57)
Building groups / Qualifying

Update for the method building round-robin tournaments groups :

1) Grading players by rating

2) Filling the groups. If there are 4 groups, #1 -> group 1, #2 -> group 2, #3 -> group 3, #4 -> group 4, #5 -> group 4, #6 -> group 3, #7 -> group 2, #8 -> group 1, #9 -> group 2 and so on... A clearest way.

Finally, I came back to my first idea, in round-robin tournaments only one player should qualify for next stage (in case of equality, the highest rated). Not sure it's less fair, it's more logical and it rewards the rating obtained before... After all, even ICCF WCH final tournament designate a unique winner. Wch page has been updated.

Per Lea    (2006-05-17 13:27:46)
FICGS is not alone....

I have encountered a similar problem on another website: when accepting an offer of a draw, the system wouldn't accept the result unless you played a move as well!

Per Lea    (2006-05-17 13:39:50)
Criteria for Best game

Can someone please tell me why 11 votes have been cast for game 156 as Best game? The way I see it, Black blunders on move 9 to lose the exchange, and finishes off with a howler on move 17. Or have I missed something here?

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-17 20:44:05)
Delay before adjudication request

About the game you request for adjudication, Wayne... I see you played your last move 2 days ago. It's a bit early... Please wait about a ten days before calling referee, even if your opponent takes 5 days for each move... This is correspondence chess... and we have time :) In email games (with the same time) such situations may take much more time... Be patient ! It doesn't prevent you to enter a new tournament, and next rating calculation won't occur before july.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-19 02:15:13)
Amici sumus

Hello Wayne. I agree, of course, your game was won. Here the problem is not the checkmate rule, it is about the adjudication of a forced win or draw ! Clearly, there's no perfect solution. There will be some abuses, more or less important ! One can't prevent this... Rules (particularly time rules) mean abuses. But don't forget that if a player abuses, it doesn't mean all players do the same intentionally in such a situation. I don't know if your opponent really stopped to play... (what for ? .. you'll get the point anyway) Maybe he just had other things to do these days... Who knows ? Even if this is not the case, it could have been ! It is the same problem (in the forced mate case) everywhere, there's simply nothing else to do than wait, then call referee when a time limit is reached. There's no other reasonable rule ! (and it would be too much work for referees)

Understand me, I don't say it was not an abuse, I just say there's no solution. If I change the rule, there will be abuses in another way ! There will be abuses anyway... Nevertheless, if you have an idea, I'll read it with interest.

Respectfully.

Karlheinz Weber    (2006-05-21 08:27:52)
tables

Please change tournament-tables, so we can see, who finished against whom! Ciao! Karlheinz

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-21 13:02:10)
Teams

Hello Dave. You're probably right...

Feel free to tell me how you imagine this team championship ? How many players by team ? Should the teams have a leader (would designate players, or selected by elo ?) ? Knockout or round-robin cycle ? etc...

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-22 07:35:15)
Checkmate / Stalemate...

Hello Mircea.

Please read the F.A.Q. in Help :
http://www.ficgs.com/help.html

You may read this discussion too :
http://www.ficgs.com/forum_read_302.html

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-23 09:27:49)
Transpositions

Hello Pablo.

I fixed that. Auto-analyzing would take too much time processing, but it now works in another way : Just tell me (please send email) if you find a line transposing to another, and I'll make the change. As it's difficult to cancel a forwarding, only moderators could do such a change.

Per Lea    (2006-05-24 10:14:43)
Elo list no longer searchable by country

The idea to have flags in the rating list looked like a nice feature at first, but the disadvantage is that it is no longer possible to do a quick serach for players from a specific country. For example, it is interesting to find out if there are any new memebers from your own country. So, instead of letting the computer search for "NOR", I now have to manually read through the complete list. A good alternative would be to let the members sort the rating list by country and name (as on Chessfriend.com)

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-25 12:22:25)
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_G__000001

Did you confirm your registration at this tournament ?

(please don't post your messages several times ;))

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-25 12:26:04)
refreshed page

Phil, when your browser ask if you want to submit the form again, you don't only refresh the page... Click on forum to refresh the page.

Please post your messages in a unique thread.

Ryaad Aabid    (2006-05-26 22:46:10)
Go Tournament (forfeit)

I have applied to this tournament without reading its rule,that I unfortunately have no idea.I am an old player :-) Therefor I should say SORRY to all players in this tournament - not my interest ! I thought it is some chess tournament with different system ! Please remove my name if it is possible , otherwise I should resign all my games in this tournament. Kind regards Ryaad Aabid

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-28 01:06:10)
Other quotes by famous chess players

"I really believe that Go is destined to take the place of Chess as the leading intellectual game of the Occident, just as it has reigned supreme in the Orient for some four thousand years."
- Edward Lasker, Go and Go-Moku, c. 1934

"While the Baroque rules of chess could only have been created by humans, the rules of go are so elegant, organic, and rigorously logical that if intelligent life forms exist elsewhere in the universe, they almost certainly play go."
- Edward Lasker, international chess master

"You don't have to be really good anymore to get good results. What's happening with Chess is that it's gradually losing its place as the par excellence of intellectual activity. Smart people in search of a challenging board game might try a game called Go."
- Hans Berliner, The New York Times, Feb 6, 2003

"... {it is} something unearthly ... If there are sentient beings on other planets, then they play Go."
- Emanuel Lasker, chess world champion

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-05-29 13:14:29)
Remaining time on page "My Games"

Dear Thibault

the same problem - another suggestion. My preferred page is "My games". Is it possible to add the remaining time of both players (or at least of the player to move)?

Heinz-Georg

Trent Parker    (2006-05-30 01:50:25)
Quoting Thibault..... My response

Feel free to tell me how you imagine this team championship ? How many players by team ?

I think only 4 per team would be needed. If there are big countries perhaps they could have multiple teams eg. France A, France B etc etc. Four seems to be the best number. It is used in the OTB Olympiad.

Should the teams have a leader (would designate players, or selected by elo ?) ?

IMHO ELO would be best.

Knockout or round-robin cycle ?

I'd prefer round robin. (although i might not have a team yet :D )

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-31 20:01:30)
Weiqi komi

Hello and welcome Lionel :)

That's a very... good question !

Actually I thought it was the more 'organic' (like this game) way. But it seems to be a large debate, without a clear response.

I suggest all go players to read this article : http://senseis.xmp.net/?Komi

Feel free to give me your opinion about that. Thanks in advance.

Lionel Vidal    (2006-06-01 12:46:14)
Go rules

Hello,

Even if a well chosen komi rules out scoring draws, you still have the problem of infinite repetition.
Traditionally, a game in which a triple ko or other infinitely repeating position arises is annulled, or treated as draw or replayed.
Some rules (New Zealnd, USA, SST) deal with these positions by stating that a player cannot make exactly the same position on the whole board twice. (Note that it is then not always easy without computer assistance to determine the legality of a move).
The chinese rule (at least the 1988 official one) also forbids reappearance of the same board position, but in some situation this is not enough to prevent a draw: in some cases neither player want to start a sequence and keep passing to avoid solving a situation at their disadvantage. (and to forbid passes triggers others worse problems...).

As you see, the situation is quite complex, and while rules of Go seem simple, their precise definition is not easy. In practice, you eventually have to rely on the sportmanship of the players or on a referee decision.

Personally I have played till now only under the japanese rule, and in case of problems (very rare as this rule is quite detailled, but then rather complex in its exceptions handling), a senior player says the truth, and, at least in Japan, this truth is undisputed and becomes the laws :-)... quite simple!

Lionel

Lionel Vidal    (2006-06-01 15:02:56)
Infinite repetition

Well, it might work, but that seems unfair to black IMO, because it creates discrepancies in the rules depending on you being sente or gote.
Admitedly, the komi can be seen as such discrepancy, but all it does is forcing sente to be bit more aggresive, the stategy and tactics, the feeling of the game being globally the same. What you propose would induce a kind of strategic play on the rules... not really Go anymore!
I realise I may not be clear: as an extreme example of rules discrepanies, just consider Renju. Here the rules are different for sente and gote and the strategy is indeed really different for both! While this is fine in Renju, because actually it became the heart of the game, I do not think Go needs it.
Besides, it would spoil somehow IMO the aesthetic feeling of the game flow.
Just my opinions of course :-)

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-01 15:37:17)
FICGS rules

No problem, the website may be quite unclear in some places. Anyway I have to improve many parts of it.

(FICGS, Lionel... FICGS :))

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') ?

Per Lea    (2006-06-02 12:51:22)
Kasparov Number

Mine is 5

Lionel Vidal    (2006-06-02 16:28:11)
Go rules

It's me again :-)

What is the point of the special cases you chose? Why not simply follow the chinese rule? I reread it yesterday and compared to what you say:
- reappearance of the same board position is forbidden (note that should be easy to check by computer with hash keys associated to positions)
- Seki is not really a special case in chinese rule (it is only in territory scoring): you count stones and enclosed vacant points; others vacant points are share equally.
- Winner is determined by comparing one's score to 180 1/2 (half number of points of the board). - Komi: 2 3/4 points are deducted from black's score and added to white's. - After both sides have agreed to end the game (that is after a double pass), if any unsettled positions remain on the board, both sides' stones are treated as alive (that is neat and solve most drawing problems) - Basically a player that makes an illegal move loses his turn (i.e. in effect passes): that includes repeating the same position (why should white win in such a case?).

That sounds much cleaner IMO.
The only possible draw may be some very complex round robin kos, where the position keeps changing, but I guess we can forget it (and it should eventually been resoved by double pass anyway, even if one side is unhappy: see the preceding neat point).
BTW you can probably find the full text on the Web (I have only a paper version from the 1988 official rules of Chinese Weiqi Association).

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-02 17:48:34)
Go rules

Hello Lionel. I just read the 1988 version of the official rules of the Chinese Weiqi Association.

The point here is to play with the most interesting & fair rules, not 'official' ones or others if it could be improved...

Note that FICGS chess rules have a peculiarity : 50 moves rules isn't applied if the mate can be forced. FICGS chess world championship rules are not (of course) the rules used by FIDE. I spent much time thinking about rules which are IMO the best thing in this server and I think most players will appreciate these points.

I think avoiding draws in Go is interesting because energy consuming could be too different in some games and lead to unfair situations in tournaments.

Hash keys don't solve all problems, 'superko' situations could remain as draw, furthermore these special rules could avoid any ambiguity. It is clear, it brokes 'symmetry' and I feel it is fair enough.

Then, rules exist to be enforced ! :) .. More seriously, I'm not convinced these new rules don't make sense, even if it needs adjustments. Still inquiring, but unless I find (or you convince me :)) a solid argument in another way, I think I'll apply them.

Lionel Vidal    (2006-06-02 18:12:34)
Hash keys and draws

Just to be sure I was clear: the aim of hash keys is just to enforce, I should really say to program, the rule of non repetition of positions; i.e. kos or super kos are irrelevant: if the resulting position occured before, then a move is not legal.
Then I am not sure how a draw could happen: let's say there is a superko running somewhere; either both players eventually pass, letting the situation unsettled, with the unsettled stones declared alive.... or they play the kos and sooner or later (ok, later in case of superko!) the position will repeat, hence a forced pass, or be solved...
Do you have an example of situation that will not eventually lead to a repetition?

Lionel Vidal    (2006-06-03 09:50:52)
Chinese rules

After reading the new rules (nice :-)), I have two suggestions:
- maybe you should cleary state that repetition of position leads to a loss (or does it? it is the way I understand the wording, but either way is possible), which is not the case in chinese rules (AFAIK at least in some versions, you just loose your turn).
- maybe you should announce somewhere (not in the rules of course) whether the already running games have to follow the new rules. Knowing the applied komi is important, even in fuseki.

Now let's try them :-)

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-03 14:05:02)
Repetition of position

Repetition of position doesn't lead to a loss, as it's now impossible to make a move that provokes such a situation. (message would be 'Incorrect move'). So the pure Chinese rules apply.

The change of rules have been announced in the news (page 'My messages'). Everyone is supposed to read it, as it's the first page appearing when you log in.

Cheers.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-03 19:22:18)
Download games + RSS feed

Hello Karlheinz.

It's now possible to "directly" download games in PGN format. Please try the 'download' link on the viewer page for any game, or try ie. this one - http://www.ficgs.com/game_136.pgn

I've also added links to RSS feeds for games in the viewer page, and for the forum.

Pablo Schmid    (2006-06-04 15:30:51)
To De Vassal

Hello De Vassal, when I see my game against Höppenstein n°570, it tells that his move 18.. was illegal, but it wasn't and we continued to play. And each time I see the same problem.. Can you fix it please?

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-06 15:37:03)
Go Game Newsletter

Hello Alexander & thanks for the info :)

I just subscribed... Much to learn from this wonderful game.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-06 16:40:04)
Team championship

Many good ideas... :)

I'll post a news soon, inviting players who want to lead their country team to give me an email where they can be contacted by players.

So far, the rules :

- The leader of each team should be from the country he's playing for.
- If several players ask to lead the same team, the current chess rating will decide.
- Leaders will choose candidate players for his team and the "board" (1, 2, 3 or 4) they will play.
- Players from any country can play with another country team. (all players can play for only one team)

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-06 18:07:22)
Rules for team championship

I was thinking about... The possibility for players to defend another country is very interesting, but it may have many consequences that could complicate a lot the process for building teams and the choice for players who want to support a team or another, waiting for leaders decision etc... Furthermore, there could be confusion in the crosstables.

Sorry about that Dinesh, but teams should be 4 players from the same country. Maybe you could invite some other players from Sri Lanka ?

So, rules :

- All games (rated) will be played in 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves.
- If several players ask to lead the same team, the current chess rating will decide.
- Leaders will choose players for their team (4 players by team) and the "board" (1, 2, 3 or 4) they will play.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-07 12:13:32)
Countries tournament

Another solution consists in naming the teams in another way, of course... So, any player could enter any team. (only depending on the leader)

Trent Parker    (2006-06-09 06:30:40)
Countries? regions? Association

Perhaps teams could be built on regions, for eg Australia is a part of Oceania or could even come under south east asia, or sri lanka could come under the indian subcontinent or something like that. I think the teams should be geographical at least. Or a part of an association. Eg from memory the International blind chess federation has / had a team in OTB olympiads.

Marc Lacrosse    (2006-06-09 09:21:54)
I cannot understand ...

To Trent Parker :
you say :
"I think the teams should be geographical at least"

This is really something that I cannot even understand.
In which way is my way of playing correspondence chess related to the place where I live or where I am born???
Is my kind of play "belgian" ?
Or is it "brown-haired", or "butter-cooked", or ...
Why shouldn't I be allowed to find a few friends from all over the world that play the same kind of unusual openings than myself to build a team ?
IMHO this kind of team could well have a better signification than a one made of chess players of the same country or of the same geographical region.

Anyway the idea itself of "correspondence chess teams" is completely strange for me. Does it mean that collaboration between members for the choice of the moves is allowed ?
This is at the exact opposite of what I feel to be the minimum requirement for a meaningful correspondence chess competition to survive : anything allowed (books, computers, databases) except human advice, and at least one single human name alone identified as the single "author" of the moves ...

So, why teams at all...

Marc

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-15 16:36:17)
Criteria

Hello Dorel and Daniel.

As you noticed, rating is quite important in FICGS world championship cycle (particularly established ratings, obtained from IECG / ICCF or after 9 games finished in FICGS) !

I think these rules are really the best choice in order to designate a world champion. It's more logical IMO to favour players who obtained previously the best results in FICGS and recognized organizations, and consequently a high rating. It takes time, of course. Even very strong players starting with a 1700 rating won't achieve a 2300 established rating before months !

Criterias in FICGS wch are (from most important to least) :

1) Winner of the previous cycle (qualify for the final match)
2) The eight best established ratings (play the KO tournament)
3) Points obtained in the wch tournaments
4) The tournament entry rating (TER)

Of course, there are some provisional ratings that will increase a lot, but it is not possible to grant a 2300 rating to any player saying so. It's already a lot of time gained that ratings from FIDE, ICCF, IECG be recognized.

Finally it is the same in IECG / ICCF : it's very hard to achieve a high rating, it's very hard to directly qualify for a 2nd stage too, it takes months, probably years in email chess...

Now, please consider this, if we start 1st wch at stage 1 : It won't change anything for your play, as the 1st stage of the 2nd wch is exactly the same... 2300+ players won't play before months... and if the rule is changed about 2300 mark and everyone playing 1st stage, probably all games for 2300+ players won't be rated with a 100% result... and at last it will be harder for you to qualify for 2nd stage...

It is a hard work to write rules as fair, balanced and interesting as possible. Rules can't satisfy everyone, sorry about that.

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-06-16 11:35:05)
Elo rating calculation

Hello Thibault!

How are provisional ratings are treated?

Two notes to the rules:
1. You write: "Bonus is given by the Percentage (100 * Points / Games) obtained" and "If the percentage is negative, ..." Percentage cannot be negative. I think you mean: If percentage < 50
2. You write "Please note that Bonus is limited to 470 points". Why do you write other values for 96-99 % in the Bonus-Table?

Wayne Lowrance    (2006-06-17 07:36:58)
rating calc

Welp, I am another innocent victim of starting off at 1400. When I signed on I wanted to start at the beginning, much like daniel. what I really did not pay attention to is the difficulty in climbing the ladder. My chess rating on other sites including CC cite is well over 2200. I started there at the bottom and figured I would do the same here. Not so fast. I have won one tourney here weith 6/6 score tourney allready and am have a perfect scored in a second one with 3 games to go. and yet my expected rating is listed at 1805, cleary I am not a 1800 player. It is not my fault that I was forced to play in a tourney dominated by 1400 players. What you think. Not trying to cause trouble, just venting I guess. and the cite is nice, will continue playing, my best toya Wayne p.s. do you think my playing in a 1400 tourney is fair to those players, hummm?

Tim Bredernitz    (2006-06-18 16:37:45)
Sorry

In my previous post there was a typo. Please excuse. "The last post" should be "The first post." Thank you.

Amir Bagheri    (2006-06-19 14:53:39)
1. d4

The move 1.d4 offers the same benefits to development and center control as does 1.e4, but unlike with the King Pawn openings where the e4 pawn is undefended after the first move, the d4 pawn is protected by White's queen. This slight difference has a tremendous effect on the opening. For instance, whereas the King's Gambit is rarely played today at the highest levels of chess, the Queen's Gambit remains a popular weapon at all levels of play. Also, compared with the King Pawn openings, transpositions between variations are more common and critical in the closed games. White develops aiming for a particular formation without great concern over how Black chooses to defend. Both these systems are popular with club players because they are easy to learn, but are rarely used by professionals because a well prepared opponent playing Black can equalize fairly easily.

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-06-19 20:29:55)
FICGS 1st world championship

Hello Thibault,

thank you for your answer. Even I have understood this now. I have always missed the knock-out tournaments in the postings. It wasn't clear to me (and I was probably the only one ...) whether these tournaments take place also.

Amir Bagheri    (2006-06-20 17:22:16)
Confused

I saw that movie too and I have to admit I was lost a bit....

I am looking for a movie though maybe someone here saw : "Searching for bobby fisher"

Please let me know.

Amir Bagheri    (2006-06-22 15:47:42)
Interesting question for the Gambit's a

Gambits are the schizophrenics of the chess openings. Most players love to play through a finished game that starts as a gambit, but few players dare to play gambits themselves. Gambits lead to attacking games that avoid the calculated buildup preceding a classic attack. Can the gambiteer justify the material disadvantage? Can the opponent overcome the positional disadvantage that comes with grabbing the gambit sacrifice?

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-22 17:56:59)
King's gambit and statistics...

Wayne, where did you find such (wrong) statistics ??

Gambit (the real thing) is IMO first a psychological attack, most useful against a weaker player... "The best way to refute is to accept it", one said... but queen's gambit is NOT a real gambit and for sure 2. ... dxc4 is not the best move... King's gambit is, but a perfect play most probably also leads to a draw.

Queen's gambit accepted statistics : 33% (1-0), 48% (1/2-1/2), 17% (0-1)

King's gambit statistics : 35% (1-0), 27% (1/2-1/2), 36% (0-1)

... in classical time controls.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-22 18:10:05)
Acceptance of gambits...

Amir, in my opinion gambit is only a move like another... It is a psychological choice that depends on the opponent strength and play. IMO a gambit is "justified" (like any move) if the game is not lost... nothing more. If a gambit doesn't lead to a draw with a perfect play, it is a fault. And this thread is a troll :)

Wayne Lowrance    (2006-06-22 21:11:43)
interesting question for the Gambit's a

Sir let me explain, the stats are taken from A database of 1600 GM's. the statistic is taken prior to blacks response but assuming pxp. Of course the percentages varies as you go thru the book lines. Where did your statistics come from (e-mail me, dont want to continue with troll)? Kings gambit with perfect play as you say leads to a draw. That does not impress me much. I agree the best defence against a gambit is accept, I usually do. Yes your right the thread is a troll, I apoligize for contributing but I found my self not being able to agree with where the last few topics were heading. I do not accept this mind games thing excet against a very weak player playing a much stronger player. In this case I agree. I end the troll with this...Wayne

Amir Bagheri    (2006-06-23 12:25:36)
Blindfolded Chess

THE chess-world (for there is a "world" in chess as in other matters) has lately been startled by a very extraordinary performance at one of the "divans" of the metropolis. A young American has played ten games at once, against an equal number of players, without, on his part, obtaining a single glimpse at any one of the chess-boards. The feat is not new; but never before was it performed so triumphantly as in the present day. The writers who have ferreted out the early history of this beautiful game have found the name of one Tchelebi, who, nearly nine centuries ago, was able to play at chess without seeing the board. Many persons in the East acquired the art of playing by feeling instead of seeing pieces; but that is a very different affair, since in such a case the sense of touch comes in aid of the memory. In 1266, a Saragen, named Buzecca, came to Florence and at the Palazzo del Popolo played three games at once, looking at one board, but not at the other two. He won two of the games, and made a drawn or abandoned game of the other. As all his competitors were skilful players, his achievement caused irrepressible astonishment. At various times, in later centuries, this mode of play was exhibited by different persons--Ruy Lopez, the author of one of the earliest treatises on chess; Mangiolini of Florence, Zerone, Medrano, Leonardo da Cutri, Paolo Boi, Salvio, and others, many of whom were Spaniards. Boi is reputed to have played three games at once without seeing the board. Damiano, an Italian, who wrote a treatise on chess more than three centuries and a half ago, gave what he called the "Rules" for learning to play without seeing the board; but his rules are worth very little, amounting chiefly to a recommendation to cultivate the memory. Keysler, in his Account of Turin (1749), says: "The late Father Sacchieri, Lecturer on Mathematics at Pavia, was a remarkable instance of the strength of the human understanding, particularly that faculty of the soul we term memory. He could play at chess with three different persons at the same time, even without seeing any one of the three chess-boards. He required no more than that his substitute should tell him what piece his antagonist had moved, and Sacchieri could direct what step was to be taken on his side, holding, at the same time, conversation with the company present. If any dispute arose about the place where any piece should be, he could tell every move that had been made, not only by himself, but by his antagonist, from the beginning of the game, and in this manner incontestably decided the proper place of the piece. This uncommon dexterity at the game of chess appears to me almost the greatest instance that can be produced of a surprising memory." The most celebrated player of the last century, however, in this peculiar achievement, was the Frenchman Andre Danican, who then, and afterwards, was generally known by the name of Philidor. In 1743, when Philidor was about eighteen years old, M. de Legalle asked him whether he had ever tried to play from memory, without seeing the board. The youth replied, that as had calculated moves, and even whole games, at night in bed, he thought he could do it. He immediately played a game with the Abbe Chenard, which he won without seeing the board. After that, a little practice enabled him to play nearly as well in this as in the ordinary fashion--sometimes two games at once. The French Cyclopedie told of a particular game in which a false move was purposely made by his antagonist; Philidor discovered it after many moves, and replaced the pieces in their proper position. Forty years afterwards, he was residing in England, where he astonished English players by his blindfold achievements at a chess-club in St. James' Street. He played three games at once, with Count Bruhl, Mr. Bowdler, and Mr. Maseres, the first two of whom were reputed the best players at that time in England. Philidor won two of the games, and drew the third, all within two hours. On another occasion, in the same year (1788), he played three games at once, blindfold as before, and giving the odds of pawn and move to one of his antagonists; again did he win two of the games, and draw the third. His demeanor during these labors surprised his visitors as much as his skill, for he kept up a lively conversation during his games. Many eminent chess-players, including M'Donnell, La Bourdonnaye, Staunton, etc., have achieved these blindfold wonders, in greater or less degree, since the days of Philidor. M'Donnell, a famous player about thirty years ago, played his moves even more rapidly without than with the board; he did not object to any amount of conversation in the room during his play, but disliked whispers. La Bourdonnaye could play within a shade of his full strength without seeing the board; he won against good players, on some occasions two at a time; but when trying the threefold labor, his brain nearly gave way, and he wisely abandoned all such modes of playing his favorite game. Mr. Staunton, the leading English player at present (but who has almost ceased to play since he undertook the editing of an edition of Shakespeare), some years ago played many blindfold games with Harrwitz and Kieseritzky, foreign players of note.

Amir Bagheri    (2006-06-23 12:26:28)
Blinfolded chess ( part II )

Very recently, however, all the honors of Europe, in this department of indoor games, have been run away with by two young Americans, Morphy and Paulsen. Paul Morphy, a native of New Orleans, seemed to be born with chess in his blood; he played almost from childhood; and at thirteen years of age he proved a formidable antagonist to Herr Lowenthal, a noted Hungarian. In 1857, when just twenty years of age, Morphy encountered Paulsen, a native of Iowa, only a little older than himself, at a chess congress in New Orleans (Editor: It was New York!). All the gray-beards struck their flag to Paulsen, and then he struck to Morphy. Of Morphy's subsequent achievements in regular play, which stamp him as perhaps the first living chess-player (we say this with fear and trembling; however, for the knights of the game are a sensitive race), we will not speak here, for our purpose is only to notice the blindfold performances. At the chess congress above mentioned, he finely played a blindfold game with a leading German player. Early in 1858, he struck the New Orleanists with amazement by playing six games simultaneously, without seeing any other the boards; winning five of them, and exhibiting beautiful play throughout. He then came to Europe, not only to "lick the Britishers," but "all creation;" and it must be admitted that he made great progress towards that achievement. At a meeting of the Chess Association at Birmingham, in August 1858, he played eight games simultaneously, without sight of the boards. His opponents were Lord Lyttelton, and seven other persons, mostly presidents or secretaries of provincial chess clubs. Against such players, and under such tremendous conditions, he won no less than six games out of the eight, drawing a seventh, and losing the eighth. In the following month, he went over and astonished the Parisians in a similar way; he contended blindfold against eight practised players at once, at the Cafe de la Regence, a famous resort of chess-players; and out of these did not lose even one; he was the victor in six, and drew the other two. In the spring of 1859, Morphy contended against eight of the most experienced members of the London Chess Club, including Mr. Mongredien and Mr. Walker, two distinguished players. He won two games, and drew the other six--all the players except himself being wearied out by a very protracted sitting. A few days afterwards, he played with eight members of the St. George's Chess Club, including Lord Cremorne, Lord Arthur Hay, and Captain Kennedy; he won five, and the rest were drawn through want of time to finish them. Nevertheless, inconceivable as these mental labors are, Morphy yields to Paulsen in blindfold play. There are whispers of twelve or fifteen games having been tried simultaneously by the latter; but the number ten has been most certainly reached, under conditions of the utmost publicity. On the 7th of October in the present year, at a Divan in the Strand, ten players accepted Mr. Paulsen's challenge to grapple with them all simultaneously, the boards being placed out of his sight. One of the players was M. Sabouroff, secretary to the Russian Embassy in London; the other nine comprised many names well known among chess-players. Ten chess-boards were placed on ten tables in the room. An arm-chair, turned away towards a window, was mounted on a dais. At two o'clock in the afternoon, Mr. Paulsen, a quiet, courteous young man, with not a trace of "brag" in him, took his seat in this arm-chair. For twelve mortal hours he never rose, never ate, never smoked, and drank nothing but a little lemonade. What were his mental labors during that time, we shall see. His ten antagonists took their seats at the ten tables; and each table speedily became the centre of a group of spectators, whose comments were not always so silent as in fairness they ought to have been. Paulsen could not see any of the chess-boards. Herr Kling, a noted player and teacher of chess, acted as general manager. He called the boards by numbers--No. 1 to No. 10. Paulsen audibly announced his first move for board No. 1; Kling made that move; the antagonist replied to it; Kling audibly announced the reply; Paulsen considered what should be his second move, and when he had audibly announced his decision, Kling made the proper move on the board. Here No. 1 rested for awhile. No. 2 now made his move, leading to the same course of proceeding as before. Then No. 3 in the same way; then No. 4; and so on to No. 10; after which No. 1 began a new cycle, by playing a second move; and thus they proceeded over and over again. Now let us see what all this implies and involves. Chess is not one of the most frolicsome of games; indeed, ladies generally declare it to be very dull, seeing that a chess-player is apt to be "grumpy" if spoken to on other matters while playing. The truth is, there is a demand for much mental work in managing a game well; the combinations and subtleties, the attacks and counter-attacks, are so numerous and varied, as to keep the mind pretty fully occupied. Nevertheless, a fine game between two fine players is mere child's play compared with this wonderful achievement of Paulsen. He was obliged to form ten mental pictures; and every picture changed with every move, like the colored bits in a kaleidoscope. Most persons, even though knowing nothing of the game, are aware that it begins with thirty-two pieces of different colors and forms, and that these move about over a board of sixty-four squares. After every change of position in any one of the pieces, Paulsen must have changed his mental picture of the board, the field of battle, and then made that a fixture until the next move was made. This is hard enough in even one game, against an antagonist who has his eyes to help him in planning attacks and defences; but how hard must it be against ten! It is difficult to conceive what is the condition of the mental machinery under such circumstances; and yet, there he sat, the calmest man in the room. When told of his antagonist's doings, one by one, he looked quietly out of window, and rubbed his chin, as a man often does when thinking, and then announced his move--never mistaking No. 1 for No. 7, No. 9 for No. 3--never failing to recover the proper mental picture, and making the proper change in it; never embarrassed; never making an unlawful move, or likely to lose sight (mental sight) of any unlawful move made by his antagonists. Nor did he obtain the least pause for mental rest. Without one minute's interval, as soon as he had announced a move for one board, he was required to attend to the move of another antagonist at another board. Hour after hour did this continue--all the afternoon, all the evening, midnight, until two in the morning. He made two hundred and seventy moves in the twelve hours, twenty-seven per game average; this gave two minutes and a quarter for the consideration of each move. As all his moves were met by corresponding moves on the part of his antagonists, he was called upon to form five hundred and forty complete mental pictures in twelve consecutive hours, each picture representing the exact mode in which all of the sixty-four squares of a chess-board were occupied. Paulsen won two games, lost three, and drew five.

Roger Weber    (2006-06-25 16:19:35)
Gambits

Although I am a quite new and inexperienced, I dare say that Gambits are a way of forcing a player to do mistakes. If the other player doesn't know a certain gambit, he will get beaten fast and hard by making mistakes. Players tend to do less mistakes in common openings like the Ruy Lopez, as they have seen so many variations of it and played it so much. But, when confronted with something new, the human brain can't analyze every possible moves, which leaves an advantage to be exploited by the player that knows the gambit and obviously wants to play it. Just my opinion. Feel free to correct me.

John Knudsen    (2006-07-01 17:17:01)
Format For Championship?!

8 games with 1 player at one time?! That is rather unusual, to say the least. I have never heard of such a thing... What is the reasoning behind that? John

Dinesh De Silva    (2006-07-02 14:51:28)
Re: France vs Brazil soccer match

I watched the match. France deserved it's 1:0 victory over Brazil, as France were clearly the better team on the day. Zinedine Zidane was at his very best, and he easily outshone the Ronaldos, Ronaldinhos etc.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-02 19:26:07)
qualification for 2nd round

Bonjour David !

Maybe it wasn't clear enough yet. The winner and only the winner of each tournament will be qualified for the next stage. As there can't be several, only 1 player per group will be qualified.

"Round-robin tournaments are groups of 7, 9, 11 or 13 players. The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage."

Consequently, there will be at least 17 players from the groups ("at least" : if new groups are created) + players rated >2300 from the high rated groups (but winners).

I expect about 40 to 50 players in stage 2 round-robin tournaments. If the numbers don't fit, there will be an invitation to players 2300+ until it solve the problem.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-04 16:55:10)
Symmetrical games

I don't understand how it could be a problem. If one consider a critical position at the end of the opening (ie. clear advantage for White), who plays White first knows the position is bad for Black... Why would he play the same opening with Black ? It's a wrong question IMO, there are very few cases where there's only a "good" move until the end of the game.

Anyway, this question is even more relevant when playing different tournaments in different organizations (a player may respond moves played by an opponent in a game at IECG in another game at ICCF....) than in two players matches. Nothing can prevent that, but what a shame and where's the satisfaction ? I think it's not a problem there.

Gino Figlio    (2006-07-04 17:55:59)
Symmetrical games

Chess is not a draw yet, someone wins in 70% of the cases(40% white, 30% black), the farther you go identical in two games, the more likely the player on move will find the critical position where only one player wins, even if one is weaker than the other. Players of similar strength or chess knowledge will realize this during the game, once the puzzle of a position becomes more clear, after every move.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-04 20:15:35)
8-game matches

John... ??? :)

Vladimir Kramnik - Peter Leko (match for WCH classical title)
Vladimir Kramnik - Deep Fritz...

Of course it is desired... Who will remember the names of the players in the last ICCF final tournament ? Even if ICCF doesn't use this format, and (as you say) serious CC players didn't have the opportunity to play such tournament, knockout format is still desired.

My first idea was a pure enormous knockout tournament, but it's obviously not possible (too much rounds, a time problem), that's why I thought about this combined system.

Now look at the chess world : Many players don't understand why FIDE progressively reduces the number of games and time controls in WCH matches. It is the main reason why FIDE world champion title looses value. Not hard / accurate, not spectacular enough !! ..

What many players (me, at least :)) expect is a classical world championship with a big final match. You may have noticed that FICGS champion will have the opportunity to defend his title in a... 24 games match against his challenger... (!!) That's real fight, that's real challenge and that's what I expect to see from a championship, a big opposition between 2 players, and not a round-robin more or less aleatory, with too much names, not understandable for the most.

Now, as we said on TCCMB : FICGS is not "official" matter, chess is for fun here, but chess must be a show and I'm convinced it is relevant in correspondence chess too. We'll see that ;)

John Knudsen    (2006-07-05 16:45:00)
Question About Leave/Reflection Time

Hi Thibault: Why would a person on leave accumulate 1 extra day reflection time per day, while on leave? Is this correct? If it is correct, what is the rationale behind such a weird thing, please? It doesn't make any sense, as no moves are played during a leave... John

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-05 19:14:09)
Leave/Reflection Time

That's right. You take 5 days leave, 5 days are added to your clock... This is quite logical, after the leave period your clock is the same again. The difference with other systems is you can play during your leave.

We discussed about it in another thread :

http://www.ficgs.com/forum_read_144.html

John Knudsen    (2006-07-06 06:41:08)
Leave/Reflection Time

Hi Thibault: I understand this now - thanks. And I like the limitation on accumulated reflection time - this is a great idea. Still, the stated reflection time was given as 30 days +1 per move, and when you are on leave, you are not moving. To award an extra day reflection time on days that you do not more (i.e., vacation) is not logical at all. Your reflection time should remain unchanged from the day that you last moved. Any smart guy that has not used leave, and is running out of time on his games will just take his 30 days leave, and presto - he has 30 days more reflection time. This possibility, by itself, makes the reflection time a joke, in my opinion. John

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-06 16:35:13)
Leave/Reflection Time

This is "almost" the same..... But that's right, this is more like a time reservoir than holidays. In both cases, when you take days leave -> you have more time to think if you want to. The difference is when you play during your leave, but it seems to me that consequences are negligible and not a problem.

Just different...

I wasn't very favourable to this option, but many players ask for. Aren't there a way to take a leave in ICCF ?

John Knudsen    (2006-07-06 18:33:27)
Leave/Reflection Time

Hi Thibault: Of course you can take leave in any cc organization. FICGS, however, is the only one that I am aware of that, not only do you get annual leave, but also 1 day extra reflection time per day of leave! :) The concept is simply ridiculous in a 30 +1 time control format. Look, I hope you don't think I just complain about stuff - there is a lot that I like here, too. I also do have a bit of experience playing serious correspondence chess (since 1978). New cc players, or OTB players, are the last people who know anything about the ins and outs of correspondence chess, IMHO. John

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-06 19:21:41)
Leave/Reflection Time

30 days is significant for this time control, indeed. But I think consequences on the play will be negligible enough. After all, most important is everyone playing with the same rules, whatever the rules.

I think rules must stay quite flexible, and players "free". ie. some players think that 10 days is enough to play a move, but it can become a real constraint in some situations. Correspondence chess here should stay a pleasure for all... It is a game of patience, and I think the "fast" time control and the 100 days limit will avoid abuses enough.

Marc Lacrosse    (2006-07-08 11:08:51)
Modifying "rapid" tournament rules ?

Hello all,
Hello Thibault
As I already said in an earlyer thread, one of the reasons why I joined FICGS was the possibility to play fewer games simultaneously at a faster pace than in other corr. chess associations.
So I enrolled in a first rapid tournament where I find two things unpleasant for a so-called "rapid" category:
1. some of my opponents (and myself also) accumulated reflection time "reserves" of 40 or even 50 days in some cases, which is not appropriate for a "rapid" tournament IMHO.
2. my last unfinished game is completely won for more than ten moves now (it's K+pawns against K+pawns with an unstoppable passed pawn for me where computers announce forced mate in ... max 40 moves). My 2200+ opponent continues to play at a very slow pace. It's pretty annoying : I bet I could win my game at blitz tempo against Kasparov analysing for three days per move but I suppose I will have to play for weeks until his king is mated!

So I propose :
1. To have an absolute limitation of the time reserve a player can accumulate in rapid tournaments (30 ?)
2. To have a procedure allowing to call for external adjudication when a player refuses to resign a forcefully lost game.

Your opinion ?

Marc

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-08 12:33:21)
Fischer clock - Limitation

Hello Marc.

About the adjudication, that's a problem without a real solution IMO. I think human interventions must be reduced as much as possible (null is clearly best), many players agree with that.

I just written you were right and agreed with your first proposal about the accumulation time rule for rapid games. Now I think it just can't solve the problem and wouldn't be efficient enough... In the few cases (ie. yours) a player may last a game, for any reason (maybe manage his rating), changing the time accumulation limitation wouldn't prevent him to last it almost the same, by spacing out his moves...

No solution yet, but we can discuss it, maybe we can improve this point.

Glen D. Shields    (2006-07-08 21:05:41)
Thibault You Have a Golden Opportunity

Thibault - one of the reasons that FICGS has grown so quickly is that you've welcomed input and implented the things the players have asked for. John is right on this issue. I urge you to listen to him. Take this opportunity and make FICGS the chess server that leads the way in establishing logical time rules.

Here are some suggestions for regular tournaments. You and others can build on these:
- 30 days start +2 days added per move
- 100 days maximum accumulated time
- 30 days maximum limit for one move
- 4 weeks (28 days) annual leave
- no time lost or added during leaves
- no moves made during leaves
- all time calculated by a running clock in hours and minutes

My recommendation for rapid tournaments are:
- 14 days start +1 day added per move
- 30 days maximum accumulated time
- 10 days maximum limit for one move
- 2 weeks (14 days) annual leave
- no time added or lost during leaves
- no moves made during leaves
- all time calculated by a running clock in hours and minutes

I recommend you let the server automatically handle time limit oversteps and make no exceptions. The only exception I would offer is if someone is ill or injured and needs to take an extended medical leave (these things happen). Let there be an option for that player to file an approved leave with you.

Thibault love your server and the hard work you put into it. You and others feel free to critique my suggestions. I strongly urge you to use this opportunity to lead the world in logical time rules. You don't have federations or tempermental world champions to appease. You are the boss. Do it RIGHT. Good luck.

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-07-09 00:46:13)
Leave/Reflection Time

Dear chessfriends!

In my dreams a perfect server has the following time rules.

Normal tournaments:

- 30 days with an increment of 30 days/ 10 moves
- 100 days maximum accumulated time
- 30 days maximum limit for one move
- 4 weeks leave per tournament (!) for every year since the start of the tournament
- no time lost or added during leaves
- a move in a tournament during a leave stops the leave in all games of this tournament
- all time calculated by a running clock in hours and minutes

Rapid tournaments

- 30 days start +1 day added per move
- 45 days maximum accumulated time
- 30 days maximum limit for one move
- no leave
- all time calculated by a running clock in hours and minutes

By the way, the world championship should not be a rapid tournament.

But how I said these are my dreams ...

Alarich Lenz    (2006-07-09 15:40:32)
Leave/Reflection Time

whats the maximum limit for one move in the FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1 tournament?

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-10 02:04:36)
Vacation and reflection time

Hi John, Glen & Heinz-Georg. Thanks for all suggestions... ;)

Some responses, particularly about vacation (towards a compromise ?) :

* 30 days + 2 days/move : Not "beautiful" (not a joke, it is design matter)

* 30 days max for one move : Not convinced it can really bring something... if a player want to last a CC game, I think no reasonable rule (without human factor) can prevent him to do so.

* 14 days + 1 day/move (rapid) : As players don't know exactly when tournaments will start, I think 30 days at start (ie. compared : email tournaments often start before the real date) is a good choice to avoid accidental forfeits during holidays !

* 2 weeks annual leave : Even for different time controls, I'm not favourable to make too many different rules.. 30 days (for all games per year) is a balanced choice IMO.

* Vacation : Ok, I make note of this. I was not favourable to any leave system, cause it's obviously a way to have days more in time trouble, even if time is frozen ! .. That's why I made it "hard" to use.. If players can stop their leave when they want, just by playing a move, it becomes easier to manage time trouble situations. The 60 days rule for 1 move was a solution avoiding vacation IMO but we discussed it already... Now I'm to decide to change the vacation rule, as John (& you) urged me. I thought it was a good thing not to prevent players to make moves during the leave... Maybe most think different, ok... However I have a problem yet with vacation as it's really a way to get more reflection time... Here is what I suggest, simply a harder rule : Players who take days leave CAN'T play during their vacation and CAN'T take days back (stopping their leave by playing a move) ! Then 2 options, players must wait their vacation end date to play again, or they can play, but provoking the cancellation of their leave (loosing the days leave taken and not used yet).. Maybe it won't be appreciated in some particular cases if players have to modify their plans, but the aim is clearly to reduce the vacation effect on the game... What do you think ?

Glen D. Shields    (2006-07-10 15:21:09)
Sounds good ....

Thibault - thanks for the feedback and your openess to make changes in the vacation rules.

It's important to get some of these rules right while the player list is still relatively small and the players are still geting use to playing at FICGS. It will be harder to make rule changes in the future.

The 100 day maximum you set on accumulated time establishes FICGS as the trend setter in how to manage modern correspondence chess games. Excellent decision! Much of the problems people talk about in time control are prevented by the addition of this rule.

I'm sure you are aware the IECG has a 30 day maximum per move and the ICCF a 40 day maximum. The IECG limit is firm. You exceed 30 days once you lose. The ICCF's rule is unclear and unevenly managed. You reach 40 days, you need to beg the TD to do something. Sometimes he helps, sometimes he doesn't. Not a good situation.

Whatever limit you set at FICGS, I recommend you keep it firm and automatic like IECG. Personally I prefer 30 days, you prefer 60. IMHO 30 days is plenty of time to make a move is someone is serious about playing. 60 days is too long to wait. My preference is to make the rules enjoyable for those who want to play, not for those who sign up and then get "busy" and rudely make their opponents sit and wait. IMHO you'll attract and keep a better membership base by making the rules player friendly, not player annoying.

Thanks again. My best to you.

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-07-10 20:06:15)
Vacation and reflection time

Hi Thibault

Vacation seems to be a great problem on all chess servers. The way you manage it is very special. I don't think, that your way is "hard to use". Of course you can always abuse vacation to have more time in time trouble. But your way is very easy. Take 10 days of vacation and play on. And at the end of a year add the not consumed vacation to the reflection time of all of your games.

Now you suggest that a player can not play during his vacation. That is ok. But if the player starts playing during his vacation "loosing the days leave taken and not used yet" is not ok. "Maybe it won't be appreciated in some particular cases". Too much and unnecessary administration. Let the server work.

You don't want to give up your concept (adding vacation time to the reflection time), am I right? You already have announced the corrections on "My messages". If you must change your concept, you would have to rewrite parts of the software.

Nevertheless I would like to say how I imagine the vacation rules on my "perfect server".

I can make the following things with my 4 weeks of holiday:

- If I'm on holiday far away from home or don't like to play chess for a while, I can take a leave in all tournaments.
- If I have much work (sorry - I had to earn money and my employer doesn't take it into consideration, that I would like to play more chess) and can't take care of all tournaments for a while, I take a leave in single tournaments. If the overload is past, I play on without losing the vacation which I perhaps haven't taken.
- I cannot take a leave in a rapid tournament. That is ok - rapid means rapid. There shouldn't be any way to get more time for reflection in this kind of tournament.

It's a pity that no more players express their opinion on this topic in this forum.

Gino Figlio    (2006-07-11 03:59:17)
Leave

Hi Thibault, Everyone has their own opinion about this. Do what you think it's best. My opinion: If you want to mimic the ICCF method, don't allow play during leave and change to programming to freeze the clock when a player takes leave, therefore not adding the leave time to the reflection time. If you want to continue with your original idea of adding the leave to the reflection time, then add only 50% of the time, since the clock stops for the player on leave when the opponent is on move anyway. You may suggest players to take leave after they make a move, in order to take maximun benefit. Other ideas related to preventing players from dragging out lost games/positions would be to establish a lower limit for leave time say of 7 days; preventing players from going on/off leave multiple times; to prevent exceeding the reflection time. Another approach would be to try to regulate more the higher limit of time per move, by allowing players to take 30 days per move only once, 20 days per move 3 times, 10 days per move 9 times..etc. you can change the numbers to fit your desire but you get the idea. Best, Gino

Rodrigo Jaroszewski    (2006-07-11 22:14:16)
A question

Thibault wrote concerning rapid clock: "* 14 days + 1 day/move (rapid) : As players don't know exactly when tournaments will start, I think 30 days at start (ie. compared : email tournaments often start before the real date) is a good choice to avoid accidental forfeits during holidays !" Since your concern is with the first moves, how about using the 14 days + 1 move/day suggestion, but on the first two plies (e.g.: 1.e4 c5) you add a second clock that would give a period of 10 days for White and Black (separately) to know the game is on, before they make their first moves? It'd go like this: White has 10 days on this "grace period" + 14 days. Two possibilities: 1) He makes his first move. The time he had remaining on his "grace period" is removed, and he would have the 14 days. He would not get an additional day for it. 2) He does not make the move on the "grace period" and his 14 days clock starts running down. When he does move, one day will be added, as it normally would. When White moves (if White ever moves), then: 3) Black makes his first move. The remaining of his "grace period" is removed, his 14 days remain, no days are added. Or, 4) Black does not make a move in the "grace period", his 14 days clock begins to run. If he makes a move, he'll gain the day, as he normally would. In both cases, no more "grace periods" would be added for the rest of the game, and White's clock would start running with 14 days or less, depending if (1) or (2) happened. I'm not sure if I was clear, neither if it is actually possible to do so. It's just a suggestion. I also hope that the forum does not clutter my message. :)

Don Groves    (2006-07-14 02:59:50)
Time limit per move

I feel there should be a firm limit (I would like to see 10 days) and a penalty for exceeding it: (1) Subtract one day from offending player's clock for each day over the limit. (2) If limit is exceeded more than double, game is forfeited. If player cannot abide by these time constraints, they should take leave (or perhaps play in fewer games ;-) Also, I agree with the idea of no moves at all during leave. Leave is leave from FICGS, not just from one game or tournament. Regards to all, Don

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-15 13:21:58)
Time limit per move

The idea is interesting, however it could be difficult to display the remaining days (confusing)...

About the 60 days limit, I think there are clear advantages, and the bad effects are not so important if you consider there's no real way to prevent a player to last a game and the rating period of 2 months. The point that makes it difficult to compare to other organizations is some FICGS rules are harder : All lost games are rated, forfeits or not... I think this rules takes off some pressure. And many players can't assume regular play. Players who think 60 days per move is too long may play only rapid tournaments...

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-18 04:14:50)
New feature : Private notes

Hello to all.

Personal notes and public comments are now available for all of your games (at the bottom of the viewer page or move page step 1).

Public comments may be used to share analysis and feelings about the games... It will be displayed in viewer pages for everyone, as well as in 'Best game' page and homepage.

Please note that you have to submit separately these optional forms and your move.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-22 12:03:53)
Vacation rules

This is not a bug, but the rules will change on 2006 august 1st !

See this thread :

http://www.ficgs.com/forum_read_599-Leave.html

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-22 18:31:31)
What future for correspondence chess ?

You may have noticed this "grave" question on the home page... :)

---------

Are draws and chess engines killing chess game, are the level and play simply standardized by Deep Fritz and Rybka... Is the extraordinary performance by Christophe Léotard at XIX th. ICCF correspondence chess world championship 'chancy', a statistical happening, or is there a place yet for human play in modern correspondence chess ?

"I really believe that Go is destined to take the place of Chess as the leading intellectual game of the Occident, just as it has reigned supreme in the Orient for some four thousand years." (Edward Lasker, international chess master)

"... {it is} something unearthly... if there are sentient beings on other planets, then they play go." (Emanuel Lasker, chess world champion)

It had been said that Chess 960 would replace Chess too. I don't think so...

Any predictions ?

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-23 19:54:58)
Chess thematic tournaments

Hello to all.

The 7th chess thematic tournament (waiting list is open) may be a very interesting challenge...

The opening : 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 Ng8 3.e4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Ng8

Is it a lost position or not, you can try to respond ! (it is at least very hypermodern style, but is there a name for such a manoeuvre ? :))

There are many other ideas of openings, but you can make suggestions for future thematic tournaments.

Previous ones :

FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000001
King's gambit (winner : Josef riha)

FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000002
Wing's gambit

FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000003
Benko gambit

FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000004
Orang-utan

FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000005
Danish gambit

FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000006
Scotch gambit

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...

Glen D. Shields    (2006-07-24 17:04:52)
Thanks Thibault

Thanks Thibault for the response.

I definitely concur that today's correspondence chess is different than 40 years ago. The two biggest things I miss about today's CC are the 1) blunders and 2) open tournaments. I remember the excitement of getting a postcard and rushing to check my opponent's move. Blunders weren't common, but they occured. Now they're non-existant. Blunders made for great lore!

Why no more open tournaments? Took me 40 years to get my rating where it's at. I'm not a top player, but what I've earned, I've earned mostly the "old fashioned" way. I avoid open tournaments to avoid losing to low rated players who just learned the moves, but because they have a a high powered muti-processor running Deep Fritz they can knock me down a hundred points. I miss chatting with beginners, teaching them the ins and outs of CC. Oh well :)

You mentioned the top CC players winning and then not sticking with the game because winning is too hard due to chess engines. Is the drop out rate at the WC level any different than it was in the past? Berliner won and dropped out 40 years ago. Palciauskas won 30 years ago and then he dropped out. Chess engines were not a factor when they won. I don't think top players drop out because of engines, but because it is too hard to keep a competitive edge to play at a top level for any length of time. Good results are a combination of talent, hard work and good fortune. Keeping all three together for any length of time is a HUGE endeavor.

Personally I think a bigger threat to CC burn-out is not chess engines, but chess servers. Servers make CC too easy. Today's CC today is like Bill Murray in "Ground Hog Day." You wake up to an inbox full of chess moves. You work all day/night replying. Then you wake up the following day to moves from the same people and do it all again. There are no week long breaks breaks between games like in the postcard days. Server chess is burning out everyone, not just the top players. The progressive server owners will need to address this issue someday.

Sooooo ... what's the bottomline for me? I liked the old days better, but the old days are gone. Chess engines are here to stay. Progress is part of life. I embrace progress and am determined to enjoy it. I get my thrills by learning about chess engines and their weaknesses. That gives me an edge and keeps the game fresh. But then that's me :)

Glen D. Shields    (2006-07-26 03:52:31)
Thanks Wayne, but ...

Wayne - you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to feel guilty about. You're playing by todays rules. One of life's great pleasures is to embrace change and enjoy the fun and diversity that comes from it :)

I look forward to even more change. I'd love to see new analysis tools, new ways to analyze endings, openings, and counter-attack the engines. So much to be accomplished. So many great things still be developed :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-01 12:43:00)
Vacation : Time frozen !

Hello to all.

A major update : Clocks are now frozen during vacation. It's no more possible to play during this time. Please note you cannot cancel your vacation ! (but you can add days of leave)

This change should make harder vacation time (30 days per year) to use, and reduce the effect on the time controls.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-01 22:32:16)
United Kingdom = 1 code, 1 flag

Hello to all.

Sorry, I definitely made a mistake offering both United Kingdom and England-Scotland-Wales-Northern Ireland flags... The four are not official countries... I had the same problem with Québec/Canada & Puerto Rico/USA.

Everyone will have GBR code (and flag), but feel free to ask another country flag if it doesn't fit to you.

Thibault

"Hello Thibault, Thanks for trying. I did think it would get to be a bit confusing. The United Kingdom and Great Britain issue is a difficult one to explain. (...) we can get "heated" when our seperate nationhood and identity are not recognised. But this is chess and the International Correspondence Chess Federation has the motto, "we are all friends" and FIDE has "we are one people" as its motto. So avoiding the mire of nationalism let's just get on with the game without frontiers. You can't please everyone. This is still a good place to play chess."

Thanks ! :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-02 00:02:06)
Country terminology

Hello Graham.

Ok, let's say it isn't a country in a political or at least a "certain" way... the one that ISO norm consider.

Actually, "country" can be a very ambiguous term. Anyway, there's absolutely no other (reasonable) solution than to respect this norm, otherwise I'll have continuously to "change" the world :)

Marc Lacrosse    (2006-08-02 22:14:10)
Request for adjudication & rules

In game *** my opponent has a completely lost position for more than 2 months by now and refuses to resign.
How long will he require that I play child-level uninteresting moves?
I announce mate in 8 moves and request adjudication against this completely disgraceful way of playing.
I am evidently able to prove the win.
I already said how I felt this kind of proceeding to be completely disgusting.

If my requirement is not fulfilled I will leave this site being the first master-class tournament winner.

Nice...

Marc

Graham Wyborn    (2006-08-02 23:14:20)
Be patient!

Your opponent is not breaking any rules! I have an opponent who has not moved for about 6 weeks. Now with less than 24 hours left on his clock, he goes on holiday! Our opponents can use the time how they like. In the UK you can be arrested for wasting police time, but you cannot be arrested on any chess site for wasting opponents time! If you leave this site, which I hope you will not do, you will come across the same problem on other chess sites.

Marc Lacrosse    (2006-08-02 23:52:15)
Adjudication

Thanks Thibault.

I was not aware of the 11.5 rule which is very good IMHO and I am very glad that you agreed to apply it in my game.
I think this is a good rule "as is" and it does not need to be changed.

To Graham : Sure you are right.

But it's the same in OTB play : almost nobody waits until the final mate move.
However when one disgracefully requires you go until mate has effectively been done, you just have to wait for less than a few hours at most.
In my case the win was evident for more than two months and my opponent still meticulously waited until he only had a few hours left...
Did he wish to wait for a new rating,did he wish to have won other games to take the lead in the tournament : I really don't know (and I truly cannot fully understand)...
In any case the rules were respected...
Maybe this could be an additional argument for limiting the maximum amount of accumulated thinking time ?

Marc

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-03 20:35:24)
Vacation : Update

Hello to all.

You may observe irregular clocks according to the new vacation rules during a while (some players may still have more time than "possible"), this is not a bug but a consequence of the change on 2006 august 1st) for players who took days leave, particularly in july.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-04 12:02:56)
tricks

Hi Gino.

You may be right... However many cases (ie. clear material advantages, draws in closed positions) couldn't be considered. I think we can try this rule as is, if it's not sufficient I'll add some criterias or abuse cases.

Note : This rule also works for Go game (and all games on FICGS)!

I think that's an interesting rule, as the "human decision" (I agree with you it must be avoided as much as possible) finally is provoked by the player who obviously lasts the game.

Dinesh De Silva    (2006-08-09 07:47:30)
Re: download

Hey, Graham When you click the game number, it takes you to a page where there's a "download" link down at the bottom. When you click it, the game file will download in pgn format. ( Yes, altogether it would be two clicks. If you mistakenly click it for a third time, you'll launch a nuclear bomb! Haha! Just kidding ).

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-09 10:49:06)
(download)

Hi there.

Strange problem... I may have seen that before, not sure. Maybe try a 'right click' on (download) then 'save target as'. If it doesn't work, just leave me an email specifying the software / browser you use...

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-09 16:29:24)
Download of games

Ok Graham. I've got it... Your navigator works well, I did not want the 'move' & 'confirm' pages too heavy, but maybe it's more logical to have the download & rss buttons at least on the 'move' page too. I'll arrange that.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-11 17:14:15)
Unrated miniatures

Hello Jaimie.

Absolutely... This is clearly a 'statistical' choice...

A chess server need rules like this one to avoid most human decisions. I think this is a good one so far. About this unfair case (at first sight), if you resign in less than 10 moves (it happens not so often in CC above elo 1600, except forfeits), your opponent is obviously much stronger than you, so chances for him to already have a rating superior to yours + 350 points are very high... so the game wouldn't be rated anyway !

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-08-14 16:46:36)
Activities on the FICGS server

Hello Thibault,

nice statistics! Can you tell us how many of the FICGS members have started to play at least one game of chess, one game of go, and how many haven't started to play any game at all?

Wayne Lowrance    (2006-08-16 04:03:16)
please look at his record in the class b

no text

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-23 14:28:39)
Private messages

Hi Don.

A way is to leave a public comment... I'm thinking about a funny and efficient way to "connect" players (who want to be). Not so easy... All ideas welcome :)

Don Groves    (2006-08-24 00:39:25)
re: private messages

ICCF allows this by keeping finished games in a players current game list until the player decides to remove it. This way players can continue to exchange messages about their game until at least one decides to stop. -- Don

Dinesh De Silva    (2006-08-24 14:01:52)
Re: Premove (conditional moves).....

I think such issues as CONDITIONAL MOVES & VACATION TIME ALLOWED are sure to be debated in the future too. Some sites allow conditional moves , some don't. Some sites allow vacation time of 30 or 30+ days per year per tournament (and sometimes even special leave), some sites don't. These issues are sure to be hotly debated for a long time.

Benjamin Aldag    (2006-08-24 20:19:09)
Why do you play corr-chess ?

Hi again,

i play corr-games, because i want to learn more about my repertoire-openings. If you look at my games, you will see every time the same gamestyle and often the same opening. I love the Grand Prix Attack and the closed Sicilian with the white colors. With black i prefer to play Dzindzi-Indian, also known as The Beefeater. Corr-Chess is for me one of the best ways, to try some learned lines and look for better a better continue.

Now my question: Why do you play corr-chess ?

Benny

Benjamin Aldag    (2006-08-26 01:37:37)
"NEW" Opening Idea !

Hello,

i would be very happy, to see the following line in a thematic opening tourney:

1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6
3.Bc4 Bc5
4.c3 Nf6
5.d4 exd4
6.cxd4 Bb4+
7.Nc3 Nxe4
8.0-0 0-0!

ok folks, i am searching for this line in my database and found just a handfull games, played by low rated players. I am searching in many books for this line, but i found nothing ! I've analysed this line and i believe, this line is good for BLACK ! What do you think about this line ??? Do you see more than me ? Do you have any GM-Commentary about this line ? Maybe in an ebook or something else ? Please help me to find the answer, why this line is never played by some very good players. It would be helpful, to start a thematic-tourney'bout this nice line.

Benny

Benjamin Aldag    (2006-08-29 22:39:48)
English please...

Hey Thibault,

just read your own F.A.Q. !

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=help

There you will can find this one:

Please speak english only on the forum.

Thank You

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-31 01:40:39)
Re: English please...

:))))

I make good note of that... Thanks. ;)

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-31 03:16:24)
New best game...

Finally, we have a new "best game", after about 2 months of clear domination by chess game 342...

Game 2198, from the scotch gambit chess thematic tournament, is a funny King's hunt :)

Charlie Neil    (2006-09-02 21:49:18)
why do you play corr chess

i play corr chess as i don't go to chess clubs as i work shifts and can't devote a single night off the same day in every week. also i pause at the board smoking cigarettes drinking coffee and have music playing in the background, ( most of the time dressed in my pyjamas). the corr chess players you meet can be some nice people who are usually polite and chessfriends. and the rude ones you can ignore. of course you have the time to study a game a bit longer before making that blunder. i am learning and re-learning chess all the time. at the moment i am playing from memory after finding using books confusing when i got to the end of the line. i feel sorry for those people who use databases/computers for their moves as in the end they are cheating themselves out using their own brain, there is an old saying, "cheats don't prosper" i believe it to be true. Chess is the best and the most terrible game in the world.

Joachim Nettelbeck    (2006-09-03 16:33:42)
First mover loses

I think that besides the entry fees there is areason, why nobody seems to enter these tournaments: First mover loses! When I see someone with, let's say, a rating of 2000 has entered a tournament, and I'm below that, I will never enter it, too. Not if it's about money. So only people with higher ratings will enter, and the first mover is likely to lose his money. Thus nobody enters first. There is a procedure needed which guarantees that the opponents in this kind of tournaments are close to each other in their rating. Or at least the ones who enter will need to be invisible...

Marc Lacrosse    (2006-09-04 10:51:45)
To Charlie on cheaters ...

Hi Charlie

I completely agree with the first sentences of your post, but I cannot accept the second part of it.
I use computers, and books, and databases and lots of prepared personal analyses for my games here.
I do not accept to be called a cheater : this is explicitly allowed by the rules here, and it is even one of the main reasons for which I joined this association.
There are lots of other sites where computer use is forbidden : you can for sure play there and complain when you will guess that your opponent is making use of electronic assistance, but not here.
Moreover for me it is pure shortness of sight if you are not able to imagine that playing with computer help can be both creative and even fascinating.
Take any of your games and do a quick analysis with several chess programs : you will see that for a large majority of positions they completely disagree on which is the best move to play. The human touch is critically decisive when playing with computer help.
And resulting games are far more complicated and interesting in my eyes.
Another point is that for myself I prefer that my opponents do not spoil an interesting game for which I have spent hours and hours of analysis along weeks of play through a stupid human blunder that ends it all suddenly.
I do pretty well understand that you prefer to play on your own. But what is the problem if you have a computer-assisted opponent? Either you will loose and will maybe learn something either you will win and it will be a pretty good achievement. And surely it will be a better game. The only problem I can see is the possible frustration not to be able to win many games.
Then I repeat : go on another site where computer assistance is forbidden. But I have to say that having played on such sites for years you will find _many_ cheaters... Pure human play cannot be enforced ...

But please stop saying that players like myself are cheaters and poor ignorants.
It is sure we play a different game but why should you be entitled to say that mine is worse than yours?

Regards

Marc

Charlie Neil    (2006-09-05 09:50:08)
why play corr-chess

Marc, excuse me I didn't make the difference between chess engines/databases and someone playing straight moves straight off their own computer. Yes, use books and databases that's what they are there for. But I feel sorry for the individual who relies solely on their computer to play their games for them. It is a bit like taking a fork lift to a weight lifting competition. The use of computers and servers is still relatively new to me. There are sites that ban the use of computers. but who is to know who is using their computer in an illegal way? There can be no profit for them or enjoyment in the game. It is good that FICGS has this forum for free discussion. I enjoyed reading "The future for Corr-chess" thread. There has always been points in time when it has been discussed that chess has "burnt-out" and the game will die off. I don't think that will ever happen in light of the passion for this terrible game expressed in all these forums. So, forgive an ignorant "free-range" "organic" chessfriend for not being clear about the differences about databases and computer-slaves who rely on their machines. The game is the thing. ( and maybe just maybe I wasn't drinking just coffee the time I posted the cheats slur...:-/)

Charlie Neil    (2006-09-05 09:55:54)
why do you play corr chess?

Hello benny oh yes and I am learning and re-learning all the time. Chess and computers is a whole new world to me.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-05 12:58:56)
Major update : your feelings ?

Hello to all.

There has been several changes these last days to optimize the access to the database... as it grows quicky :)

A major update just occured to speed up the display of all games. (Google and other search engines may slow down the whole server sometimes) The effects should appear gradually.

Feel free to post here if you observe any problem or change, or on the speed of the server in general (please specify the speed of your computer & internet connection)

Thanks in advance ! :)

Thibault

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-05 16:21:34)
Tournament winners & leaders displayed !

Hello to all.

Tournament winners & leaders (2 at most) are now displayed in all tournament categories. Just click 'Tournaments' and see...

These informations are not displayed in real time, but will be updated at least every 2 months (while chess rating calculation)

All comments welcome.

Karlheinz Weber    (2006-09-05 20:09:23)
Translation

I could read this quite some times and I never realized that this means "draw offered"! And continued the game without saying a word....!!! (Please dear opponents, excuse me!) Please write: "Ich biete Remis"!

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-06 23:44:33)
Vladimir Kramnik vs. Peter Leko

Hi Dinesh.

I still can't explain myself this incredible outcome in Brissago. First, this "extraordinary" Marshall gambit, Leko leading the whole match... At last Kramnik winning the very last game. Then Peter Leko smiling, just saying (~) : "I'm glad about my play." .. and that's finished.

It just reminded me the second match Kasparov vs. Deep Blue ...

Anyway, it's always time to be paranoid :-)

Lionel Vidal    (2006-09-08 16:58:11)
ChuShogi would get my vote.

ChuShogi is by far my favorite chess-like game: as deep as Go strategically, more profound than chess tactically (at least on par with big chess) and great fun to play. Like Go a very elaborate handicap system does exist.
Its main drawback is that, just like go, you have to invest some time to learn it to fully appreciate the game: chess, xianqi or even shogi are maybe more immediately grasped by beginners while in ChuShogi or in Go, it may take a few games (or more likely many games) before you realise what you should strive to do or not to do, and what that &#@@# game is all about :-)

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    (2006-09-12 03:42:57)
Match FICGS vs. GameKnot

Dear chessfriends, a match FICGS vs. GameKnot may start in a few weeks ! The idea is to oppose players in different rating categories (1200 to 2400+ elo), playing one game with Black on FICGS, one game with White on GameKnot.com ... Please send an email to info (at) ficgs.com (specifying your name) if you're interested. More info in a few days & weeks...

It seems that many players from GameKnot want to play this match, we need a large team ! :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-12 12:51:56)
Zero-sum games

Ok, the question was obviously a bit hard & unclear :)

Thomas Gilbreath    (2006-09-14 05:19:28)
Greetings from GameKnot :)

Hello friends, my name is Thomas, and I am the representative from GameKnot. We look forward to playing a match against you! GameKnot has played two matches vs. other sites in the past, and we have enjoyed the competition very much. It is my sincere hope that we can pull this thing off! As FICGS is a newer site with a smaller community than ours, we hope that you guys can field a team of approximately 12-20 players of ALL ratings ranges. We intend to put up at least 2 players in each of 7 ratings classes (U2400, U2200, U2000, U1800, U1600, U1400, and U1200). The rules of the match are currently being negotiated between Thibault and myself, and we would like to commence as soon as possible. I highly encourage the members of FICGS to participate, as these matches are a lot of fun! You guys will get a chance to visit our site, and we yours. Please contact Thibault and sign on! We look forward to seeing you OTB :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-14 13:33:14)
Chess engines prohibited

Please note :

"The use of databases and chess engines will be prohibited for this challenge." (games unrated)"

Lots of fun ! .. Join us :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-15 01:46:29)
Chess databases / tablebases

Ok, I was confused.. Chess database and tablebases / "chess programs"...

Anyway, I suppose we can use any rules if it's clearly specified, that's not a problem. However, for just more fun, I would suggest games without any kind of assistance... Games could be just more human & original :)

What do you think ?

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-15 17:09:17)
Scoring function for Go

The scoring function for Go is now online !

When you are to play your move, there's a (Score) link under the Goban, that leads to the score page. Just enter a stone coordinates (ie. f14) for each group to remove, separated by space or coma, then Submit.

The score is calculated by covering the board horizontally, then vertically... If the two results are near from each other, the estimation may be quite good. Empty points between black stones and white stones are shared !

Here is an example - http://www.ficgs.com/game_814.html

Game 814, removed groups : m19 l16 f13 d11 f7 g4 k4 b5

Scoring method : Horizontally
Black points : 240 White points : 106 Unknown points : 15

* Scoring method : Vertically
Black points : 238 White points : 102 Unknown points : 21

Black wins the game by about 135 points.

Reminder : This program doesn't decide the game, it gives an evaluation only !! .. It's up to the players to discuss the score, then resign.

All feedbacks welcome !

Elmer Valderrama    (2006-09-15 19:59:46)
two moves from the start

Interesting idea, Thibault, for having a winner in just one-game match. (I mean of course giving clear advantage to White from the start in a must-win game (any other result would be failure).

In this same line of thought, I would suggest to give White two consecutive starting moves (no captures allowed), W player chooses which are those two moves ( 0.e4 1.d4 or 0.e4 1.Nf3 or 0.e4 1.Bc4 or why not 0.e4 1.Qh5!? or whatever )

However, in all cases where White is giving a significant advantage at start, I believe, White has a 2/3 (66%) chance to win, and 1/3 (34%) to draw, so that in a match a strong player with White should go the next round. (assuming he has played the best two consecutive moves and then mantained the advantage all the way --although with the current wonderful defending capabilities of the engines it could add some serendipity to the game ;)

Elmer Valderrama    (2006-09-16 10:20:16)
color won't matter

yes, color or turn to move at start has little importance: Black to move, he would play 0.d5 1...Nf6 now is White to make second move 2.Nf3 for example..then Black would have 66% chances to win... (or at least significantly more chances than in the usual starting position)

I mean 66% to win, 33% to draw and 1% to lose ;) (that's 34% to draw and lose)

I think the more moves are given to White(Black) the more advantage he will have, i.e. statistics would be higher to win (like 80%, 19.5% to draw and 0.5% to lose) However all this could be tested in practice, it certainly could add more picant (spice?!) to the game ;)

Nigel Colter    (2006-09-18 12:18:48)
Comments at resignation

Hi Thibault Does the instruction make an 'updated public comment' mean go to the Forum section and type in a message. Presumably with the opponent's name in the 'Response' box? Please clarify. Many thanks Nigel

Thomas Gilbreath    (2006-09-18 12:55:35)
My friends at FICGS:

I am a little concerned, yet understanding, of your feelings about the possibility of cheating in our proposed match. Please understand that there are two sides to the suspicion coin. For those of you who are not familiar with the GameKnot website, let me assure you that I will only be putting up players who I am familiar with, and who have proven themselves to play honorably. I am a three year veteran of GameKnot, and play on the site daily. I will be selecting my team from players whom I feel confident will conduct themselves within the rules we agree on. The intent of arranging this match is NOT to simply put up all of our master level players and attempt to whitewash you guys 100-0. The intent is to provide as MANY matches of ALL ratings ranges for a fun, competetive match. If we lose every match we will have no hard feelings towards you. As the game results in our proposed match will have no bearing on ratings changes, we view the match as a simple, friendly exercise. So, having said all of that, we hope that FICGS will offer up as many people as possible, and Thibault and myself will pair them with my guys in such a way that is FAIR and equitable to both sides. Should anyone here at FICGS have any questions, please feel free to post them here or in the GameKnot forum (in the GameKnot Related threads). Thanks:) - Thomas

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-18 14:00:30)
FICGS vs. GameKnot

Thomas :

I agree with you, the match is for fun only, I like the idea whatever the result, even 100-0 :) .. If players use engines, their problem.. we can't avoid the risk totally... I think it's more logical to prohibite databases too or to allow both databases and chess engines, playing "real correspondence chess", and we could have a larger team for sure... Still discussing.

Miguel :

I prefer to avoid to "mail" everyone about the match.. It's clearly announced in the news, so I think most players here are "more CC ones" and don't trust the no use of engines...

James Stripes    (2006-09-18 15:56:13)
27 years ago

When I first played correspondence chess, books were encouraged and the few chess engines in existence were garbage. Good quality engines and comprehensive databases have changed the nature of correspondence play. Nearly everyone permits databases (electronic books), although endgame tablebases are less clear. Engines are permitted some places, while banned others. This site is my first foray into CC where engine use is permitted, but I've played at dozens of sites where I can use databases. (I don't believe I've ever reached a position in which tablebases would be useful, except a few elementary positions that any average player could win against Kramnik.) These inter-site matches, it seems to me, nurture connections across the broad community of correspondence players--a rapidly expanding coterie of chess aficionados thanks to the likes of GameKnot and similar sites.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-18 18:06:50)
FICGS correspondence chess database

Hello to all.

FICGS chess database (games rated + unrated, finished + unfinished) is now a unique static PGN file, that will be updated at least every 2 months. You can find it by clicking 'Search games' or at this link :

http://www.ficgs.com/databases/chess.pgn

Other free chess databases (ie. games played by famous players) will be added at :

http://www.ficgs.com/directory_databases.html

Best wishes.

Marc Lacrosse    (2006-09-19 11:45:18)
A tool for knowing each others' chess

In the "classement" page (the one that lists all current members), it could be nice to have two additional columns :
Finished games
Running games
giving the number of games the player is involved with

And (ideally?) clicking on one of the numbers could lead to a listing of the corresponding games in PGN? :-)

It could be a nice tool for knowing who is who, who plays what, who is active or not.

Your opinion ?

Marc

Jaimie Wilson    (2006-09-19 14:28:46)
match GameKnot-FICGS

Here at FICGS, real names have to be supplied. This gives FICGS a human element that encourages honour and sportsmanship and in my opinion gives this site a clear edge over its rivals.

James Stripes    (2006-09-19 14:40:17)
Cheating data

95% is an interesting figure and quite an accusation. Could you provide some evidence to support this contention, or at least explain the reasons for your belief? I would say from looking at the blunders during my brief stint at GK that if any players between 1600 and 2100 were cheating, they were incompetent engine users. I cannot imagine using an engine for assistance and achieving a rating below 2100 there.

Elmer Valderrama    (2006-09-19 19:42:56)
FICGS correspondence chess database

That's a great improvement on the former listing of un/finished games (somehow it took ages to load those pages on my PC).

Now why is it that it will be updated 'at least' every 2 months, not daily as the former pages? (assuming fetching all the PGN scores into a single PGN file is done automatically by a script) Thanks

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-19 20:43:18)
Traxler Counterattack

HAHAHA :=)

I see you're to solve the Traxler counterattack in Wikichess ! (at least this line 5.Nxf7)

http://www.ficgs.com/wikichess_611.html

I don't think I'll play this tournament :/ .. I've already too many running games, and a lot of work, yes... That's a pity, this opening is really interesting !

Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-09-20 01:24:07)
I'm sorry

Please delete one of these two messages.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-22 22:16:08)
Unrelated ?

Hello Nigel.

Why unrelated ? .. You can leave a comment in any of your finished game, through 'My tournaments' in example.

Another way is to change the game number in the url : user_page.php?page=viewer&game=1

Thomas Gilbreath    (2006-09-24 02:45:17)
One week till our sign up deadline:

To my friends at FICGS - the GameKnot team will be set in one week. Thibault - please begin finalizing your team. I will send you (via e-mail) my proposed matchups by Oct 2, 2006. Thomas

Dinesh De Silva    (2006-09-27 18:23:24)
4th Game Drawn., It's now 3:1

4th game drawn. Top. slips again in a decisive moment of calculation, when he could have gone into a line where his knight could have outgunned Kram.s Bishop. After that chance went abegging, Kram. counter-attacked to steer the game into a clear draw. His subtle Queen manouevres were noteworthy.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-27 20:17:26)
Vacation & time limit per move

Hello Halil.

Unfortunately, this is not a bug :/

Here is the message you may have read just before you confirmed your days leave :

"Make sure you have no pending moves for more than 30 days before taking days leave, as the time per move clock is still running during vacation." (time per move clock is the one between brackets)

Rules 11.4 : "Any move in any game shall be played in a maximum period of 60 days, otherwise the game will be adjudicated on time."

You did not play any move in game 2036 for more than 60 days. Actually, you did not play any move for about 40 days when you took your ~20 days leave. The aim of this rule is to avoid too long delays for a single move. Usually, 30 days is enough...

Anyway, I send you an email about this problem.

Best wishes. Thibault

Don Groves    (2006-09-29 03:16:53)
A small Go help

Thibault, How about leaving the last move highlighted (or maybe the last two moves) to serve as a memory jogger for where you were in that game without having to scroll down and read the moves. It would be a big help to us non-experts who are playing lots of games.

Dinesh De Silva    (2006-09-29 13:03:02)
Psycho(logical) games by Topalov's team?

[moderator : please don't copy exact content (news, articles..) from other websites]

Common toilet for both players.

29.09.2006 The Appeals Committee of FIDE has taken a decision on protest by the Bulgarian delegation who, after viewing the video tapes, stated that Kramnik would visit the toilet too often. A common toilet will be opened for both players.

The Appeals Committee : FIDE Deputy President IM Georgios Makropoulos, Continental President for Americas FM Jorge Vega, FIDE Vice President Zurab Azmaiparashvili.

More - http://www.chessbase.com

Dinesh De Silva    (2006-09-29 13:41:10)
Re:

BOTH Topalov's team & Kramnik's team had clearly agreed to a set of legally binding rules, regulations & facilities prior to the World Championship match up. But now suddenly Topalov's team fires accustation after accusation DURING the match. Personally I think if they can't prove a thing, they should not make accusations. The world likes to see exciting chess games, not verbal fights.

Dinesh De Silva    (2006-09-29 13:14:25)
Kramnik's team says...........

Kramnik threatens to stop playing the match......

29.09.2006 Statement from the team of Vladimir Kramnik, rejecting the decision of the Appeals Committee of FIDE : "The protests of the Topalov team and the suspicions in the press release of Mr. Topalov are utterly disgraceful and are touching Mr. Kramnik’s privacy."

Elista, 29 September 2006

Open Letter to FIDE President H.E. Kirsan Iljumshinov

Copied to Executive Committee of Kalmykia Mr. Valery Bovaev, Chief Arbiter Mr. Geurt Gijssen, Russian Chess Federation

Dear Mr. President,

The Appeals Committee of the World Championship Match between Veselin Topalov and Vladimir Kramnik made the following decision on the protest of the Topalov Team:

“to close both the toilets in the players rest rooms and to open another toilet that will be available only to the two players”

The Kramnik team received the mentioned decision a few hours before the start of game 5 and was officially informed about the protest of Mr. Topalov only yesterday evening, 10 p.m., 28 September 2006. With such a decision the WCC Committee is clearly violating both the rules and regulations of the WCC match and the rights of Mr. Kramnik.

The relevant clause in contract of Mr. Kramnik expels: “FIDE shall provide a rest room and toilette for the players during the WCC match in the playing hall and close to the stage (if possible backstage) to be equipped with a live monitor furnished with coffee and tea as well as with light refreshments.”

The reasons that Mr. Kramnik is entering his own bathroom often is simple: The restroom is small and Mr. Kramnik likes to walk and therefore uses the space of the bathroom as well. The Appeals Committee has been informed about the issue before they decided. It should also be mentioned that Mr. Kramnik has to drink a lot of water during the games.

On the request of Mr. Topalov the agreed live monitors have been removed as well as the shower cabines in the bath rooms. The moves are provided on demonstration boards only. The substance of Mr. Topalov protests (dated 22, 24 and 28 September 2006) were basically always met by the approval of the Appeals Committee. Everything has been done here to satisfy Mr. Topalov’s requests.

On a regulary basis the restrooms and toiletts are heavily checked by specialists, obviously local police forces. This goes together with the arrival of the players. The arbiters are observing all the measures. One representative of each team has the right of being present in order to observe the activities. The playing area is banned from signals and the glas wall protects from any kind of view contact and/or body language. There is not a single reason or evidence to believe that a player would have any kind of cheating possibilities.

It is and was no problem for the organization to assure all necessary measures in order to avoid any kind of cheating. By starting the match both participants agreed all the playing conditions de facto and de jure and the conditions are therefore legally binding. Any change of the playing conditions without a good reason would in our understanding request the approval of both players which is not the case here.

Mr. Kramnik believes that the latest decision should increasingly concern the world of chess as it shows very clearly and once again the biased stand of the Appeals Committee members involved. In person: Mr. Makropolous, Mr. Azmaiparashivili (well known as a close friend to Mr. Danailov), Mr. Gelfer (now replaced by Mr. Vega). Therefore Mr. Kramnik requests to exchange the mentioned persons immediately. Enough is enough.

We would like to add that the recent decision not only insults Mr. Kramnik but is clearly critizing both the excellent work of the local organisation at Elista and the nominated arbiters. Yesterday evening the chief arbiter and the head of the excutive committee once again confirmed that the indirect accusations of cheating are nonsense.

The protests of the Topalov team into the direction of Mr. Kramnik and the suspicions in the press release of Mr. Topalov are utterly disgraceful and are touching Mr. Kramnik’s privacy. We do not think that the Topalov team has any right of getting access to the recordings. This shall be job of the nominated arbiters only.

The Topalov team includes a parapsychologist and more people which are obviously having no other tasks as to distract and to insult Mr. Kramnik especially since their team is realizing that Mr. Topalov finds himself in a difficult situation. This is what we call an utterly unfair behaviour which is not in accordance with the FIDE Code of Ethics. The decision taken by the Appeals Committee can only be seen as another attempt to disturb Mr. Kramniks concentration since it is difficult to understand what kind of improvement it shall be to have one toilet instead of two.

Our team does not trust the objectivity of the Appeals Committee anymore. Therefore it makes no sense for us to bring a protest to this table and Mr. Kramnik strongly insists once again that the members of the Appeals Committee will be changed immediately and that the heads of the Organizing Committee are taking their responsibilities.

In the meanwhile Mr. Kramnik will stop playing this match as long as FIDE is not ready to respect Mr. Kramnik’s rights, in this case to use the toilet of his own restroom whenever he wishes to do so.

Further and more detailed legal investigations are already in process.

On behalf of Vladimir Kramnik
Yours sincerely,
Carsten Hensel
(Manager to Vladimir Kramnik, Classical World Chess Champion)

Dinesh De Silva    (2006-09-29 16:56:32)
Re:

If game number 5 is declared a loss for Kramnik due to forfeit, then Kramnik made a bad choice by not playing, as it's almost a free point for Topalov who was 2 points adrift. It would seem Topalov's team's psychological warfare/psychological trap has won over by closing the gap. If game number 5 is replayed, Kramnik has gained the upper hand in psychology, and Topalov's team's supposed psychology has backfired on them. I think FIDE is in a very awkward position. FIDE should clearly state who's accusations are true or false and make immediate, clear decisions regarding the whole situation. Otherwise, the World Championship will be seen as a real fiasco.

Dinesh De Silva    (2006-09-29 23:40:07)
Re:

Nigel, you seem to have a good point there. If the members of the appeals committee have clear connections to Topalov's team, then the situation is clearly tilted in Topalov's favour.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-30 01:35:07)
FICGS Go / Weiqi rules

Hello Roger.

Two ways to reach FICGS Go rules :

1. 'Help', then 'FICGS general rules' or 'Chess & Go playing rules' links.

2. 'Membership' link after you logout. Or this direct link :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#playing

Reminder : FICGS Go rules (2006 september 30)

"Go games are played on a 19 x 19 goban. Go moves are given by coordinates a1 to t19 (e.g. : s13), as showed on the go viewer. Please note that i letter doesn't exist on the viewer, so any move with letter i (e.g. : i5) won't be understood by the viewer, consequently the move is false. Please let the graphical interface generate the move. Komi is 7.5 points. Please note that you can pass, just entering 'pass'.

Rules for Go are chinese rules, as defined by the Chinese Weiqi Association. Both players must play until one resign, both players pass (then call referee) or game is adjudicated. It's up to the players to discuss the score at the end of the game, so calling referee should be exceptional. Scoring method is area scoring with chinese counting. Positional superko rule apply, it's impossible to repeat a previous board position."

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-30 03:31:40)
Topalov vs. FIDE vs. Kramnik

I agree with you, Nigel.

Obviously Topalov's team 'manipulates' FIDE against Kramnik. Worked quite well... But now the situation seems to be best for both Topalov and Kramnik... If the match does not continue Kramnik will stay clear classical World Chess Champion (3-1) with a new legitimacy, Topalov will stay clear FIDE World Chess Champion (playing the best chess) and FIDE will remain... the organizer of chess championships in Kalmykia... :/

Finally, only FIDE made a clear mistake during the event, but is it so important... Kramnik wins, Topalov wins, Ilyumzhinov always wins...

I hope the match will continue but I'm not very optimistic.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-30 03:39:05)
Vladimir Kramnik - Open letter

Open Letter To
FIDE President
Kirsan Iljumshinov
Russian Chess Federation

Elista, 29. September 2006

Requests of Vladimir Kramnik

• To proceed with GAME 5

Clause 3.17.1., Schedule 2 of the contract: “All protests must be submitted in writing to the Appeals Committee not more than 2 hours after the relevant playing session.”

The protest made by the Topalov Team were not made within this window after game 4 (27 September 2006) but only hit the FIDE Office and the Appeals Committee on the rest day (28 September 2006). Therefore the protests are not even relevant and should have been rejected by the Appeals Committee immediately.

Clause 3.18.3., Schedule 2 of the contract: “After the World Chess Championship Committee agrees with the Organizers on the arrangements in respect of the tournament hall, facilities etc. etc. etc……., no objections from the participants shall be acceptable as long as the conditions are in accordance with the rights of the players granted in their agreements.”

This clause clearly underlines the statement made in today’s Open letter: “By starting the match both participants agreed all the playing conditions de facto and de jure and the conditions are therefore legally binding. Any change of the playing conditions without a good reason would in our understanding request the approval of both players which is not the case here.”

Therefore it is clear that the Appeals Committee took a completely wrong decision and was obviously not even aware of the Rules and Regulations. The decision of Chief Arbiter Mr. Gijssen to forfeit game 5 was clearly based on a wrong decision of the Appeals Committee and shall be nullified.

Mr. Kramnik is ready to continue the match and to play the 5th game (with a leading score of 3:1) on the conditions that were accepted prior to the start of the match.

• Toilet issue The toilets connected to the restrooms shall be opened again. This request is in accordance with clauses 3.17.1. and 3.18.3 (see above) and in the general understanding that by starting of the match both participants agreed to all the playing conditions. Any change of the playing conditions without a good reason would require the approval of both players which is not the case here.

Mr. Kramnik is ready to accept even stricter controls by sealing the toilets before and after inspections. Inspections shall be done before and after each game.

• Exchange of members of the Appeals Committee
We repeat that the Kramnik team does not trust the objectivity of the Appeals Committee anymore. It is evident from this letter and our first Open Letter today that the existing Appeals Committee is biased and incompetent. Mr. Kramnik strongly insists once again that the members of the Appeals Committee will be exchanged immediately.

• Access to Recordings As Mr. Kramnik in the press conference stated he did not sign a contract for acting in a reality show. The recordings shall be observed by the arbiters. Neither Team Topalov nor Team Kramnik shall have access to the recordings. Investigations shall be in the sole responsibility of the Arbiters.

• Requested Apology Last but not least Mr. Kramnik believes that Mr. Danailov should apologize to Mr. Kramnik in writing. Remarks such as:

“If the match were to continue, the World Champion will refrain from shaking hands with Mr. Kramnik before the games and will not take part in joint press conferences with him.” and “Veselin Topalov is disturbed by the suspicious behavior of his opponent Mr. Vladimir Kramnik who takes his most significant decisions in the bathroom.” are clearly insulting.

On behalf of Vladimir Kramnik
Yours sincerely,
Carsten Hensel
(Manager to Vladimir Kramnik, Classical World Chess Champion)

Peter Schuster    (2006-09-30 08:17:39)
No change

Please don't change the time control.

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-09-30 13:47:43)
No change

Hello Thibault.

I agree with Peter: no change of the timekeeping, please.

Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-09-30 15:37:02)
No change

Please don't change time control!

Benjamin Aldag    (2006-09-30 15:57:58)
e4-Line !

The e4-Line is the only line, which gives white the possibility of an clear advantage. All other lines are really bad for white. The point of this opening is, to have with the black color good knights versus a bad bishop-pair of white. Roman Dzindzihasvili is the founder of this Defense and i think, "Beefeater" is not the right name. I call it "Dzindzi-Indian-Defense". There are many interesting lines and some of them, transpose the game to other openings (Pirc, Sicilian-Dragon, Kings-Indian etc.). The move 5...f5 was played to prevent black of 6.e4, but 6.e4! is the best move, white can play. I've played last year in Litomysl in a Simultan versus GM Sergey Movsesian this "Dzindzi-Indian-Defense". Sergey played 6.h4?! and after 15 moves, we draw the game. The Dzindzi-Indian-Defense is an easy to learn opening and i've got good results with it in many tourneys. Last time i've saw this Defense at the Chess-Olympic, played by players around 2400-2500. 6.e4! is the best move, but many many players don't know it and the possibility for black, to get a good result in a game is very high. I can say, i know all variations about this opening and this thematic tournament will be my first tourney here, where i will not use computer-assistence. Its funny to see, that an Engine (Rybka,Fritz etc.) dont understand the ideas behind this defense and without an opening-book, engines dont see that 6.e4! is the only way, to get an advantage.

I luv Dzindzi-Indian-Defense

Benny

Rodrigo Jaroszewski    (2006-10-01 11:19:06)
Not quite

They'll open the WCs, not the WC yet. They won't be switching WCs at each game either, one for each player and no switch (they will still be searched at least once before every game though, as they are now).

Also, the Appeals Committee resigned on their own. Kirsan must have chewed them yesterday. Since he's trying to make a good impression to the rest of the world to try to bring investments to Kalmykia (i.e. himself), I believe he's one of the few people that really got something to loose if they don't set this straight. $1.5mil for Topa vs. Radja is nothing if he can somehow put his country on the map as a Chess and Buddhist touristic hub (and his name in history as the "WC savior").

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-02 15:11:16)
Kramnik plays under protest

Official statement and protest by V. Kramnik

To FIDE President H.E. Kirsan Iljumshinov
To the WCC Appeals Committee

On 2 October 2006 my manager received the following decision from FIDE:

“Tomorrow, 2 October 2006, at 15.00, the 6th Game of the World Chess Championship Match a Topalov-Kramnik with the score 3:2 in favour of Kramnik, will take place.”

Based on this decision I make the following statement:

I inform that I am ready to proceed playing the match by reserving all my rights. My further participation will be subject to the condition to clarify my rights regarding game five at later stage.

I do not agree with the decision made by FIDE and I formally protest against it. The decisions made on my requests, especially the resignation of the Appeals Committee, opening the toilets to the restrooms again, are chrystal clear admissions of FIDE of having taken a false decision. Logically FIDE admits herewith that it was a mistake to start game five by violating the rules and regulations of the competition and by changing the agreed playing rules and conditions during the match without my approval.

I deeply regret the unsportsmanlike and unequaled behaviour of my opponent whom FIDE donated a victory outside of the board by using dirty tricks.

High level functionaries inside FIDE once again were making the professional part of the chess world a disgraceful playground of their own interests. I strongly believe and hope that the course of these events made it obvious to everyone that drastic changes with regard to the professional management structures inside FIDE are evident.

By deciding just a couple of hours ago I had to assess between my personal interests and the interests of the entire chess world. It is very difficult to play under these circumstances. But I came to the conclusion to proceed under protest because I do not want to disappoint the overwhelming majority of the chess fans which are hoping for the unification since so many years.

I also had in mind the people of Kalmykia which are doing their utmost to organize this match on the highest level possible.

Last but not least I would like to thank very much for all the support I experienced during these days.

Elista, 2 October 2006
Vladimir Kramnik Classical World Chess Champion

Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-10-02 20:40:30)
Hi again, Thibault!

What do you think about WC article 2689? I think - it is possible refutation of Traxler counterattack. White has slow, but sure win - piece again two pawns. Refute me if I am wrong, please! (: Cirulis

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-03 14:32:52)
SmartGo, Many faces of Go...

Computer Go seems to be very far from computer chess yet... (more than I thought)

Do you think a playing Go program could beat the best player in future ?
(following discussions I had with several players here :))

I've read the strongest programs could play around 8 kyu level (SmartGo, Many faces of Go). Not so bad, but I suppose it's at a blitz level, what about correspondence Go...

I train myself against gnuGO and I've been told about Kombilo, a free Go program (database), but I did not really enter it. SmartGo and Many faces of Go seem to be really good programs to learn the basics of the game.. but then ? .. Should we learn life and death structures, other things or only practice ?

Roger Weber    (2006-10-03 15:11:47)
Go

The one thing that makes humans good at Go is our ability to recognize patterns.

Go is all about seeing patterns and making strategical moves.

Chess engines are so good at Chess because there aren't that many possibilites to be played, so a computer can calculate the best one by looking at databases.

However Go has a much larger board and much more possibilites of moves for a game, making it impossible for a computer to calculate the best move.

Also computers do not have an AI yet to enable them the recognition of patterns, or not to a degree that humans do.

So a Go-engine could theoretically beat you on a 9x9 sized board, but it is very improbable that it will do so on a 19x19 board.

At least for the moment ...

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-03 15:28:14)
50%

The point is not always winning for sure... playing good chess or learning are others.

Some very strong players just like to try & analyse unusual openings ie.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-03 17:10:08)
Delay / Slow down the games ?

An interesting idea had been submitted here a few months ago to "decrease the pressure" for all players and to slow down the games... (correspondence chess & Go are quite addictive :))

It would consist in delaying the transmission of moves or at least avoiding one can respond to a move immediately after being played.

The server works very well, but I feel there could be irregular peaks of charge in future... More and more tournaments start, faster and faster and that's probably only the beginning.

So what do you think about the "delay" idea ? .. 1 hour would be probably enough to spread out charge over time, but players may expect more or no delay at all !?

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-03 19:18:18)
Open letter

Another letter of support to Vladimir Kramnik, written by famous chess grandmasters... (source www.chessbase.com)

Monday 2nd of October 2006

Dear Vladimir,

Through absolutely no fault of your own, you have suffered the consequences of an unprecedented combination of unethical behaviour from your opponent and glaring incompetence, for lack of a stronger word, on the part of the Appeals Committee.

In spite of evidently unfair treatment, which has not only resulted in your being forfeited one game, but also being subjected to petty attacks and ridiculous accusations from the opposing camp, you have agreed to continue the match for the sake of reunifying the chess world. This is a very impressive decision. It testifies to your remarkable sense of honour and is worthy of your true status of World Champion.

Regardless of the final result of this match you have earned the deepest respect of your fellow Grandmasters and colleagues as well as countless chess fans around the world. Thank you for being a model sportsman in a time and place where so many circumstances turned against you. You deserve to win.

With unfailing support,

GM Joel Lautier
IM Almira Skripchenko
GM Viktor Korchnoi
GM Laurent Fressinet
GM Nigel Short
GM Alexandra Kosteniuk
GM Pavel Tregubov
GM Pentala Harikrishna
GM Yannick Pelletier
WGM Sophie Milliet
GM Lev Alburt
WIM Anna Hahn
GM Rustam Dautov
GM Yasser Seirawan
GM Emanuel Berg
GM Helmut Pfleger
WIM Olena Boytsun
GM Vladimir Barksij
GM Bartlomiej Macieja
IM Maxim Notkin
GM Alexander Baburin
GM Tony Kosten
GM Alexander Khalifman

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-03 22:12:17)
Traxler

I see no winning line... At most an unclear advantage for White.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7.Ke3 Qe7 8.Nxh8 Qg5+ 9.Kxe4 Qf4+ 10.Kd3 d5 11.Bxd5 Bf5+ 12.Ke2 Nd4+ 13.Ke1 Nxc2+ 14.Qxc2 Bxc2 15.Bxb7 Rb8 16.Bc6+ Ke7 17.Nc3 Qh4+ 18.g3 Qd4

...then ?

Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-10-03 22:33:46)
OK

I will think about /1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7.Ke3 Qe7 8.Nxh8 Qg5+ 9.Kxe4 Qf4+ 10.Kd3 d5 11.Bxd5 Bf5+ 12.Ke2 Nd4+ 13.Ke1 Nxc2+ 14.Qxc2 Bxc2 15.Bxb7 Rb8 16.Bc6+ Ke7 17.Nc3 Qh4+ 18.g3 Qd4/. And what do you think about /15.Nc3 000 16.Be6+ Kb8 17.Nf7 Rd3 18.g3 Rg3 19.Ne2 Qe4 20.Bd5 Qxd5 21.Nxg3 Qxf7 22.Rf1/. IMO here white advantage is more clear. Cirulis

Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-10-03 22:53:33)
... dead!

IMO advantage is 100% enough for win in both variation, at least for me (+engine :D). (It is sad that I don't have money (enough) - I could offer you a bet.) :D P.S. Question not about Traxler - how do you make empty lines in messages?

Marcin Kasperski    (2006-10-04 12:27:12)
Exaggerating?

I googled this thread accidentally, and ... I would like to say that some opinions here seem to be going too far. I am just an amateur player (no FIDE rating, but according to my results on FICS and Playchess I would estimate myself about elo 1900). I play on a few servers including gameknot (my nick there is Mekk). I have never used chess engine there (or anywhere), and I am at the moment rated 1654 on gameknot, I also happened to win and draw some games against 17xx rated players. Surely they were not using engines, if they were, I would lost those games - my results on IECG (where I lost everything I tried to play) show this clearly. Of course my claim, that I am not using an engine, is just my claim - but you can take a look at my games, if you like...

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-04 16:21:00)
Danailov accuses Kramnik of using Fritz9

The manager of Topalov (Silvio Danailov) now accuses Kramnik of cheating, using Fritz 9.

Here are his statistics :

Game 1 :

From 75 moves: After move 12, from 65 remaining moves 41 moves match with the first line of Fritz 9. (63% of matches)

Game 2 :

From 63 moves: After move 17, from 46 remaining moves 40 moves match with the first line of Fritz 9. (87% of matches)

Game 3 :

From 38 moves: After move 10, from 46 remaining moves 40 moves match with the first line of Fritz 9. (87% of matches)

Game 4 :

From 54 moves: After move 14, from 40 remaining moves 30 moves match with the first line of Fritz 9. (75% of matches)

Game 6 :

From 31 moves: After move 13, from 18 remaining moves 14 moves match with the first line of Fritz 9. (78% of matches)

Out of 5 games, 78% of Vladimir Kramnik’s moves would match with the first line of Fritz 9.

Seems to be a lot but is it enough ? (no IMO, and it simply doesn't mean anything at all...)

Furthermore, it seems to be very hard to prove, as the "first line" of Fritz 9 depends on many parameters... It's probably easy to obtain this result on demand, or to say at a 2800 level, if it doesn't match with Fritz moves, that it matches with Shredder, Junior or Hydra or... :(

The only conclusion is Kramnik's style is closer to Fritz than other engines..
(what a scoop...)

Topalov's team has probably no other choice now than to attack & attack until death... This is clearly psychological attack, this match could end really dirty :/

I think these statistics are really too conclusive so that it's realistic ! .. Kramnik is not stupid : There's no need to play Fritz first line to win against Topalov (and finally be accused of using Fritz 9), and it's certainly not the best way to win either...

Yannick Maret    (2006-10-06 10:56:18)
I am new here

but I would think that for non-master it makes sense to use chess engine only to check that the chosen move doesn't give a tactical opportunity to the opponent... Anyway, I play without the help of chess-engine since I think chess-engine would take away fun from chess. But still, as Rodrigo said they could be an interesting learning tools!

Marc Lacrosse    (2006-10-04 18:44:46)
no slow down by force please !

Nobody urges you to answer immediately.
Why should the one who likes playing fast sometimes be forced to wait for sending his own moves?
I cannot really understand this. His opponent has always the choice to wait before answering if _he_ prefers to do so.
As i already said in another thread I prefer a small number of games going fast than a large number of ones going slowly.
I analyse most of my very few games everyday. So when one of my opponents reply I am often already ready to answer immediately. Why should I have to wait?
I even wish that a rule for maximum accumulated thinking time be implemented.
Those who prefer slow chess just have to refrain from taking too much games simultaneously and from enrolling in "rapid" tournaments.
Marc

Marc Lacrosse    (2006-10-04 18:55:32)
Rybka and others

I use rybka 1.1 and quite a few other ones :-)
I am pretty sure that rybka is stronger than all other engines but this does not in any way say that rybka's play is perfect.
A problem with the practical use of rybka is the fact that it has something like a different scaling of his assessments than most others.
+0.10 is a large advantage for rybka! and often he gives almost the same score to several candidate moves whereas other engines more clearly differentiate the value of different potential continuations.
Rybka often misses evidently promising tactical continuations if you do not give him a much longer thinking time than requested by some competitors

So I think Rybka is a powerful tool but not the only one to have for computer help

Marc

Miguel Pires    (2006-10-04 21:32:51)
Roger

Hello, about engines, please try this position with the engines you have: 2r2rk1/1bq1bpp1/p2ppn1p/1p4BP/3NP1P1/3B1P2/PPPQ4/2KR3R w - - 0 17 If you let them think for some time, of of the engines possible find the move for withe Bxh6! For me was easy to find. I have done this sacrifice many times. I FICGS or ICCF i use engines to check my variations and to see if i misse something. If the engine gives me a better move i try to understand whay and try to adjust the plan to that move. Soo using a engine, (for me) is not to make better moves, but to try to improve my game. In situations like that position my natural reaction is to sacrifice. Its only my 2 cents Regard's Miguel Pires PS: Sorry for the bad english

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-07 20:20:04)
Topalov takes the lead

Veselin Topalov - Vladimir Kramnik (game 9)

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bf5 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nh4 Bg6 7.Nxg6 hxg6 8.a3 Nbd7 9.g3 Be7 10.f4 dxc4 11.Bxc4 0-0 12.e4 b5 13.Be2 b4 14.axb4 Bxb4 15.Bf3 Qb6 16.0-0 e5 17.Be3 Rad8 18.Na4 Qb8 19.Qc2 exf4 20.Bxf4 Qb7 21.Rad1 Rfe8 22.Bg5 Be7 23.Kh1 Nh7 24.Be3 Bg5 25.Bg1 Nhf8 26.h4 Be7 27.e5 Nb8 28.Nc3 Bb4 29.Qg2 Qc8 30.Rc1 Bxc3 31.bxc3 Ne6 32.Bg4 Qc7 33.Rcd1 Nd7 34.Qa2 Nb6 35.Rf3 Nf8 36.Rdf1 Re7 37.Be3 Nh7 38.Rxf7 Nd5 39.R7f3 1-0

Marc Lacrosse    (2006-10-04 22:50:34)
How many people actually use chessengine

I do, and I cannot even understand why some feel it is not fair : it is explicitly allowed here.
My feeling is that most (if not all) my opponents do use them also.
And this is perfectly OK for me. For several reasons :

1. I prefer not to have worked hard on a game and then win it because a sudden tactical error leads to a premature end after months of intense struggle.

2. I am far from being able on my own forces to have such interesting games as those that I play with help of engines.

3. Being on almost the same basis of computer help as my opponents, I feel that the human touch is clearly decisive in these computer-assisted correspondence games : it's precisely there that the difference can be made.

Marc

Rodrigo Jaroszewski    (2006-10-05 11:42:35)
Re:

Basically, I'm playing to force myself to learn. In July, when I began my first game in FICGS, I knew nothing and had nobody to teach me. Since the probabilities of me ever having a tutor are dim, I knew I had to learn alone.

FICS won't cut it, because the guys at my level generally memorize a line and go for it until the bitter end. Having no opening knowledge I would generally end up in a bad spot until the midgame, where I can handle myself better. I rarely got past move 15 there.

OTB won't do for me, because I don't even know if there's a chess club in my city. I had a neighbor that used to play with me, but I quickly got past him on knowledge.

Studying database games is just not my style. I can't get drawn into the game if I'm not playing. If I choose the bad move I have to feel threatened by it, it has to have a consequence to me.

Thus, I'm here at FICGS. Before every move I'm able to analyze it and how the line goes forward, to understand why it is a good move. Plus, I'm able to test the moves that come to my head and check them (generally to find out they are outright suicidal).

In the end, I think my opponent wins something back, which is an entertaining and hopefully instructive game.

P.S.: BTW, just so you know, I play clean on FICS and OTB. I think those are, after some time at FICGS, becoming instructive environments on their own right.

Thomas Gilbreath    (2006-10-08 02:40:55)
Thibault

12 of my 13 are ready. If my player ritt doesn't register with you within 48 hours, I propose to simply drop him from the match, as I don't have a fair match for Charlie Neil (I do have many higher rated players if he really wants to play). Let me know, and please explain to me the format here on FICGS as you guys only play tournament style - are you going to set up a tourney especially for our match? Get with me tonight or tomorrow, as we hope to start the match Monday:) Thanks - Thomas

Rodrigo Jaroszewski    (2006-10-10 05:27:08)
Re:

Use Toga II if you're looking for a freeware one. Crafty was simply too unreliable. 15 minutes of brute-force search, returning ~18-ply results with slight advantage; then I'd play them one by one and about the 10th ply, *bang*, a blunder. Very nice if you're trying to emulate Topalov-Kramnik, but not nice if you want to get some good advice.

The trick is to have a general understanding of the opening, and notice when the game has entered the realm of the middlegame (this is still very blurry for me, but I'm getting the hang of it). Then you just have to try to learn as much as you can about basic middlegame concepts. That's as far as my understanding goes up to now, tactics and strategy are not within my grasp yet.

Of course, this is for total noobs like me, if you know more you'd like to test more advanced concepts.

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    (2006-10-10 18:49:31)
Re: g11

With bishops on opposite colors, it's advised to keep a rook on each side to avoid a draw... Anyway, it seems to be a clear draw in all cases here.

If Kramnik doesn't win game 12, another battle will begin...

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-10 19:49:12)
Opposite color bishops

These endgames are much easier than same color bishops or rooks endings.. The bishop & king can block the opponent's pawns (1, 2, 3 or more) in most cases, and the bishop can be exchanged against one or two pawns... In most cases the bishop has only to make aleatory moves and it's a draw.

There's a famous position with 8 pawns up... It's a draw too.

With rooks, it all depends... Sometimes it's harder to get a draw with opposite color bishops than same color ones.

See the 'endgames' Wikipedia article...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame#Bishops_on_opposite_colors

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-12 17:02:26)
Tie break

... I wouldn't like to be this world champion :/

Tie break with rapid games is definitely a bad idea IMO.

Former world champion should retain the crown in case of equality... Ok, this is particular case here as they're two world champions, but the result will be difficult to accept for everyone... In this case the match should continue until one takes a 1 or 2 points lead.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-12 17:21:24)
... rapid games

Huh.. I've no idea... All I know : They played a blitz game just before the match and it was a draw (dutch opening) :)

Maybe we'll have surprises (at last) in the openings, but the result will be so aleatory...

Miguel Pires    (2006-10-12 21:45:05)
TIME CONTROL

Please setup the same time control for GK and FICGS games. I'm playing wit cairo in GK with this time control 10+1<10 Regard's Miguel Pires PS: I put a similar post in GK

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-13 14:59:59)
Rapid games : Kramnik leads...

Veselin Topalov - Vladimir Kramnik (rapid 1)

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Qe2 0-0 10.e4 Bg6 11.Bd3 Bh5 12.e5 Nd5 13.Nxd5 cxd5 14.Qe3 Re8 15.Ne1 Rc8 16.f4 Bxe1 17.Rxe1 Bg6 18.Bf1 Rc2 19.b3 Qa5 20.Bb5 Rd8 21.Re2 Rcc8 22.Bd2 Qb6 23.Rf2 a6 24.Bf1 Rc6 25.b4 Rc2 26.b5 a5 27.Bc3 Rxf2 28.Qxf2 Qa7 29.Qd2 Ra8 30.Rc1 Nb6 31.Bb2 Nxa4 32.Ba3 h6 33.h3 Be4 34.Kh2 Nb6 35.Bc5 a4 36.Ra1 Nc4 37.Bxc4 b6 38.Qe3 Rc8 39.Bf1 bxc5 40.dxc5 Qxc5 41.Qxc5 Rxc5 42.b6 Rc6 43.b7 Rb6 44.Ba6 d4 45.Rxa4 Bxb7 46.Bxb7 Rxb7 47.Rxd4 1/2-1/2

Vladimir Kramnik - Veselin Topalov (rapid 2)

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.b3 0-0 8.Be2 b6 9.0-0 Bb7 10.Bb2 Re8 11.Rad1 Qe7 12.Rfe1 Rac8 13.Bd3 e5 14.e4 dxc4 15.Bxc4 b5 16.Bf1 g6 17.Qd2 Rcd8 18.Qg5 a6 19.h3 exd4 20.Nxd4 Qe5 21.Qxe5 Nxe5 22.Nc2 g5 23.Bc1 h6 24.Be3 c5 25.f3 Bf8 26.Bf2 Bc8 27.Ne3 Be6 28.Ned5 Bxd5 29.exd5 Ned7 30.Rxe8 Rxe8 31.a4 b4 32.Ne4 Nxe4 33.fxe4 Nf6 34.d6 Nxe4 35.d7 Rd8 36.Bxa6 f5 37.a5 Bg7 38.Bc4+ Kf8 39.a6 Nxf2 40.Kxf2 Bd4+ 41.Rxd4 cxd4 42.a7 Ke7 43.Bd5 Kxd7 44.a8Q Rxa8 45.Bxa8 1-0

Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-13 16:32:42)
Re: Game of time ?!?!

Hello Thibault, please have a look on the behavior of one of the players in our common tournament #002. I find no other way as shaking my head on it!

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-13 17:57:26)
Kramnik world champion !

Congratulations to Vladimir Kramnik ! .. I was to say "this is a great day for chess" but I think I'll wait to see how FIDE will manage it... At least this is a great day for Kramnik :)

The story "ends well" at first sight, but can Topalov sue Fide as I read it already...

To be continued.

Dinesh De Silva    (2006-10-14 07:16:49)
Re:

Hi, chess friend Utesch! I have no leave time left, as FICGS only allows 30 days leave, and I had to use it up in the early part of this year. So, there's not a single day of leave for this year. (If you check with Thibault, you'll see that I haven't entered for any new tournaments since more than two months).

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-14 18:33:37)
Chess and Go diagrams / Forum update

A major update for FICGS forums (& blogs) !

Now you can insert Chess & Go diagrams in messages...
(useful to submit chess problems, analysis and so on...)

See the FAQ in help section - http://www.ficgs.com/help.html - for details, in example here is the position of the last game in the FIDE world chess championship between Veselin Topalov & Vladimir Kramnik, just before Topalov blunder 44. ...Rxc5 ??

ChessPosition (see diagram)

Diagrams format is quite simple (see Help), please note only one diagram / position will be displayed per message.

Also minor bugs (links, search functions) corrected...

Wayne Lowrance    (2006-10-14 18:37:24)
Best game

While kicking around the site I got the message advising my posting of a game of mine in "Best game" I don"t know how that happened, but it rembarrases me. I would not have made the post voluntarily (2168). Remove it for consideration please.....Wayne

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-14 18:53:21)
Re: Best game

Ok, the vote has been removed...

I just saw game 2222 was the best game now.. Please vote game 342 ! :)

Benjamin Aldag    (2006-10-18 19:59:02)
Kick this player !!!

Hello, please KICK this player: Arsch, Popo His handle is german "arsch = asshole" ! Thank You !

Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-19 07:06:14)
Game of time ?!?!

No lessons learned - the same procedure as before! Our specialist for the last minute stays faithful to himself.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-19 12:59:24)
Re: En route

??? (forum - english please ;))

Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-21 10:51:02)
Thinking on opponents' time

Most of my opponents are wondering how I'm able to managing my answers to their moves so quick on a very high level!? There is no mystery - I'm just thinking on there time! There are only very rare situations where a answer of may opponents is able to surprising me. So my next move is nearly always clear and I can do it immediately and - after it - I'm thinking on of next opponent's move. Just a suggestion. Wolfgang

Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-21 11:31:16)
Some strange tactics with server chess

Server chess is allowing to see all parallel games in the same tournament. So some players hope to get an advantage by playing their first moves very slow. Perhaps they can learn (so they hope) by the other more progressed games of their opponents. It's legal but not so funny - neither for their opponents nor for themselves! Playing your own style will give you the most satisfaction! Wolfgang

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-21 12:38:30)
Junior 10

I don't have this one, but I experienced the strange behaviour of Junior chess engine, which may 'guess' the best moves for some 'bad' (at least not enough) reasons... I don't trust it much, but it may inspire with some ideas.

Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-23 11:13:43)
Rating / 8-game match

Hello Thibault, it doesn't make any sense to count all results for the rating, independent whether generated by playing out or forfeits about time issues. At least one rating seems to be very excessive affected by this practise in the FICS Chess Championship! Wolfgang

Don Burden    (2006-10-26 02:32:25)
Rating / 8-game-match

Seems to me that the large jump in ratings is the result of a problem, where the root problem seems to be that there are just way too many players on here that for whatever reason just drop out and don't want to finish their games. Don't know how you would fix that.

In my WCH Stage 1 section that I just finished, two of the top 3 rated players in my section both gave up and quit. One player without playing a single move. The rules say that in the case of tied scores, only the higher rated player advances. There are two players in my section, myself and another, both finishing with 5.5 points out of 6. I think that's a pretty good score, but apparently it's not good enough because only one advances. If all 7 players had played all games to completion, the chances of having a clear winner, and a final score somewhat lower than 5.5 out of 6 would have been much greater.

Glen D. Shields    (2006-10-26 16:21:03)
It's Been Awhile ....

This tournament is the first time in awhile since I played on the Gameknot server. A lot has changed in server chess during my absence, but not at GameKnot. There are two GK annoyances. I point them out NOT to trash GK, it's a well designed chess server, but hope that someone from GK who is following this match can instigate appropriate modifications. I REALLY wish the e-mail notification indicating my opponent has moved would show his move. I have a lot of on-going games and don't have the time to make an extra log-on to GK just to get my opponent's move. Also for those who use Opera, take note GK does not work (at least not for me). The board consistently shows up minus half the pieces. Refreshing the screen helps sometimes, but not always. An extra log-in with my non-favorite browsers is not particularly endearing :)

Pekka I. Turakainen    (2006-10-26 18:04:25)
Reveal your software

Engines against engines....please, at least tell what chess engine you're using, so that your opponent knows which engine defeated his engine....like Shredder 10 vs. Shredder 10 1-0. Better advise: If you want to know which engine is strongest, please don't play here, visit some site that has ratings for chessengines.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-28 17:43:05)
Match FICGS vs. GameKnot , the games

Hello to all.

It would be great to follow how the match evolve in this thread. As far as I know GameKnot leads by 1-0 (Ilmars blundered :))

http://gameknot.com/anbd.pl?bd=5966999&rnd=0.9197820842414586

It seems that's possible to link to all games (that started) on GameKnot, so feel free to post the links & results here.

Reminder, you can follow games played on FICGS there :
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__FICGS_VS_GAMEKNOT_MATCH.html

John Acre    (2006-10-30 22:09:15)
lowball

I absolutely use an engine. The permitted use of engines is the only reason I'm at this site to begin with..... ........... ........... ........... ............. .............. ........... Engine assisted games can be a great study tool, if used correctly. I analyze each position to the best of my ability, record my candidate moves. Select one, record it, and then feed the position into Fritz to see how it evaluates the position......... ........... ............ ............. ........... ............. ............... ............. If my move is in the same ballpark, I make my selected move, I feel fricking great, and I await my opponent's reply. If my move is substantially inferior to Fritz's selection, I try to figure out why, and then I play Fritz's move. This way, not only do I get to understand the positions rising out of my chosen opening in a depth I could otherwise never approach without professional guidance, but each step of the way, I learn to play the next move's position as if the strongest move had been played............. ............ ........... ............. ............ ........... ........... .......... .......... If an opponent blunders in a big way, I mostly let Fritz finish him off, because the game is of no study value to me beyond that point. I don't care what my rating is, except that it be at a number where I can join a variety of rated tournaments (to face a variety of opposition). I don't play at this site to win, or to lose. I play here to get as close as a ~1600 OTB player like me can get to understanding the objective truth of the game............ ........... ........... ........... ........... ............. ............ ........ Sorry if that upsets anybody, but that's the whole reason I'm here. The community isn't big enough to have much independent value as a non-engine-assisted place to play correspondence matches. And why would one bother? There are a million of those places on the web. This place, however, is a one-of-a-kind goldmine. If engine play were to dry up or be outlawed here, what would be the point?....... ........... .......... ........ ........... ......... ........ ........... ............ .......... Anyway, to answer, from my viewpoint, another question asked in this thread, I'm currently self-rated at 1500 for this site. I'm playing in tournaments at about that level, and am admittedly using Fritz 9. My record, out of 20 or so games, looks like it's going to be about 4 wins, 6 losses, and 10 draws......... ............ ........... ............ ............ ............ ........... ............. ...... Only two of those wins are going to be miniatures, and both of those against the same guy. So playing with engine-assisted strength of around 2500 on my slow-ish machine, I'm going to score around 45%, with about 17 out of 18 opponents playing at or above my machine-enhanced strength............... ........... ............. ............ ........ ............ ........... People guessing 50% of users here use engines are lowballing, bigtime. I estimate around 95%. And I have no problem saying that I'm one of them.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-31 09:50:28)
Red mark + Message

Graham, really ? Please note the red mark is only displayed on the 'move' page, when you're to play a move. (not in the viewer page ie.)

Sebastian, that's quite right, messages may be forgotten on the 'move' page... But I thought it would be hard not to see it on the 'move_confirm' (cf. url) page, above the 'send' button... That's a problem to displace the board at the bottom IMO :/ And a popup window wouldn't be appreciated... I have no better idea at this time.

Thanks for feedback.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-31 09:58:18)
2nd FICGS chess WCH waiting list is open

Hello Wayne.

I can do this tomorrow. If the issue is about rating, please note that ratings taken in account at the start of the tournaments (TER : Tournament Entry Rating) are current ones at this time - november rating if this cycle starts ie. on december 15) - so ratings will be automatically updated in the waiting list...

Kind regards.

Saksham Wal    (2006-10-31 22:53:03)
Help For New Members

I tried to check all existing post, but could not find what i Needed. Can someone Please Help me out in Few Things

1. How do i Start a Single Game Here ? Or playing Tournaments is the only way?

How do i find out which Tournaments are Open to join and which ones are already closed?

2. Are all moves played by e-mail(if yes, how?) or is there on site-java based Interface or something of the sort (eg: like features on GameKnot )

I understand that my Questions Might happen to be silly but well... i-need-to-know...

Hope this topic does not annoy anyone.

Regards

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-05 12:45:06)
Fischer : "Now chess is completely dead"

A new interview from the former world chess champion Bobby Fischer...

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3468

No surprise : Fischer’s problems with the Union Bank of Switzerland, United states founded and being run by extremists, Capablanca brillancy, but also : "I don’t like chess any more" (what about chess 960 ?), "Now chess is completely dead. It is all just memorisation and prearrangement. It’s a terrible game now. Very uncreative"...

I just wonder.. How can we find so much pleasure in correspondence chess ? .. Was his pleasure only to destroy weak players or in real challenges against strong[er] players (ie. Karpov).. I can understand why a grandmaster stop to play competitive chess because it's too hard & it takes too much time, but I can't explain myself such a champion finding "limits" to chess & getting no more pleasure...

"Play Go !" :)

Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-11-12 15:21:39)
Chess problem

Hello Thibault, I think you are wrong! This position is one of my last finished games on ICCF and one of my best - at least from this position to the end. It seems to be very important to find first the better way for Black instead of his last move. Greetings, Wolfgang

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-12 20:03:22)
Nice endgame

Really hard. This is not a clear win (still not sure it is)... :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-14 12:44:39)
A story of chess...

'not boring', at least :)

Hello again & welcome ! .. I'm so curious, I would have number of questions (regarding to chess, of course :)), like first at what age did you begin to play chess (maybe correspondence chess)... You probably know chess stories that nobody knows. But I don't want to take your time.

All the best, Thibault

Arthur Alfred Macarsindale    (2006-11-14 13:22:07)
Story Of Life and Chess

Often closer linked than people may think! Ask me anything you feel you want to please.Chess or otherwise.I can only answer or not answer! I was taught chess by a relative who was a rather fine player when I was aged 9 in 1921. He died when I was 12 years old and so I lost a playing partner. I was married in 1932 and, seeing the ghastly goings-on in Germany in 1930s knowing that the whole show was starting again as it had in 1914 ,I vowed to ensure that a group of thugs and criminals would not be taking a foot on the shores and shires of Great Britain and bringing along some new age of butchery and lunacy . And so the RAF was my home for the next 15 years from 1938. I revisited chess principally in 1940 and that was hot summer's days outside playing cards,chess and other games waiting for the phone to ring and 'scramble'. Unfortunately two of my chaps who I played often with were shot down and killed over Kent in August 1940. I miss them both to this day. Then I did not play for years until the advent of correspondence chess in the 1960s and 1970s through the postal mail. And since 1998 the Internet. There you have it!

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-14 16:47:18)
Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz, 2006

In less than 2 weeks from now, classical & FIDE world champion Vladimir Kramnik will play the best (at least most famous) chess program Deep Fritz 10 !

From november 25 to december 5, 2006 at the Federal Art Hall in Bonn. One million US dollars for Kramnik if he defeats Deep Fritz, half this amount otherwise...

We did not forget the previous match in Bahrain (2002), that ended with a 3-3 score.

Do you feel Fritz improved enough to beat a player like Kramnik, who most probably improved his play too... Will Kramnik play rather different openings than in his match against Topalov ? .. Anyway it should be an interesting match to follow.

A few links :

http://www.kramnik.com/eng/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=95
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2947

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-15 02:35:07)
FICGS update : Security improved

Hello to all.

You may (sure :)) have noticed the new login page with two forms.

This is most probably temporary.

Of course, passwords are stored 'hashed' on the server so that noone can retrieve it, even me... Now, if you login with the first form, your password won't be even sent through the internet, it is hashed by your browser before. Second, passwords won't be stored anymore in cookies with the secure form. At last, a new barrier against hacking... The old form is still available because it might be possible for certain players to be disconnected early because of their changing ip address (according to the internet provider).

Please just tell me if you encounter any problem. Thanks in advance :)

Arthur Alfred Macarsindale    (2006-11-15 11:43:50)
this site and others

may i say what a joy this site is to play on.Nice people,etc. I play also at GameKnot and the reason I chose that is because the chess board graphic is excellent and clear. No criticism of yours at all but for old eyes that one is wonderful.

Arthur Alfred Macarsindale    (2006-11-15 11:45:41)
this site and others

Oh yes friends. also QueenAlice. Again because the graphics are so clear! Please do not construe my comments as criticism.They are not intended that way. BUT a nice GameKnot or QueenAlice board on here would be nice. Hope my comments are taken as they are intended.

Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-11-15 16:33:53)
Nice endgame

It is another endgame, but I didn't find any clear win with Rook+Knight+2 Pawns vs. Queen. But in the other endgame 3 Pawn vs. Bishop there is a clear winning way - complicate, but clear!

Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-11-15 16:40:51)
Nice endgame, too! :)

Ok, I will look for clear win!

For me that endgame is easier than another one. Here black has only one piece instead of two. :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-15 16:41:25)
Out of topic :)

Ilmars, it is no worth finding another way to win for White :) .. Please help me to save the Black position after 50.g5! .. that's real challenge !

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-15 21:30:40)
New chessboards

Ok, some new chessboards (default big & giant) are really awful :)

I've just added two sets : "Graphics" is nice and quite big, "Phantom" is... big only !

If you know places on internet where one can download nice free pictures (gif format) for each chess pieces, please send me your links...

Thanks in advance.

Ryaad Aabid    (2006-11-16 01:42:44)
Something to be changed

FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_C__000005 Game 741 The clock of my opponent was almost 0:0 He came and has done his move #22 until the move #31 , then he hid after his clock drank 40 days! What type players is there? I think something should be changed. Another opponent (Game 1265) has appeared after his clock became almost 3 days! Either I am an unlucky player, or there is somerule should be changed. Because of this I will leave, but never leave those 2 games for the rubbish of the chess:Adrian and Balogh.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-16 01:56:57)
Something to be changed

Hmmm... Dinesh has his fans :) ... (just a joke)

This has been discussed before : Server chess has clear time rules, some players may "play" with the slow time controls, sometimes for a good reason, sometimes not... It can't be totally prevented (or feel free make suggestions).

Looking at your clocks, that all reached 100 days, I suggest you to play rapid tournaments. This problem won't happen often this way !

Best regards.

Ryaad Aabid    (2006-11-16 09:28:27)
Suggestion

All openings became known nowadays. If the opponents ends the openinig step, the clock will automatically be changed from 30 or 40 days to 7 or 10 days. If the player has no time enough to visit the website during 7 or 10 days, he/she should take vacation, otherwise to leave! instead of bothering his/her opponents. Thank you Thibault, Ryaad

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-16 13:27:51)
Please link to FICGS

Dear friends, you may know how it is important for a website to be linked from other places on the internet since Google created his famous ranking system Pagerank...

FICGS has got about 1,000 links so far (not too bad after 7 months) for a Pagerank 5, but the more links, the more players !

Feel free to link to FICGS from your website, blog, in forums and so on...

You may contact me - info (at) ficgs.com - if you have a chess or Go related website, so that I add it in the file that displays random links at the bottom of each game page, ie. http://www.ficgs.com/game_342.html

A link written one of these ways would be very appreciated :

<a href="http://www.ficgs.com " title="Correspondence Chess Server">FICGS</a>
<a href="http://www.ficgs.com " title="Chess Server">FICGS chess server</a>
<a href="http://www.ficgs.com " title="Go Server">FICGS Go server</a>
<a href="http://www.ficgs.com/forum.html " title="Chess forum">FICGS chess forum</a>
<a href="http://www.ficgs.com/wikichess.html " title="Wikichess">Wikichess</a>

Thanks in advance !

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-16 23:48:55)
Nice endgame

Hello Wolfgang.

No need to play it anymore..... g5 ! wins.

But is it the only winning move... That's another study. Actually, this game looks like numerous high-level correspondence chess wins, "winning" moves are quite natural & clear and it may be very hard to know the first loosing move (which is always unique). Not very spectacular, but very technical & instructive. Thanks :)

Glen D. Shields    (2006-11-17 06:39:51)
Changing World

It's interesting to read players correspondence chess expectations as technology evolves.

What we see on servers like FICGS is the integration of players with various chess backgrounds and expectations. Players who grew up with the internet, and whose first chess experiences were real time chess servers expect games to move quickly. Players who grew up playing correspondence chess by postcard expect games to move much more slowly.

Personally I'm as equalled annoyed by players who stall (like the one described by Mr. Aabid) as I am by those who think move-a-minute correspondence chess is cute. It's going to take time and creativity by the server owners to balance players needs/interests. My ideal is when both players move at a steady 2-3 days per move pace (with the obvious exception for holidays, work, illness, etc). Those games stay interesting from start to finish and always seem to end with a pleasant thank you and congratulations.

Dorel Oltean    (2006-11-19 15:51:50)
retire, come back. What's next ?

Is allowed to retire from FICGS tournaments (loosing around 10 games on time) and then come back to resume unfinished games and start new ones? The answer is YES , it happened and , after more then a week from my previous message, it seems it can happen again. The soft reaction of the administrator of the site and the totally (surprising for me) lack of reaction from any FICGS member showed it’s only me who has a problem. (Maybe, by changing the subject, my message was hidden behind the discussions about ‘the 60 days rule’). I cannot accept that ! For me chess is a serious thing. I consider chess a sport where the equality of chances and the respect for the competition must be the first rules. So I decided to retire from all FICGS tournaments . In M02 group I didn’t finished any game so my retiring will not affect the final standing. In WCH M01 I have only one unfinished game and my opponent will finish second last anyway. So my withdraw will only permit someone else to finish first and qualify instead of me. In my last group, A02 I wish to finish my remaining game (if I am allowed) than I will leave, with real sorrow, FICGS for good. Whishing you nice games Dorel Oltean

Charlie Neil    (2006-11-19 17:05:27)
Retire and come back.

I'm sorry to read that you feel you have to leave because of the behaviour of some other people. I think that is just one of the drawbacks of having a free site on the internet. Anyone can join our "club" and conduct themselves in an unsporting manner. I think it is just one of those things. I have been the victim of similar unsportsman like behaviour in over the board games, by post and on similar sites here on the net. I just think you get that tiny minotiry (and that is all they are) who mess around. I do like playing on ficgs and , (so far) have been paired with well-mannered opponents who play fair. I have had a number of silent withdrawals but that is to be expected. I am just sad to think if any well meaning players would leave because of someone messing around. But life's like that, that's the way it is.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-19 17:56:13)
Retire and come back.

Hello Dorel.

I'm very sorry about that, but actually Charlie just said everything.

"It is just one of the drawbacks of having a free site on the internet."

This was only an obvious example, but the problem is quite more complex... What about a player who just looses a game on time and continue his other games. Farther, why a player should draw to another one and win to a third. Any result in any round-robin tournament is partly 'aleatory' and depends on many other factors than chess, particularly rules.

It also happens in over the board tournaments to get prizes, it can happen everywhere and at ICCF too... That's why I prefer knockout system. Of course, I'd like to solve all problems, but no rules are perfect. (by the way all suggestions are welcome)

The original post was in 'temps de réflexion' thread :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=1453

Best wishes.

Marius Zubac    (2006-11-19 19:21:59)
A penalty system is needed

Hello Thibault. I think that time has come for you to add new rules to FICGS and a penalty system (using penalty points) to discourage players from retire-comeback behavior. Loosing some games on time unless provoked by some unforeseen event should be also penalized although less severe. Upon reaching a certain number of penalty points the player should be prevented to register for new FICGS tournaments (let's say a half a year) and on resuming the penalized player should be only allowed to play a limited number of games until the lesson is learned. If you would compare FICGS list with the server-based IECG list you should notice that FICGS is less populated in the strong players section (2200+) than IECG and this has an impact on the quality of high-end tournaments, norms and titles and of course ratings. If we want to improve FICGS some action in this regard must be taken. I sympathize with Mr. Oltean and wish he reconsiders his decision. Marius

Lawrence Nesko    (2006-11-20 00:52:58)
Perhaps a silly question, but...

Hello, all. I'm new to the world of correspondence chess. So if my question is naive, or has been answered at some point in the past, I apologize. It seems that there are no single-elimination tournaments available on FICGS. Why is this? Please don't take this question as a form of comlaint. I'm merely curious. Have I overlooked something? Or is it simply not the norm in the chess world, correspondence or otherwise?

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-20 01:33:29)
Re: The penalty system - a proposal

Ok, I say why not... But once again the problem is : What to do if a player looses only one game on time (after 12 moves, very small advantage for his opponent) in a tournament ? .. How to be sure he has bad or good reasons ? How to prove a 'retirement' ? .. My opinion is you can't prevent all cheating attempts (obvious or agreements between players), but we have to discourage them as much as possible. At IECG, there are many tournament directors but a player can withdraw from a tournament without loosing a single point, and there are consequences on the result in all ways.

CJS Purdy : "The only valid excuse for withdrawal from a chess tournament is death, and then only with a death certificate" :)

I think FICGS rules are quite hard already. Most important is to follow clear rules, with no human decision as much as possible. Still looking for improvements.

Daniel Khayman    (2006-11-20 08:23:52)
Wikichess

Still me and still new. It's not quite clear to me how this Wikichess function works and what its purpose is. It looks like some sort of communal board where anyone can make a move and comment on it but, can one go back and replay previous moves in a different way? and what else can one do? Thanks, Daniel

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-20 15:59:46)
Go : Komi

Komi 7.5 points is the 'estimated' fair value while playing perfect (at least pro)...

Since we use elo rating system for Go, I think any handicap (stones or komi) is nonsense, but maybe we could create an unrated category of tournaments, simultaneous games or matches with a handicap... Could be fun & more interesting in some cases.

Lionel Vidal    (2006-11-20 21:29:31)
You seems in advance :-)

Well, considering the results of last year pro games (almost a perfect 50-50 result, according to my rather large but admittedly incomplete database) I am not sure a komi change from 6.5 will occur soon, at least in the japanese pro scene... And the number of recent games in gobase that ends in 1 or 1/2 points difference is astonishing :-) (not really significant, I know, as pros have the capacity to keep a tiny edge till the end, reducing it to simplify the game... but still :-))
Anyway, for us, simple and humble go mortals, that does not change much :-)

(but even at my low level I tend to be more aggressive in my fuseki while playing with an opponent of my level or stronger when the komi is 7.5 instead of say 5.5... so considering the increase/decrease (black/white) of aggressive attitude, maybe it is important for most of us because the feeling of a game might eventually change)

Lionel Vidal    (2006-11-20 21:57:03)
Go handicap and rating

Is handicap Go really nonsensical in rated tournaments?
While it seems so in a world championship, where the aim is to determine the stronger player in an absolute sense, why should it be so in a tournament, where the aim is to determine the best player in a relative sense... hum, not a very clean or clear sentence, but I hope you got the idea :-)

In face to face Go, in most amateur tournaments, it is not a problem, and you can win or loose a tournament, win or loose points, playing with an handicap (some tournaments set a limit lower than 9 in the number of handicap stones). I do not know the formulae used to compute the knew ratings, but in practice it works well. (and the same thing works also in Shogi tournaments)

Before WWII, even pros played with handicap (one or two stones at most, more commonly with a fixed color and no komi) and that *for money*!! Nowadays this is not the case anymore: maybe the increase of pro-tournament prizes change the noble way to be the best of two players fighting *their best* at their *respective* level!

Anyway, I think such an idea may be interresting to motivate players: when weaker, I will fight my best because I have a chance to win, and when stronger, I *have* to fight well :-)

We could think of a rating system where you play your first, say, 20 games without handicap to get a starting rating, and then to receive or give handicaps automatically in tournaments. We could then consider a rating as fixed after a bunch of 20 more games...
Or any other system that will always generate tense and dangerous games! That will be, at least for me, a great motivation to play more :-)
(but then I do not care much for my rating :-))

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-21 11:14:13)
Weather

Hi Ilmars.

Sorry, the weather was quite bad yesterday and we had some electricity problems here :)

I'll respond to your moves today. (I responded already in the Traxler line, please re-send your move to me, thx)

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-21 11:32:39)
Go: Komi

Stones handicap or Komi handicap is handicap anyway... I'm not sure it makes sense to change the Komi (Lionel would agree, I think).

As I just said in another thread, if we add a handicap system which gives chances enough to weak players against strong players, I'm afraid results & ratings / ranks don't mean anything anymore then, at least more aleatory. This is another game... (and such 'strange' rules might frighten beginners).

I think it could be ok (as another challenge) in an unrated tournaments category.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-21 11:40:05)
Messages

Hello Daniel.

So sorry to read this... Please just tell me if you want your post to be edited.

All the best, Thibault.

Lionel Vidal    (2006-11-21 13:47:55)
Komi vs handicap

IMO, Thibault is quite right: it would make no sense to increase Komi instead of playing with handicap stones.
To give points or to give stones is not the same: the very nature of handicap stones is pedagogic, that is to help *both* players to improve. Go strategy is complex, but can often been seen as a delicate balance between power (thickness) and territory (points). Handicap stones are put on Hoshi on purpose: to help the weaker player to build and use thickness, the most difficult concept to master compare to territory, where a beginner can actually count concrete points (or so he believes at first :-)
Playing at 9 handicap stones, or giving, say, 100 points komi is not the same and never will be: the weaker player has no chance with such a komi, because he will have no anchor to help his stones live and will probably be completely destroyed... but much worse, he cannot improve his play easily because he'll never be in a position where he could *try* to think strategically.
IMO, true go is not non-handicap go, but a fair game where the tactical and strategic true nature of the game is preserved. How could we say that, for instance, Dosaku 'Go Saint' games are not true go, when he was at least one stone stronger than all his fellow pro players, giving them Black (no komi at that time) or one,two stones?
The beauty of handicap go is that IMO it *is* still true go :-) You can compare to chess where giving a piece, say a N as Lasker used to do, change the strategic nature of the game through a controlled exchange policy.

Sebastian Palozzi    (2006-11-21 15:53:22)
Vacation Help

Hello All, I've entered a vacation period in error. Is it possible to cancel the vacation? Please advise, Regards, Sebastian

Wayne Lowrance    (2006-11-21 18:51:35)
Messages

Dan I have lost your e-mail somehow. Dan, Dorothy and I continue to pray for you and your son. Would you send me your e-mail please. I have more to say that best be personnal. Keep up your faith my good friend Thanks to all members of this forum to allow me to communicate with my friend Wayne

Barry Bell    (2006-11-22 05:17:38)
Introduction

Thank you Thibault for your warm welcome, please feel free to create a 178 x 159 pixels jpg providing information about your site and I will post it a soon as possible. P.S. this offer is available to any webmaster that runs an online turn based chess system. Thanks again.

Dinesh De Silva    (2006-11-23 04:14:40)
Re:

I think I figured it out: 1. A player has to log in to that site at least once every 7 days. 2. A player does not know whether his/her opponent has made a move until he/she logs in to check out. 3. A player who fails to make a move within 7 days loses the game. What I haven't figured out is whether computer analysis is allowed or not. Is it totally banned there???

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-24 01:16:50)
dreams are not reality...

Elmer, let me dream a few days more, please :)

If the match is not 'arranged', everything can happen. I'm sure Kramnik can win 1 game or 2, and draw the other ones...

Chess engines have nothing more to prove, a win for Kramnik would give new interest for the match Kramnik vs. Fritz 12, a draw would be a non-event and a loss for Kramnik would be interpreted as "Chess is completely dead"... Not so good for Chessbase... Choose.

But finally, if Bobby was right ? :) .. (sure not)

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-27 03:30:23)
"Next" request

I just changed the order, now "Next" links to the game where last move is most recent. This way, games we have to think about more are reached at the end. More logical (in practice, at least)...

Elmer Valderrama    (2006-11-27 20:40:39)
one move deeper..

..well, "Deep" Fritz 10 is at least one move deeper than Kramnik

Kramnik blundered mate in 1 in game 2 :(

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-28 13:38:30)
FICGS chat !

Hello to all.

You probably noticed this new window on the right... :)

This is a chat window, here you can write to everyone in the international chat, and to people from your country only (in your own language !). You can moderate the messages by clicking on the arrow just before each message (please use it with moderation)...

Question is : Should it be permanent or not ??

Two ways :

1. It could appear only from time to time...
2. There should be a way to close the window during the session.

Feel free to tell me if you encounter any problem... Thanks for feedback !

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-28 16:53:37)
"Remove comment"

About this feature "Remove comment" : Of course I can see who removed any comment.

I make this site so that it can be auto-moderated. Please remove only abusing posts.

Thanks in advance.

Jason Repa    (2006-11-28 20:32:05)
new chat bar

The "chat" bar you have added to the right of the screen is extremely annoying and makes it difficult to concentrate on the chess position. I am requesting that you remove it. You can put a link to the chat in the left "links" pane. It's not necessary to have to view this annoying chat bar constantly. If you're not willing to remove it, at the very least make it the same color as the rest of the page so it doesn't stick out visually as it does. Thank you!

Don Groves    (2006-11-29 08:04:02)
Go: Komi revisited

This may have already been discussed but I wasn't around then. ;) I've read in more than one place that komi in Chinese scoring should be half the Japanese value or 3.75 instead of 7.5. Comments please.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-29 12:16:21)
"Next" request

Actually, it depends on quite aleatory factors.

"Next" request can't predict what game you want to avoid to play particularly :/ .. In my opinion, this change makes it better. Of course not perfect.

Jaimie Wilson    (2006-11-30 15:14:36)
Game 3

I could be wrong, but I suspect fritz thought he had a clear advantage when the draw was agreed. My fritz 9 said something like -1 although even I would have fancied my drawing chances in the final position (maybe overoptimistically against a 2800 rated comp :) ).

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-01 11:19:43)
Deep Fritz, Rybka & future

The Chess Challenge 2006 in Bonn between classical world champion Vladimir Kramnik and chess engine Deep Fritz 10 confirms (who ignored ?) the best chess programs can rivalize with the world champion in a match, but it first shows us these calculating monsters still have weaknesses.

Question is : What are the real improvements in Fritz 10 compared to Fritz 9 (engine speaking only) ?

Here is what I think about chess engines nowadays (Fritz 10, Shredder, 10, Junior 10, Hiarcs 10 and particularly Rybka 2.2) :

The way of think to play correspondence chess is (or should be) mostly human one combined with a chess engine algorithm. We follow the tree of moves like a program with our selective algorithm (much better than chess engines), applying our judgement of the position when necessary only. The point is we evaluate moves and we almost never evaluate a position twice.

Chess engines are very good analysis tools but are surprisingly not designed to be very good chess players. I think a major improvement in chess engines should be recognition of 'sufficient moves' : ie. it is no worth to always find the best move at a particular point of the tree, this reflection time could be used later... It depends on the evaluation of the position, on the clocks... Iterative model is quite basic (in a game at least !).

Another point is recognition of traps. This is the start of psychology in chess engines, and basics of the art of war. It first depends on who your opponent is, and on the clocks too. Finally, at the end of the tree, chess engines evaluate positions, but how many evaluate moves ? .. Speculative moves were a step, but it first shew chess engines were not able yet to see what move is worth to be analysed really deeper, consequently creating a 'human' weakness, particularly against some other chess engines.

I don't know how Rybka works, but as far as I read about this one that calculates much less positions (about 10 times) than Fritz, I wouldn't be surprised that Vasik Rajlich had implemented a better approach of human way of think, which is undoubtly the future of chess engines.

A good 'centaur' in ie. Playchess rapid tournaments is first a good choice between Chessbase engines according to the position and clocks. Fritz qualities probably apply best in standard games, where clocks are really designed for him. Among Chessbase engines, Hiarcs is probably the best Blitz player and could be the best correspondence chess player (even if it isn't the best CC tool for humans). Rybka is probably a kind of centaur itself (sorry, herself ;)), knowing when to use (in the tree !) brute force and more selective approachs - not to be compared to Hydra or Deep Blue which, on contrary, use most brute force.

My conclusion is chess engines have much to learn from humans yet, we'll see a Rybka 5 and Fritz 13, with much better results against other chess engines, but their results shouldn't increase a lot against the best humans in future. Finally, it will never be a good correspondence chess player :)

My two cents.

If I find time, I'll continue to implement my own chess engine..... but it's a lot of work :/

Lionel Vidal    (2006-12-01 21:42:25)
Intuition?! what for?

Don't you think intuition in any abstract game is in fine just a nice word to hide our (that is human) limitation in analytical power?
In many very good chess books (see for instance Watson opus), intuition is indeed shown as not an adequate compensation for a good, reliable, concrete analysis. Of course, for us humans, it is still very useful because the experience of already seen patterns may suggest the very best move in a given position, without even any calculation... but if you had the power to make a complete analysis, would you still use your intuition?

My feeling (and I am not very happy with that, but I don't see any evidence to contradict it) is that in 98% of positions, the brute-force stupid way of computers is already deep enough in the tree of possibilities to find the very best move (at least in any practical sense)... and the 2% left is only interresting for correspondence players... and then, only for the very best who can claim enough expertise, or enough time :-)

Now I am sure chess can still be fun: the old and only true chess way has just been re-edited: "tempête sur l'échiquier" (sorry I don't know the name of the english version)... at least I feel competitive enough :-))

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-02 02:12:06)
Intuition?! What for ?

That is huge, indeed. That's why computers alone couldn't play correspondence chess at a high level... These 2% of moves are enough to beat them, at least to score 3 out of 4.

Lionel Vidal    (2006-12-02 08:55:46)
Intuition?! What for ?

3 out of 4? Really? Which test-matches are you refering to?
Leotard made a test (won :-) and with grand manner) but that was years ago, and besides, he is one of the very best :-)
Then there is the match against a panel of different engines by Ham: even if he does not play at the same level than Leotard, he is quite a good player!... and the results were very far from 3 to 4 for human :-( (that was also years ago!) Then there are the hydra matches... :-( the results are not very good also for humans and the game comments are very instructive: against first class expertise chess knowledge and intuition, the 'dump' brute force machine managed to handle quite well complex ending positions...at least as well as all correspondence players but the very best (I would say the top 20 at most :-()
Maybe there is some recent test I am not aware of?

But the point really is: who can play like, say, Leotard? Of course, he says he can crush computers, just by playing them like 2500 rated players... well, I can believe that... but when I play a fritz-push-button opponent, I am only a 2300 player... have I to use also an engine to have a chance (and one game out of ten, be very proud to have chosen another move than one of the few the engine suggested as best and still not have lost... ok, just kidding :-)?
It can be still fun, but I think it is not the same kind of chess Leotard alludes to when speaking of himself in his after match interview :-)

Elmer Valderrama    (2006-12-02 13:56:38)
Deep Joke

You have to agree that it's hard to be serious when a new program is more like a joke, a Deep Joke that is :p

OTOH I expect CB to get serious and release a really strong version of the program.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-03 22:10:26)
Google Adsense

Hello to all.

You probably noticed these ads under the search field and on the chat bar.

Google Adsense could work with such a site with more than 24,000 pages viewed per day and constantly increasing, so I try. The idea is quite clear, if Google can sponsorize the server and FICGS championships prizes, they are welcome IMO. Google Adsense is an intelligent system, and adverts are quite relevant.

However, this is a test only ! .. Let's see.

Feel free to tell me what you think, is it unbearable, is it useful ?! .. Thanks for feedback !

Don Groves    (2006-12-04 05:25:01)
Intuition

A good definition of intuition is the immediate knowing of something without the conscious use of reasoning. This leads to two observations: (1) Computers cannot do anything without reasoning (programming) and thus cannot act intuitively. (2) Intuition can be trained by practice. The more intimately we are familiar with anything (say a game), the more likely our first impression (immediate knowing) will be correct. So, I think intuition gained through experience plays a large role and an intuitive player can go far in Chess or Go. At some point, however, one must become a good analyst to progress further. I would be interested in opinions about how far in each game (elo rating) a purely intuitive player might progress.

Elmer Valderrama    (2006-12-04 14:18:02)
intuition

I disagree, chess knowledge can't be equated to intuition, here is my long post about it (why am I writing about the same things all over and over and at the same time of year, I dunno ;)

1. Players without any intuition whatsoever but great working capabilitites (as Botvinnik, Fischer, Kasparov, ..engines..)

-they never relie on intuition (they dont have any at all after all) so everything must be subject to calculation, they have the "hardware" (perfect body and mental conditions, rigorous training, perfect visual/realistic representation of positions and a great chess knowledge which must be kept fresh in mind -if not, they wouldn't have reference points to judge/evaluate resulting positions.

When on top form they can beat anybody and I mean ANY body: human, extraterrestial, ultragalactic, trans-natural, hyper-divine,etc, and for an overwhelming score, like 6-0 ;)..well you know what I mean.

The drawback well you already know it, it last a mig, except for the engines, no-one can keep up with this regime (GK could for a long time, but resorting to short breaks (not playing for WC, choosing carefully where to play etc,) But most important it's impossible to implement for long if the "hardware" -see above- starts to "leak oil" then it's all over..

This can be brought up to an art, like Kasparov or Fischer, it is more powerful than understanding chess as a natural tongue (as intuitive players) because the "top-form" competitive element is always present and the "hardware" works in pristine conditions.

From the above it follows of course that engines are the ultimate chess warrior over the board at least (and only there, not in CC)

2. Those who have strategical intuition. (Capablanca, Petrosian, Karpov maybe Anand..)The general impression is that they are simply lazy people: not need to work out any thing as they just "know" where pieces should go and what the point is of their moves, usually there is no need for deep calculations, just two or three moves (4 to 6 plies) to corroborate the "feeling" and the game is won.

The "feeling" is hard to express in words, and usually is lost if expressed in words ;). It goes beyond a simply pattern recognition, or a full database of chess knowledge, it is about predicting the future possibilities (not having real positions in mind, just the "possibilities" or general lines of play in future positions which may or may not happen to appear for real in the game. They can play for long long time and win a lot of tournaments (Karpov I believe have the record of won tournaments)

3. Those who have special understanding in unbalanced positions (Alekhine, Tal, Korchnoi..) They are dynamic players who love to calculate but not for the sake of finding the best of the best of the best of the moves (as those in group 1 would do), they calculate SOME variations, those who have meaning to them I see them as players of group 2 with a more or less working "hardware" i.e they are not going to trust 2 or 3 moves variations neither they are going to speculate on the future possibilities without any ground/basic calculation under it. Their "feeling" is again hard to express in words, but I believe it is something like calculating a 10-12 plies variation with every position in-between being subconciously excrutinated for crushing unexpected turning moves (this is not done by players of group 1, they would calculate "normal replies" in that 10-12 plies variation and would have to go deeper (like 20-30 plies to see the point ;)

So that "feeling" is what enable us to compose music, create art etc but also it is something that enable us to err like fools :( Whether it can be mimicked by software or not it's an open question but as I said a calculation 40-50 plies deep it's practically equal to using intuition... Obviously the above classification of G Kasparov it's a bit rough in the sense that there are very few "pure intuitive" players (of either group 2 or 3) as mentioned by Don in his post most of the players is a mix of talent I believe, if I had to choose a pure intuitive player from those groups I would point Capablanca and Korchnoi, and of course Kasparov of group 1

Elmer Valderrama    (2006-12-04 14:32:04)
Deepy, the drawing monster

Now it's clear why CB was willing to pay 1 million if defeated: with Deep Jok..uh.. Fritz, they have created a drawing monster!!

At least it comes with a 1/2-point Life Guarantee

8-)

Thomas Gilbreath    (2006-12-06 23:11:19)
Scoring update

id=cyrano vs. id=gdshields (both games in progress) id=cairo vs. id=miguel_pires (.5/.5 - game in progress) id=ccmacollister vs. Benjamin Aldag (2/0) id=thumper vs. id=wulebgr (both games in progress) id=yanm vs. id=pedrinho (1.5/.5) id=taikaviitta vs. id=richgra64 (both games in progress) id=tag1153 vs. id=macounet (2/0) id=dewillget8 vs. id=ilmarscirulis (1/0 - game in progress) id=mozz vs. id=lejuju (1/0 - game in progress) id=lofix vs. id=cnile (0/1 - game in progress) id=tugger vs. id=kolarz (0/1) - game in progress) id=eqj2 vs. id=errantknight (0/1 - game in progress) The current score stands at id=GameKnot ----- 8, id=FICGS -----3. Please remember that 12.5 points are needed for the win. Contact me should there be any corrections........ Thomas

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-10 16:20:16)
FIDE's world championship format

Quite good news...

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3530

Ok, we'll have a final match between a challenger and the world champion, this is great !
(the worst is avoided)

In future, the challenger should be designated after a multi-stages round-robin tournaments cycle, then a candidates match (original :))

Will it be enough to attract sponsors... In my opinion the candidates match should be played in 6 games at least, and the knockout tournament should be at least 2 or 3 rounds long. Several round-robin tournaments, this looks like correspondence chess format and this is useful when you have many players and few time. I'm not sure it's a good choice for OTB world chess championship... :/

What do you think ?

Dinesh De Silva    (2006-12-10 17:37:05)
Re:

I fully agree with the view that the candidates match should be played in 6 games at least, and the knockout tournament should be at least 2 or 3 rounds long.

Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-12-13 16:37:20)
Rybka clearly the best ?

There are many investigations of chess engines in web their resultats are showing the same like yours. But the open questions is whether playing against other chess engines is the same like assisting human to analyze a chess position?

Wayne Lowrance    (2006-12-13 17:13:33)
Rubka clearly the best !

Yes, iv'e seen similiar postings with similiar results. I am wondering if programs like DF10 are better in coorespondence chess such as in the centaur mode. I have also read that DF10 is probobly better against a human. Ie recent match. And their is the latest Hiarcs etc...very interesting to me.

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-14 00:09:56)
Rybka clearly the best engine vs. engine

I fully agree with both of you... We must be careful, even if all these results are really impressive, most chess engines have been designed to play against humans and to be useful analysis tools. As I said in another thread, there are still many things to improve to make it the best engine vs. engine fighter.

Nowadays, the best chess engines try to 'think' like humans and actually have inherited human weaknesses from them, so IMO a Hydra or Deep Blue would crush ie. Shredder or Junior which try to make it harder for human brain while Fritz is clearly better balanced.

Maybe this new engines generation started with Fruit which plays very solid. So Rybka, which is clearly designed to beat his rivals but I'm not convinced at all it is a better tool to play correspondence chess.

Daniel De Noose    (2006-12-13 14:29:26)
Rybka clearly the best ?

This week I have tested Rybka againt 3 others engines.

The parameters :
----------------

Intel Centrino 725 (1,67 Ghz), 64 Mb Hash Tables, games in 10 minutes (+ 2 seconds per move) for each "player", Shredder 9 interface, 20 games' matches, HS-Masterbook Opening book .

The Engines :
-------------

Rybka 2.2 W32, Gambit Fruit 1.0 Beta 4bx, Toga 1.2.1a and Shredder 9.

The Results :
-------------

1) Rybka - Shredder 9 :

15,5 / 4,5 (+13,-2,=5)

2) Rybka - Toga 1.2.1a :

12 / 8 (+8,-4,=8)

3) Rybka - Gambit Fruit :

13,5 / 6,5 (+10,-3,=7)

The comments :
--------------

Rybka seems to be clearly the best for the moment ... I would like to test Rybka against other engines like Fritz 10, Shredder 10, ... but I don't have these engines. Perhaps later... ;-)

Do you have comments about this ?

Marius Zubac    (2006-12-16 02:51:34)
Vacation clock frozen, with 1 exception

Hello Thibault. Before I requested my vacation I have captured all the situation of my running games including the number of days. The clock is frozen for all games except my game 2932 from FICGS_CHESS_CLASS_SM_000002 against Mr. de Silva. Initially it was 51 days. Today I looked again and is 49. Maybe there is a bug somewhere. Please look into it. Thank you. Best whishes for the Holliday season, Marius

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-16 03:09:51)
Vacation clock frozen, no exception !

Hello Marius.

There is no bug ! ... Your clock is : White clock - 54 days 17:50:44 (49 days 13:26:08)

So clock displayed in ie. My games is your 'time per move' clock !

Rules 11.4 : 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.

This rule avoids someone to take more than 60 days for only one move...

Best wishes for your holidays :)

Lennart Oberg    (2006-12-16 11:35:56)
Change, please!!!!!

I´m new here, playing my first tour. and 2 guys make a few moves and then let the clocks run. Solution, every move within ( 3, 7, 10 days ) or you forfeit. That´s life in live chess! Regards, Lennart Oberg

Pablo Schmid    (2006-12-22 01:08:47)
Vacation

"You have x days leave remaining for year 2006" Ca veut dire que le 1er janvier on reçoit tous nos nouveaux jours de vacances?

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-22 11:18:16)
Vacation

Right, you can take your x days leave remaining until december 31.

On january 1st, everyone will have 30 days (no more, there's no addition !) leave for year 2007.

Steve Sabean    (2006-12-23 16:58:08)
Traxler/Wilkes-Barre

I have heard from many players of a wide range of strength that the Traxler is busted for Black. The trouble is, none of them appear to have proof. A few years ago, I played in a Traxler thematic in IECG. I had a great time, learned a lot, and managed second place overall. My own assessment is: unclear, but Black is probably OK. So, why not have a Traxler thematic tournament here on FICGS, to settle the matter once and for all. :D Maybe it could be a double round robin, to be fair to those who feel that one side or the other has the advantage. I would sign on for such a tournament. Nice Latvian, btw.

Glen D. Shields    (2006-12-26 12:59:52)
Congrats to cyrano

Score one for GK. I just resigned to cyrano on the GK site. I was given a lesson by am excellent player. Congratulations to cyrano and GK! Hope to hold on to the game here, but things are looking bleaker by the move.

Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-12-26 13:14:55)
HA HA HA! :)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7.Ke3 Qh4 8.g3 Nxg3 9.hxg3 Qd4+ 10.Kf3 d5 11.Rh4 e4+ 12.Kg2 0-0 13.Bb3 Rxf7 14.Rf4 Rxf4 15.gxf4 Be6 16.Nc3 Rf8 17.Qh5 Rxf4! 18.Qe8+ Rf8 19.Qxe6+ Kh8 20.Nd1 e3 and black has at least a draw! Funny!

Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-12-26 14:15:24)
Ok, 14.Qg1 still the best.

After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7.Ke3 Qh4 8.g3 Nxg3 9.hxg3 Qd4+ 10.Kf3 d5 11.Rh4 e4+ 12.Kg2 0-0 13.Bb3 Rxf7

14.Qg1 Qf6 15.Rf4 Qe5 16.d3 (16.Nc3?) exd3 17.Qf2 Nd4 18.Nc3 Nxb3 19.cxb3 c6. Unclear.

I must find something stronger for white. And before 14th move. :)

Miguel Pires    (2006-12-26 23:25:01)
Open challenge

Hello, I'm making an open challenge to all players (from the top to the bottom) in this site to play against me in the Portuguese oppening. Soo if someone accept the challenge please tell me. I play always with withe. To Thibault de Vassal If someone accept can you please setup the games in FICGS? Best Regard's Miguel Pires

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-27 00:37:59)
Simultaneous game

Ok, looks interesting... If at least 4 players accept your challenge, I'll create a simultaneous game on the server. Conditions : Unrated, time control 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves.

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.

Dinesh De Silva    (2006-12-29 18:33:20)
An English translation needed......

Could any Spanish speaking player please translate the following to English? It would be much appreciated: "Estimados amigos, A fin de evitar mayores problemas en vuestra partida, he decidido que ambos jugadores envíen copia de sus mail obligatoriamente a mi dirección hasta el final de la partida. Yo recibiré esos mails y los archivaré en una carpeta especial."

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-30 13:31:14)
Quad Silver?

Tournaments with money prizes will begin in january... By the way there will be changes in these tournament categories (it will be also possible to play "blitz" games, at probably 10 moves / 1 hour time control)

However I think this challenge should stay friendly... (at least 'on FICGS')

Pablo Schmid    (2007-01-01 00:25:19)
Vacation 07

Happy new year Thibault and everyone. Could you put the new vacation for this new year today please? :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-02 15:13:01)
Re: No winner?

Hello Francesco.

It's a design issue... Winner(s) / Leader(s) are displayed if no more than 2 players have the best score in the tournament. In this tournament, 3 players scored 5 out of 6 points.

Anyway, FICGS WCH rules state there's only one winner in WCH tournaments (according to tournament entry rating), so the result displayed may be not accurate in some cases.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-02 15:25:57)
draw offers

Sorry about that, Wayne. I thought the small envelope picture placed just below the board (meaning you've got a message to read including draw offers) was clear enough. Draw offers are high-lighted for a while now, but I can't find another place...

Miguel Pires    (2007-01-02 17:22:41)
Re:

I'm going to try to translact this correctly: Queria aclararle solamente que yo no había recibido el mail que esta reenviando. "I wana elucidate you that i've not received the mail that you are recending" Por favor, asegurese que su servidor este funcionando bien. "Please, make sure that your mail server is working properlly." A partir de este momento, de no recibir alguno de vuestros mails, si despues hay un reclamo de parte de alguno de ustedes, deberé tomar como que el mensaje no se envió, cargando el tiempo perdido al jugador en falta. "After this moment, if i don't received some of your mails, and some of you make a complain, i assume that the message was not send, and the time lost is charged to the player that i've not received the message." Esta medida la tomaré de ahora en mas a fin de evitar inconvenientes y que la partida finalice de la mejor manera posible. "I make this to try to avoid any incovinients and to the game finish in the best whay possible" Pasando en limpio, en caso de no tener copias de vuestros envios, deberé decidir a favor del reclamante sin más tramite. "(I think is this the first word's) Making a resume, in any case of i don't have copies of your envoices (mails), i'm going to decide in favor of the player how complain, without any discussion (i think is this) Saludos cordiales y Feliz Año Nuevo. "Best regard's and Happy new year" I hoppe i help you Miguel Pires PS: Sorry the bad english :)

Francesco Laghetti    (2007-01-02 17:58:03)
No winner?

Dear Thibault, many thanks for your clear answer. Regards, Francesco

Elmer Valderrama    (2007-01-02 18:19:12)
my try

Miguel was quicker, here is my shot at it anyway (I thought it was a requirement for a referee in international CC to have a good command of English..]

====

I only wanted to clarify [to you] that I did not receive the mail that [you] are re-sending. Please, make sure that your [email] server is working well. As of this moment, if I do not receive any of your mails, [and then] there is a claim from anyone of you, I will assume that the message was not sent, charging the time spent to the player who default [didn't send a copy]. I will adopt this measure from now on in order to avoid missunderstandings and that the game finishes the best way. In summary, in case of not having copies of your mails, I will have to decide in favour of the claiming party immediately. Warm greetings and Happy New Year

=====

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-03 01:08:07)
Blitz correspondence chess

Of course not :)

I mean I don't think everyone can play 2 games one 'today' and one 'tomorrow', or even be sure they really could play 'tomorrow'... There would be problems for sure with a "rendez-vous" system.

The advantage of playing White is probably not much greater (maybe not greater at all) than playing Black and to know who's your opponent, particularly with a standard time control, what do you think ?

Anyway everything is possible if no solution is clearly best, but we must avoid the old proposal with White playing ie. the 2 first moves IMO. It may be a funny variant to offer, but this is not real chess game.

Karsten Fyhn    (2007-01-07 13:54:27)
Please remove me from the waiting list

Please remove me from the waiting list for FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000002. I am starting two other tournaments elswhere in mid January, so I dont have time for this one. Sorry.

Lawrence Nesko    (2007-01-07 14:10:17)
Quick Draw?

Hello, all. In one of the tournaments in which I am playing, a game has been agreed drawn on the third move. I'm not saying that there's anything underhanded about it. But I am trying to understand what would lead to such a situation. I'd appreciate if someone could enlighten me. Are certain openings recognized as nearly certain draws? Could drawng situations be recognized so early in a game? Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-07 16:09:11)
Quick Draw

Hello Lawrence.

What game are you talking about ? I guess many other reasons can lead to a draw...

Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-01-07 19:14:02)
Game with Steve Sabean (5.Nxf7+)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.d6 Qxd6 10.c3 Bg4 11.Qa4+? (my mistake :/ ) Nd7 12.Kxf2 Qf6+ 13.Ke1 O-O-O 14.Nf7 *

Now Steve can get draw with 14.Nf7 Nc5 15.cxd4 Nxa4 16.Nxd8 Qh4+ 17.g3 Qxd8 =

12.cxd4? Bxd4 13.Ke1 Qf6 14.Rf1 Qh4+ 15.g3 Qxh2 -+

Instead of 11.Qa4+ I will play 11.Nf7 next time.
11.Nf7 Qb6 12.Qa4+ Bd7 13.Qb4 Nc2 14.Qxb6 Bxb6 15.Na3 Nxa1 16.Nxe5 with +/- IMO

It's funny to learn from mistakes. :)

Jaimie Wilson    (2007-01-08 18:00:37)
ECF ratings

There seem to be two formulae for converting between ECF (formerly the BCF) and FIDE ratings. The old one which still seems to be in use is ECF x 8 + 600 = FIDE ELO. A Newer formula I have seen is ECF x 5 + 1250 = FIDE ELO. This newer formula rates ECF players higher on the FIDE scale than the old one did. I don't know which is more accurate although I certainly like to believe that the old formula underestimates us a little bit. It's as clear as mud.

Luca Purreli    (2007-01-11 13:39:07)
I need to be removed

I wish to be removed from WCH.00002... please....in this period of time and for the next months I don't have enough time...... Regeards, Luca

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

Wayne Lowrance    (2007-01-18 01:19:11)
Chess engines rating

Very nice information. A great big word of caution. We play coorespondence games here. Those engine-engine tournaments do not indicate directly which program is best suited for correspondence deep analysis, I do not have enough experience with the engines except earlier versions of Fritz, shredder, Hiarc, Junior and of course Dr Robert Hyatts Various versions of Crafty and Rybka. Rybka is top rated eng-eng program for fast time controls. But not sure that it is best for deep analysis. My guess is that Latest Fritz is at least as well suited for deep analysis and perhaps better. Then their is Shredder another top eng-eng program that is very very good at deep analysis. From what I read and for what it is worth those are the best engines. But if you want the strongest program for 40/120 time control down to bullet chess,then the clear winner is Rybka by Vas. Hope this is of interest. Wayne

Wayne Lowrance    (2007-01-19 00:25:10)
Nigel davies

http://www.chesscafe.com/davies/davies.htm This very interesting link provided here on FICS is good reading "chess Cafe" The article by Nigel is very interesting and informing. I find it very interesting that he uses Fritz as his analysis partner here on Fics. Speaks volumes for Fritz I think. I have had Fritzies for long long time starting with Fritz5, and have learned a lot that has helped me with OTB as with Nigel. I would love to find out what Nigel thinks about the latest releases of other chess engines. Sad to hear him say he no longer has time for coorespondence chess. The loss is mine and all of you. Wayne

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-19 11:41:07)
FICGS login & registration problems

Hello to all.

It seems there are some login, password recovery & registration problems for a few players. I'm looking for an explanation...

Some can't register without getting message "please enter the correct number" while they did enter it, so it may be a format problem for numbers. (in this case please write to the email at the bottom of the page)

If you failed to obtain a new password that works with password recovery, just try once more and it will 'most probably' work.

Really strange... I'm inquiring.

An example : "Although I got a new password I was not able to use my account from my PC!-So I decided to log in from my colleague´s one and it worked - I don´t know why."

So some computers could send a format for numbers that the program does not recognize yet. (?!)

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!

Dan Rotaru    (2007-01-24 16:42:19)
Suggestion for rating period

I would suggest that the rating period to be monthly instead of every 2 months. I understand the reason for longer periods between calculation being to avoid big differences but 2 months seems a little bit too long for me. I have noticed that some players with high provisional ratings or who started with high provisional ratings still have a much higher rate after they lost all or almost all their games, and players which started with, let’s say, standard 1400 still have lower ratings even they won all the games. And there is no such a difference between the Elo average of the opponents. My point is that a monthly period will increase the dynamic of the ratings and eventually will lead to a much realistic overall ratings and why not to a more challenging environment.. Of course the number of games played will have the biggest impact on re-adjusting the ratings based on results, but a month period will help for example a player to obtain a higher TER sooner and eventually play on a higher ELO bracket tournament. The other reason is that I believe many players will want to see how their rating evolves and a month seems more reasonable. As I said it is just a suggestion, others may not agree with me. Thanks, Dan

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-25 11:32:27)
paragraph

Oops... You mean to begin a new line in the forum ? .. See above the response form "(please use < br > html tag to begin a new line)", without spaces in BR tag..

Maybe I'll change that in a while.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-25 11:54:20)
Rating period

2 months is definitely a good rating period IMO.

The dynamic of the ratings is quite high already, higher than ie. at IECG. "More challenging environment", quite true but it would lead to more lasting games for sure... About your last points, you're right but I'm convinced it would have some bad consequences too.

World championship tournaments also help to find quicker your rating.

Anyway, waiting for other feedback about this point.

Correspondence chess is definitely a game of patience :)

Michael Finkelstein    (2007-01-26 05:23:20)
playback

Dear Thibault, Thank you for your response. I do indeed ask how can I start a new line in a forum post. You advise that I do the following: please use < br > html tag to begin a new line)", without spaces in BR tag.. I do not know what that is. Mike

Phil Cook    (2007-01-26 22:27:16)
Horrible player

Its not just me then,join the horrible player club,total members just me ;op seriously just play,have fun and enjoy,if they use computer they do,at least your using your brain not machine!

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-27 00:46:40)
chat

:)

Bugs took a few days leave.. I hope...

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-28 14:01:35)
IGN Goama

Lionel, your answer has been published in 41st IGN Goama newsletter... :)

Another answer :

"Also we got a letter from Benjamin Schooley:

Dear Alex, I have been having these very same thoughts. I think after awhile I started to accept the way things were done in the East and tried to see the positive side of it. Maybe three world champions are better than one. And really isn't it better that people don't have endless helpers and seconds, then it almost becomes a matter of who has the most help and the most money to hire that help and not the most skill on an individual basis. But I do get the sense there is more of a community in Go. Go players are more apt to share their ideas and puzzles with each other and not prepare secret variations in some unscrupulous plot. I would be more curious if the Korean paper at least acknowledges your thoughts, I highly doubt they will try to change anything though.

Still I do lament the absence of a broader tournament format. Not all are knockout but they all tend to have the knockout "flavor." I think some players who are really talented get overlooked (Hane Naoki) because their playing style doesn't mesh as well with a knockout tournament. On the other hand people who have novel playing styles like Cho U and Takao Shinji do pretty well in the KO format. They benefit from a smaller sample size, harder to get a read on their strengths and weaknesses."

Ron Keyston    (2007-01-29 17:27:38)
"Major" Deep Fritz 10 Bug

I've confirmed this problem on two different computers with completely different hardware and different operating systems. I've also sent the problem off to Chessbase, but have not yet gotten much of a response. If anyone else has Deep Fritz 10, would you mind giving this a try and reporting back with your results? Also, if anyone has the non-Deep version of Fritz 10, I'd be interested in knowing if it is also affected by this problem.

Input a game into Deep Fritz 10 and get to a point in the game where it is possible for black to castle long. Now save the game into a database, close the game and then open it back up from the database. If you either turn on infinite analysis, or just try to make the move, black is not able to castle long...Fritz assumes that it is an illegal move.

Furthermore, if you castle long BEFORE saving the game into the database, then save it and re-open it, then go to the position after black has castled queenside and turn on infinite analysis, the analysis is "messed up." Either the analysis text is invisible, or it reports impossible lines, or the evaluation score is very obviously wrong. This should be enough info for anyone to give the test a try, but if you want some specific examples, please let me know.

Ron

Charlie Neil    (2007-02-02 11:45:33)
Without Computer

Marcus if you can please read the old forum postings, "Why do you play corr-chess." I made a similar comment about computers being used as the main player. Believe me I was wrong! As much as in correspondence chess you can use notes, books and databases for reference. Here at FICGS, (A great site!) players use their computers as a reference. It does not benefit anyone to just relay their computer moves without understanding them. Those players won't prosper nor will develop a passion we chessplayers have for the game. I believe that now to be the case. Personally I don't have a Juinor8, Fritz 10 or Deep Joe 90 or whatever to use as a reference point. I do have a pile of books that serve to confuse me in my games. As I continue to seek understanding in this game. People should use computers as long as the computers don't use them! How boring can it be just to imput moves? The computer isn't compulsory. And I am saving a fortune on stamps playing here! It is fun after all. It is only a game. Even if it is a terrible one.

Charlie Neil    (2007-02-08 09:32:48)
Why I play here.

Reading the forum postings as I do everytime I log on, I have noted that we are a diverse group here at Ficgs. For that reason I thought I would make my statement of intent. "Why I play here." 1. It is Free. I am Scottish and that is that! 2. I like the 7 player single pairing groups. 3. I know zero about chess and computers but I think I am learning something just by reading the Forum. 4. As I said a diverse group of people play chess here but in many ways it is similar to being at an OTB club, well at least as I remember them. All different types united by one game. 5. Chess is fun but what else can make you so happy when a scheme comes together in victory and what other game can have you rocking back and forth in your chair making you doubt every decision you have ever made. And all in the time it takes to click from one game to another. 6. I wonder how long it will be now before Thibault gets fed-up with us whinging, complaining and not appreciating his hard work! (Thibault just once tell someone complaining person to go and .....!) Maybe not.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-08 11:33:25)
Why I play here

I don't know if playing here is similar to being at an OTB club (well I forgot what it is :)), but I do appreciate to have time to discuss with my opponents.

About complaining, it looks like things are going really better for a few months, the site may be not very clear everywhere yet and I'm still late with new features to come, but that's encouraging :) .. Also I'd like to thank all people responding to newcomers in the forum & chat before I can see it. And last but not least, thanks everyone for the friendly peace that reigns here :)

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.

Benjamin Aldag    (2007-02-15 12:30:33)
YOU FLAME !

@ Marc Lacrosse

The discussion is not about to change something. It is about to build a new feature here. It would be kewl to see a little (c) in the profiles of computerusers.

Please dont flame here about 'what is allowed and whats not allowed' !!!

IT IS ALLOWED TO USE A COMPUTER-ASSISTENCE !!!! AND THIS IS OK FOR ME !!!! AND IT IS ALlOWED TO PLAY WITHOUT COMPUTER-ASSISTENCE !!!! IS THIS LOUD ENOUGH ???

I play here at FICGS and why should i play at playchess.de ??? I want to play CC-Chess HERE ! So please dont tell me, where i can play without computer-assistence. I can play without computer-assistence here TOO !

yk

Dan Rotaru    (2007-02-16 01:44:17)
Established rating list

I didn't suggest to have more than two rating list but just two: 1. First list with all the players registered on FICGS which is the actual Rating List. 2. Established Rating list (after playing at least 9 games). Once a player ends up on this list he can stay there for ever.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-16 02:09:40)
Established rating list

Of course it's a good idea, and it can be discussed. So far, three main reasons for not doing this change :

1) One rating list is much clearer and easier to reach than two.

2) Provisional and established ratings are easy to distinguish already. (grey or not)

3) There could be more strong players in future who will play unrated games -only- at standard time control (2 hours / 40 moves, soon available) and in my opinion, the rating list is first a way to show who is playing there.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-17 18:07:31)
Gameknot vs. FICGS, other challenges

It seems GameKnot leads 5-4 in the games played here... Not bad :)

Any news about the games played at GameKnot ?

It could be interesting to discuss about other team challenges... A team tournament, matches against other servers or forums (which ones ?), maybe at different time controls or playing chess variants (chess 960) or other games (could be fun to play chess & Go, poker or anything against the same players).. with or without computer assistance and so on... It should be easier to build teams now thanks to the chat bar.

It seems there was no problem of cheating with chess engines during the match against GameKnot, that's encouraging to organize other ones.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-18 19:14:30)
ICCF champions league

Hello to all.

While looking for interesting challenges that could take place here at FICGS (ie. simultaneous games at standard time control by a FIDE / ICCF IM-GM, or team challenges against other servers), Valer Eugen Demian (ICCF) suggested we build a team that could play in the next ICCF champions league... If we can build a team, why not ?

Rules of the event (taking place on ICCF server) are here :

http://tables.iccf.com/email/ChLeague/2004/season1faq.htm

What do you think ? .. Did anyone play this tournament already ?

Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-02-18 20:17:30)
ICCF champions league

Yes, I did (League B1 - in Team "Chess Rubbers" at second board)! Wolfgang Utesch

Dinesh De Silva    (2007-02-19 01:02:03)
Re:

Valer's idea is very good. There certainly should be a team from FICGS to take part in the champions league 2007-2009 season.

Miguel Pires    (2007-02-19 02:22:41)
ICCF champions league

Yes i aggree with Dienish. Please create the time Thibault

Charlie Neil    (2007-02-19 13:52:00)
ICCF champions league

I have played on the ICCF webserver. So, it must be an easy webserver to play on if i can manage it! I think there must be a Ficgs team! More publicity and a chance to meet more chessfriends. Unfortunately I'm not of the standard required to be in a successful team but I can stand on the "touchline" with my Ficgs scarf and shout encouragement. C'mon! Also what about challenges to those sites such itsyourturn and chessworld.net and schemingming.com. you know the ones that aren't free to play on.....

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-21 16:23:04)
Tournament winners

Hello Nicola.

Tournament leaders or winners are displayed while browsing tournaments listings (click Tournaments, then select a category).. If at least 3 players obtain the best score, no winner is displayed. It takes care about the points only. But in some tournaments - ie. world championship - the winner may be defined by more rules... Does this answer ?

Best regards.

Nicola Lupinacci    (2007-02-21 18:51:49)
standing suggestion

the thing i try to explain is the follow:

if you are the last player that enter in a tournament, your name in the standing is the last, also if you win or for example arrive third.

Now the question is:

is possible to see the tournament standing with the leader in the first position of the standing, the player who arrived second in the second place of the standing, etc etc?

for example, if you see FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_C__000001, the winner is in the last position of the standing.

Is possible to see this standing with this order?:

Unger 5.5/6
Muller 4.5/6
Holes 4/6
Ghisi 3/6
Baron 2/6
Guralivu 1/6
Rattay 1/6

sorry for my bad english and thanks thibault for your time :-)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-21 18:57:21)
Building teams...

Hello to all.

Here is the list of the teams that played in previous ICCF champions league :

http://tables.iccf.com/email/ChLeague/2004/teams.htm

I still don't know what's the cost to build a team, it seems all players just have to be a member of ICCF (through their federation or direct entry) and pay an entry fee for each tournament... Maybe someone can confirm ?

So the question : Who would like to play in our teams (and what name for these mad teams ? :))

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-22 12:01:22)
Standings - Round 4

Hmm... Morelia's round 4 was quite interesting. Anand beats Morozevich, Carlsen beats Ivanchuk !

Now Anand leads by 3/4 followed by Carlsen 2,5 .. then Svidler, Aronian, Ivanchuk, Leko 2/4

Everything still can happen... :)

Nicola Lupinacci    (2007-02-23 09:13:39)
Magnus Carlsen is now at the top

After round 5 Carlsen lead with 3.5/5, winning against Topalov, while Anand lose against Aronian.
This is a great tournament, with leaders that can lose a game also against the last player. Really interesting :-D

Dinesh De Silva    (2007-02-23 13:28:31)
Re:

Nicola, I bet Kasparov will see your comments and will be mighty pleased! Who knows, he just might even give you some free chess lessons. One thing is certain., Kasparov will NOT give Vladimir Putin of Russia any free chess lessons. Haha!

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-24 00:12:00)
Carlsen vs. Topalov

Black to move (of course).

Chessbase : "In fact Carlsen shows the horrified former world champion the defence immediately after he had resigned"

Horrified, at least...

Dinesh De Silva    (2007-02-24 06:58:50)
Re:

...., Qd5+ leads to an easy draw. How did Topalov miss it? A mystery.

Nicola Lupinacci    (2007-02-25 11:30:19)
Round 6

All game drawn, Carlsen still lead

This is the standings after six rounds:

Carlsen 4
Aronian 3.5
Anand 3.5
Leko 3
Svidler 3
Ivanchuk 3
Topalov 2
Morozevich 2

Next round:

Peter Leko - Vishy Anand
Vassily Ivanchuk - Levon Aronian
Veselin Topalov - Alex. Morozevich
Peter Svidler - Magnus Carlsen

Nicola Lupinacci    (2007-03-03 02:24:01)
Round 8

all games drawn, the leaders are still Anand and Carlsen with 5 pt, followed by Ivanchuk with 4.5

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-04 12:57:00)
Round 9

Great game Topalov vs. Ivanchuk... Morozevich beats Leko. Carlsen & Anand still lead. It seems my predictions will be quite wrong :) .. To be continued.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-05 09:59:16)
Vishy Anand

Vishy Anand now leads Morelia-Linares tournament by one full point... I thought this tournament wouldn't be his peak of form, but he's always surprising :)

Nice game Leko-Topalov, indeed... and a 84 moves draw.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-05 10:19:11)
Playchess Freestyle Tournament

Thanks for info, Samy...

What a crosstable, no less than 17 players finishing with 5,5 / 8

Petr, I understand your frustration, anyway that's why I play correspondence chess only over the internet. Losing a game thanks to a connection lost or strange rules is not interesting much :/

Several remarks while looking at the final crosstable :

The winner uses Rybka 2.3 mp, the others too :) .. Rybka's author (Rajlich) scores 5 out of 8 (pos. 18)

With Rybka getting stronger and stronger at fast time controls, Advanced Chess will probably become Computer Chess and finally Rybka Chess very soon. 1 hour + 15 sec is no more interesting.

I recognize some famous 'names' used on the defunct KasparovChess.com, King Crusher (5 / 8), Deep Thunder (3,5 / 8)... Correspondence Chess GM Mikhail Umansky scores 2,5 / 8... and last but not least, french forums superstar Olivier Evan scores 2,5 / 7 :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-07 22:16:28)
round 12

Peter Svidler beats Peter Leko (now last in the standings), Alexander Morozevich beats Vassily Ivanchuk... Anand still leads, Carlsen second. Really explosive tournament, waiting for some statistics, numbers of draws/win and so on.

Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2007-03-09 06:58:21)
There must be an error in annotation

after e5 Nd5, wasnt your knight at c6? Ne4? the white knight is in d4 please review your annotation

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-12 12:37:20)
A new computer Go era ?

It seems a new computer Go era just started...

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL2053348420070221?pageNumber=1

Quote : "The 19 by 19 board which top players use is still hard for a machine, but the new method is promising because it makes better use of the growing power of computers than earlier Go software."

Quite strange to read about the growing power of computers regarding Go... I suppose programs have much to learn first.. We will see :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-12 15:31:09)
Major update : SSL encryption forms

Hello to all.

This is the last major update before money tournaments can start...

Now you can login through SSL encryption forms, meaning the best security to prevent hacking.

You should use SSL encryption forms only to browse the whole site with HTTPS, particularly if you wish to enter money tournaments later... It is also strongly recommended to change your password regularly (at least 8 characters, numbers & letters is best).

Thus you should always see HTTPS:// before the url after you login.

Feel free to follow this link for more advices about security & phishing :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#security

FICGS now uses SSL data encryption, hash functions and a bunch of other security features...

4 login forms is a lot but thus anyone can connect, even with browsers that doesn't support HTTPS and Javascript.

Also a few minor bug fixes and improvements, komi updated in .SGF files, reinforced hash functions, last connection date displayed in profile and so on...

All feedbacks are welcome :)

Dagh Nielsen    (2007-03-12 03:20:43)
5th Freestyle tournament

Just a short comment on the use of computers in these Freestyle tournaments:

There are two groups of participants:

1) Pure engines (with a book).

2) A somewhat larger group of "centaurs" who play the moves themselves, and use computers to analyse the moves actively.

Please note first, that the engine names behind some of the nicks in the crosstable do not necessarily mean that that participant played as pure engine (it's just an irrelevant effect of the server software somehow, decided by whether the participant had an engine uploaded during registration).

In fact, only two of those 10 who made it to the final (after the playoffs Saturday) are playing as pure engines. All the rest played as centaurs, including Cato the Younger.

This was also the case in the 4th Freestyle tournament: Only two pure engines made it to the final.

However, the pure engines surely made up more than 20% of the starting fields. What is more, these engines are usually operated by engine-chess freaks who have very strong hardware (Hercules01, who made it to the final after the play-offs, is allegedly running a 16-core system).

So my conclusion is: Centaurs perform significantly better than pure engines still. Even at this relatively short time control.

In other words: The human aspect is very much alive and kicking in this kind of chess :-)

I can only recommend interested people to try it out next time. It really is quite a bit of fun!

PS. I was lucky to qualify for the final, playing with nick "Flying Saucers". Also in the final is Corr. GM Arno Nickel (=Ciron) and FIDE GM Yuri Solodovnichenko (2585) (=Engineer). Several finalists have not yet revealed their identities :-)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-13 03:14:32)
Login problem : Reload the page

Notice : If you encounter any problem while trying to login (with the old secure form), please just reload the page and it won't happen again... Your browser has to update the page.

Elmer Valderrama    (2007-03-13 18:05:55)
5th Freestyle tournament

Thanks for the input, Dagh, I think this makes everything clear to everyone ;)

Elmer Valderrama    (2007-03-13 18:43:31)
Why isn't there a Chessbase forum?!

..any ideas?
The best I can think of is...they would definitely benefit from one..or maybe not -and that's why there isn't any ;)

Example, we could learn about CB freestyle tournaments impressions there, or about performance of programs, or about recommended books, DVDs, etc, oh well thanks God there are other forums ;)

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 ? :-)

Dinesh De Silva    (2007-03-15 04:51:12)
Re:

A bit........mostly popular words & phrases. I've heard a lot of French songs, and it sounds nice. I plan to learn more of the French language.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-15 13:40:16)
French songs

Really, what french songs are known worldwide.. or at least in Sri Lanka ?

Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2007-03-15 13:40:45)
Adjudication in correspondence games

I think that you have to be very careful with this kind of adjudication. Even if you restrict this to cases that are 100% clear, you still have to separate them from the 99% cases. I would only consider adjudication if control of the board is completely decided and one player keeps playing worthless moves.

Nick Burrows    (2007-03-16 19:37:41)
elections

' Frere jacque dom et tu...' is my miserly contribution to French musical knowledge?! Amongst the qualities required to be a great leader, the number 1 on anybody's list must be the ability to drive a tractor! hence it's gotta be Bayrou...

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 19:41:58)
masked politicians?

This may well reinvigorate the whole of politics for as Oscar Wilde said;- "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."

Phil Cook    (2007-03-19 05:05:47)
$

Experience is learnt,not brought $$

Sandor Marton-Bardocz    (2007-03-19 15:43:51)
Leader update inacurracy

In the FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_M__000005 tournament..

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-19 16:59:14)
Leader update inacurracy

Hello Sandor.

This list is updated about every 15 days, not in real time... It just has been updated ;)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-19 23:04:58)
Blokus

Blokus was invented in 2000 by a french engineer/artist. Quite recent but it's spreading very fastly in France - at least... Great game, try it ! :)

Actually, I think it's better not to multiply the games at FICGS to concentrate on chess & Go, but it would have been great to play Blokus here... (anyway, trademarked)

Nick Burrows    (2007-03-21 01:20:27)
*Go to Pi*

The film Pi is about a mathmetician who is using chaos theory to find a pattern within the stock market. His obsession leads him to observe the mathematical structures underpinning the whole of nature - eg spiral shells.
He visits his old maths teacher. They play Go together. The teacher explains that the ancient chinese saw the Go board as representing the whole universe, and so Go is used as a metaphor to understand chaos theory.
Starting with a very simple set of rules structures of untold complexity can form, systems such as the weather are so complex that they appear to be 'chaotic' or random. Go shows us that although it is too complex to see a game to its end, or understand the whole structure, there is logic or order within the chaos. It is just beyond our humble human limitations to understand it fully.
Go and chess intrigue us because in revealing the hidden truth within a chaotic structure, we are understanding a wider truth of order behind ALL phenomenon in the universe. Peace.

Don Groves    (2007-03-21 05:19:26)
chaos and order

Nick, no other game stimulates me to these thoughts and conversations but then I haven't played them all ;-) Yes, the falling tree does make a sound in the absence of humans -- it may startle a deer for example. Clearly *we* can never know anything outside of human consciousness but to imply that nothing else can exist outside of our consciousness is a bit too anthropic for me ;-)

Michael Aigner    (2007-03-21 11:50:16)
Books for GO beginners

Hello everybody, I am looking for a a beginners book to learn go. Any recommendations? Thank´s a lot Michael

Lionel Vidal    (2007-03-23 18:59:07)
Not too up-to-date article...

Computers are much better in chess now than in 1998 ( :-) or :-( ... hum maybe :-( for me...). I am not sure that a player, even J. Edwards (very good player and a good chess writer too!) could be sure anymore to CC-outplay an engine running 24h/day on a modern hardware platform. He might win, yes, but might only IMHO.

Nowadays, many CC players (most?) consider that using an engine is *not* cheating, and I am so sure that *most* sites, as said in the article, do prohibit such a use. At least it could be noted that the strongest players seem to play in ICCF (or maybe iecg ... and in FICGS of course :-)) where engines are allowed. (and this is good IMO, not per se but, as it is often recalled, because their ban could not be correctly enforced)

Anyway I am looking forward to reading the next article to use more effenciently chessbase :-)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-25 04:11:00)
Computer Go

I don't agree with that anymore, unfortunately. The more I play, the more I think Go can be learnt by computers, probably at a 2 or 3 dan level.. maybe more. Of course the speed of processors won't change it much. In my opinion programs playing Go will divide (some probably do it already) better their "thoughts" and the game in several parts, some of recognition [shapes, liberties..] and others of calculation [fights that are often reduced to a ~6x6 calculation, whatever the board size] to evaluate positions... So, the board size might be not so important in future and I don't think it will change their level much...

Lionel Vidal    (2007-03-25 11:24:50)
Computer Go

While I agree that programming Go is much more a problem of algorithm than a hardware one, I think you underestimate the theorical difficulties.

First, a word on the alluded new approach (BTW the french edition of 'Pour la Science' has an article on this algorithm this month, but not very involved): it seems promising only because that program regularly beats other program using what we can call a traditional approach: tree exploration combined with pattern recognition and some clever splitted evaluation function. That is fine, but does not mean much for human, considering the poor level of all these programs.
AFAIY the very best program is said to be at low pro-dan level on a 9x9 (without any concrete real test match, that is with money at stakes... but let's suppose it is true). The problem to play on 19x19 is that the nature of the game dramatically changes: in short the tactics is more complicated and the once very basic strategy of 9x9 becomes overwhelming! There is still no known algorithm to tackle that problem. Such algorithm could exist of course, but don't hold your breath :-)
Now I am quite eager to read the tests and pubications on these researches :-)

The neural network approach is interresting but is more or less stalling (again AFAIY) in recent programs mainly because of a fundamental flaw: the tuning of the gap functions. In Backgammon, where this approach works very well, these functions are tuned by simulation: basically, the program plays many, many games against himself and in a way learns (that is tunes its network) depending on the results. As you may guess, this can not work in Go because of the complexity of the branch tree. So the problem is how to tune the network (and 'by hand' cannot be a soution, believe me, considering the number of nodes and the type of the functions being commonly used!)

Of course I simplified a lot and the maths behind these kind of algorithm are involved enough (and very interresting :-)) that someone may find new ideas that will revive one path or another. But my feeling is that the pros of go have nothing to fear for a long time...
You have to consider that the very best programs are not beaten, but crushed, by multi-dans amateurs, you know, the kind of player a top pro will beat at 5 stones while blitzing and at 9 stones if some money is at stakes :-)

Now I may be wrong, and I remember in the 80s many people saying the same thing for chess, and betting on the fact that a program could never beat a good player in at least 50 years :-)... but at that time, I did not agree :-)) mainly because the algorithms were more or less basically known already... the 80s hardware was a problem, but a technical and not theorical one...

Sorry for that too long reply... I can't believe I typed so much... that must be my new keyboard, and the fond memories of some past jobs ... :-)

Elmer Valderrama    (2007-03-26 11:47:37)
Oh dear

I've got nothing against chessbase, but as you can see, they go so low quality that is impossible to ignore them ;)

The main thing from this article (ie shot in the foot) is that actually nobody learns anything about how to use ChessBase in Correspondence Chess :)

All we got is a careful description of what is legal or illegal !?

It would be good if the second part is written by someone a bit more experienced but as it seems there is no-one available there, at least the author could benefit from reading some other CC forums (although judging by the "hope my opponents are using engine(Fritz) assistance" which looks familiar to me ;), they could be reading this one 8-)

Elmer Valderrama    (2007-03-26 18:15:28)
How Life Imitates Chess

Has it been already published?

To start with, something tells me that the title should have been: How Chess Imitates Life, as it is written by a chess player not a philosopher or politician.

Not just because there is nothing bigger than life, but because we would be in real trouble if we had to make use of chess methodology to find out how to make the right decisions in life.

It can help, true, but no more than it did for Napoleon, for example ;)
(--Wellington would be turning in his grove trying to claim a Master Norm for Waterloo ;)

I have real difficulties trying to grasp the link between chess and politics.

Was Churchill a chess Master? if that is so, then Bush and Blair must be ELO 1200 ;-), and Garry must be declared Russian President ipso facto

Which French presidential candidate from your list plays chess?

Which one is considering learning some chess strategy?

Would they get more votes if they declare this intention? -sort of getting into their rights minds and improving their decision making? Hey, Garry is missing some prospective customers here..8-)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-26 18:59:43)
How Politics Imitates Chess

Garry Kasparov is probably not a philosopher, however it is not obvious to me that Chess Imitates Life, as (you said it) there's nothing bigger than life... Chess is a part of life. On the contrary, we could say life imitates chess because some decisions, sometimes, can be reduced (as far as possible) to chess strategies like reality can be reduced to science. The same, How Reality Imitates Science makes sense to me, whereas How Science Imitates Reality doesn't.

"How politics finally does not imitate Chess" by Garry Kasparov should be much more interesting :-) .. with a preface by Vladimir Putin : "How life doesn't imitate politics" :>

In France, the election sometimes makes me think to a.. more than chess, a Go game... I think Nicolas Sarkozy uses some chess(Go)-like strategies and knows openings/Joseki & tactics best. At least he may know very well the work of Arthur Schopenhauer : "The world as will and representation" & "L'art d'avoir toujours raison". In comparison, Ségolène Royal and other candidates seem to use faith and "religion". Anyway, the result should be quite the same as life doesn't imitate politics much nowadays :/

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-07-13 22:48:01)
Shogi in ficgs?

Hello Pablo!

Here is a discussion we've had in the past on that topic, please tell me what you think:

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=4538

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-27 16:42:53)
Xiangqi

http://www.chesscafe.com/mueller/mueller.htm

I can't motivate myself to learn this game.. :/ .. rules are so strange, even less natural than chess !? Is it really played elsewhere than in China ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiangqi

"As of 2005, the world's best human xiangqi players remain better than the world's best computer players. The game-tree complexity of xiangqi is approximately 10^150, so it is projected that a human top player will be defeated before 2010."

Elmer Valderrama    (2007-03-27 17:48:51)
the second article...

..At least we got an inmediate response after the criticism ;-)

Once I am relieved from the headache of reading the first part of this very involved article, I'll post my comments..

BTW at first glance it seems the author has the bad habit of NOT giving an assessment to his annotated lines, ..or are we supposed to look at the engine's evaluation :-) --which are illegal to use, remember?!

Don Groves    (2007-03-28 08:46:47)
Chess and politics

Then other country's leaders must stop cooperating with Bush! Unless they do, the US will continue on this path of world domination. There was a report today that Russian intelligence says Bush will bomb Iran on April 6th. The entire world must condemn this action starting now! US military is overxtended and if other countries will just refuse to support more US aggression, it will have to stop at Iraq and Afghanistan.

Marc Lacrosse    (2007-03-28 15:16:58)
Droppers kill the fun !

... And this tournament (M 007)is now finished with two additional aborted games through dropping out...

I congratulate the well-deserved winner of the tournament (Karsten Fyhn)

I am sure he must be a little frustrated like I am : both his final game and mine were very interesting ones for which we both got the full point through dropping-out of our opponents ...

This is not funny at all !
I hate analysing a game for months and seeing it aborted because my opponent withdraws without resigning and lets his clock runs for months without a single word of explanation

I suppose i cannot ask for banning such impolite persons ...

But one thing is clear for me : I don't wish to enroll any more in tournaments with droppers.

So for what regards myself either Thibault creates a new kind of tournaments into which former droppers are not allowed to suscribe or I stop playing here

A very disappointed player ...

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-28 15:46:28)
Droppers

I feel that for at least 3 players in this tournament the problem is they had too many games at the same time ! (FICGS + IECG + ICCF ;))

What is strange is they all came back a few months later and registered for new tournaments. This is a real problem... The best answer to this in my opinion is rating that can decrease quite quickly, some will have to fight hard to enter a class M tournament again. In some cases of course there are personal reasons, it is hard to know and that's a pity to ban such players... :/

So it wasn't a good tournament, sorry about that. Still thinking about a new rule.

Marc Lacrosse    (2007-03-28 19:32:07)
You change the rules or I leave :-)

A few comments in french (sorry : easyer for me)

Deux situations distinctes se produisent :

1. Quelqu'un a mal évalué et s'est engagé dans trop de parties, ou bien a un problème de santé, ou un changement de ses possibilités de loisirs. Il décide d'abandonner un tournoi, abandonne toutes ses parties, donne une petite explication à ses adversaires et bien sûr ne se réinscrit à rien dans l'immédiat. Désagréable mais bien sûr tout à fait admissible. La moindre des choses est qu'on lui interdise de s'inscrire à quoi que ce soit tant que ce qui reste de parties n'est pas terminé (ou abandonné) et que la prochaine réinscription se limite au départ à un seul tournoi qui devra être complètement terminé avant de pouvoir à nouveau cumuler plusieurs inscriptions simultanées.

2. Quelqu'un s'inscrit à de multiples tournois et s'arrête de jouer dans ceux où il est mal parti. Il ne prévient rien ni personne et laisse son temps s'écouler. Entretemps il s'inscrit à d'autres tournois et procède de même. De temps en temps il termine un tournoi si celui-ci parait mieux engagé. Ce joueur(?)-ci est simplement un parasite, un gâcheur de plaisir et un fausseur de résultats pour ceux qui le rencontrent. Mon opinion est sans appel : exclusion pure et simple de celui qui laisse s'éteindre des parties sans aucun commentaire tout en s'inscrivant à de nouveaux tournois. Je ne vois aucune justification possible à une telle attitude.

Je comprends que certains ne partagent pas cette opinion radicale

Quoiqu'il en soit, j'estime que le minimum exigible en faveur de ceux qui ont déjà été confronté à des "droppers" est de leur offrir un moyen de ne pas se trouver à nouveau confrontés aux mêmes parasites dans un autre tournoi.

Je m'explique : actuellement si je m'inscris dans un nouveau tournoi je n'ai aucune assurance quant à l'identité de ceux qui viendront s'inscrire après moi, et je risque à donc à nouveau d'être confronté à quelques-uns de ces personnages que je suis fermement décidé à ne plus rencontrer.

Je n'accepte pas cette perspective

Dès lors, tant qu'il n'y aura pas une modification de règlement qui me permettra d'éviter qu'un "dropper" connu s'inscrive dans un tournoi où je prendrai part, je ne jouerai plus sur FICGS.

Marc

PS Pour ma part, m'étant déjà engagé dans ce tournoi qui a complètement avorté et dans un tournoi master class ICCF, j'ai renoncé à ma qualification dans le championnat FICGS pour éviter de me trouver dans l'obligation éventuelle de renoncer à certaines parties. Le moins qu'on puisse dire est que l'attitude de certains ne me récompense pas vraiment de ma prudence ...

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-29 05:28:00)
Droppers : New rule

Hello to all.

I'm to add a new rule to minimize the effects of silent withdrawals & forfeits without an explanation. The aim is first to guarantee to players they will not play again with droppers before a while... Rule is : "Any player who forfeits (by resignation or silent withdrawal) his games without giving an explanation to referee in a rated chess tournament will get an instant rating penalty of 200 points."

Thus, players go at least one category down. Of course it could be easier to ban players for a while, but just trying to avoid this.

All comments and suggestions are welcome.

Don Groves    (2007-03-29 05:55:31)
Droppers: New rule

This rule penalizes resignations the same as quitting (silent withdrawal) and it seems to me that quitting is much worse. With a resignation at least the other player knows what is happening and can forget about the game. Not so with quitters.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-29 17:53:03)
game 6909

There was great games following this opening in the past, I remember particularly one by Judit Polgar.

Ok, let's see.. 10. ...Ng8 then.. brr, this position is simply frightening, does it really need an explanation :) .. if 10.Nfd7 then 11.Qh5, 12.O-O-O actually there's no particular line to justify 10. ...d5 IMO, the attack simply looks so strong in other cases... At least it obviously deals with obvious weaknesses in Black's position by giving some air.

Any other try to explain this hard opening ? :)

Marc Lacrosse    (2007-03-29 19:00:16)
Double RR tournaments ?

Seven players in a tournament is a good number

A larger number would lead to longer waiting time before a tournament actually begins.

But with such a small number of players being white or black against a given opponent may be decisive for tournament win.

So my suggestion : double round robin tournaments with a smaller number of players (five ?).

At five players, completing the full list of players is faster than for a seven-players single RR one and everybody plays 8 games with the advantage that no colour advantage/disadvantage exists against any opponent.

Your opinion ?

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-30 17:17:32)
Correspondence Chess time controls

Correspondence Chess means quite long time controls, traditionnally... You must always have time to analyze well your moves. By the way, rated games with too different time controls would lead to quite strange ratings. 30 days + 1 day per move (60 days limit per move) is fast enough IMO.

I understand your feeling about the simulatneous games :) .. But faster time controls (longer than real-time chess, ie. money tournaments time controls) would lead to many forfeits, quite sure about it.

Charlie Neil    (2007-03-30 21:13:10)
Time Controls

I think Marc has a point about a cummulative time limit in some time controls. in the class tournaments you could amass a huge ammount of time, if you were a fast player, and then use the clock and play really slowly and upset the rythym of your opponent. I like both time controls available, in Class and Rapid events, but if there is a demand for 5days +1day with a maximum of 20 days should we give it a try. as for drop-outs and silent withdrawals.....that's all in the game. (At least I get 1 point!) I am still dubious about double round robin tournaments but maybe you could try them in the Rapid events first. 5 player double pairings say every second tournament, and back to 7 player single pairing in the other......just a suggestion.

Janos Helmer    (2007-03-31 00:14:20)
Hello!

...Too addictive? Of course it is too addictive(thx for that,Thibauld!), but more important is that we (or at least I!) like to live with that! Best regards,

Elmer Valderrama    (2007-04-01 17:37:59)
Chessbase 10 with Xfcc is released!!

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3749

PS...and I am GM Elmar Magerramov..

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-01 19:02:14)
Chessbase 10 with Xfcc is released!!

... !? :o)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-05 04:17:09)
Links for Go beginners

A few essential links to learn Go (for beginners) :

http://senseis.xmp.net
http://senseis.xmp.net/?BeginnerStudySection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_board_game

This game is definitely great, play Go :)

Don Groves    (2007-04-05 07:51:16)
FICGS Birthdays

I just learned that Alejandro Suarez-Moreno's wife's birthday is also today! I think we should know players birthdays so we can send them greetings on that day. Maybe put them in each player's information. Mine is Sunday ;-)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-06 01:22:32)
Big Chess championship

Simple rules (1 win or lead = 1 point) have some clear advantages...

I have to think about it.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-09 03:25:04)
Your favourite Chess / Go movie ?

All in topic :) .. may be instructive, what's your favourite Chess & Go movies, at least movies where the game appears.

Mine is probably "La diagonale du fou" (Dangerous Moves) by Richard Dembo, with Michel Piccoli, Alexandre Arbatt, Liv Ullmann, Jean-Hugues Anglade & Michel Aumont... A great movie about a chess world championship that strangely looks like Karpov vs. Korchnoi.. or Fischer vs. Spassky, something between. Michel Piccoli is simply marvellous in this character :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Moves

About Go I remember "Pi" and "Hero"... I did not see the famous "Hikaru No Go". Any others ?

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-09 15:53:55)
Tatiana Kosintseva

Excellent performance so far by IM Tatiana Kosintseva, who leads Women's section of the 8th European Individual Championships by 6/6 ! .. In the Men's section, Volokitin, Jianu, Volkov, Moiseenko & Tkachiev lead with 5 points. Dmitry Jakovenko : 4,5 points.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-09 18:20:26)
Chess & Go movies

Luzhin defense is a nice film, but more about love than chess... :)

I heard about "The Go Master" about the life of Go Seigen... Waiting for seeing it !

About french movies, I'll also mention "Qui perd gagne" with Thierry Lhermitte, producted by a good chess player and friend, Daniel Wuhrman, I knew at Fontainebleau chess club :)

Jason Repa    (2007-04-10 00:13:32)
chess movie

I can't speak for Go, but there hasn't been a good chess movie yet. By far the absolute worst was "Searching for Bobby Fischer" which was a predictable prozaic drama that had nothing whatsoever to do with Bobby Fischer, or chess (real chess) for that matter. Dembo's "Dangerous Moves" was a pass. At least it was actually about chess. It was loosely based on a Karpov - Korchnoi championship but the character who was supposed to be Karpov was the older man. Neither of the actors were convincing in their attempt to portray top chess grandmasters. It would be nice to see a factual and well made movie about chess. Perhaps the Bobby Fischer story. I think an actor like James woods would be perfect to play an older Fischer.

Dan Rotaru    (2007-04-13 02:34:33)
Active players rating list

An maybe add one more condition: players who have finished at least one game or have unfinished games. There are players who keep connecting to the server but haven't played a single game yet.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-16 05:44:13)
Active players rating list

Ok, 60 days and 'at least 1 rated game' is probably more logical, it will be updated soon.

Thanks for help.

Achim Mueller    (2007-04-21 09:39:24)
WCH Stage 1 rules

Hi all,

a few words regarding the rules for WCH Stage 1. As far as I know now one player (out of 7) qualifies for the 2nd stage. In case of having 2 or more players with the same points at the top the player with the highest rating will qualify.

This is already difficult enough for newbies (with lower raing) because their opponents will have an advantage of 0.5 points in these 6 games. It's getting nearly impossible if you play in a group, where three players lost all their games on time within 10 moves (so they didn't play a single game seriously).

You can't afford a single draw in the remaining three games then, because in reality you play a tournament with only four players, where at least one player has a nominell advantage of nearly 20%!

I for myself now decided not to play future tournaments having this exceptionell ruling. Sorry to say so, but I don't see a realistic chance of winning all three games in correspondence chess nowadays, but what is needed to have a chance.

Ciao acepoint

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-21 10:08:48)
WCH Stage 1 rules

Hello Achim.

I understand, it may look really difficult at first sight, the ideas behind this are first to make cycles not too long in order to organize a new one every 6 months (so you have more chances), second to have best chances to find the very best players in the final stages - this is the aim of a championship IMO.

Anyway, that's right the fight is often between the 3 top-rated players in these groups. So the easiest way : To get a good rating first (at least you can win some points in these groups).

It could be great to organize another event (like a cup) with different rules. Waiting for more players :)

Achim Mueller    (2007-04-21 14:50:38)
Some answers

1) If the "higher rating" rule is best practise, as some players here do state, why isn't it used at _any_ FIDE tournaments? They have everything from SB, direct result, more wins, more wins with black pieces, but never ever used rating.

2) Even if it may not that easy to play for a draw ... I guess besides the fact that you get half a point as a gift it's also undoubtfull an advantage at least in correspondence chess to _know_ that a draw will help you, if you are the better rated player.

And this is definitely true in a tournament with only 4 players where there is only one qualifier.

Nonetheless you have all the right to use every rule you like. And as long as a player participates he "accepts" theses rules. That's what I also do, though I didn't know before that we are only 4 players and though I wasn't aware of this certain rule before.

But I also have all the rights to make future decisions regarding playing a qualifier here depending on the rules.

Ciao

acepoint

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-21 19:46:04)
Rules

Why FIDE didn't use such rules... Interesting question : IMO because OTB (over the board) chess is simply so different ! .. It is quite logical to use SB in open tournaments because it helps the player who is probably best "at this particular moment", meaning the best player of the event. In correspondence chess, it is quite different, I think using SB makes less sense here.

About draws, I think there's a real trap :) .. A player who thinks 'I must draw' will have difficulties against a good CC player IMO. And you probably noticed the players ratings in 7-players groups.. Even if all players fight, in most groups only 2 or 3 players probably really hope to win the tournament, the others have (at least) an opportunity to play stronger players and win some points... And you may be right (Don), 11 players groups may be more interesting. Maybe the next one...

Achim Mueller    (2007-04-22 11:22:27)
Group 2

Why one game? the leaders have 1/6 yet.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-22 12:32:08)
win against Anand :-)

Great & congrats ! :) .. such a thing does not happen every day. It's a real honor to beat a top class player, even in a simul - and with Black. (would have been even more pleasant in "real life" for sure)

Do you still play some FIDE events / tournaments, Marc ?

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-23 21:34:41)
Deep Fritz vs. Deep Junior

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3802

FIDE will organize a computer-computer 6-games match during the final days of the candidates match in june in Elista.

The "players" : Reigning computer chess world champion Deep Junior and 'reigning world champion' Deep Fritz. Time control : 75 min + 5 sec / move, the winner will get $60,000, the loser $40,000

This match brings a few questions : No particular comment on the choice of the engines, Rybka will wait for a win in a computer chess world championship... However I can't see a real interest for FIDE and for chess in such a match. I mean 6 games of rapid computer chess.. $100,000 !? Of course it will attract a few new players - to beat computers is an attractive challenge. But at least I hope Chessbase is the main sponsor :) .. does it mean a new Deep FRitz and Deep Junior version in june ? .. I hope that the games analyzed by Rybka 2.3 won't reveal the engines too poor.. :/ .. Finally what 'title' for the winner ?! ;)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-27 03:09:26)
Elo calculation

Hello Nicola.

Elo calculation must be a clear and fair algorith as much as possible... These rules are statistically quite good IMO (and I suppose not many players will ask for less points ;)) because rating is quite dynamic (if your rating is really too high, you'll most probably quickly lose points until the next update) then most forfeits are done before the 10 first moves. In a way, you deserved these points because you played moves enough in these games, otherwise ie. what would happen if a player forfeits after 40 moves in a drawn or lost position ? .. Is the game unrated, rated as a win, a draw ? .. It would be unrated in some other places, that's not fair IMO. There are more complex cases. One thing most important is to make rating calculation 100% automatic (no human decision is a very asked 'feature'), this way there can't be any complaint about ratings as the future rating option makes it clear.

Best, Thibault

Matt Lasley    (2007-04-27 15:24:15)
Reward consistency

You could say that the forfeiture points are awarded for consistency. That's a valuable trait. Perhaps such points may not reflect play yet, but the consistency that lead to their award will show up in your game play in the long run. So, the points are deserved either way. And as T said, the algorithm takes care of it anyway. Ratings are a measure of history, not a measure of skill.

Sandor Marton-Bardocz    (2007-04-30 11:54:47)
WCH Stage 1 rules

Hi everyone! Let me introduce my self :-) I'm the highest rated player in the Wch stage 1 group 12 "the blocking guy" how Achim described me...whatever that means.. 1. there is no dead draw in my opinion likewise there is no absolute winning lines, openings in a chess game...And this is most true in our "centaur, human-engine tandem" era where lines are very "unstable" to say the least..so I don't believe that one can play for a absolute draw without any risk..avoiding complicated variations...the variations complexity is very relativ...line can be "cristal clear" for one and most complicated for other..In my opinion high rates of draws among world class cc player isn't because they all play for draws ...It's a tendency..like it was in otb chess among super gm-s...not long ago...until the "no draw alowed" rules were aplied...i don't want to speculate why this happens.. 2. If someone really want to win...then should play for a win ...no matter what regulations are applied for that particular tournament 3. I think that if someone might want to take a look to the game that I played against mister Deeb in the same tournament ...starting from the move 17 of mine...hardly can to argue that I wanted to play for draws just to achieve equal points to advance. I think that none of the engines can even "smell" the outcome of the game in that position after 17..d5!?...so...saying that nowdays it's easier to achieve draws because of engines....it's a little bit exaggerated The plan started with the move 17 ...d5!? that I have played it was an absolute rejection of a drawish (by repetation) position...and it was played just because i wanted to ...play.. not to advance in a higher stage of the tournament or something...even though the final outcome ( just in my opinion! and this isn't an absolute true by far) is probably ...still a draw. 4. The regulations regarding the advance in the higher stages of the tournament..now this are definitly arguable!there are pro's and con's...and always be. We don't have plausible answers for this kind of issues...because it's is a subjectiv matter. I'm not convinced too that "higher rated player advance"is the right regulation..few examples...just look for example ...Kramnik - Leko WCH . a. ..challenger and his fans can say.."hey he didn't beat him...why should remain WChampion?! He didn't proved that he is better!" b. ..Wchampion and his fans can say.."hey u want my crown?! than beat me, and take it! draw isn't enough!" The line of examples doesn't stops here ..i don't want to prolong this subject...No rule can satisfy both sides...polemics, flame are always present :-) 5. None can predict what will be the process in a group...If 2-3 or even 4 players changes they mind and doesn't really play..that's it, and none can't do a thing about that ...maybe some sanctions later...i don't believe it will do any good anyway... 6. In the game betwen me and Achim...I don't think that I choosed a draw line...I think that I had the initiative but probably it wasn't enough for a win, Achim overforced it ....which isn't a bad thing but probably not with the plan he had preferred. good day for everyone!

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.

Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-04-30 17:32:08)
Rules and morals

Rules just have to be clear before a tournament starts – whether this rules are bad or good will be defined by the individual sight of everyone, so never mind because the rules are known and accepted by all members. Just a bad looser is searching his lost by the rules! Another thing is the abuse of rules – you can play in accordance with the rules and nevertheless break moral fundamentals. I.e. definitely lost or drawn games (known by both opponents) will not finished (by resign or draw offer/accept) because of the hope that the opponent will have a heart attack before the time control is coming. Or taking care of your rating, it will be done in next rating period later on. Perhaps it is purely a matter of taste!

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 :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-01 00:57:44)
Achim's answer

Achim Mueller asked to close his account, but he wanted to respond to Wolfgang & Sandor, here's his answer :

"A last clarification:

@Wolfgang Utesch: I wasn't aware of the "ELO-prefering" rule and I still don't find it here on the webpage. I opened a thread here in this forum and besides "then win all your games" or "in this case we ensure that the better player will qualify" there were no substantial arguments for this pretty unused and unknown rule (not that I agree with these two "arguments"!). Nonetheless I accepted the rule for this tournament.

My decision to give up and leave this server is based on an easy calculation how many games I have to play here to get a - what I call - competitive rating that somehow equals the advantage, players with a nominal rating of 2200 - 2500 will have in every tournament where this rule exists. Because my time is limited my decision was to leave the server, that's all. I don't complain, I don't take anything as an excuse. It's simple as it is: I gave it a try here, became aware of the rule and decided this is the wrong place for me, ok?

@Sandor Marton-Bardocz : I didn't say with any word that you are a blocking guy. This was a _general_ thesis how the player with the best rating can take an overwhelming advantage at this ruling. All good players (ask anyone in the region of 2400up at remoteschach, dbf, iecg or iccf) will confirm that it is most difficult to get 3.5 point out of 4 if at least 2 players know how to use computers and choose certain openings.

Finally ... ficgs is a nice place to play, the interface is good and I assume Thibault put a lot of work into it. So, enjoy your games here, but also accept that from time to time there might be players that will leave because of certain issues.

Ciao

Achim"

Rules (and chess WCH rules) - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html

Thanks Achim. Best wishes & have good games :)

Garvin Gray    (2007-05-02 18:52:23)
drr

More drr's please.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-03 02:13:44)
Go championship cycle

1st FICGS go WCH will start in a few months, but I'm still not really satisfied with current rules :

"FICGS world Go championship is first a round-robin tournament, involving 11 players including the 6 players who won or lead most Go tournaments started during the previous year and the 5 highest rated players, among players who entered the waiting list. If more than 2 players win (or lead) a tournament with equal score, no win is granted. A win in a "pro" tournament is worth 9 "kyu" wins. A win in a "dan" tournament is worth 3 "kyu" wins. In case of equality, the next places will be taken in account.

The winner of this tournament is the challenger for FICGS world champion title. In case of equality, the winner is the player with the highest tournament entry rating (TER), If this rule can't designate a unique challenger, current ratings will be considered. If current world champion defends his title, they will play a 6 games match. In case of equality (3-3), the winner is the former world champion.

All games are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. Komi is 7.5 points. Rules for Go are chinese rules, as defined by the Chinese Weiqi Association."

Not clear enough, quite complicate and strange, even if I like the idea of a 2-stages tournament (round-robin tournament then challenger vs. champion match) and to give the opportunity to the best rated Go players to enter it without playing tournaments before... Other questions, double round-robin or not, should it be open to all players.. Feel free to suggest your ideas for a nice Go WCH cycle ! :)

Christophe Czekaj    (2007-05-07 13:25:39)
science,art and bluff

Ok for the artistic element but perhaps there is too much "science" in correspondence chess due to the use of computers. There is no much place left for "bluff" which belongs to the pleasure chess gives us

Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-05-07 15:00:39)
Bluff

Bluff in modern corresponence chess on high level means to bluff your opponent AND his his used engines! In my opinion chess is a drawn game because the corridor of draw is normally very broad. But there are situations in many games where a very small mistake leads to a totally lost position (if you know the right way!). To find out this moments that is the real art of modern correspondence chess!

Don Burden    (2007-05-11 02:32:13)
Chinese thoughts

Confucius could give answer to that, unfortunately Confucius not here at moment.

Kindness in heart better than gold in bank.

Truth like football, receive many kicks before reaching goal.

Politeness golden key that open many doors.

Any powder that kills flea is good powder.

Knowledge only gained through curiousity.

Man without relatives is man without trouble.

Sleep only escape from yesterday.

Do not challenge supernatural unless armed with sword of truth.

To destroy false prophet must first unmask him before eyes of believers.

When fear attack brain, tongue wave distress signal.

Drop of plain water on thirsty tongue more precious than gold in purse.

Thought at present like dog chasing own tail, getting noplace.

When money talk, few are deaf.

Humility only defense against rightful blame.

Luck happy combination of foolish accidents.

Alibi have habit of disappearing like hole in water.

Good fisherman, like clever merchant, know lure of bright colors.

Man without enemies like dog without fleas.

Front seldom tell truth, to know occupant of house always look in backyard.

One small wind can raise much dust.

Caution sometimes mother of suspicion. Suspicion often father of truth.

Don Groves    (2007-05-12 03:19:07)
Skip feature

Hi Thibault, The skip feature is nice but it only skips the game one time. If there are 10 games waiting to be played, skip must be used many times if I want to leave that particular game until last. Is there a way to put the skipped game last in the list?

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-12 23:16:53)
rake

Actually, ie. for a Gold blitz game (chess) the rake is 3 E-Points for White and 0 E-Points for Black !

There are 2 different rakes, a one-time rake on money entry fees (or money prizes) and another one, much lower, on E-Points entry fees : If you play only one game (a win) and ask for a money prize, the rake is the money prize one, 25 Euros (let's call it 'money prize rake') but the more games you play before asking money prizes, so applying the E-Points rake, the more the global rake will tend to the 'E-Points rake' which is much lower.

"Money prizes have to be compared to E-Points prizes that are much higher : A win in a Gold blitz game is worth 197 E-Points, meaning the more games you play before to ask for a money prize, the less charged games are. In example, if you buy 3 Gold tickets (3 x 100 Euros), you'll get 300 E-Points, then you play 30 Gold blitz chess games (15 as White and 15 as Black) : 29 draws and 2 wins with White. Finally you have 300 - (30 x 100) + (15 x 100) + (13 x 97) + (2 x 197) = 455 E-Points. At the end, if you ask for a money prize for the last game you won, you'll get a 150 Euros money prize and your E-Points account will be 455 - 197 = 258 E-Points"

Quite complicate to visualize but as FICGS is not a casino, there's a normal value added tax on money entry fees in Europe (that's why money prizes for gold tournaments can't exceed 150 euros). This way, I think the rule is quite interesting for players who play at least 10 games... Trying to write it in a clearer way.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-15 15:14:59)
Fighting against Tablebases

Hello Wolfgang, please remind me (here or in our games) the game you're talking about. Quite strange that shredderchess tablebases did not give the same result than yours.

Anyway, if your opponent does not have 6-pieces tablebases and his engines and instinct say +0,70, it may be hard for him to trust you :)

Best, Thibault

Garvin Gray    (2007-05-15 23:53:11)
order

Hello,

Would it be possible to also show the waiting list in rating order? Not just in entry order.

At least something to click on that will show the players in rating order?

Albert H. Alberts    (2007-05-19 15:54:40)
shesnikov

Cirulis/Thibault. Indeed after 14.-fg4 15.Qg4 f5 black is clearly better. But my Fritz-10 went 14.- e4/Bb2 and that is bad. However white can go 12.c3 Bd5 13/ed5 Ne7 14. g4!? hg4 15.Qg4 Rg8 16.Qf3 Ng6 and then 17.0-0-0 to save tempi for 0-0/Kh1 and connect rooks.I'll be back early next week for lines.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-20 14:25:05)
Opponent dragging out lost game

Hello Robert.

According to the rules, in a lost position your opponent has at most 1 month to finish the game after you called referee a first time (done). Feel free to ask for an adjudication in about one month, or at least before the next rating calculation.

Best wishes, Thibault.

Robert Mueller    (2007-05-20 20:37:14)
Thank you :)

Thank you, that was very helpful. At least the game will be over before the next rating list update.

Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-05-21 19:32:10)
Hi, Phil! :)

I agree.

My suggestion is to play our games in that order:

1- Petrov's defence (I vs You)
2- Petrov's defence (I vs You)
3- Traxler counterattack (I vs You)
4- Evans gambit (You vs Me)

Let me to guess...
You mean that Petrov's defence games will be money games and I must win. And all games will be lighting games.

Four lighting games in a row - it will take at least seven hours. I have so much time only in holidays - Saturday and Sunday.

And we need help of Thibault to organize Petrov's defence and Evans gambit games.

Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-05-22 14:51:18)
#6869 ...

.. is there any win (earlier too)? This question by Thibault has to be answered. It seems to be a clear win, but ...

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-27 19:13:09)
Candidates Matches 2007

I just read the Chessbase news :

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3886

I was first surprised to learn that Etienne Bacrot (after Grischuk) turned to poker also...

Levon Aronian (ARM) - Magnus Carlsen (NOR)
Alexei Shirov (ESP) - Michael Adams (GBR)
Ruslan Ponomariov (UKR) - Sergei Rublevsky (RUS)
Alexander Grischuk (RUS) - Vladimir Malakhov (RUS)
Peter Leko (HUN) - Mikhail Gurevich (TUR)
Judith Polgar (HUN) - Evgeny Bareev (RUS)
Boris Gelfand (ISR) - Rustam Kasimjanov (UZB)
Etienne Bacrot (FRA) - Gata Kamsky (USA)

In this round my favourites are : Carlsen, Shirov, Ponomariov, Grischuk, Leko, Polgar, Kasimjanov, Kamsky.

Hard to say who will win this knockout tournament...

Mikhail Ruzin    (2007-05-30 13:08:42)
White win the game

Hi Phil. And what is question about game 9752? White win the game. Its clear. There are not any groups with unknown (questionable) status. Use MultiGo (for example) to count result of game. (M19 stil not defended) "Chinese Rule: White: 191.25 = 186 (Points) + 3 (Shared) / 2 + 7.5 (Komi) / 2 Black: 169.75 = 172 (Points) + 3 (Shared) / 2 - 7.5 (Komi) / 2 W + 10.75 Japanese Rule: White: 119.5 = 100 (Territory) + 12 (Black's Dead) + 7.5 (Komi) Black: 98 = 98 (Territory) + 0 (White's Dead) W + 21.5"

Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2007-06-01 12:26:32)
Go championship

I think that the current rules are quite good. For the current user base, 9 players round robin is enough.

If the user base gets bigger and stronger, you could introduce preliminary stages. Example: sort all players who entered the waiting list by rating, then the final league consists of the 5 strongest players plus 4 players who placed first in the preliminary (which might be a knockout, or another league).

One thing I would change in the current system: the usual custom for multi-game matches between two players is to determine colours randomly for the first game, then alternate. If an uneven number of games is played, then in the last game, colours are chosen randomly again.

As I interpret the rules in that way that all five final games are played simultaneously, I would propose that one of those games is played with random colours.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-01 18:05:21)
Vladimir Kramnik interview

An interesting interview with Vladimir Kramnik on the current world of chess in Chessbase news, speaking of the chess world championship in Mexico, the current format, the place of Topalov in it, also his illness and married life... Very clear, looks like his chess :)

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3894
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3899

Marc Lacrosse    (2007-06-04 19:05:48)
Any ideas for the next round ? :)

Aronian (not clear)
Bareev !
Rublevsky
Gelfand

Hehe !

Marc

Hannes Rada    (2007-06-14 18:59:47)
Figlio - Schuster

It's confusing, because at Semifinal 1 we can see: 'Leader: Farit Balabaev' ??

Graham Cridland    (2007-06-15 17:29:55)
Game 11393

Just finished an interesting game in the Scandinavian. Pretty level most of the way, although both sides must have missed some chances. A couple of questions: First, in the final position, what is the evaluation of the endgame after 31 ... Qc8 32 Qe5+ Qc7 33 Qxg7 Rxg7 34 Re8+ Qc8 35 Rxc8 Kxc8 36 Rxg7 (thus far all forced) 36...Rxd4 37 Rh7 Rf4 38 Rxh6 Rxf2 39 Rg6 Rh2 40 h6 (this exact endgame can be reached by other move orders in Cridland-Khayman)? I looked at the ending for a long time, as it seemed to be my only option other than forcing a draw (32 Qe3 Re4 33 Qd2 isn't attractive). But I think it's drawn! White's only plan is bringing the king to g1 to release the back rank, but that gives black time to rush forward with pawns and king on the Queenside. White can get to h7 by Rg8+ Kc7, Rg7+ Kb6, h7 at some point, but then what? It looked so attractive at first.

Nick Burrows    (2007-06-16 04:01:51)
DMD

I think it is still valid to play on in a 'lost position'. People play for different reasons. Some to improve their over the board play. If you always resign in losing positions, you may never learn how to fight when you still have practical chances.
if he is just managing his rating, this is different, but can you ever force someone to resign over a matter of etiquette?

Mircea Hrubaru    (2007-06-16 14:12:43)
More on Strelka

Hello all, Well, it seems that all the fuss on wether Strelka is a clone has ended. Strela by Yuri Ostripov (St. Petersburg, Russia) is his original work and this was strongly tested by trustful persons in computerchess. Yet its status (a very materialistic engine, with very few endgame knowledge) makes this engine a very goo future hope. Yuri is currently improving Strelka so we must expect spectacular progress very soon (at least I hope that). Regards, Mircea

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-16 22:00:18)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU

Hello to all.

I'm glad to announce a new match between chess servers, that should start in about 10 days to 2 weeks. The previous match was FICGS vs. GAMEKNOT (we lost :))

The opponent is the russian server - http://www.igame.ru , an opportunity to meet new chessfriends from eastern countries :)

Here is the agreement :

1. Teams should consist of 25 players maximum (an exact number should be agreed later);
2. Number of games on each board equals 2 (one for White and one for Black);
3. Time control is 30 days + 3 days/move;
4. Leaves are provided, 30 days/year;
5. The match is played on www.ficgs.com;
6. Start date of the match should be agreed by both sides after squads are completed;
7. ICCF rules of play are applied.

In this match chess engines are allowed, it goes without saying we need a strong correspondence chess team, but anyone who wish to play may email me (or use the 'message to webmaster' form in "My account"), or just respond to this post.

Best wishes.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-17 01:49:16)
Rating lists

Hi Dan, yes it may be not clear enough yet. I'll add this post somewhere in the rules when I'm sure about this.

- Established rating list displays players who finished at least 9 rated games (or who obtained an established rating at ICCF / IECG) and who connected during the last 2 years.

- Preliminary rating list is actually more an active players list, it displays players who finished at least 1 rated game (or who obtained an established rating at ICCF / IECG) and who connected during the last 2 months.

Well, maybe I should set the filter to 2 years also, or rename the list as active players list, but it's not very coherent too... :/

Mircea Hrubaru    (2007-06-17 06:59:20)
I'm in too

Hi there, that would be fun for sure. Please count me in the FICGS team (of course).

Christophe Czekaj    (2007-06-17 11:11:19)
Let's crush the russians...

... please Bobby, help us ! ;-D

Than Serd    (2007-06-17 17:49:39)
please

...i want to play

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-18 02:05:59)
World Computer Chess Championship (WCCC)

Is this World Computer Chess Championship still worth something without programs such as Hiarcs, Junior & Fritz ?

This way, only 3 or 4 games are decisive and undoubtly - or I should say randomly - Rybka will win ahead of Zappa and Shredder. At least Rybka will obtain the "last major" title to pretend to be the very best chess engine.

WCCC 2007 - http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/news.php

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-18 05:41:30)
New update !

"Tournaments" page and waiting lists have been completely re-organized by time control ! (more coherent and clear IMO)

Also a new rating list : Active players list.

- Active players list displays players who connected during the last 2 months... Right now almost 700 of 2100 which is quite good IMO :)

- Preliminary rating list now displays players who finished at least 1 rated game, less than 9 rated games and who connected during the last 2 years. (which is much more interesting)

At last, the rating rules for advanced chess (blitz & lightning) have been improved. Now a fair performance bonus for Black, see rules :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_advanced_chess

And now, I'm going to sleep... Good night everyone :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-18 06:26:11)
WCCC

Computerchess rating lists are very different from human's ones. Fritz & Junior are not so weak (ok, maybe Junior is :)) .. At least they can beat Loop and Naum. Anyway I meant that more strong programs should play at the WCCC, the results can't be significant this year because too few interesting games will be played (and there was a bug in some Rybka game). At last I agree about CCRL, it is more trustable than SSDF rating list.

Don Groves    (2007-06-18 08:24:45)
New Go rating lists, please

Hi Thibault. The new rating lists are nice! I hope you can find the time to extend them to Go as well as Chess :-)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-19 17:57:07)
GM_FICGS__CHESS__RAPID

Hello Viktor.

Well, it would be great to organize such a tournament :) .. But GM Atalik did not connect for at least 1 year.

See active players list - http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=rating_lists

Anyway, if the other players agree, why not (prize would be inf. to 800 E-Points with 8 players)... Also I'm sure that many players would be interested to play a 2, 4 or 8-games match with an entry fee / prize with you.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-20 03:38:27)
Chessbase

Chessbase made a full report on the 15th ICGA WCCC and Rybka's victory, despite half their leading programs did not even participate.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3936

Congratulations to them, that's fair play :)

Garvin Gray    (2007-06-20 13:55:59)
lists

Can the list of proposed players who have said so here please be brought forward so we can all see where we stand? :)

Alexander Shalamanov    (2007-06-22 14:09:17)
Russian translation

As it appears, Mike has already done the Russian translation. Of course, some purely cosmetic improvements could be made to the Russian version but do they need to de done? It's not that bad and gives a good idea of the website and its content. So I think we can leave it at that. Cheers, Alex

Garvin Gray    (2007-06-22 16:00:54)
not happy

Got to admit, I am not pleased at the prospect of missing out on a game representing ficgs because some players have suddenly signed up from igame and are going to attempt to represent ficgs.

I think the ficgs regulars should be first picked and if there are any spots left over, they are filled with the other siters

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-22 20:58:23)
About real names...

Ok, a few words about real names :

While registering, using your real name is really appreciated and helps to build this friendly atmosphere, not using your real name is tolerated if you don't abuse of it...

... but it is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN to use dictators or any other famous people names !

If you feel concerned or notice such a name I wouldn't have noticed in the rating lists, please warn me through the message form in "My account" or by email.

Thanks in advance.

Glen D. Shields    (2007-06-23 00:14:24)
Chess Engine Strength

Thibault - I've been following the TCCMB discussion. I think it's impossible to answer the question what rating Rybka can achieve under the uncontrolled circumstances we play. If Rybka were playing only against humans, it would achieve a 2600+ rating. Since it plays mostly against itself and other top engines (with little human intervention), the typical results are win a few games, lose a few games and draw a lot.

Since tournaments are mostly set up so that players face opponents with similar ratings, a 2220 rated player using Rybka enters a tournament against other 2200 players. That player wins a few games, loses a few, draws a lot and leaves the tournament at approximately 2200. We conclude from that pattern that Rybka can achieve a 2200 rating.

Conversely, a player (like Uri Blass) who enters tournaments at 2600 and plays other 2600 rated opponents using Rybka wins a few games, loses a few games and draws a lot. He leaves the tournament rated approximately 2600. We conclude for that situation Rybka is rated 2600.

IMHO, it is impossible to answer the Rybka rating question under our typical tournament circumstances.

I think an even better question than worrying about Rybka's strength is "does anyone REALLY enjoy CC anymore?" Today's CC's is a race to buy the fastest hardware and make sure SSDF's top rated programs are installed. I'm playing beginners who can't explain what "en passant" is, but by parroting Rybka they compete in top tournaments and claim to hold titles that once upon a time had to be earned through hard work. After passing through the opening, it doesn't take much effort to figure out what program your opponent is using. At that point one can predict with high probablitlty every move your opponent will make for the rest of the game. Rarely do I see a move that I can can beat. The games are boring and pedictable. Those blunders and surprises that we once wrote funny stories about are long gone. IMO so is the fun.

Sorry to sound so "pessimistic," but until these problems are addressed and the fun is restored I find it just as easy to play against my computer. I can play at my pace, chose the engine I want to play, and unless my computer crashes I no longer have to worry about DMD :-)

Thanks for such a well run place to play chess. You do a great job maintaining it.

My best,

Glen

Ivan Poddubnyi    (2007-06-23 00:55:24)
2 Thibault de Vassal:

Unfortunately, IGAME players are not understood here in correct way. Let me clear our position about names.

Of course I respect your idea of creating a friendly atmosphere on your cite by giving real names. If I will decide to stay here, I will play under my real name. But now I am your guest and would like to play under a nick-name. I hope, you can respect our IGAME customs. If you do not like my IGAME nickname Mobutu, let me play as Ivan.

By the way, a lot of information about IGAME players is available on our cite www.igame.ru: games, results, IGAME ratings and so on. Come and see, we do not hide. :-)

Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-06-23 06:53:27)
9 games at least.

3 engine games and 6 human games.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-23 06:54:16)
Nicknames

A few words about real names, asked at registration :

While registering, using your real name is really appreciated and helps to build this friendly atmosphere, not using your real name is tolerated if you don't abuse of it...

... but it is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN to use dictators or any other famous people names !

If you feel concerned or notice such a name I wouldn't have noticed in the rating lists, please warn me through the message form in "My account" or by email.

Thanks in advance.

Michael Aigner    (2007-06-23 12:55:32)
Rybka 2.3.2a would!

Hi! Rybka follws the mentioned game Motley -Anand but finds an improvement at move 24. 24. Bh5 Qf5 26. Bxg7 with an unclear (IMO, according to Rybka equal position. it could follow Nc5 (Kxg7 26.Rf1) 26. Rxd8+ Kxd8 27.Kd6 Kd3+ 28.cxd Qa5+ 29.Ke2 Kxg7 still unclear, but in an otb game i would shourly prefer to play white. I can imagine when you look deeper in the position after Bh5 you might find a win for white - or lets say a variation in which it is almost not possible for black to defend in an otb game even when the objective evaluation says the position is equal. This could be the reason why Re8 is prefered by strong human GMs.

Ivan Poddubnyi    (2007-06-23 15:02:23)
2 Thibault de Vassal:

Can I play as Ivan Poddubnyi or shall I change my nickname? If I can't play as Ivan Poddubnyi, please rename me. I agree to play as Ivan Ivanov, for example.

Ivan Poddubnyi    (2007-06-23 15:32:59)
2 Thibault de Vassal

Is my name OK or should I change it? If I can't play as Ivan Poddubnyi, please rename me. Ivan Ivanov, for example. :-)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-24 01:35:19)
Reminder : Rules !

11. General rules - 11.1. Netiquette : "No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit."

Thanks everyone not to provocate or insult other players anymore !

Sergey warned me before the match that some players from Igame.ru wouldn't like to play under their real names, I said they could register with other names (not famous names), a few players did it, this is not so important IMO.

Players who absolutely want to play in this match against players using their real name can send me a private message and I'll arrange that.

Thanks in advance :)

Garvin Gray    (2007-06-25 15:29:23)
to Wolfgang Utesch

Wolfgang,

Please read below regarding your participation and this issue of nicknames.

Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-24 01:35:19) Players who absolutely want to play in this match against players using their real name can send me a private message and I'll arrange that.

Continuing on with my comment- This means that since you have a real issue playing against someone using just a nickname, Thibault de Vassal will pair you against someone using their real name.

This seems a fair compromise to me.
By the way, I would like to play against someone using their real name as well.

Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-25 17:48:40)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU

Let me explain – I don’t want to have any exception rules for me! It’s a principle thing: about 35 years ago I played some few correspondence chess tournaments by postcard (naturally with my real name). After a long period of abstinence (since 1999) I played correspondence chess by Email (IECG/Playchess-Server and ICCF/ICCF-Webserver) – new transport medium but with old real name. So everybody can see my chess history: I’m standing (with my real name) to all my many bad or neutral games as same as to my some very good chess performances. I’ve always used tools (first just books and later also engines), but I’ve always played my games alone (without help by any other person). I think there are many other players with FICGS (i.e. Peter Schuster, Hannes Rada, Harry Ingersol or others more) who have done it similar like me. In contrast, if DONALD DUCK wins and has played a very good game, he likes it to say his real name, if he loses or has played poorly, he is just staying DONALD DUCK. He wouldn’t have to fear to disgrace himself, but there is a real chance for him to gleam! Sorry, but this is not my idea from a friendly match between two serious teams.

Garvin Gray    (2007-06-25 18:53:46)
next rating list

Robert Mueller (2007-06-25 16:57:08) Ficgs vs Igame.ru With all the discussion about nicknames we seem to be a bit off topic: when does the match start and who is playing?

I believe that the ficgs team will be confirmed once the new rating list is released on July 1st.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-25 22:04:56)
Round 1 & 2

Good start for Kramnik, beating Gelfand at round 2, in the lead with Alekseev. Solid games...

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-26 01:04:56)
Vacation : 1 month / year or 6 months ?

Hello to all.

I've been told that the 30 days leave per year rule was a bit hard (at least harder than ICCF rule). For several reasons, it wouldn't be possible to have 2 months per year but 1 month / 6 months would be ok.

I'm not so favourable to such a change, but I'd like to know players opinion. (please respond if you're not favourable to this change also :))

Thanks in advance.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-26 01:35:03)
A guide to Endgames Tablebases

Endgames tablebases fully explained, a great page :

http://horizonchess.com/FAQ/Winboard/egtb.html

* [A.1] What is a endgame tablebase? How do they work? How much stronger will it make my chess program play?
* [A.2] What are the different endgame tablebases formats out there? What are the differences?
* [A.3] Where can I learn more about the endgame table formats?
* [A.4] What are the Chess programs that support endgame tables? Which format do they support?
* [A.5] Where can I get endgame tablebase?
* [A.6] Where can I buy tablebases?
* [A.7] Where can I download tablebases?
* [A.8] How do I generate tablebases on my computer?
* [A.9] How large are the tablebase files? Can I put then all into one directory? Do I have to use a complete set of 5 men tablebases?
* [A.10] Questions about 6 men endgame tablebases. Which are the most useful?
* [A.11] How do I find out which tablebase is corrupted? How do I know the endgame tablebases are working?
* [A.12] What is datacomp.exe? Where can I get it?
* [A.13] How do I get Crafty to work with Endgame tablebases?
* [A.14] How can I get Fritz to use Endgame tablebases?
* [A.15] What is the difference between tablebases download from Dr Hyatt's ftp site and those on the Chessbase endgame turbo CD? Can they be used together?
* [A.16] What are the files ending with .tbs? What about those with nbb and nbw? Do i need both?
* [A.17] Help, the endgame tablebases are not working properly!
* [A.18] Can I use tablebase files in zipped form?
* [A.19] Where can I get a useful graphical browser to view endgame tablebases? What about an online searchable database?
* [A.20] Misc questions

Dinesh De Silva    (2007-06-26 09:33:10)
Re:

I think there should be at least an option of an extra 10 days to the current 30 days per year. The point is that there are such things as computers breaking down, computers hit with viruses, business travel commitments, planning a holiday etc. I think the majority are not glued to the internet all the time. These factors far outweigh other things. So to relieve the situation, an extra 10 days might be a good idea.

Andrey Sumets    (2007-06-26 16:38:31)
Wolfgang

You can easily recognize your opponent by his games on igame.ru because you will be given also his igame's nickname. All of our players have played a lot of games so far. If you have some problems with russian language please tell me your opponent's name and i'll give you link. According to this I don't understand why you want to now REAL name inspite of this person's games?

Miguel Pires    (2007-06-26 18:23:36)
Vacation

Hi, I ask to Thibault to discuss this in the forum because, like Dinesh De Silva have sayed, you can have a some sort of (i don't have a better word) problems that make you postpone your games. In ICCF at any tournament you have 30 days/vacation for ich tournament. My problem is not with the tournaments with 10/40 Days are in the 30+1. In this first 6 months i've a lot of issues to solve (professional and personal thing's) that i've to postpone a lot. Now thing's are more or less calm, but if we have more time or the rules are equal to ICCF my new tournaments can have 30 days, and if i need to postpone now i can't postpone the oldest and the new tournaments because i've not more days. I now that is the rules but i think more time (Like Gamknot) or the same rule like ICCF can help a lot. Another idia is do like (i think) IECG or IECC, that if you need a special live they can give you that (i think if you have someone in the hospital, important biseness to a long period can feet in the "special leave"). Is only my opinion. Best Regard's Miguel Pires

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-27 00:53:38)
Mircea

Hi Mircea. You know, such things happen... That's a pity this atmosphere of suspicion was created because of a few players and a misunderstanding but it would have happened anyway, as it is not possible to verify all names... Most important is to play with clear rules, then (fortunately) we all are different and think different :)

Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2007-06-27 14:52:24)
Ficgs vs Igame.ru

I am looking forward for this match, of course as a humble spectator. Maybe we should have cheer leaders ...

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-27 21:18:36)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU, the games

Hello to all.

The friendly match between FICGS & IGAME.RU teams just started :)

http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__FICGS_VS_IGAME_RU_MATCH.html

I'd like to thank Sergey Pligin for organizing this match and all players who registered to play. I apologize to the players who couldn't play :/ .. 25 boards was not enough this time. To build FICGS team I selected players with the highest ratings but one cause his rating should be clearly >2000 already. Also IM Mark Noble plays at table 6 because his opponent is another FIDE IM.

I wish good games to everyone, this is a great opportunity for us to meet russian chessfriends.

Amici Sumus !

... quote of the day : "Top boards make the show, last ones win matches." :-)

Here are the complete teams :

FICGS :

1. Thibault de Vassal # 1
2. Michael Aigner # 139
3. Peter Schuster SM # 323
4. Janos Helmer # 47
5. Miguel Pires # 83
6. Mark Noble IM # 1991
7. Leszek Tymcio # 2151
8. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff # 142
9. Silviu Nenciulescu # 1319
10. William Taylor # 1232
11. Poulerik Jorgensen # 940
12. Wayne Lowrance # 135
13. Edward Kotlyansky # 1140
14. Christophe Czekaj # 1193
15. Konstantin Dudulec # 1329
16. Robert Mueller # 1233
17. Josef Riha # 157
18. Dan Rotaru # 1394
19. Garvin Gray # 1363
20. Nick Burrows # 1643
21. Vadim Khachaturov # 1078
22. Daniel Khayman # 1032
23. Gaetano Laghetti # 138
24. Alexander Nent # 1411
25. Ilmars Cirulis # 533

IGAME.RU :

1. Sumets Andrey, Member # 2137, GM
2. Pljusnin Ivan, Member # 2147
3. Pligin Sergey, Member # 2189
4. Doinikov Owl, Member # 2191
5. Romitsin Nikolay Sergeevich, Member # 2159
6. Vovk Andrey, Member # 2144, IM
7. Yunusov Adkham, Member # 2124
8. Pavlikov Andrey Nikolayevich, Member # 2157
9. Leskiv Miroslav, Member # 2133
10. Domanov Dmitry, Member # 2130
11. Kragujevcanin Stole, Member # 2148 12. Silkin Aleksey, Member # 2198
13. Orlov Sergei, Member # 2207
14. Kim Vladimir, Member # 2139
15. Gerasimov Vladimir, Member # 2190
16. Larin Igor, Member # 2193
17. Zarullin Ivan, Member # 2203
18. Filimonov Evgeny, Member # 2176
19. Pezikov Evgeny, Member # 2174
20. Stork Denis, Member # 2180
21. Mancubov Boris, Member # 2156
22. Ilyuschenko Yury, Member # 2168
23. Prokopenko Alex, Member # 2182
24. Basiliev Iouri, Member # 2205
25. Shpakovsky Alexander, Member # 2185

Edit : There was a mistake while building the games, I had to make a replacement at board 23.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-28 03:22:02)
Round 4

Beautiful game (so clear) by Vladimir Kramnik, who beats Magnus Carlsen to take the lead in the tournament...

Kramnik,V (2772) - Carlsen,M (2693) [E06]
Sparkassen Chess Meeting, Dortmund GER (4), 27.06.2007

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.d4 Be7 5.Bg2 0–0 6.0–0 dxc4 7.Qc2 a6 8.Qxc4 b5 9.Qc2 Bb7 10.Bd2 Nc6 11.e3 Nb4 12.Bxb4 Bxb4 13.a3 Be7 14.Nbd2 Rc8 15.b4 a5 16.Ne5 Nd5 17.Nb3 axb4 18.Na5 Ba8 19.Nac6 Bxc6 20.Nxc6 Qd7 21.Bxd5 exd5 22.axb4 Rfe8 23.Ra5 Bf8 24.Ne5 Qe6 25.Rxb5 Rb8 26.Rxb8 Rxb8 27.Qxc7 Bd6 28.Qa5 Bxb4 29.Rb1 Qd6 30.Qa4 1–0

Dan Rotaru    (2007-06-28 03:30:01)
IGAME team

Apart from Member # can the ratings be revealed for each player: IGAME rating, FIDE / ICCF ratings if available? It would be fair at least to know the strength of our oponents. The rating registered on FICGS for some players is provisional and it doesn't tell anything. IGAME players have free access to this information so it has to be reciprocal.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-28 04:07:04)
IGAME team

I don't think IGAME team has to provide more information... The match started, once more that's internet chess, we have to accept this part of uncertainty. You may search ratings for players mentioned above (using their real name), but anyway IMO at least 1 player (not me :)) in FICGS team does not use his real name too, moreover a few players in our team still have a provisional or under-estimated rating... Any player can start with a 1600 rating here if he does not mention his FIDE rating, so the same for IGAME players. This is part of the challenge, so let's just play :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-28 13:44:33)
Russian titles

Interesting, I didn't know anything about that.. Is there another organization in Russia ? .. Where is it possible to learn more about these russian titles (rules, websites or so) ? Thanks in advance :)

Garvin Gray    (2007-06-29 18:51:43)
digging out old thread

I do remember some discussion regarding group sizes for the 3rd wch. I also remember that it was likely that the group sizes will be bigger than the current 7 player used currently.

Please tell us that each group will be 9 or 11 players, to reduce the odds of players tieing for first :)

Amir Bagheri    (2007-06-30 14:02:02)
Newsletter and Blog Recruitment

I am trying to set up a Newsletter. This would be an excellent way to spread news amongst ourselves. This newsletter targets primarily The Chess corner Members however I would like to create a column dedicated to the FICGS Members a bit like a gossip page or anything that you would like to share. This Newsletter will be distributed to all my members and to FICGS Member that wishes to receive it To do so I require help from you all we are actively looking for 1) writters 2) editors 3) researchers 4) Designers To express your interest, please go to www.chesscorner.com and fill up the application form. For those of you wiling to help us please bare in mind that I will create a forum where you could share ideas and opinion it is therefore essential that you register on The Chess Corner. All authors will be acknowleged and credit will be given. If you want to help but reckon that a Newsletter maybe a bit out of your league, we are looking for some enthusiasts to look after the Blog. The Blog Regards Amir Bagheri (GM) PS I welcome all comments http://www.thechesscorner.com http://thechesscorner.blogspot.com/

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-07-04 20:51:20)
Real names

"While registering, using your real name is really appreciated and helps to build this friendly atmosphere .." I would really appreciate it if Thibault would use his real name or at least reveal it. No offence meant but it seems strange to write a statement like the above and then use a nickname.

Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-07-05 10:20:45)
Thibault de Pierrefeu

Rodolfo I don't think so: From my some discussions with him is clear that his chess knowledges are much bigger than from just engines. Just the question is staying, why is he doing so mystically about his own foretime of chess?

Jason Repa    (2007-07-09 09:03:58)
vacation

I would prefer to leave it as it is now. 30 days/year.

Garvin Gray    (2007-07-11 13:55:22)
nudges all round

Hey Dinesh,

Would you mind giving both Nick and I a nudge when the games start please? :) lol

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-07-11 20:41:50)
Re:

My pleasure, Charlie :)

Well, it seems I have too many games again, and I'm probably not alone ! :>

Dinesh De Silva    (2007-07-13 04:48:27)
A certain email chess website.....

Dear chess friends, I want to bring to your attention that there's a certain chess website (which plays only by email) of a certain South American country where the main Arbitor who owns the website cheats and favours certain players in a world championship final. Playing there is at your own risk.

1.He protects certain players by saving them when they even have stepped the time limit twice. (He cunningly sends the game into adjudication etc., instead of dealing with the proof). 2.When requesting that an opponent should provide email proof in certain critical situations, he protects them by refusing that at all times. 3.He blames the persons who make a claim by saying "Don't Be Rude!", instead of taking action against those who clearly break rules. 4.The website keeps popping in and out on the internet, and the website says its under construction most of the time! 5.He does not send monthly reports to players. 6.He does not show finished games. 7.He stays silent for months and says he has lost files due to a virus. 8.He does not include some finished games in some reports. 9.At least 3 other players have already withdrawn from the tourney. 10.He has extended the tourney twice already! obviously trying to favour his favourite playes who are very slow players to climb up in the list. Pathetic!

Wayne Lowrance    (2007-07-14 18:37:07)
It is a clone 2.

The following is just one of many close observations. There are so many documentations I would not try to sum them up. :)

The main problem is identical or almost identical analysis both in evaluation and search.

Studying rybka's output in order to improve your evaluation(assuming rybka has better evaluation) make sense but even in that case I do not expect a program to have identical evaluation to rybka even in situations when it does not make sense to have evaluation that is different than 0 as King against king.

Rybka tries to hide her evaluation but not writing output at small depth and this is the reason that I am basically interested in analysis of fortress positions because in fortress positions the evaluation is partially exposed.

It is logical to learn from this experience of analysing fortress position and get evaluation that is more similiar to rybka but having evaluation that is totally identical in more than one case does not make sense and it cannot be an accident and the problem is not only identical evaluation but also identical search in many positions as evidence proved and even if the evaluation is different I can find the same patterns in the score changes.

This can happen only with copying code and it cannot happen without cloning.

The programmer of strelka did not understand rybka's code otherwise he could avoid the same bugs.

Same pattern of drop in the evaluation score when you have a queen. This pattern is also in old strelka.

Why does it happen?

Note that no other program that I know shows drop in evaluation for white by more than 3 pawns.

Strelka's score drops from +- (12.53) in depth 6 to 8.50 in depth 7

Rybka's score drops from 12.34 pawns in depth 4 to 8.37 pawns at depth 5

I find this compelling, if you understand it

Wayne

Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-07-15 09:19:49)
Austrians

Wow, 2 Austrians in the Semifinals - then no other can take away Austria (at least) to finish third! :-)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-07-15 12:25:27)
Invitation in WCH 1 stage 3 round-robin

Hello to all.

As I've been asked, in WCH 1 round-robin final tournament there are 2 players from WCH 1 stage 2 group 3 because it was not possible (at least desirable) to adjudicate game 8029 in its current position (move 36)... So it is not possible to tell who wins the group yet. However if I had to adjudicate this game, it would be a draw so Alberto Gueci would win the tournament. As WCH 1 stage 3 must start now and as I needed one more player to fill the group, according to the rules Francois Caire (due to his position of possible -likely- winner in the tournament and his rating) was invited to solve game 8029 problem.

Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-07-15 15:24:42)
pattern recognition = intelligence?

Best skill for (OTB-)chess is pattern recognition and very hard drill of playing. Not much time for learning other important skills beside!

Jason Repa    (2007-07-15 15:35:45)
Rybka vs. Human

Well Mr. Utesch, you clearly know nothing at all about Mr. Fischer. His IQ was evaluated at 180, so there is no debate about his intelligence. This has been well documented You seem to be confusing intelligence with social grace or being a good politician.
Also, in addition to his well-known chess accomplishments, Fischer is a published author of several very popular books and inventor of chess variant FischerRandom (or chess 960 if you prefer), as well as an innovative clock. What have you accomplished in comparison?

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.

Jason Repa    (2007-07-15 20:12:13)
Bobby Fischer's IQ

"In previous writings I have cited Fischer's I.Q. as in the range of 180, a very high genius. My source of information is impeccable: a highly regarded political scientist who coincidentally happened to be working in the grade adviser's office at Erasmus Hall - Bobby Fischer's high school in Brooklyn - at the time Fischer was a student there. He had the opportunity to study Fischer's personal records and there is no reason to believe his figure is inaccurate. Some critics have claimed that other teachers at Erasmus Hall at that time remember the figure to be much lower; but who the teachers are and what figures they remember have never been made clear."
The Chess of Bobby Fischer (c) 1975 by Frank Brady

http://bobbyfischer.net/bobby02.html

Nick Burrows    (2007-07-15 20:29:03)
IQ vs Multple Intelligence

Are there other forms of intellingence independant of having a high IQ? Or are they simply 'skills'?
How about...
1. Linguistic intelligence involving sensitivity to spoken and written language, the ability to learn languages, and the capacity to use language to accomplish certain goals. This intelligence includes the ability to effectively use language to express oneself rhetorically or poetically; and language as a means to remember information. Writers, poets, lawyers and speakers are among those that
2. Logical-mathematical intelligence consisting of the capacity to analyze problems logically, carry out mathematical operations, and investigate issues scientifically. This entails the ability to detect patterns, reason deductively and think logically. This intelligence is most often associated with scientific and mathematical thinking.
3. Musical intelligence involving skill in the performance, composition, and appreciation of musical patterns. It encompasses the capacity to recognize and compose musical pitches, tones, and rhythms.
4. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence entailing the potential of using one's whole body or parts of the body to solve problems. It is the ability to use mental abilities to coordinate bodily movements.
5. Spatial intelligence involving the potential to recognize and use the patterns of wide space and more confined areas.
6. Interpersonal intelligence is concerned with the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people. It allows people to work effectively with others. Educators, salespeople, religious and political leaders and counsellors all need a well-developed interpersonal intelligence.
7. Intrapersonal intelligence entails the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations.

Jason Repa    (2007-07-15 20:45:57)
Hillarious!

This is your "argument"? You copy and paste some drivel where they seem to substitute the word "skill" with "intelligence", or perhaps you did that.
You don't provide any sources or qualifications of the author whatsoever.
This is too entertaining and unbelievable to make up!!

in a statement signed by 52 psychologists, published in the December 13, 1994 Wall Street Journal

"1. Intelligence exists as a very general mental capability involving ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. The brain processes involved are little understood.
2. Intelligence can be measured, and IQ tests measure it well. Nonverbal tests can be used where language skills are weak.
3. IQ tests are not culturally biased.
4. IQ is more strongly related than any other measurable human trait to educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Whatever it is that IQ tests measure, it is very important.
5. Genetics plays a bigger role than environment in intelligence, but environment has a strong effect.
6. Individuals are not born with an unchangeable IQ, but it gradually stabilizes during childhood and changes little thereafter."

I think 52 psychologists might be a bit more qualified than the random blog where you copied and pasted from.

Jason Repa    (2007-07-15 21:18:20)
IQ is intelligence. Skills are Skills

You're resorting to telling blatant lies again eh burrows? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. This is what you were doing before when you painted yourself into a corner.

I in in way, shape, or form said that "chess ratings prove nothing". You need to re-read my post and stop teling lies. That's very pathetic behavoir.

As I said, it's clear now why you're an under 100 BCF player.

Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-07-15 21:33:35)
My two cents..

+1 to Nick Burrows

Psychologists have different opinions. And 52 psychologists - it is only a drop in ocean.

By the way.. I like more Nick than you, Jason.

There must be at least one more kind of social intelligence. Social or, may be, emotional intellingence. It looks that you lack of that kind of intelligence. Sorry..

P.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

Garvin Gray    (2007-07-17 09:52:11)
Game sorting

Currently on the game page, the order of the games is shown from oldest created game to newest created game.

I would like the ability to show the games in terms of least amount of days till time out, where the game with the shortest number of days till time out is at the top of the list.

It would be even better if there was a way to show only the games where it is your turn to move.

Andrey Sumets    (2007-07-27 14:10:24)
The score is opened!

igame.ru now leads by 1-0. Congratulations to Iouri Basiliev with a great result.

Jason Repa    (2007-07-28 08:10:32)
lol

Some of us are leaders, some followers. It's nice to know I'm the former.

Nick Burrows    (2007-07-28 14:47:31)
Mr Repa laughs out loud to himself

Oh wise leader Repa, once again the translucent light that is your piercing intelligence shines for us all to follow
You are the first person to ever share a game in the forum. I have never done it before.
Whatever makes you feel superior, my emotionally undeveloped friend.

Garvin Gray    (2007-07-31 06:38:35)
date change please

Can you please change the proposed date of the competition?

This date directly conflicts with the playchess freestyle tournament. Which is being held on 7/9 - 14/16 September.

I dont think it helps to have a clash of dates.

Polina Stefanova    (2007-08-02 16:13:21)
Threatened to kill the person

...in Moskow.

Unfortunately I inform, that --- [moderator : name deleted] from Ukraine promised to employ killers and to kill in Moscow the strongest chess player Igame - Sex God (2 place in rating Igame).

Sex God should play for command Igame against ficgs on the third board.

Sex God was against participation --- [moderator : name deleted] in match Igame – ficgs, because he supports addicts and played for a command which captain is the sick person and addict R2.

In Russia against a narcotism, including this illness a harm, however the command headed by addict R2, exists on Igame till now :(

As a result captain Igame, being afraid for a life and health Sex God has been compelled to exclude Sex God from a command.

Best wishes, Polina Stefanova (the leader of rating Igame)

Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2007-08-03 09:24:14)
re

I think I saw the light, in Polina's text, remove "command" and put "team" instead and everything will be clear as water. But I do not think that narcisism is so bad.

Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2007-08-05 07:38:46)
Translation (most accurate i could do)

"The ending is clearly drawn. There is no way to force in as the white king is badly placed and could not escape the black queen's checks. Luzuriaga's analysis starts with 48. Qe5+ so we assumed that would had been the move he played if the game had continued. If black's reply 48. Kg8, a bad move (Luzuriaga's analysis) that will result in a lost position for black. De Silva analyses that 48. Kh7 will result in a drawn endgame. I have checked all the variations in the computer and the result is the same for all of them DRAW."

Mladen Jankovic    (2007-08-07 00:54:18)
re:

At least not rated as a win.

Garvin Gray    (2007-08-07 18:32:38)
Challenge game

I would like to make some arrangements to play a game of FICGS__CHESS__BLITZ_SILVER__000002 if someone is interested. Please just reply to this post to start arranging a time.

Artur Saigakov    (2007-08-08 23:13:50)
Re

Hello! Please, calm down! I am a command captain on the site of igame.ru of which --- [moderator : name deleted] consisted before. I'm sorry my English is terrible! Paulina and Sex-god (SG) are one person which thus make his own PR and shows the personal offense to --- [moderator : name deleted]. --- [moderator : name deleted] anyway is not connected with drugs, he simply played in my command. I want to underline that my command is AGAINST drugs! Name of command - STOP Narkotics! Motto of our command you can read on igame.ru : "" If you found forces, or search it to give up drugs, this command is for you! This command exists for everybody who gives the vote for nature, for peace, for understanding of our existence, for light ideas, for helping each other, for healthy children and their parents!"" --- [moderator : name deleted] never was drug addict but he just agreed with a command idea. He is 17 years old, he is IM, that's why he was taken in command of igame, and SG wasn't included. SG said that he is gay, then added to the repertoire a word is a drug addict. certainly, he was offended and he said that he would beat SG or he would ask somebody to do it It is not serious, but I think that this fight wouldn't stop even after this speech.

Ivan Pljusnin    (2007-08-09 01:49:06)
Igame ratings

In order to make this topic more exiting I give the igame ratings of the opponents:

Sex_God: 2463 (+111, =63, -3)
RODINKA (aka ---): 2369 (+69, =29, -3)

Polina is our rating-leader (2536; +173, =1, -1), but most of igame players consider her rating unfair because she have played many games with weak opponents. Some people also say that she is another nickname of Sex_God but I don't believe it.

There was a conflict between Sex_God and RODINKA (aka ---). They have abused each other, and our cap decided to expel Sex_God from the team in spite of his higher rating. Unfortunately, this strong igame chessplayer does not take part in our great match.

Dinesh De Silva    (2007-08-09 06:51:22)
Real names in chess websites

I have some critical suggestions: 1. Chess websites should allow players only to play under their REAL NAMES. Using any nicknames or fake names should be prohibited, as it leads to all sorts of confusion at one point or another. 2. In chess websites, whenever a question of which player to give captaincy arrives, the highest rated player should always be given first choice, UNLESS that player declines or that player has been proven to have broken rules or rules state a specific way of choosing a captain. 3. In chess websites, accusations against any player should be rejected IF there is no clear proof. 4. Players who still continue abusing each other after some warnings should be disqualified/thrown out. There should be no favourations whatsoever. 5. When awarding titles, it should be clearly stated from where the title was earned fom. For example, if a player gets an IM title at Igame, it should be stated as Igame IM.

Ivan Pljusnin    (2007-08-10 01:06:34)
2 Dinesh De Silva

As an IGAME player I express my opinion. Everything is not so simple!

1. Some strong chessplayers like Morozevich on ICC would not like to show their real names. Should they all be driven away from all chess cites? I am not sure. :-)

2. Your rating-leader is Viktor Savinov, he have not played a single game here. Our rating-leader is Polina. Are you sure that they should be the captains of our teams?

3,4. Legendary chessplayers like Viktor Kortchnoj or Bobby Fischer are sometimes abusive. But I am not sure that they should be driven away.

5. There is no any titles on IGAME. We are anonymous Russian amateours.

In general, I think that chess cites of all kinds are necessary and useful. And a chessplayer must have a choice: FICGS, IGAME, ICCF, GAMEKNOT, PLAYCHESS.DE, CHESSHERE and so on. Each cite has its own customs and traditions.

By the way, it makes matches between them more interesting. I believe in IGAME anonymous fighters. :-)

Best wishes, Mobutu (my IGAME nickname)

Ivan Pljusnin    (2007-08-10 14:29:54)
IGAME and FICGS are cyber-nations?

It sounds very promising. I guess, the most respectable citizens are Fritz, Shredder, Rybka and some other engines who have dual citizenship. :-)

If FICGS intends to extradite --- [moderator : name deleted] please do it after he finishes his match games. :-)

Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-08-10 15:06:49)
?

Ja nje nasjol njiodnovo igroka v IGAME c (2536; +173, =1, -1)... ?!
Pomogitje pozjalsta!

I can't find any player with (2536; +173, =1, -1) in IGAME... ?!
Please help!

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-10 19:32:03)
Lots of fun...

Hello to all.

It seems this thread is still quite active.. but as everyone understood, there is no need to add to the provocation ;) .. If IM --- [moderator : name deleted] wants some accusations to be deleted, he can just ask me...

Reminder : Don't forget that the law also applies on the internet.

Reminder : Please speak english only on this forum.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-11 04:43:43)
Warning : forum rules !

Hello to all.

It is time for this thread to end, so...

Reminder : No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit.

In other words I'll apply the rules letter by letter from now :

ANYONE WHO WILL POST SUCH ACCUSATIONS AGAIN WILL BE BANNED FROM THE SITE.

PS : The name has been deleted in the whole discussion.

Best wishes, Thibault

Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-08-11 13:42:50)
Hi!

Post your best times (using server time, of course), Garvin, please.

If I know it some days before, I can play anytime. :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-12 16:06:58)
Igame leads by 4-0

The last 4 boards were all won by Igame, now leading by 4-0, congrats !

Marc Lacrosse    (2007-08-13 11:53:27)
(Unfair) partial withdrawal

A few weeks ago IM Andrey Vovk had a discussion in the forum with Thibault regarding the fact that he did not wish to play in the new WCH although he had formerly enrolled on the waiting list.

As Thibault confirmed that he had to play in tournament FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_M_01__000003, IM Vovk announced that he would forfeit all his games in this tournament.

That's what he seemed to do for more or less 30 days as he let his clock run and so lost five games on time.
Then he seemed to change his mind and began to play in his three remaining games where his flag had not yet fallen.

Although I admit that anybody may decide to play or to resign whenever he wishes, this seems a bit problematic in a qualification tournament : five players got a full point whereas three have to fight one more opponent (and presumably a very strong one)...

For what regards myself I am very happy to play a game against IM Volk but I feel that three of us have not the same chances anymore as the five other ones for qualification ...

I think this situation calls for establishing new rules for qualification tournaments : if a player clearly forfeits a given number of games, then all his games in this tournament should be withdrawn.

Your opinion ?

Marc

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-13 14:03:37)
Sergei Ivanov

1) I didn't say the contrary about this particular point, actually I don't know anything about it... but some private messages were posted (and of course deleted) during the discussion.

2) I didn't say the contrary about this particular point, actually I don't know anything about it... but there were some slander about drugs, weapons or mafia... no proofs, finally this is definitely the place for such accusations.

WARNING :

Writing the name of the accused player in this thread is a way to accuse him again, it will lead to be suspended during a while.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-13 15:05:19)
New rule ?

"If a player clearly forfeits a given number of games, then all his games in this tournament should be withdrawn."

I was to write a new rule to clarify this point but it will be always possible to turn around, and there may have some circumstances. All is in "clearly" but that's no more server decision but human one.. that we try to avoid as far as possible.

We have to make a choice or keep current rules... Any suggestions ?

Sergei Ivanov    (2007-08-13 17:25:19)
Thibault de Vassal

On this theme there is a fine Russian poem, but " difficulty of translation " not allow me to write it on English.
However captain Igame with pleasure will help to transfer sense of the given poem :))

[moderator : sorry, this forum is english-speaking only, feel free to post the poem in english]

Wayne Lowrance    (2007-08-13 18:37:13)
General comments

Hi all. I really enjoy playing here at FICGS. It is really one of the best places for CC. Recently there has been a lot of junk discussions, accusations and unfriendly talk. Only in the last couple of months I guess. Some preety bizzare talk. I hope it gets cleaned up and I feel confident that Thibault has taken notice and does not approve. On the recent post of "unfair withdrawals". My opinion is that players games should be forfeited across the board in a situation like this. Just my thoughts. I really like this team concept. I am enjoying playing very much. I expect to get our team 1 1/2 points. Those of you who might be interested please check out game number 11987. It is/was really loaded with threats and tactical chess right out of the get go. I cannot and should not comment about it now, but will at its conclusion, I think some of you will get a kickout of it. :) bfn Wayne

Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-08-13 20:07:40)
My try.

Life is like Internet - nothing interesting, but noone want to leave it. <NN>

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-13 21:00:29)
Ouch...

That's definitely the main fear of correspondence chess players :/ .. and a part of the game. One should always verify a move twice at least...

No move can be taken back, it would be unfair to all players who resigned games before, sorry about that :(

Wayne Lowrance    (2007-08-13 23:40:48)
Obvious blunder

I always feel bad for a player who has done this. In my many years of playing CC I have done this on rare occasion. I remember a game in particuliar. I was playing this very excellent player (2300+) but very very arrogant. I had an easy but complicated clearly won end game. I copied the wrong move and resigned immediately. My Arrogant opponent as it turns out offered a take back, which was within the sites rules. But I declined telling him to me it is the same thing as "touch Move" in OTB chess. So my friend I know your feeling, I think we have all touched this base somewhere along the line. Wayne

Don Groves    (2007-08-14 02:16:17)
General comments

Is it possible to write a rule that has no loopholes? There will always be those few misguided souls who will find a way to violate the spirit of a rule while staying within the letter of the rule. They inhabit all segments of society. We can only do our best and hope that FICGS is not cursed with too many of them. IMHO, trying to write bulletproof rules will lead to much complexity, confusion, and even more dissatisfaction.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-14 19:45:25)
Chessboard serial killer of Moscow

Source Chessbase - http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4047

Guardian Unlimited: Along the leafy lanes of Moscow's Bitsevsky Park, Alexander Pichushkin was a familiar figure. The 33-year-old supermarket worker played chess under the trees and even invited his opponents for a drink afterwards. But yesterday Mr Pichushkin was in court accused of murdering 49 people and attempting to kill three more, a tally which would make him one of Russia's most deadly killers. According to the prosecution, Mr Pichushkin lured his victims, who were mostly elderly men, to a quiet part of the park. He then attacked them from behind with a hammer. Mr Pichushkin boasted that he had killed 63 people. He said he drew a cross on his chessboard after each murder. His plan to fill all 64 squares came unstuck in June 2006 when he went for a walk in the park with Marina Moskalyova, 36, a supermarket colleague.

Times Online: The prosecution claims that [Pichushkin] wanted to kill more people than Andrei Chikatilo, Russia’s worst known serial killer, who murdered 53 people. “He dreamt of surpassing Chikatilo and going down in history,” said Yuri Syomin, the Moscow prosecutor. The Russian press suggested last week that he would enter Guinness World Records by being charged with 62 murders. But in the event he was charged with only 52 killings over a five-year period. That compared with the 53 murders of women and children in the Rostov area of southern Russia for which Chikatilo was executed in 1994.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2252021.ece

Wayne Lowrance    (2007-08-14 21:45:36)
what a pleasant post

Geeze Tribault, why post this. Sorry I do not approve of postings of these things here at FIGS. With respect my friend, I just think you are above all of this blarney. Wayne

Ivan Pljusnin    (2007-08-14 23:32:50)
:-)

By the way, Andrey Chikatilo was the first name of Sex_God on FICGS. Then he had to change it because it was too famous. On another forum he used a photo of our "chessplayer" Pichushkin as his avatar. So this topic will please him, I think ;-)

Thomas Tamayo    (2007-08-15 14:22:19)
Possible solution...?

What if a forfeit of all games occurs as soon as one game is lost (on time or resignation) without at least 2 moves (one by B, one by W). It would be easy for an abusive player to get around this rule by playing a move before forfeit. The benefit would be that this offense is bannable (easier to find abuse). It seems fair - players in a tournament should be prepared to play!

Thomas Tamayo    (2007-08-15 14:40:37)
White is far ahead

Corners are important, but a quick count shows white with at least 90 + komi, black with around 65. Since B has to escape around e6 B can't hope to get much more while W will continue to earn points. Game 13059, though, is a mis-resignation. I set it up as a problem at http://www.godiscussions.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3856

Thomas Tamayo    (2007-08-15 14:47:04)
SGF Result field

Would it be possible to update the SGF Result field for a completed game? For example: Black wins on time: B+T Black wins on score/resign: B+ (since no scoring is done on the server). It might clear up problems like the thread post "Go game 10878 Why black resign?" (it is unclear if it was time or resign).

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-27 02:27:07)
Go-Endgame at ficgs-GUI

Hello Ulrich.

This is the current message displayed before to enter a Go tournament :

"Rules for Go are chinese rules, as defined by the Chinese Weiqi Association. Both players must play until one resign, both players pass (then resign or call referee) or game is adjudicated. It's up to the players to discuss the score at the end of the game, so calling referee should be exceptional. Scoring method is area scoring with chinese counting. Positional superko rule apply, it's impossible to repeat a previous board position ('incorrect move' message would be displayed). Please note that you can pass, just entering 'pass' [then push 'move' button and 'confirm' your move] but one player has to resign or call referee to end the game."

Best wishes, Thibault

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-31 13:22:59)
Your chess websites ?

Hello all...

What about listing here the (chess or other) websites you made ? .. Could be a way to know better each other, at least all webmasters among us :)

Garvin Gray    (2007-08-31 15:30:16)
Private message facility

Is there a pm facility on here? If so, how do I access it? If not, can one be created please?

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-01 00:32:14)
Private message facility

Still not, but the wish list will be open soon ;) .. A few days more.

However it is possible to leave a message to an opponent about a game by writing a "public comment". It will be sent by email to your opponent too.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-01 10:24:20)
private/public messages

Hello Phillip.

Yes, it is possible to leave a public comment for your own finished games (you can find it through 'My tournaments'). I'll work on the private message facility soon.

Garvin Gray    (2007-09-01 10:39:31)
offer

Ilmars offered to swap credits again, but as I had less than ten e points, so couldnt do it.

Obviously Ilmars would have to confirm this offer.

I believe that you can see all the previous chat bar messages, so you can at least follow our conversation about this matter from there.

Philip Roe    (2007-09-01 20:04:25)
engine-free chess

When I started playing here about three months ago I did not realise that engine use was allowed (or even encouraged, according to some) What did attract me were some features like being able to see ongoing games of other players, which makes the experience more like a "real" OTB event. I have played on other sites (IECG,ICC) where engines are forbidden, and ICC at least claims to have software that detects cheating. I play without an engine (but using books)simply because I enjoy it more. I dont care all that much what you do as long as you play interesting moves. It seems very clear from the games that lower-rated players certainly dont use engines and higher-rated players probably have to. At my kind of level (1900ish) it seems optional, but the suspicion that my opponent analyses with an engine steers me away from certain types of position (speculative sacs, or clear strategy but complex tactics) which is a shame because that may be where the position wants to go. The previous thread got very heated, and Im not sure why. One suggestion was to let non-computer users go away and play funny little unrated games by themselves. That is not attractive. Im not interested in playing walkover games against weak opponents. Rating is essential. Other than that, Im very interested to find out what other people think. That will determine whether or not I come to feel at home here.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-02 13:26:25)
Ratings

Christophe, do you use no chess engines here ?

About ratings, probably most 2000+ correspondence chess players use chess engines whereas 1800- don't, so OTB players shouldn't play rated games with centaurs so often. Maybe new players should start with a 1800 rating (like ICCF) instead of 1600 so that most OTB players can't meet centaurs, what do you think ?

"ICC at least claims to have software that detects cheating" : You mean 'obvious' cheating... :)

Philip Roe    (2007-09-03 18:59:27)
CC without engines

Thibault, Christophe, All I did was to pass on that ICC CLAIMS to be able detect computer use. They dont say how they do it. Maybe they are just bluffing, or maybe they have an algorithm that kind of works and they dont want people to work around it by knowing how it works. The reason I dont use engines is because I want to take full credit for any wins I get. I can imagine using an engine and telling myself that I will just use it to prevent oversights. But I cant control what the engine will tell me. It might recommend a move that tells me that I am planning to attack the wrong target. If I then switch plans and win, what is left for me to feel proud of? But I can understand that others may feel differently, and there is much to be said for a site where everything is allowed because it gets around the issue of making a rule that is certainly very hard to enforce. But just because that rule does not exist on FICGS, it seems to me that if somebody on FICGS says that they are not using an engine, then you can probably believe them. The problem with other sites is that if a player with an umimpressive rating fires back a series of accurate moves very quickly in a difficult situation then you suspect that he is using an engine (although he promised not to) and there is not much you can do about it. If the same thing happens on FICGS you are pretty sure that he is using an engine, but you have already agreed that he can, so it doesnt irritate you. For that reason, I think that a computers-barred tournament might actually make sense on FICGS because those who want to use engines can legitimately do so. But for me, it would need to be chess that means something, with at least rating points at stake. Interestingly, Christophe and I are drawn in the same tournament, so we can declare at least that one game computer-free!

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-03 23:27:30)
Adjudication

Hello Andrew.

That's an idea, but your opponent is not supposed to use tablebases, he may just want to see how you'll checkmate him and learn from the game. Correspondence chess shouldn't be more computerized IMO, so only 'obvious' endgames will be adjudicated.

You may call the referee in a few more moves.

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-05 05:04:29)
Adjudication

Thibault I understand that to some players it might be unacceptable to have the game suddenly declared lost or drawn in a Q v Q+P ending or R+P v N+p ending. In my view these players should opt for the non computer tournaments you are going to set up. To cover the point raised: yes there can remain a need for a referee which should be human. Linking to table bases does not affect the beauty of an endgame Thibault its just a small range at the moment of 6 piece endings. There is no aesthetic value in following the moves advised by the tablebase the value is in getting there. Every strong player is consulting the tablebases when analysing positions leading to 6 piece situations so automating table base adjudications in say A M and WCC tournaments seems completely logical. Yes strong tournaments are played only for the sporting result Thibault I dont think anyone would choose an inferior move for the beauty they might try it to take a risk to win by complicating the game. I have seen 30+ moves games of yours of absolute poisened pawn Najdorf theory leading to a dead draw ..... I guess what I am trying to avoid is opponents dragging out games which are table base won. In the case of reasonable strong opponents 2100+ in my view this is because they just dont want to resign. by the way how do you call for the referee?

Garvin Gray    (2007-09-05 06:38:59)
engine use

I find this thread and interesting and surprising.

I joined this site specifically because it allows engine use and that is what I was after.

I play in otb tournaments and dont really enjoy playing 'human only' chess on the net. I guess that is just me :)

Now I feel a little uncomfortable because the two main posters in this thread are opponents in a couple of my games.

On a different note, I wish posters would learn to separate their paragraphs :P

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-05 06:40:22)
Referee

Thanks Garvin! I should add that we are spoilt (at least I feel I am!) by Thibault's magnificent work on setting up running and maintaining this site so always want to ask for more!

Garvin Gray    (2007-09-05 07:28:39)
paragraphing

Hello Rodolfo,

From the top of this thread.

(please use
html tag to begin a new line)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-05 12:42:02)
Adjudication

Hello again Andrew, thanks for discussing this interesting point that is a part of the discussion about the Dead Man's Defence. See this thread :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=2828

There is no way to avoid a player to last a game IMO... New rules first mean new ways to get round it and too many rules should be avoided. I still think there are some 'tricky' moves in tablebases, at least beautiful moves so it should be up to the winner to call the referee or not and it should be up to the referee to adjudicate it or not.

Maybe time will make me change my mind, but not today I think :)

Best, Thibault

Christophe Czekaj    (2007-09-05 12:44:49)
Engine use

Hello Garvin, Sorry for the dense paragraphs of my previous posts. I'll try to make better! And please, do not feel uncomfortable to use computer on our games together. It's up to me to be extra careful ;-D I just thought it could be nice to have tournament totally computer free.

Jason Repa    (2007-09-05 15:11:44)
HAL9000: "I think you missed it Dave"

The fact of the matter is that you'll never be able to tell for certain if someone is consulting a program or not in corr. chess, so why fret about it?
You have several options:

1) There is otb chess. Unless your opponent is pulling out his palm computer with pocket fritz in the washroom, you can be reasonably certain it's a mano e mano game.
2)There is also fast internet chess on a secure server such as playchess.com. I'm not sure how secure ICC is these days. If the games are 3 min or shorter you can be pretty certain it's human chess at least 99.9% of the time.

If you want to play corr. chess, fine, but why play a game called "let's worry about whether or not my opponent is making good on his promise to not look at the rybka engine suggestions". Just use it for what modern corr. chess really is...which is an excellent form of group study to prepare for REAL chess, ie, OTB chess.

Philip Roe    (2007-09-05 23:13:44)
CC without engines

Well, you learn something new every day.

About paragraphing anyway!

Garvin, dont give it a second thought. Christophe and myself have both said that we accept your use of engines: we signed up for it.

Jason, I'm sure I speak for Christophe in saying that neither of wants to change anything for you happy centaurs. All we said was that IF enough other people felt the same way, THEN maybe Thibault might add that feature to his excellent site.

The parallel thread on tablebases is interesting. I find myself taking the opposite view. I dont see them as being very different from looking up KBNk in a textbook. They dont take fun out of the game because most of those rare positions are so impenetrable that they are not much fun anyway.

So I am not very consistent in my views. Who was it said that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds?

Jason Repa    (2007-09-06 08:15:18)
engine use

[moderator : partly deleted]

I explained quite clearly in my previous post that.... "you'll never be able to tell for certain if someone is consulting a program or not in corr. chess, so why fret about it?"

The truth is, there are no corr. sites that can satisfy a desire to play non computer-assisted chess because corr. chess doesn't work that way anymore. Anyone can simply say they aren't consulting a program but unless they are right in front of you as they are making the moves you'll never know for sure. (...) Just accept reality for what it is. Are you going to try to have a footrace with someone on a scooter? Of course not. So why complain about computer use on corr. chess? Re-read my previous post in this thread a few times until you understand.

There is something to be said for human only chess. It is my favourite form of the game. Really, the only form. All else is just study and analysis. You can call it "playing" if you want, but unless you're making the moves strictly on your own brainpower, it's not playing chess.

I play rated OTB tournaments at time controls ranging from 5 minutes to 6 hours. I also play hundreds of bullet games a week online where I am certain that there is no computer involvement. To me this makes allot more sense than whining and crying about the advent of Fritz (and other programs). It's called accepting realilty.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-06 17:41:43)
Playchess freestyle tournament

Yes, it would be nice to follow them... I remember that at least 2 of us played in a previous playchess freestyle tournament.

Jason Repa    (2007-09-06 22:30:19)
Canada

We can't leave Canada out of this thread. After all, we're home to the guy (the late Abe Yanofsky) who was Canadian champion many times, and who gave Fischer the longest game of his career. Fischer had the black end of a Najdorf and finally ground poor Abe down to get the full point in the 112 move marathon. It was RNPP vs RBP way back at move 55
Yanofsky was able to hold Fischer to a draw with the black end of a Caro Kann in their next (and final) encounter six years later. Even getting so much as a draw against the great RJF, especially with the black pieces, is quite the accomplishment. Just ask GM Bisguier, who lost 13 straight games to him.

Getting back to the present, the current Canadian champion is the young Nikolay Noritsyn.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-07 02:44:00)
And the winner is...

??? :)

Thanks to all, the quotes file will be updated soon... It was a very pleasant and imaginative thread ! .. to be continued ? :)

Christophe Czekaj    (2007-09-07 12:44:20)
To Jason

Hello Jason ! It’s just a question to have the possibility to play correspondence chess (for fun, not neccesarily studying or analysis, just the pleasure of finding moves, ideas (you know, what Bronstein called imagination) not rating, not to be classified as expert, or I don’t know what…) with people without computer. If they lie and use computer ; OK, we can’t be sure, but I’m certain you could accept that some players can trust other players when they say they don’t use computers. For example, I trust Philip when he said this, it’s just a question of being a gentleman. If there are cheaters ok, so what… Rybka will win And I don’t undestand your topic about class of players : I hope I‘ve the right of posting some commentaries on this forum, despite the fact being largely behind you in term of rating… I think we can still play chess without computer, and with rating or not, it’s the same game for me. Philip and I just think it could be kind to play with other players with a kind of gentleman’s agreement. Sorry if it bother you

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-07 19:10:24)
My pleasure...

:)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-14 01:21:08)
Deleted

The post has been removed.

Reminder : ".. please just warn the moderator or webmaster >> in private <<"

Jason Repa    (2007-09-10 00:32:28)
Mladen

YOU cool down buddy! You need to learn to keep your mouth shut and mind your own business. There was no reason for you to get involved in this. Just stick to asking questions about the FICGS server.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-10 02:59:54)
New rule

Mladen and Jason, there's no need to add or respond to the provocation. Feel free to discuss the (IQ / chess rating) formula anywhere else.

I'm to add a new 'rule' in the terms & conditions : "Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and will lead to get a limited access to the server during one month a first time, two months the second one and so on. In this case, please just warn the moderator in private."

Of course, provocation is strictly forbidden also, at the moderator's discretion.

In example, in this thread : Mladen, Garvin and Jason would get a limited access this time.

Mladen Jankovic    (2007-09-11 05:44:21)
A wish

Could you please make the site align well within the confines of a 1024x768 monitor. You seem to be missing the resolution by the width of the slider, plus couple of pixels.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-10 03:29:34)
New rule takes effect now...

Jason, whatever the content, right or not, this kind of post now will lead to get a limited access to the server. Please just warn me if you read a provocative post and I'll do the necessary.

Thanks in advance.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-10 13:32:41)
Netiquette (rules update)

11. General rules

11. 1. Netiquette

Computer assistance is authorized, as any other kind of help but in the "no-engines" tournaments.

It is possible to leave public comments for your games. No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and will lead to get a limited access to the server during one month a first time, two months the second one and so on. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-10 14:43:59)
Discussing the new rule

About this rule : "Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and will lead to get a limited access to the server during one month a first time, two months the second one and so on. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private."

As a player pointed out that this rule was really hard and suggested to me to punish verbal attacks only, here's my answer (to be discussed, of course) :

I did not ban provocation, I just try to limit the "discussions" that follow... Provocation calls provocation and progressively more and more, I don't think that any argument is useful when the aim is not to convince but only to provoke... So, how to limit that with clear rules ? What's exactly a verbal attack, where is the limit ? Quite hard to say... How to avoid such discussions to burn quickly ?

If you have any idea of a better rule, feel free to suggest... What most players like in this site is the friendly atmosphere... Such discussions are boring for most of them IMO.

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-10 20:58:28)
Insults

Hi Thibault for me its clear that personal attacks deserve restriction eg describing someone as a hypocrite

Mladen Jankovic    (2007-09-10 21:39:51)
problem

Your rule is unclear, or flawed. Someone responding a provocation might answer with a personal attack, or not. The originator of a personal attack should be baned, whoever he is. It is irrelevant who started it if you are after those making personal attacks, you simply ban those making personal attacks.

Your current rule is unfair in case if one of the posters engaged in the said discussion makes no personal attacks and gets baned.

Jason Repa    (2007-09-10 22:39:03)
Chat Rules

Calling someone a hypocrite, who is indeed a hypocrite, as evidenced by their behavior, is neither provocative, nor is it an insult, any more than calling someone who steals for a living a thief.

The best way to prevent chat abuse is to punish the party who STARTS it. Obviously a coward will use various devices in order to try to get away with it, such as trying to pass off the insult as a joke, etc. Thibault, despite English not being your primary language, you're clearly an intelligent enough guy to figure out when someone is trying to start an argument by being offensive. My belief is that this is the party at fault, not the person who is defending themself. But if your policy is to limit access to the first person who starts the ad-hominem or disparaging remarks, then there would not be a need for responding. But I'm not sure why you seem to be placing the focus on the the responder to an offensive post, and not the real culprit who starts the flaming in the first place. Nothing happens until someone starts something.

Obviously butting into a conversation that has nothing to do with them and ordering someone to "cool down" is clearly both provocative and offensive. (...) [moderator : partly deleted]

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-10 23:12:01)
Chat Rules

That's why I think this rule is quite good... ;)

The starter (provocation only, insults leading to be permanently banned) may just see his post deleted, nothing more. Of course, provocation shouldn't lead to get a limited access immediately !

The one who responds, particularly with insults (even ie. "hypocrite", or "thief"), has a greater responsability IMO. This remains a judgement and this has nothing to do in this forum. Better is to warn a moderator.

Mladen, this is not irrelevant because provocating posts will be deleted, such discussions won't happen anymore and noone will (should) get a limited access !

Trust me, my aim is not to ban players... I and other moderators will be fair, so let's try this rule, I'll change it if it doesn't work.

Jason, insults are insults, rules are rules : No reason & no evidence will allow anyone to insult anyone in this forum anymore.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-10 23:43:36)
Rybka

Rybka is clearly not designed for wild positions. In this case, knowledge is not efficient, Junior/Fritz are !

Viktor Savinov    (2007-09-11 14:20:14)
Games

Please! Broadcast games in http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=search_games

Graham Woodcock    (2007-09-11 16:59:01)
My two penneth

I've never used a chess programme to help me (as anyone that's played me will probably be able to tell!). Unless there's money at stake, what's the point? I would have thought that the idea of playing chess online is to keep your mind active and to improve your own play by playing more frequently...but I guess there are probably a few cyber warriors around that will do whatever it takes to win... But I don't see what pleasure they can take from winning if some highly advanced chess engine has done all the work.

Christophe Czekaj    (2007-09-12 14:05:59)
The liar cyborg

[moderator : deleted, please see netiquette rules]

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-12 15:17:28)
Reminder

Netiquette rule change :

http://www.ficgs.com/forum_read_3765-Netiquette-rules-update.html

"Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and will lead to get a limited access to the server during one month a first time, two months the second one and so on. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private."

This is a quite good example of a useless discussion... Some posts in this thread (the first ones have been written before the rule change) are at least provocative, so you may eventually ask for some things to be moderated before to respond to the moderated version of these posts.

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-12 16:51:49)
Gene

ok Gene let me give you my experience as to why you should use an engine in cc. 1) I have learnt a lot about certain openings and I remember lot more effective systems 2) finding the truth about a position is fun and instructive 3) I have acquired some endgame knowledge I never would have got. 4) Generally I wil try to understand why the engines like certain moves and drill down into the position trying altrentives until I get it. Sometimes in very wild positions its tough. Most of the the time this reinforces principles of develpoment pawn structure piece dynamism and I find it rubs off on my understanding. One proviso - if you take on too many games a lot of this wont work! Facing a much lower rated player you have to do research and prepare something - trotting down the main line poisened pawn Najdorf may not be the way to go. A lot of top players go for catalan and english openings hoping to utilise their chess knowledge and research. One thing is for sure always playing the best move of your engine is going to drop 1/2 points and lose some games and that includes Rybka. Finally all this stuff is done by all the top professionals in the otb chess. One example I faced the line that Kramnik got crushed with by Topalov playing b5 and f4. I looked at the game notes and databases and couldnt find a good response 45 minutes with fritz and I cracked it and in the process gained some insight into the opening. In fact its a harmless variation if you know the antidote but over the board one slip and Kram was toasted

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-13 06:37:19)
Bug

Andrew, please do not reload pages. It's better to use the links for that (ie. forum), duplicate posts should be avoided by the program but there's a small bug with some symbols.

Thanks :)

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-13 19:04:01)
Droit de ...

Sorry about duplicate Thibault will avoidi t i was wondering how it happened dont remember pressing the reload but must have done! Please remove all the personal attacks Thibault from this thread. Thanks

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-15 12:59:08)
IECG WC 2006 final

As the IECG WC 2006 final just started, this is a good time to end the game. Quite surprising but finally, after 2 or 3 discussions about it, noone solved it and found me (some really looked for though) ;)

Clues were : Playing this year in a world championship final, birthdate (1973-04-13), first FICGS rating (2407, IECG rating), movies (a few players at IECG and FICGS knew about it, the trailer of 'A Clockwork Orange' where the other name is mentioned...

Here is the message I sent to my opponents :

"Dear chessfriends,

That's a real pleasure and honor to play my first IECG WC final with you all. Dinesh, Carlos, Farit, Massimiliano and John, nice to play again :)

I'm 34, single, living in the center of France... I play correspondence chess since 2002, IECG is the place I started with.

I made a few strange movies and videos a few years ago (soon available on the internet) :)

http://www.ficgs.com/psi/download/psi_divx411_vost_720x360.avi
http://www.ficgs.com/psi/download/A_clockwork_orange_2005__teaser.avi

http://www.ficgs.com/psi/download/Aphex_Twin_-_Inkeys_video_clip.avi

I wanted to play correspondence chess under my director's name but I'm now more known in our small CC world as Thibault de Vassal... I'm the webmaster of FICGS - http://www.ficgs.com , another Correspondence Chess Server, where I knew some of you :) .. Sorry about the confusion. I don't know how IECG rules will apply, I hope I can play this tournament anyway.

Best of luck to all !

David Gordh."

TS: Gordon Evans
+---------------------------------+---+----+----+---+---+----+----+------+-----+
|IECG WC-2006-F-00001 1 1 1 1 1 1 | | | |WC 2006 Tournament # 00001 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 | Tot | Plc |
+---------------------------------+---+----+----+---+---+----+----+------|-----|
| 18149 Robson, Nigel ENG 2646 | # | 0,0 | |
| 16702 Sirota, Anatoli AUS 2553 | # | 0,0 | |
| 19142 Pappier, Carlos ARG 2518 | # | 0,0 | |
| 18096 Chovanec, Milan SVK 2508 | # | 0,0 | |
| 15446 Makovsky, Petr CZE 2500 | # | 0,0 | |
| 11273 Blanco, Cesar GUA 2451 | # | 0,0 | |
| 13336 Gordh, David FRA 2443 | # | 0,0 | |
| 17738 De Silva, Dines SRI 2425 | # | 0,0 | |
| 10969 Rocca, Horacio ARG 2422 | # | 0,0 | |
| 17342 Perez, Brigilia PHI 2410 | # | 0,0 | |
| 16273 Fiala, Jaroslav CZE 2406 | # | 0,0 | |
| 13552 Claridge, John WLS 2403 | # | 0,0 | |
| 21524 Balabaev, Farit KAZ 2398 | # | 0,0 | |
| 15174 Massimini Gerbi ITA 2363 | # | 0,0 | |
| 18311 Bendig, Frank GER 2341 | # | 0,0 | |
+---------------------------------+-------------------------------+------+-----+
Rating Average = 2452 Category = 9 Start date: 12.09.2007

I didn't know that I would create FICGS when I registered at IECG and I prefered to use my director's name. I hope you don't mind. Sorry to Igor Khokhlov, Harry Ingersol and Farit Balabaev (I played them under both names).

Best wishes, Thibault

Jason Repa    (2007-09-15 13:03:20)
FIDE World Championship 2007

Well there is some doubt there, most remarkably from Anand himself who considered Kramnik to be the favourite here in a pre-tournament interview, despite Anand's higher elo.

I predict Kramnik to win, not out of any personal admiration for the man. Quite the opposite is true actually. I would rather see Anand or Leko win.

At the close of Round 2, Anand and Kramnik are tied for the lead.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-15 13:30:09)
Gino Figlio

... takes the lead after two nice wins :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=13151
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=13153

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-15 13:33:34)
FIDE World Championship 2007

Anand or Kramnik are the clear favourites but what is the 'chancy factor' in such an event and how it can change things... Hard to say.

Viktor Savinov    (2007-09-16 12:34:36)
Games

Please! Broadcast games in http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=search_games

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-18 15:55:07)
Major update : New interface !

Hello to all.

You may have noticed that the way to send moves has changed, at least the way by default (you still can choose to play through the old - HTML only - interface by clicking "slow moves" in My games).

Please note that there are no more confirmation pages when using the new Javascript interface, meaning your moves will be sent as soon as you press the Send button. Also Javascript should be activated in your browser, that is generally the case.

Other changes :

- My games display only games where it's your turn, you can change it by clicking 'display all games'.

- It is now possible to download all chess games (PGN format) in a particular tournament, see the bottom of the page.

- To avoid massive forfeits, the number of running games is now limited to 60.

... and hundreds of other small improvements :)

Feel free to report possible bugs or if you have any suggestions. Thanks in advance !

Gino Figlio    (2007-09-17 03:24:19)
Schuster-Figlio

I wasn't trying to come up with a quote :)

But again, the rules are created to allow the game to progress to its end without difficulties, prevent conflict and in our case to break a tie.

Obviously, in this case I'm in advantage from the start given the tournament rules.
That's why if Peter evens the score and it looks like the match will end in a tie, I will resign the last game even if it is a draw.

These methods to break ties are ok in blitz or OTB games but in our type of matches where we want the superior player to qualify, it would be a dishonor to take advantage of them. At least I could not do it.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-17 05:35:42)
To tie or not to tie

Hi Gino !

"I'm in advantage from the start given the tournament rules" : Untrue IMO, according to the current situation (not all games are draw), if the match ends at tie, you'll lose it - at least qualification - in all cases ;)

In 8-games matches, like every WC round-robin tournament, fighting for the score and (&&) for ratings looks quite normal, there's no dishonor to tie, winning or losing the right to move to the next round. Definitely rules have something to do with honor, at least with victory. Is there no honor to win a chess game with White pieces and its small advantage ?

What about ICCF WC tournaments and Sonnenborn-Berger ? .. Somewhat more complex, but ratings decide according to the situation also. What about FIDE World Championship ? .. Did Kramnik win his title / tie his match against Leko without honor ? .. FICGS rules are not more unfair than FIDE WCH ones, I'm playing an 8-games match against Farit Balabaev, his strategy is clearly to draw the 8 games and it may work, there's no dishonor in it, only good strategy IMHO.

But, of course, that's more a question of human feeling than mathematics, so only my point of view :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-17 16:18:47)
Schuster-Figlio

I have... Definitely I don't like the "speed up" formula, that happened ie. in the Kramnik vs. Topalov match, it changes the nature of the match and adds some more 'random' factors, up to sudden death - White must win - which is no more chess. In our case this wouldn't be correspondence chess anymore (added to potential difficulties to play blitz games).

Anyway no rule can break the tie "properly", at least this rule allows the strongest player by rating (in case of 8 draws) to move to the next stage, which is quite logical IMO.

Wayne Lowrance    (2007-09-19 00:56:11)
Missing game(s)

I seem to think at least one of my games does not appear in "My games" tab. I see no result for game A_000012 5866. I dunno if this is the game or not. But anyhow I am used to seeing one gamer in the 5k series listed when I click "My games" tab. Hope there are not others as I have many games going. In my Ficgs database of games I do not anotate a win or loss. Help please Thibault......thank you Wayne

Josef Riha    (2007-09-19 18:21:15)
Empty

Hello Thibault, please can you tell me what's this means?
The move of my opponent is done (5. ...Bb4)
A000026 game 14550.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Bb5 not 5.empty *

Don Groves    (2007-09-20 07:58:42)
New interface!

Excellent changes, Thibault! Much smoother now. One request I have: please show the remaining clock next to each game on the page after we submit a move. This will help greatly in deciding which game to visit next. -- Don

Don Groves    (2007-09-20 08:47:33)
Please don't min my poor eyesight!

I just noticed the clock is there already, in smaller print Which I missed seeing :-(

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-20 13:58:05)
chessfriends

I remember that chessfriends.com used to have the opposite rule ie the player with the lower elo advanced in the knockout. I guess their reasoning was if your better rated you should be able to prove it. As Thibault mentioned he may be a victim of the FICGS rule in his match against Farit Balabaev. He has the higher TER and his opponent as taken 4 draws as white by repeating the same 15 move sequence in his 4 white games (1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd 4 Nxd Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bg5 e6 7 f4 Qb6 8 Qd2 Qxb2 9 Rb1 Qa3 10 f5 Nc6 11 fxe6 fxe6 12 Nxc6 bxc6 13 Be2 Be7 14 0-0 0-0 15 Rb3 Qc5+ 1/2 1/2) Not the greatest advert for cc games! It requires cooperation for this to happen although its dangerous for black to deviate after 9 Rb1. Still there are perfectly viable alternatives IMO in the Najdorf against 6 Bg5 other than this line. I suggest going to a 2 game mini match play off series at 5 days reserve and 1 day per move increment until there is a win. This would provide incentive to go for a result for the higher rated player in the main match. I would retain the lower rated player wins rule for decisive games (but overall draw) for the main match but leave it equal for the playoffs.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-20 16:06:36)
Chessfriend.com

That's right, I remember this opposite rule at Chessfriend server. By the way it may have incited players to lose games to decrease their rating, which is somewhat easier than to increase it.

About my quarter final against Farit, it seems we both had really too many games at this moment, that explains (from me at least) these 4 short draws.

Farit Balabaev    (2007-09-21 13:07:01)
Figlio - Schuster

Dier Chessfriends Thank you for the discussion. Please don't forget, that I've just suffered in the match with Schuster. The match with Thibault is an attempt to draw everybody's attention to this rule. Best wishes, Farit

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-21 18:52:24)
Tie Breaks

Farit just to clarify things, you lost your drawn match against Peter Schuster (despite being the higher rated player) because of the rule that the lower rated player wins in the event of a drawn match, where there has been at least one win by the lower rated player. So the 4 draws by you are drawing attention to the problems with the tie break by rating approach (albeit the higher rated player wins if all games drawn part of the rule) Well at least we understand your side of it - that you were actually making a point. Wolfgang I understand the rule is a compromise no need to cry however surely its right to review the experience and see if we can improve? The problem I have, based on the experience, is that it just makes the site look bad and silly to have 4 identical 15 move games. Thats not chess - in my view its absurd. So lets examine the experience and refine the process. A 2 game play off series at a very fast cc time rate ( 1-5 day reserve + 1 day increment)would, I believe, get a result. Its still a compromise because the time for cc is very short. At the same time lets re -think having the championship every 6 months idea - I think thats a big factor behind Thibault's tie break by rating rule. Its leading to overcrowding and its pretty hard to follow perhaps 1 every 9 months or year? Incidentally Thibault how do you break the tie if both have the same TER? Just a thought!

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-21 19:57:01)
Tie Breaks

A 2 game play off series at a very fast cc time rate ie. 1 day + 1 day / move would delay the next stages by up to 6 months (by stage)... I think that players would prefer to defend their chances - as you understood it - more often, and simply would prefer to play !

In case of equal TER : "If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account."

Finally, draws usually happen more often in matches, that's a fact. The special rule, at least, force one player to avoid it. We'll see if these short draws happen again and what are the consequences. At last, as Wolfgang said, the tie break rule is not "unfair", it is only a rule.

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-21 20:34:37)
Tie Breaks

Thansk for the reply Thibault. on the delay front I think it would be less than 6 months maybe 1 or 2 months. First the effect of this delay would impact on only very few top players in completing the final stages. Overall the quantity of chess games and opportunities would be unaffected as new championships start every 6 months so the amount of playing is the same. Second "If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account." Ok this will be rare but you cannot really be saying that a match would be decided perhaps 1 or 2 months after completion when the next rating is done? Third "The special rule, at least, force one player to avoid it." yes but it didn't did it? You took the 4 draws in 15 moves because you had too many games and your opponent was a strong player! My point is not about the unfairness of the rule Thibault its the effect of it - in this case 4 identical 15 move draws is not a good advert for the site, the World Championship FICGS or the players.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-21 22:00:03)
Tie Breaks

There are 8-games matches since the very first round, so this extra delay would happen each round (1d+1d/move means at least 4 months, also add vacation) :/ I think too long cycles is a problem. With the current formula a complete cycle (including the final match against previous winner) lasts 2 years and a half. If we add tie breaks, it could last between 4 & 5 years and more players may forget to play next rounds... I don't feel it, definitely.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-24 01:04:39)
Rybka vs. Zappa

What a surprise... Zappa now leading the match 3,5-1,5

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=2228

Even if Rybka plays without tablebases, the point is "The match will be played on two identical 8-cores computers"... So it probably means that Zappa's author Anthony Cozzie did it really well while implementing multi-processors engine. It would be interesting to know the performance of both engines compared to single processor version. Can Rybka be improved significantly this way ?! .. We'll see it soon, anyway nice to see a "real match" :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-24 01:10:45)
50 moves rule

Hi Wolfgang !

Yes, quite ridiculous to adjudicate a draw while tablebases show a mate in 63 moves IMO... So I broke the rule (with great pleasure :))

Garvin Gray    (2007-09-24 15:54:07)
Entries

Come on everyone, need at least six entries :) Preferably a lot more.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-25 21:03:09)
Title norms

Hi Garvin, sorry for the delay :)

A title norm (FEM, FIM, FSM, FGM) can be achieved in a correspondence chess tournament with at least 7 players and 6 games played per player.

More explanations and % table :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#titles

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-26 12:46:06)
Mexico, round 11

Unless an earthquake, Anand should win the FIDE WCH tournament... now leading with 7,5 / 11, by one point and a half, after another great game against Morozevich. That's a very impressive performance but not a real surprise, as he's always been able to play very well... and less sometimes (unlike Kasparov).

What could happen in a 12-games match against Kramnik if he plays at this level ?!

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-26 18:45:47)
Chess, love... ego

In a discussion where Susan Polgar (in her new forum, see link below) encourages members to ask questions to strong OTB GM & IM, I suggested to ask them :

"...how the venue of Rybka and other engines crushing them OTB (ie. Hydra-Adams) in classical games affected their love of the game ! .. More than learning us & them humility, obviously noone can feel the same than Bobby Fischer in front of the chessboard anymore (and probably before him also). How can a human player love the game like he did, nowadays ? .. What is the place of the ego in this strange relationship ? Finally... do they play other games more and more as time passes ?"

An interesting point, undoubtly to be discussed, is the place of ego in the love of the game IMO. Go players may have an interesting point in this discussion ;)

http://www.chessdiscussion.com

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=196

Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2007-09-28 00:36:03)
Comment

This remark was made by past freestyle winner Equidistance in the rybka forum: "This FICGS site is very unclear, impossible to find anything. No clear summary about what these e-points are all about, very long terms and conditions, really I doubt anybody will spend so much time to even find the page about Freestyle Cup, which is hidden under one of many menus." Maybe navigation could be made easier for new players interested in the tournament.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-28 01:16:46)
Comment

Thanks for forwarding this comment here ! .. Actually it's quite true, a summary (at least in forums where I posted about the tournament & maybe in Help section) could help... Thinking about that.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-28 02:56:48)
E-Points

A summary about E-Points has been added to the terms and conditions :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#epoints

"E-Points : To summarize previous Entry fees and Prize money sections, you can buy E-Points (1 E-Point is worth 1 Euro, see My account after you connect to the server) then play money tournaments with entry fees and prizes (bronze, silver, gold) with low rakes in E-Points, finally ask for money prizes instead of E-Points for the tournaments you choose : According to the prize won, you'll be paid 0,75 Euro per E-Point remaining in your account. Consequently the more tournaments you play before to ask for a money prize, the lower is the cost per game (prizes in E-Points reach up to 99 % of the entry fees, 100 % for the chess freestyle cup)."

Feel free to tell me if it is not clear enough... I've also updated the Help section about how to enter the freestyle cup & E-Points.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-28 03:01:14)
Invitation to FIDE, FICGS, ICCF GM & IM

Just added to the FICGS chess freestyle cup rules :

"FIDE GM & IM, FICGS / ICCF GM, SM & IM are invited to enter the waiting list for free until one week before the start of the tournament ! .. Please just send a message to webmaster through My account page to register. You may be asked to send a copy of your passport or ID card."

Strong titled players may be interested in winning the title & prize, other players may be interested in playing them...

Garvin Gray    (2007-09-28 03:28:13)
pm's

Proposal for site rule, now that private messages has been enabled.

Publication of a private message without the authors expressed permission is forbidden and will lead to ...... (insert penalty here).

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-28 04:08:18)
Publication of a private message

Ok. Anyway publication of a private message without the authors expressed permission is punished by the law (at least in France), right ?

Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2007-09-28 08:09:33)
Question about e-points

A quote from the rules: "When you buy tickets, a virtual account in E-Points is created (or modified) with a limited lifetime of 2 years, meaning the account will be emptied at the end of this period. Member's account lifetime will be reconducted each time tickets are bought by the member. The number of E-Points added to the account is the amount in Euros paid to FICGS. Tickets are not paid back." This means i lost the E-Points after 2 years? So what i do with E-Points if: "Tickets for tournaments (E-Points) can't be sold to other members, exchanged with cash money or paid back" In the summary that you wrote you said: "... then play money tournaments with entry fees and prizes (bronze, silver, gold) with low rakes in E-Points, finally ask for money prizes instead of E-Points for the tournaments you choose" This is not clear. For example, I join a gold tournament i must choose before hand if i want E-Points or a money prize. Also why i want to play more tournaments before redeeming a money prize if i could do nothing with my remaing E-Points (see above) Any help in my queries will be appreciated.

Robert Mueller    (2007-09-29 08:58:10)
Publication of a private message

>Ok. Anyway publication of a private >message without the authors expressed >permission is punished by the law (at >least in France), right ? What's the penalty? Still guillotine? ;)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-01 14:09:36)
Other Russia, Kasparov president ?

"The former world chess champion Garry Kasparov entered Russia's presidential race on Sunday, elected overwhelmingly as the candidate for the country's beleaguered opposition coalition (Other Russia)"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/30/russia.kasparov.ap/index.html

This is a bit off topic but it could be interesting to know the view of our russian friends, from the inside, about this !?

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-02 19:33:41)
CC / OTB ratings

Since strong engines appeared, there's no more a clear relation between OTB and CC ratings IMO. A few months ago, GM Nigel Davies explained that he gave up correspondence chess because it simply asks too much energy and time.

Hannes Rada    (2007-10-03 19:49:56)
Kasparov vs the World

Thank you for the interesting link. It is quite an interesting game and when playing without further and depper analysing it looks like the World did a very good job, which should at least be sufficient for a draw.

Don Burden    (2007-10-06 14:10:24)
Some favorites

John Kricfalusi's blog (the creator of Ren and Stimpy). Learn to draw cartoons!

http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/

Engrish:

http://www.engrish.com/
http://www.engrish.com/recent.php

The Diary of Samuel Pepys. Read what was going on in London almost 350 years ago.

http://www.pepysdiary.com/

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-12 22:11:47)
Reminder : Invitation to GM, SM, IM

"FIDE GM & IM, FICGS / ICCF GM, SM & IM are invited to enter the Freestyle Cup waiting list for free until one week before the start of the tournament ! .. Please just send a message to webmaster through My account page to register. You may be asked to send a copy of your passport or ID card."

One more day for titled players to register for free !

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-13 19:17:27)
Freestyle tournament

A new player may enter the Freestyle Cup waiting list soon... So we'll be at least 8 players, anyway only 6 rounds will be played, I can't change the rules now.

Sergey Pligin    (2007-10-15 12:27:24)
match

My opponent Peter Schuster has made a blunder in a game he plays for White, playing with the other knight. Having made this mistake he resigned in both games. I should note the result in the second game is unclear now. Taking into consideration the match is friendly, understanding my opponent's mistake I ask Thibault permission to cancel results of my finished games and recover a position in the Schuster-Pligin game after 23rd Black's move, i.e. one full move back.
I hope the players of the iGame team will understand me and accept my decision.
It's important for me to continue playing the both games, especially the one I am playing for White.
Best regards, Sergey

Thibault de Vassal    (2019-06-28 00:27:36)
Android App not working

Thank you all for your help, now I just updated all FICGS apps at Google Play Store. It could solve the problem for everyone (at least it worked for one user already)...

Any feedback is welcome! As you can see, it really helps :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-15 22:15:50)
slippery slope

Garvin, I fully agree with that, generally speaking. Well, this is a friendly team match where such behaviour makes things even more friendly and games more interesting, everything is quite clear in this case, Peter asked nothing & Sergey offered it of his own, no player of any team is supposed to do the same...

Miroslav Leskiv    (2007-10-15 22:43:09)
match Pligin-Schuster

The game Pligin-Schuster is one of the most interesting games in match. So, it would very unpleasant, if this game will finish with result unequal to the end position on board. Recover both positions is the best way.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-16 22:46:45)
More translations

I need help to translate the following in german & spanish ! Thanks :)

- "Please click on the piece to move"

Spanish : "Haga click sobre la pieza que desea mover"
German : ?

- "Please click on the destination square"

Spanish : "Haga click sobre la casilla a la que desea mover"
German : ?

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-17 02:42:45)
2 more entries

Two international masters will probably enter the waiting list soon. If other titled players want to enter the Freestyle Cup waiting list for free, please just contact me.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-19 22:18:09)
Freestyle cup starts tomorrow, 2 pm.

10 players entered the waiting list !

As we still need more players, titled players (GM, SM, IM) may register for free until saturday 1 pm. server time, please email me. Prize is 80 E-Points at the moment.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-20 05:17:30)
Rybka 3, Fritz 11, Shredder 11...

Rybka 3, Fritz 11, Shredder 11, also Chessmaster 11... new versions of many engines are announced or coming (Fritz 11 - end of november).

It is said in computer chess forums that one secret of Rybka may be "table of exchanges", in other words knowledge, added to a 'simple' & very fast engine typically like Fruit. Many now think that other engines may catch Rybka in a while, but we might have to wait for the thirteen series at least IMO :)

Anyway, the battle continues... Also waiting for Hiarcs 12 !

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-20 23:29:30)
Eros in the lead

After the first 3 rounds, SIM Eros Riccio leads the tournament by 2,5 / 3

Everything is still possible with 4 pursuers at 2 / 3 .. See you tomorrow :)

William Taylor    (2007-10-21 01:47:07)
Nice idea

I'd be interested in playing. 5 or 6 games of go in one day sounds a bit tough, unless they were blitz/fast games (considerably quicker than 30 + 10). Go tournaments can be played with fewer rounds than chess tournaments - I'm playing one next weekend which is only 3 rounds, but that does seem too short to guarantee a clear winner.

Don Groves    (2007-10-26 07:45:43)
Stolen elections

There is much evidence that the vote count was manipulated in favor of Bush both in 2000 and 2004. The states of Florida and Ohio were suspected both times. In Ohio, the president of the company that makes most of the US voting machines said in 2000 that he would do everything he could to insure that Bush was elected. His voting machines leave no paper trail, so recounting votes manually is impossible -- we are left to trust the machines! Such is the state of political affairs in our so-called democracy. One of Hitler's minions, I forget which one, said "it doesn't matter who votes, it matters who counts the votes."

Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-10-27 15:11:26)
Still on leave ...

... until November, the 4th! Best from my holidays on Mallorca, Wolfgang

Wayne Lowrance    (2007-11-02 00:13:09)
Change in class M rapid

Thibault I dont like that change at all. When I signed the entry was 2200. I do not like that to be lowered to 2100/ I think the division was just fine. Ive been busting my butt to get to that 2200 window. Would you please remove me from the waiting list. Thank you wayne

Wayne Lowrance    (2007-11-02 00:20:53)
remove me please

okey dokie, please remove me, as I posted I think it is a lousy change. The higher that class the less the response, what is suprizing about that. It is not a matter of interest. Wayne

Wayne Lowrance    (2007-11-02 01:40:29)
okey dokie

Thank you, please leave me on the waiting list Wayne

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-09 01:05:28)
Chess sponsorship

An interesting discussion about chess sponsorship started on ChessDiscussions.com (Susan Polgar forums)

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=504

Several issues : "How to bring chess to the masses ?", "How to make chess a show ?", "What kind of sponsorship is possible ?"

Susan obviously thinks that OTB chess still has a great potential and that organizations could do much better to promote it... Here's my last response in the thread (reminds some old threads here) :

<<<

In other words, you say that chess has a show-potential like any other sport that could be used and that isn't...

For sure traditional marketing methods could help to promote OTB chess, and chess organizations could do much better... but is chess "bankable", just like an actor ? .. I just saw one more comparison between chess & poker in the thread "How to bring chess to the masses", but there's a major problem in chess that doesn't exist in poker or soccer : "everything can't happen", at least at a first sight, actually the way people can see it...

FIDE tried to change some things, ie. time controls, wch cycle but that's not enough, obviously. Anyone can win a lost hand at texas hold'em against any professional player, like any 2nd division soccer team can beat the Real Madrid once... Of course long-time statistics will be always favourable to the best players, but it takes a much longer time... Everything can happen in any event in these games (poker wch, soccer world cup). The probability for a real surprise that makes buzz is much lower at chess, the same best players invariably play the best tournaments, won statistically (ie.) 20% by Anand, 19% by Topalov, 18% by Kramnik and so on... quite boring.

The only interesting chess events follow the same scheme : David vs. Goliath, the buzz-genius 12 boy vs. Kramnik, mystery-Deep Blue vs. Kasparov, Anna Kournikova vs. Fischer & so on... nowadays the man vs. machine match is no more interesting since any home computer is stronger than HAL 9000 or Kramnik and there's no clear world champion (too many FIDE wch, different cycles..)

Chess needs real events and I'm curious to see the ones "that could bring chess to the masses" in the future... Maybe I'm a bit pessimistic, at least for OTB chess, but I'm very interested to see how good marketing methods will be able to transform our chess world... Just wait, hope & see :)

Best regards, Thibault

>>>

I'm now working again on SEO (Search Engines Optimization) for FICGS, more and more players find us via Google... Of course one next step is to sponsor the FICGS WCH & freestyle tournaments but it is a hard task for sure... All comment and suggestions on this issue are welcome :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-11 05:08:02)
Number of games limitation

Hello all.

The current number of running games limitation before the program blocks the access to new standard or rapid tournaments is 60 (which doesn't mean the number of running games is limited to 60)

After having experienced myself the "too many games" effects (more than 80 games, quite stressful and time consuming), and after a few general forfeits by players who probably reached the overdose, I decided to change some parameters to prevent such consequences. In a previous discussion, it had been concluded that it was up to each player to manage this and eventually to take the risk, but definitely too many correspondence games is not the same than playing chess all day.

The number of running games limitation before the program blocks the access to new standard or rapid tournaments (but world championships cycles) will be 30, once more it doesn't mean the number of running games will be limited to 30... Of course faster tournaments will remain unlimited. It should accelerate running games, prevent general forfeits, and help us not to become chess machines, at least "correspondence chess machines" :)

Best wishes, Thibault

Harry Ingersol    (2007-11-11 16:05:14)
Number of games limitation

I like the IECG Server practice of different levels based on number of games completed on the server. Beginners are limited to a few games while experienced players can have as many as 50 games in progress at a time. It is clear that players like Peter Schuster and Farit Balabaev play high-quality chess even when they have many games in progress. One limit does not fit everyone and experienced players can make an informed decision.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-11 17:53:24)
2nd FICGS chess freestyle

The 2nd FICGS chess freestyle cup waiting list is open. This 6 rounds swiss tournament will start on november 24, 15:00 server time. Time control is 1 hour + 15 seconds / move. Entry fee is 10 E-Points (10 Euro). Prize is 100% of the entry fees in E-Points.

FIDE GM & IM, FICGS / ICCF GM, SM & IM are invited to enter the waiting list for free, please just send a message to webmaster through My account page to register (you may be asked to send a copy of your passport or ID card).

Definitely we need strong players to rivalize with SIM Eros Riccio :)

Philip Roe    (2007-11-11 19:16:42)
cui bono?

Thibault,

I'm not at all clear what your proposal is intended to achieve.

Are you trying to save us from ourselves? Ruined careers, failed marriages, social withdrawal, vitamin deficiency...? If so I can't imagine a one-size-fits-all solution.

Or are you protecting other players from the phenomenon of a player who takes on a large number of games and then, for whatever reason, forfeits many of them? This seems to happen regrettably often and for that purpose it seems perfectly reasonable to ask people to qualify before managing a large number of games. Can you pull any statistics that might be revealing?

Dan Rotaru    (2007-11-12 01:14:40)
Number of games limitation

I think that limiting the number of games is a good idea, and I have a feeling reading the posts that the issue is not if to do it but the number of games. 40 seems to be a reasonable number. FICGS is still free for corr chess and people are tempted to play too many games at once which not only dilute the quality of the games but leads to too many forfeits. I was horrified some time ago when one of my opponent confessed that he had about 230 games in progress on various sites including FICGS. I believe that even for very strong players too many games will reduce the quality of some games and I am not talking about chess knowledge but about the possibility to do a mistake as the good move in the wrong game.

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-11-14 12:54:32)
new rapid category

Thibault please reconsider your decision and set up a 2000 - 2200 rapid tournament which I think will fill up quickly. there are about 60 active players rated 2000 - 2200 and of these about 5 have more than 10 games going. 2 of these (Jason and Sandor) probably wont enter a 2000-2200 rapid as they are qualified and down for higher level tournaments.If the rapids are for players up to 2200 why have you got higher rated rapid tournaments? Lets get more chess played isnt that what its all about? Incidentally the standard ratings of 2000-2400 and 2200-2600 seems a mistake as no one above 2200 will enter the 2200-2400 tournament. Has anyone else got any views on having a 2000-2200 rapid category?

Garvin Gray    (2007-11-16 06:14:13)
Just say yes :)

same vote as before, Option 2.

Will the standard tournaments be different rating cut off to the rapids? Please say yes :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-18 15:29:10)
6 days

... time to promote the tournament !

I feel it's a bit early for a freestyle Go tournament, so only the chess tournament may happen (if we have 9 players at least). The next one could happen not during a week end and with a faster time control.

3 players are in, join the fun :)

Wayne Lowrance    (2007-11-18 23:00:53)
Remove me please

Thibault please remove me from Rapid M waiting list #9. I give up on it and I entered standard class M # 15 and it opened up and were playing too my delight. I do not want to be overloaded, I am sorry to ask this,. thank you Wayne

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-20 19:56:40)
Le Grand Journal de Canal+

Frenchies Michel Denisot and Ariane Massenet interviewed (during 5 minutes at most) former world champion Garry Kasparov.

He explained in a few words how life imitates chess and how the rest of the world help Putin to make russia a dictatorship.

During the rest of the show as usual full of nothing, Kasparov was obviously quite impatient to leave and I understand him :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-21 04:14:33)
19-7

IGAME.RU team now leads by 19-7

I just drew my King's gambit against Andrey Sumets, a hard game... I saw that Peter won his mini-match against Sergey, congrats to you Peter and once more it was great fair play from Sergey and Igame team !

Garvin Gray    (2007-11-22 06:38:17)
more players, more players, calling more

Two and a bit days to go. Looking like it is going to be double round robin the way we are going. More entries required.
Thibault, if we do end up only having three or five entries, can I please have the bye in round three as it will be 5am here in Australia?

Marc Lacrosse    (2007-11-23 21:00:02)
Any strong player for Rapid class M 00 ?

... Three players are awaited for completing rapid class M tournament 009.

There are already four players enrolled (2147-2215 Elo)

I (2373) would be pleased to join if two 2300+ do come with me for completing the table.

Anyone interested ?

... We need more strong tournaments.

Marc

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-24 16:33:54)
SC. von Erichsen is FICGS Go champion !

Svante Carl von Erichsen 4d is the first FICGS Go world champion, congratulations :)

According to the rules : "In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage."

As Svante Carl now leads the tournament by 7/7, even if he loses his last game and another player also finishes with 7/8, the TER decides. And as there's no previous winner to defend his title...

After the second championship (the level should increase), we may have the first 5 games match between two very strong players :)

Hannes Rada    (2007-11-26 19:23:10)
2nd Chess Final H. Ingersol - W. Utesch

Both player won clearly their semifinals. Any predictions for the 2nd final ?

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-27 22:37:57)
Baduk and chance : 1dan in LG cup final

A Go player ranked 1 dan is about 800 elo points below a 9 dan player (whatever the ranking system ?!), meaning about no chance to win a game against such an opponent, right ?! .. How is it possible to see a 1 dan player at this level in one of the main Go tournaments in the world ?

Of course everything can happen in a Go game, but I suppose it is not the case during a whole tournament...

From IGN Goama newsletter - http://gogame.info

"An interview with Han Sanghoon, 1-dan, the first 1-dan in Go history, who entered the final match of the World Go Championship (LG cup)

- Congratulations! What was the most difficult game in this tournament?
- The last one with On Sojin, 4-dan. It was really close finally and I think, that I was slightly behind until the endgame stage
- You became a professional about 1 year ago. Did you think that you can reach the final match of the World Go Championship so quickly?
- I remember that it was very hard to become a professional. I was almost 18 and it was my last chance to win the qualification among inseis. Of course, I did not think, that I can show good results quickly. I was surprised, that professional tournaments are not much harder than the insei league :)
- What are your weakest and strongest parts in Go?
- I am weak at the opening, but I feel myself confident in middlegame fights. Usually I try to defend my groups solidly, before fighting
- Who is the hardest opponent for you?
- Yun Junsang, 6-dan. I lost him twice and feel that he is much stronger than me. Also his Go style is very impressive
- What do you think about your final match with Lee Sedol, 9-dan. How big are your chances?
- I never played him before, but I saw lot of his game records and I know that Lee Sedol, 9-dan is much stronger than me. Any way, I will try to win the match! Usually I am not afraid of the star opponents at all!"

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-03 03:04:56)
"Chess is like" series

Just tried a Google search on "chess is like" :

- Chess is like life (Spassky, Kasparov, Polar or so.. Fischer said Chess IS life :))

- A game of Chess is like a sword fight ! You must think first, before your move...

- To some extent face to face chess is like poker in that it can help to "read" your opponent's body language.

- Chess is like a box of choclates, once you start a game you never know what your gonna get.

- Chess is like body-building. If you train every day, you stay in top shape.

- Chess is like marriage. You cannot have a mate without a check. (Brian Wood)

- To me chess is like a patient and faithful lover; I may not always be there for her - er, it - but it is always there waiting by the phone for me to call and start up with the affair all over again. (Graham Moore)

- Chess is like snooker: once you slip a little it is very hard to get back because there are so many good young players fighting their way up.

- Chess is like golf, 50 percent mental, 50 percent physical.

- Chess is like the saxophone. You can pick it up and learn it, but it takes a lifetime to become any good.

- Chess is like tug-of-war, but it's also like "a cork bobbing up and down."

- Playing chess is like looking out over a limitless ocean; playing checkers is like looking into a bottomless well.

- Chess is like a symphony. The first phase of this piece was a furioso, leading to a quiet second movement, a positional struggle between two very different personalities. (about a Fischer's game)

... and so on. Finally anything's like everything :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-04 21:11:33)
1st round robin final

Yes, a very hard tournament, at least for me :) .. It seems to be between Alberto, Gaetano & Xavier but many games are not over yet ! We will see...

Congratulations to Gino and Peter for a nice match !

Garvin Gray    (2007-12-12 14:38:00)
5

I would like to offer that perhaps five player tournaments should be considered instead of seven player, at least on a trial basis.

This would have two effects:

1) Less waiting time for tournaments to start

2) Players have to enter more tournaments to get the same number of games, increasing the amount of players entering tournaments.

Lincoln Tomlin    (2007-12-18 20:54:43)
Too many draws

In over the board play, I like Yermolinsky's idea of when two players agree that a position is drawn then the board should be turned around and play continue for at least a preset number of moves. When accepting a draw sometimes a player can see, or thinks he can, some advantage in his opponents position and both players would also have to be confident in what is going on in the position from both sides before offering or accepting.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-19 18:08:38)
High level performance

Right, many congratulations to Marius, at least for beating Marc (who made a good tournament too) with the Black pieces !

And congrats to Dinesh for "submitting" new great quotes with an interesting Nietszche-like written style to FICGS files :)) (if you agree, of course)

Yugi Inving    (2007-12-21 01:35:19)
3 vs 3

I had just had this idea. this varient of chess have an hexagonal board whit three players playing all for themselves, (no alliance is permitted ). is also have at least six new piece and some new rules or power accorded to some piece. i will decribe it clearly an other time.

Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-12-22 07:28:28)
conditionals

Thibault, I don't think that time saving is the most important reason to wish conditionals but to minimize the workload of clear moves!

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-12-26 20:08:02)
conditionals

They are a good idea I think the truth of many cc games is decided in a perimeter of a few moves and Wolfgang is right so much boring and unecessary work is involved in getting to those critical points. After 1 or 2 moves with conditionals you could have gone straight to the draw in some of your games Thibault!! Just joking! Please articulate your opposition to the concept a little more.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-27 02:46:21)
conditionals

Of course that's the main & clearest argument and I agree with that. I'll try to search TCCMB archives (I think this issue has been discussed for a while there) to argue better my 'feelings' by experience on other servers. Anyway there are so many improvements to come on the server before that I couldn't implement it before a while :/ .. To be continued.

Andrew Stephenson    (2007-12-27 09:44:35)
option 4

Thibault please consider implementing option 4 now. I cannot see the current rapid M 00009 tournament filling up for a long long time but there are IMO plenty of 2100 players who would sign up for an option 4 tourney who are not going for the rapid A 000035

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-29 23:27:34)
Major update : challenges

Hello to all.

Now it is possible to challenge connected players for bullet / lightning / blitz games (advanced chess tournaments - note : please verify time controls, ie. blitz games are played in 2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves) with White or Black.

Many improvements to come (when I find some time), to display ratings and so on... All feedback welcome.

Garvin Gray    (2008-01-03 04:29:22)
Steve Lopez latest article on chessbase

My only comment is that I would have liked Steve to also have compared the chessbase engines to Rybka, Zappa et al

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4357

[moderator : please just leave a link to articles from other websites]

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-01-07 07:37:49)
holidays and forfeit

Yes wolfgang he will forfeit although he still has time left he is on holday until Feb 1 and the clock will still run. I never understoofd the logic of running the clock and allowing holidays. This rule is misguided and unecessary I wish Thibault would get rid of it. I think victor does not realise he will forfeit and this will lead to a set of stupid losses I do not see how that helps good chess to be played nor do I see allowing clocks to be stopped would prolong the games to an unnacceptable length. Clearly a very unsatisfactory situation.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-11 05:00:33)
FICGS improvements : Your opinion

Hello to all...

Kind of poll, it would be useful to know which part of the site looks quite or really unclear to you. FICGS website continues to grow, I tried to use some symbols repeatedly to make it coherent but it's quite obvious that it's not easy to understand how the site works at a first sight.

Feel free to point unclear functions or to make suggestions...

Thanks in advance :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-11 21:52:46)
mails, game search

About personal emails, two ways : the form at the bottom of My messages page, or the public comments that are sent by email too.. but I've to make it clearer and easier to use (ie. to find a game that just finished).

About game search, it is possible to enter a game number in the form below the menu. I'll add a title to the form to make it clearer, thanks !

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-16 18:10:48)
FICGS emails unavailable jan. 14 to 16

FICGS email provider had a problem from january 14 to 16, 2008.

Emails sent not through the server to FICGS domain most probably did not reach me :(

In this case, please resend it to me. Thanks in advance.

Robert Mueller    (2008-01-17 18:43:01)
FWIW

I am sorry for Peter that he was not qualified for the third round. Yes, he did win our game, but due to a blunder on my side when I lost a piece on move 4 because I read his move wrong. I am sorry for Peter, but the rules are quite clear about the TER qualifier.

Andrey Sumets    (2008-01-18 10:11:35)
score

Igame.ru leading by 30,5 - 12,5 and 6 games remaining.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-21 05:18:05)
One way

Hi Wayne, one possible way already (at least for finished games) : you may download the full ficgs chess database, then filter games played by you... anyway you're right, it could be a next update ;)

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-22 18:30:35)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU

My pleasure, Gaetano :)

This match was really interesting, and the result quite surprising even if our "team" is quite young yet, some forfeits, and some of our strongest players did not play. The russian team played good chess and logically won the match. Moreover, I'm to lose my second game against GM Sumets who did it very well since the opening... Gaetano's result, once more, is not just luck ;)

Christophe Czekaj    (2008-01-30 13:34:08)
Chinese Chess

I played some games of chinese chess on itsyourturn, and it could be fun ! I was totally crushed bya asian players :-D But I found a player in Rotterdam who was on the same level (just beginners ;-D) and we had some interesting games. I think its a good idea to play chinese by correspondence because, to say the least, it's not easy to find players in "real life" !

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-30 19:31:12)
Under-10-move checkmate

To resign or not to resign, is that the question ? :) .. Such case is quite unlikely to happen : If a player resigns in less than 10 moves, it is most probably a forfeit, if the game is lost anyway his rating is 'most' probably 350 points below his oppoent's rating, at least it should, so this game won't be rated for the winner, too easy :)

Don Groves    (2008-02-04 23:18:00)
don's bug

Ha! I've already learned that lesson. Now I save long posts frequently ;-)

Andrey Sumets    (2008-02-05 00:17:35)
///

Another two wins for our team. Congratulations to owl (Nikolay Doynikov) and ayunusov1(Adkham Yunusov):) just three games to go with at least 2.5 points in our favour:)

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-02-07 01:41:22)
WCH candidates final tie break rule

Good question... Well, it seems coherent : WCH rules favour ratings, it is very unlikely to happen that the knockout cycle winner's rating is inferior to the round-robin cycle winner's one, anyway the rules clearly favour the highest TER, which is the one of the knockout cycle winner at the beginning of the cycle.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-02-07 09:33:55)
cycle entry rating??

Thibault now your really confusing me?? I do not think there is any concept of cycle entry rating being followed in your WC system! In the knockout stages players ratings change so there entry rating changes in different stages. eg Wolfgang entered the quarter finals for 000002 with a TER of 2460 he was successful (against you)and played the semi final with improved TER 2523 and for the the knockout TER was the same 2523 with Harry had TER with 2456 for quarters but went to semis with TER 2459 and for knockout final his TER changed again to 2555. Now if CER is operating Thibault, the knockout final match should contain entry ratings at the start of the cycle ...this is extremely important because that would have wolfgang on 2460 and Harry on 2456 which will make a difference as it reverses the TER at present showing in that match leading to opposite results in the event of a tie. The same occurs for the stages and round robin finals - updated ratings are used for tie breaks at each stage. Anyway for the next cycle why do you not just change the candidate tie break rule to make it consistent with all the other tie break rules ie based on TER at the time the stage commences. It does not make any sense to give an advantage to say the no 8 rated player at the start of the cycle who goes into knockout over the no 9 rated player going into the stage and round robin. Both players will benefit from improved TER during the course of the cycle before they meet in the candidates final where there strength at that entry point should be a tie breaking factor and not where there rating was 1 year or more years earlier- the more so as their changed ratings since will/may have been used as tie breakers along the way anyway. Either that or introduce cycle entry ratings concept and keep ratings fixed for the duration of the cycle for tie break purposes for all matches and stages!

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-02-14 17:10:57)
Rule

Hi Thibault just to clarify your answer there IS a draw by 3 fold repetition rule at FICGS? What happens if the server does not notice? As an insurance should the player making the claim notify the referee that he intends to play a move that will lead to the the same position appearing on the board (with the same player to move) for the 3rd time?

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-02-15 14:36:07)
Kamsky vs. Topalov 2008

FIDE has announced its decision to accept the US $150,000 bid made by the Bulgarian Chess Federation, unless a country comes up with a US $250,000 bid by April 11th. The Kamsky vs. Topalov match is scheduled for the end of year 2008, after the Anand vs. Kramnik match.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4448

Now, a small test : Who is the current chess world champion ?

(you could also ask to 5 people who don't necessarily play chess around you and leave the results here.. could be interesting :))

Wayne Lowrance    (2008-02-15 18:57:08)
ratings

Thibault you say you don't understand why a strong player would not ask for a provisional rating change when coming aboard.... Easy to answer Thibault, most people feel like rules are rules, and won't challenge them. At least that is why I didnt ask for a rating upgrade when I first came aboard. As I said earlier that when I came aboard my rating was 2300+ on another CC site I played on for humpteen years. Anyway I was confident in my CC chess ability and figured it would not take long to get to a decent rating, I wanted to more or less prove my self here. I guess that is basic to what you have answered. Wayne

Marius Zubac    (2008-03-02 23:49:06)
2nd GM standard tournament

Hello Thibault. I have now over 2500 and I would like to register for the 2nd GM standard tournament, however for some reason it is closed. Can you look into it please. Thanks, Marius

Mark Hailes    (2008-03-17 09:45:08)
Leave waiting list

Unfortunately, I put myself on both Rapid A and Rapid B waiting list. Can I leave the Rapid A one? Currently there are no other players on that one. I still have a bit to learn...

Garvin Gray    (2008-03-17 11:35:42)
freestyle and seedings

While I am just another user of this forum, I can answer both of these questions as they come up regularly.

Hailes- My understanding is once you sign onto a waiting list, you cant leave it.

The reason being is players could enter, then see another player enter, then leave the tournament and rejoin in another slot to get a better colour, as your entry position determines your seeding in the round robin draw.

Also regarding chess engines etc, as long as you play as an individual, anything goes. Most of the players on here are using engines and it is fully endorsed.

Basically this is a freestyle chess site.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-03-17 14:58:10)
Leave waiting list

Hello Mark. You just have been removed from Rapid A waiting list !

Best wishes, Thibault

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-03-18 08:00:21)
Rapid categories

Well thibault we had a long discussion about this with a lot of input and agreement you stated that you would implement the following: "Rapid M (2100+), Rapid A (1900-2100), Rapid B (1700-1900) ... ~200" you have completely gone back on this and your new range is hopeless - you will get 1900 and maybe some 2000 players thats it nowhere for 2000 +_ - 2300 players to go Please check the archives reconsider and implement the range agreed to

Garvin Gray    (2008-03-21 15:31:08)
voting

I vote that Mark Haines should learn to paragraph :)

Mark Hailes    (2008-03-21 17:55:39)
Paragraphs

Well at least it slightly inhibits my normal propensity towards verbal profligacy!? And might I add a vote that Garvin Gray is taught how to spell my name correctly? :-)

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-03-28 18:57:10)
time per move

Thibault the time per move rule and vacation rules need to be changed as they create a ridculous situation. Example you have under the time per move rule 10 days (but 20 toal days) left and without thinking take 11 days vacation - you have resigned the game! the game is lost because you cannot cancel the vacation and cannot move!! This is an easy mistake to make becase the my games summary just shows the total moves left, This seems harsh and you should at least allow vacation to be cancelled at any time I cannot see any down side to that.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-03-29 21:36:49)
time

Hi Thibault whats the cut off point for the warning? Does it just show up if the vacation exceeds the time left or within 1 day? Can the vacation time leave you with 1 minute or 1 hour for your move? I am wrong about the My games time - it does show the time to move time - sorry!

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-03-29 23:30:05)
time

It shows up if vacation exceeds the time left only... So yes, vacation time can leave you with 1 minute :/ I'll make an update tonight this way. Thanks for raising this point :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-03-30 07:25:30)
Freestyle cup : Rules & start

There was a small conflict in the rules, now corrected : The first game will start at 13:00 server time, not 15:00

Current rules :

FICGS advanced chess "freestyle" cup is a 6 rounds swiss tournament with entry fee and prize, played in a single day. Entry fees are E-Points that you can buy in 'My account'. Read carefully terms and conditions, particularly Entry fees & Prize money sections before to play tournaments with entry fees.

All games are played in 30 minutes + 15 seconds / move. Norms are not possible.

The first round will start at the date and hour (13:00 server time) indicated as "deadline". Next rounds will start at 15:00, 17:00, 19:00, 21:00 and 23:00 server time. Please register carefully as it is not possible to retire from the waiting list. It is strongly recommended to display the chat bar to communicate with the tournament director.

If several players obtain the best score and the best Sonnenborn-Berger, they will share the prize. It is possible to forfeit all next games (that will be unrated for the advanced chess rating list) during the tournament.

FIDE GM & IM, FICGS / ICCF GM, SM & IM are invited to enter the waiting list for free.. Please just send a message to webmaster through My account page to register. You may be asked to send a copy of your passport or ID card. The tournament might be cancelled if less than 7 players registered before the deadline, in this case entry fees will be given back to the players.

An extra fee, usually 30% of the entry fee, will be added to the entry fee 2 days before the start of the tournament.

Garvin Gray    (2008-03-31 10:42:37)
sign up sign up

Four more players needed at least for a decent competition. I do wonder though, how many people on here have enough e-points to play?

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-04-04 03:53:14)
Freestyle registrations

We need at least 3 more players in the waiting list before saturday (april 5) to play this freestyle tournament !

Lincoln Tomlin    (2008-04-06 11:47:44)
...

Julien. If games miss the next rating cycle because 1) someone cannot be polite enough to resign a game they clearly no longer have any interest in or 2) resign a game they have already lost because they are in Checkmate and 3) because these games are not included in the next cycle you are 1 or 2 games short of a rating allowing you to participate against stiifer opposition then 4) yes it is a problem and as mentioned above unsporting behaviour. ;-)

Lincoln Tomlin    (2008-04-07 13:07:31)
...

Hi Julien. Each cycle requires that you play at least 9 games otherwise you will have an 'estimated' rating. This could prevent you entering certain tournaments for another couple of months because of games hanging in the air through no fault of your own. Yes, it should be a friendly game and people leaving games hanging is not really solveable. However, games that have checkmate positions when the ratings are calculated every 2 months should automatically be ended, imo.

Hu To    (2008-04-13 16:36:23)
Go learning program for kids

GoChild is designed for kids to learn go. http://www.gochildgame.com

Arnab Sengupta    (2008-04-15 08:23:25)
RATING

please tell me is the ICCF or FICGS rating recognised by FIDE?

Garvin Gray    (2008-04-26 06:16:33)
set blitz free

Thibault, can you please change the FICGS__CHESS__BLITZ_SILVER__000007 to be free also, just like the bullet and lightning's?

Marc Lacrosse    (2008-04-28 23:12:00)
Is it a joke ?

" In correspondence chess i let my computer think 0-1 min "

In correspondence chess I never let my computer(s) think less than several hours on one move.
I also analyse on my own with computer use for at least 30-60 minutes per move.
I also prepare openings for at least one hour per day _everyday_ even when I have no game at all running in the opening phase.
I built one of my computers specially for chess, an overclocked quad with efficient watercooling.
I will go for an eight-processors one in the very next months.
My main weakness is that I like playing unorthodox openings
So it's a bit difficult to go higher than 2400 elo here ...

So if you let your computer go 0-1 min per move we probably do not play the same game ...
But I cannot imagine your pleasure when playing a move that has been decided by a "0-1 minute" engine analysis.

Marc

Dale Leisenring    (2008-05-01 10:04:10)
What EXACTLY are the Time Controls?

Would someone PLEASE tell me EXACTLY where is the server, why do I need a new password everytime I log on, what are the time controls? Thank You Very Much!!

Marc Lacrosse    (2008-05-01 18:03:17)
to Andrew

"I don't se much benefit to letting the computer think for hours frankly wants it gets to 20 + ply. There all sorts of horizons in positions that letting the computer run for a year wont sort out."

There are other ways to use engines than letting simply one of them run for hours.
You may interactively walk along the various branches of the tree going from current position with one or several engines running.
You may also have engines playing some kind of test matches against each other from the current position or from any critical position that you identify along the possible continuations.
You can use Rybka randomizer against itself or against other engines for more exhaustive evaluation through test games
And so on ...

"Marc why are you playing this c3 stuff against the sicilian with such great kit? You play the same openings all the time and I thought it was because you had not much time!!!"

1. I never played this disreputed c3 stuff against the 2..d6 sicilian (with or without the 4.Be2 pawn offer) before january 2008 in my 140+ former serious correspondence games
Indeed I did choose it because I erroneously enrolled in three new tournaments simultaneously and I feared to miss time for serious analysis due to heavy workload at that time.
Results are a bit disappointing with it : five draws so far and two unfinished games that I should win (one win is sure and the other one is probable).
This should lead to a 64% result and a 2333 elo performance. Not shining but not that bad insn't it ?

2. I like playing unorthodox openings in correspondence play.
I do not see any interest in beginning my games with 30 moves of overanalysed theory.
Most often I decide for a side variation and I do play it in as many games as possible simultaneously : I do the analysis job once for all while being fully "in the mood" of a similar set of positions.
Then I change for something else
I won't probably ever play any more game with the line I played against you.

3. An exception is the Basman-Sale Sicilian (2..e6 4..Bc5).
I like it a lot and even have a web site devoted to it (http://chessbazaar.mlweb.info/basmansale/index.html)
I am in a running series of more than twenty corr. games without a single loss with it and decided not to stop using it until defeat happens
I probably analysed it more than anybody : I have several thousands of analysed lines in my files.
I am just busy to consider switching to something more agressive for cases where I need to play for a win as Black.

Regards

Marc

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-01 19:00:56)
private message

Hi Andrew, I'm afraid I've not received it, but I received some others without any problems :/ .. Please re-send.

Wolfgang Utesch    (2008-05-03 07:15:10)
Game 17894

Hi Andrew, I analyzed this position without an absolute certain result yet. White is clear better, but the way of win is very, very small (if it exist). Enjoy looking what will happen in this game next time!

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-03 09:28:38)
From??

Completely lost for black imo its madness to throw away a pawn like this at cc - I suppose there might be some way to grovel for a draw after 4..Nf6 black will probably get his pawn back unless white plays e3 and d4 when he has the hole on e4 has a kind of compensation. After 4..g5 can put up more of a fight with 5...Nc6 at least white doesnt get quite such a massive a massive centre All black has are some tactical tricks and a temporary lead in development once white avoids these and gets his pieces out of the box its dire for black. The last GM to play this as black (Kotronias) got a completely lost position although he won the game! On the other hand 1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white .... if everyone would reply with the From I would play nothing else but f4!!!

Benjamin Block    (2008-05-03 21:14:21)
How fast is you´re computer?

I also prepare openings for at least one hour per day _everyday_ even when I have no game at all running in the opening phase. I built one of my computers specially for chess, an overclocked quad with efficient watercooling. I will go for an eight-processors one in the very next months. How many GHz do you have?

Jason Repa    (2008-05-04 08:17:16)
From??

FYI,

5...Nc6 doesn't "put up more of a fight". It loses immediately to 6.Bxg5. I rarely have anyone play that badly against me in an online bullet game, let alone a cc game.

and in the line with 4...Nf6 (called the Mestel Variation), there is no clear way for Black to win his pawn back.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-05 12:50:53)
From here to eternity

Yes there might be some variations that are survivable especially OTB but at cc its tough to give up a pawn so early on. I think f4 is a perfectly ok first move (like b4) I just think it does not give any prospect of an opening advantage at cc because there is no surprise value and the black player has the time to research and find a response that equalises fairly quickly. That is why very few GM's have F4 as a main white weapon - it does not give enough prospects for an advantage - at the highest levels. Please note that qualification. I quite agree real chess is between people in real time and cc is a form of research competition. Getting experience for real world chess is a great reason to play a line at cc. There are exceptions OTB I often play the exchange french and have had good success (played by Kasparov Tal Morphy and others) I would not play it at cc though! In fact OTB I always play e4 but at cc gave it up because I see no way to get any adavantage against the caro kahn. Just relaying the moves the computer suggests does not, I think, give much chance of success against good players at cc. As for the From I do not believe in g5 white has to avoid the tricks and develop and is a pawn up. Not so easy otb!! - but at cc not so much of a problem. As for Nc6 yes I was talking about this move after 5 g3 and you are probably right I will try to look at the game you gave and do some analysis. As for the Mestel variation I thought black would get the pawn back unless e3 and d4 are played but again that was based on a quick look. Anyway perhaps the thematic tournament wil provide some answers.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-06 12:10:33)
Strictly for the birds

Thanks for the link for the games they are nice. Obviously playing the From or the approach adopted by black in these games is not an accurate response! Better to play like Of course 1f4 does not lose or lead to a worse gane for white - it just allows black to get equality very quickly and easily. The "waste" is that white has the first move and a lead in development and chances for an advantage. 1 f4 doesnt develop any piece (except the king!) and is a bit committal and slightly weakening of the king side. I would like to show with analysis exactly what I mean. Black has many good systems here is one. 1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 g6 3 g3 (e3 is the other way to play more on that) Bg7 4 Bg2 Nf6 already black is equal IMO. GM Jakubiec (2524) played this position 3 times last year as white against Rozentalis (2581), Bartel(2608) and Kadziolka (2295) and won all 3 games! He would 0-0 play Q-h4 and g4 f5 and roll them over! In every game black got an advantage in the opening and lost but at cc thats not going to happen. In each game it was easy to see blacks mistakes and to see the right move to maintain an advantage for black. The other set up for white is to play 3 e3 (instead of g3)Bg7 4 Be2 (4 c4 is interesting)Nf6 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3 and now after c5 its level but I would rather play black. 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. These Dutch reversed attacks can be scary to face otb but they are harmless at cc. Conclusion: 1 f4 is a dangerous move otb especially where the opponent is not expecting it but against an accurate cc player it does not offer any hope of an opening advantage - its a waste if the goal is to get some opening advantage - its productive if the goal is to gain experience and insight into f4 for use in real chess.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-06 15:01:06)
A bird in the hand

I think comparing f4 to b4 is quite reasonable - they are both off beat openings. On the question of chess knowledge I do not know how much he knows about b4? It can also be a dangerous practical weapon and can pose the black player more problems than f4. It is played by serious professional chess players in tournaments eg GM Christian Bauer (2626) has played it several times successfully this year and quite a few IM's regularly play it with success. Now to comparing rating sizes something I confess to not having done since I was in short trousers. My current rating is 2225 with a future rating of 2247 but with 2 rapid games in the pipe line this should be a future rating of 2300 + shortly lets see. Mr Repas rating is 2281 with a future rating at the moment of 2316. How significant is that? Well I had the opportunity to look at his games to see what his rating is made up of. 10 of his wins have come against the same opponent Sandor Porkolab and in 7 of these Mr Porkolab abandoned the games in level, drawn or in some cases better position for him. Given that in these "wins" he was often rated over 2100 or in one case over 2200 this has boosted Mr Repa's rating significantly. He has not so far had much success in WCC not having got past stage 2. As reference to my loss was made I can say that this was in a variation (the Prins of the sicilian) that I believe is unsound. Actually I overstepped the time limit while on vacation although I think the game could not be saved I learnt my lesson and do not play dodgy openings any more. I have never on the other hand been busted after 17 moves in a main line opening at cc as sadly Mr Repa found himslef against Bucsa Loan (Game 1249),then rated 1700. Then again I have stopped trusting the books and analyse for myself. Still less could I imagine being lost in a cc game after 16 moves in an exchange French (by tranposition) An instructive loss to Torsten Opas ( game 4388)- won with simple developing moves - worth playing over. Incidentally proves what I was saying about the exchange french it can be dangerous - although not of course, at cc. Finally there is Mr Repa's pet Bird shot down by Mr Kotlyansky in the approved way as follows 1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 g6 3 e3 g7 4 Be2 Nf6 5 0-0 0-0 6 d4 c5 7 dxc5 Qc7 and Black was fine winning in 72 moves. Never having lost with f4 did not include this because I suppose it was a bullet bronze game. I am afraid I am naive enough to think that people play chess on the server to win and increase their rating - clearly there are people who play to learn and strengthen their game and for whom results and rating are secondary. No doubt such people would not be interested in anything so vulgar as comparing ratings. Neverthe less its all just opinion and we are all free to express it within the rules of the server. So: f4 is a waste of time at cc little more than an invitation to draw and the From is unsound and almost like resigning.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-06 18:04:40)
From RIP

"would like to know how you refute the line which begin with 10..Bf5 instead of your opponent's move 10..Qe7. It usually continues with 10..Bf5 11.e4 Qe7 12.Bg2 0-0-0 and now what?" The answer is 13 Be3 and after Be6 14 Bf2 f5 15 Nd2 GM Kotronius tried 15..Qf7 16 0-0-0 Bxa2 when 17 e5 looks winning. Instead 16..fxe4! 17 Bxe4 Bxa2 and maybe black can hold with Na5 to come. Obviously 14 e5 is critical after 14 ..Bxe5 15 Bxc6 Rxh2 16 Rxh2 Bxg3+ 17 Rf2 black gets 2 pawns for a piece and an exposed king but white still has some winning chances. That leaves 13 ..Bd7 but the bishop is more passive and will probably end up going to e6 after f5 etc White has 14 Bf2 or 14 Kd1! intending Kc2 and Nd2 both look good. The problem for black is that his long term comp is the h file pressure which doesnt balance whites extra centre pawn. IMO

Pablo Schmid    (2008-05-06 20:13:21)
To Andrew

I would play 13..Bd7 to leave the e-file open. If 14.Bf2 then I play 14..f5 and I see nothing wrong for Black for the moment. 14.Kd1, I didn't look at that move, it seems interesting but really, Iam not that afraid. RIP? Easy to say...

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.

Jason Repa    (2008-05-06 23:08:30)
Bird Brain loses in 33 Moves!

"I think comparing f4 to b4 is quite reasonable"

You would. But we all know what happened to you when you and I played chess. I beat you in 33 moves. And we can see how not only do you not provide a game that's at least somewhat representative of the critical lines of the opening, but you can't even figure out when the supposed game was played, or whether or not White or Black won, and you only post a tiny fraction of it to boot. So evidently, what YOU think is not exactly to be regarded in high esteem here. Most people wouldn't have required my explanation where I described quite clearly how there have been many books written about the Bird's Opening. It has it's own discrete chapter in MCO, and its played in serious games in professional chess still today. They would already understand on their own, or would at least be intelligent enough to look up the information without having to have their hand held and have it spoon fed to them. But even after all this, you STILL don't understand. And you mention Christian Bauer who only pissed around with 1.b4 when he was playing opponents 400 elo LOWER RATED! One of his fabulous wins this year, that you were alluding to, was against 1861 rated Jacques Decamps, lol. The rest of the time they were 2100-2300. Has he ever played 1.b4 against another GM? (never mind super GM, as 1.f4 has many times been played against)

An opening move like 1.b4 might be fairly compared to something such as 1.g4. You won't see any dedicated chapter in MCO to either of those openings, but they're at least interesting enough to warrant some discussion in the "misc flank openings" chapter. 1.f4 might better be compared to something like Larsen's 1.b3. A sound sideline.

You want to talk about ratings? I've had to build up my rating from starting at the default of 1700, by winning 117 games (one of them against you), because I wasn't aware when I opened the account that the admin would let you start with your established elo. It's not surprising I played Sandor Porkulab a lot of times, as we both were very active playing a lot of games. Unlike you who started with the advantage of an inflated rating, which was somewhat tempered after that beating I gave you last year.

Sometimes in correspondence chess people abandon games and don't log in again. This was the case with Sandor Porkulab, although I had already beaten him a few times in games that were played to completion, and he wasn't better in any of the games that were abandoned. You're lying through your teeth there, or perhaps you're just too incompetent and dishonest to assess the games objectively. Why would Porkulab have 7 games against me where he was "level or better" when I had already beaten the guy every time we played before that? Did you even look at those games? Or is this just your pathetic way of trying to "score points" by using lies and deception? Additionally, the way the elo system works is that even if you do get a few easy points from say a win from an abandoned game that perhaps might have ended in a draw, that gain is quickly diluted and your rating naturalized as you play more games, because you win less points when you win,(or draw a higher rated opponent) and lose more when you lose (or draw a lower rated opponent), than you would have if you didn't receive those points. I've played many games since then and my rating here is probably where it would have been If I had not played Porkulab at all. Or if not already will soon be. So this is a pretty weak argument from you. A better argument is the fact that I CRUSHED you in 33 moves when we played. Porkolab at least gave me a decent fight when I played him. That's more than I can say for you. I felt like all I had to do was outsmart a machine when you and I played. I didn't have to worry about any human judgment from a real chess player getting in the way of my victory!

As for me getting a lost position after 17 moves against someone? For starters, I've played about 190 games here. What have you played.....32? And I think that's a testament to the fact that, unlike you, I'm a REAL chess player, so my goal here isn't to simply try to win the most online CC games to try to give myself some artificial illusion of ability. I don't always play what I consider to be the objectively best moves because I like to experiment and LEARN SOMETHING from the time I spend here. But having said that, I STILL outperform you greatly, and crushed you when we played last year. I'm also higher rated with a higher future rating, even though you had the advantage of started with a boosted initial rating. So much for what you "think" you know about the strongest moves in cc, lol. And your future rating is only 2247, not 2300+. If you want to discuss what might happen after some of your current games are resolved, don't sell me short at 2316, which is already a given. Talk about the 2370+ I expect to have after some of MY current games are resolved. If you want to argue/debate with someone, learn to do it in an intelligent and fair way. So far all you've accomplished is to lose the paltry amount of credibility you once had.

Pablo Schmid    (2008-05-07 00:34:11)
...

"Actually you're wrong once again Pablo. I know that you're only a 1912 rated player on this site" Yeah, on this site... I began here as a 1700 (the first rating here) and I lost many games on time or because I was very busy and in a hurry to play a move without checking seriously to not lose on time. And corr rating does not mean everything. I play OTB too. Do you? I would be happy to play with you, even if you seems a bit arrogant when I see the way you speak in general. And still, when I read that: "FYI, 5...Nc6 doesn't "put up more of a fight". It loses immediately to 6.Bxg5. I rarely have anyone play that badly against me in an online bullet game, let alone a cc game. and in the line with 4...Nf6 (called the Mestel Variation), there is no clear way for Black to win his pawn back. " There is not discussion about material, you seems to judge the position on the fact that Black could not regain the pawn, so they are worse...

Jason Repa    (2008-05-06 23:41:40)
Pablo

"I realize that Pablo, probably a lot better than you do. 'What? How do you know? You know nothing about me and you say that...'" Actually you're wrong once again Pablo. I know that you're only a 1912 rated player on this site. And I also know that you have difficulty understanding the difference between a discussion of dynamic compensation for material, and one of simply whether or not material can be recovered. Only in your mind is there the implication that "chess is all about material". Material is one parameter, and that is the parameter that was being discussed. You need to learn to understand that. Nobody was saying that was the only parameter to consider, or that it was the most important parameter to consider.

Jason Repa    (2008-05-07 01:09:36)
Step up, or shut up!

"I know that you're only a 1912 rated player on this site" Yeah, on this site... I began here as a 1700 (the first rating here)"

Join the club. I started as a 1700 player also. You've lost over 25% of your games. And to weak opponents at that. So I'm quite justified in assuming that I'm a better chess player than you, and by a very wide margin also. The fact that you couldn't figure out on your own why 10...Bf5 is no improvement over 10...Qe7 is just icing on the cake.

But anyway, I've had enough of you whining about your low rating and making excuses for your poor performance in chess. Excuses are for losers.

And there was nothing "arrogant" in any of my statements. The problem here is your stupidity and incapability at understanding what has been said to you. I've already explained to you TWICE that you were wrong in assuming that there was an implication that "material is everything" when I was discussing the recovery of material. That was not said nor implied. What part of this isn't sinking into your skull? How many more times does it need to be repeated for you to be able to understand???

I don't normally give free chess lessons to insolent patzers like you, but I'd be willing to have you a few bullet games on a secure server like playchess.com where in bullet time controls you won't be able to use your chess program to do the thinking for you like you do here. I've already had this type of thing go down with another motormouth on this site. I beat him 100% of the games and posted a link to them. At least he was man enough to step up to the plate and play me. You made the challenge so don't back down with any excuses, like the excuses you used to explain your paltry 1912 rating. And obviously if we're going to play real-time chess with the assumption is that its going to be human mind vs human mind chess, it's going to have to be fast bullet games. Not standard blitz where you have time to see what rybka running on your other computer suggests. Let me know what your playchess.com account name is and when you're able to play.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-07 05:15:58)
f4 or not f4

1.0 Pablo here is a link you should read: http://www.avlerchess.com/chess-analysis/A_BRAND_NEW_Chessbase_9_for_sale_on_eBay_92649.html 2.0 Mr Repa here is a comment about the Dutch defense: "Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4 3.0 Mr Repa's chess federation of canada rating is listed as 2010 with an active rating of 1737. If he reaches am expected rating here of, by his account, 2370+ then everyone will be impressed particularly as Mr Repa says "I think I'm a bit out gunned here.I'm running BATTLE CHESS on a Commodore 64. I believe its running at 1.023 MHz." 4.0 It might be battle chess that accounted for the following cc (!) game as black he played against Torsten Opas 1.e4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bb5 Be7 7.Ne5 Bd7 8.O-O O-O 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bh4 a6 11.Bxc6 Bxc6 12.Re1 Re8 13.Qf3 Qd6 14.Re3 Qb4 15.Rae1 Bd8 16.Qf5 Qxd4 (oops)17.Bxf6 Bxf6 and the game is already lost 5.0 Together with his loss with 1f4 that he forgot about here is another example of the correct treatment of f4 by black against Mr Repa 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 g6 4.b3 Bg7 5.Bb2 O-O 6.Be2 b6 7.O-O Bb7 8.d3 c5 9.Ne5 Nfd7 10.d4 e6 11.Nd2 Nc6 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 completely dead for white no prospects and duly drawn. Like I said 1 f4 is a waste at cc. I doubt we shall see Mr Repa use it again against a good opponent on this site. 6.0 All the games I referred to were white victories OTB with 1. f4 "Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny - thats the whole point. At cc Sengupta's play would not be impressive but otb it was effective. Incidentally the game was played in 2004 in India 8.0 1 g4 is like 1 b4? Well that is clearly wrong. There have been no GM - GM encounters with 1 g4 there have been several with 1 b4 including Topalov v Malakhatsov. Over 50 IM's and a dozen GM's have played 1 b4 very few have ever played g4. 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly. 9.0 "What is weird is that the conversation began with quite civil exchanges before tiny criticisms quickly escalated to nuclear mode despite my genuine and exhaustive efforts at diffusion and removal of misinterpretation" Can anyone guess who is being written about here on another chess site?

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!

Jason Repa    (2008-05-07 12:50:12)
Pablo BACKS DOWN!

And you're the one who started with the insults Pablo. You don't run around calling people "arrogant" because you're frustrated at your own inability to comprehend what

"and in the line with 4...Nf6 (called the Mestel Variation), there is no clear way for Black to win his pawn back."

means. And challenging someone to a chess match then backing down as you have done is BEYOND PATHETIC!

Michael Aigner    (2008-05-07 12:52:46)
I am not amoused!!

Please stop this degrading kind of discussion, it is a shame.

Jason Repa    (2008-05-07 13:10:18)
Declining the From

"From's Gambit ... Hi, is there a valid way to decline the From's Gambit without falling onto the Kings Gambit?"

That's the usual way. Although I can't see why anyone would want to decline the gambit. All variations indeed seem to be quite good for White.

"Even if the Froms Gambit may not be sound, I do not like to be defending, especially against players stronger than myself."

In that case you might want to switch to 1.Nf3 or 1.b3 with the idea of transposing into the Bird's Opening later. This is what I often do in OTB play. Of course Black doesn't necessarily have to allow you to transpose, though.

-------------

Moderator : This topic is closed. As a reminder :

11. 1. Netiquette

(...) No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and will lead to get a limited access to the server during one month a first time, two months the second one and so on. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private.

-------------

Jason Repa    (2008-05-09 06:13:49)
Chess Titans

I didn't even know about that. I just tried it at level 8 (advanced) lol. I won fairly easily, although it played the first 5 moves like a GM. I hate that annoying ICC whistle sound when the computer moves. The should have went for Chessbase sounds IMO.

There is a game I noticed in the Vista gallery that is definitely worth checking out called DEFCON. It's a game of nuclear war inspired by the movie WarGames.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-07 19:34:00)
Reminder : Forum rules

Hello all. The previous thread about From's Gambit has been closed.

As a reminder of the site regulations :

11. 1. Netiquette

(...) No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden (...). In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private.

Provocation is just ridiculous when alone...

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-12 14:40:08)
Rating changes

"11. 1. Netiquette (...) No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden (...). In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private."

Don the more I think about it the more I think your view is correct there is no need to make the drastic change that was proposed. I have a current rating of 2225 and future rating of 2247 but have no problem with a person whose rating falls after they enter a 2200 tournament I am in. However it would be good to get other players views as this proposed change would affect players of all levels.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-12 20:39:45)
Provocation

Thanks to all for helping, but please be careful about the rules :

>> "Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden (...). In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private." <<

Of course there was a provocation and it is enough. You noticed that I don't ban easily, provocation is a tough game that a few ones like to play here (not so well) but moderators can play with rules too, I may decide to ban a player definitively with no discussion anymore, but it is better that before everyone definitely understand that provocation is just ridiculous when alone... and when alone I can apply rules for this player only.

Best wishes, Thibault

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-12 22:43:14)
Rating changes

I think thats the right the decision Thibault to leave the TER rule as it stands. As for the issue of provocation there is no place for insults or abuse towards anybody. Everyone should feel free to express an opinion about a subject without facing ridicule or abuse. Debate can be robust but it should be courteous. As for responding - I am happy to act in the face of insults etc as if nothing has been said and leave it up to Thibault to take action. At the same time I feel completely free to agree/disagree with any view thats posted and will continue to do so. If thats not possible then its not a forum anymore

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-13 00:29:44)
Provocation

"(...) I don't doubt that Thibault is aware of the intent of such an element"

I'm sure you realize that absolutely noone cares about that, so a moderator. Any insult may lead to be banned (applying rules, at moderator's "discretion"), it is not a place to debate personal issues.

Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 08:25:55)
When will this troll stop?

This is hilarious! You've got a guy (and I use the term loosely) who goes WAY out of his way to insult, harass, and annoy, now trying to pass himself off as holier-than-thou. He's even following me around from thread to thread with the sole purpose of abuse and provocation. If I say the sky is blue, he'll say green. If I say 2+2=4, he'll say there is no proof of that. This character will not stop trying to provoke, as this thread proves.

I start an innocent thread describing an interesting game I played with someone. He immediately starts criticizing my choice of chess openings, made all the more laughable because I CRUSHED the guy in chess, and am significantly higher rated than he is. Perhaps this is what is fueling his little tirade. He then proceeds to post links to off-topic discussions that occurred 4-5 years ago as further harassment. And this is the same individual who is whining about, of all things, Netiquette? Irony to the EXTREME!

His latest tactic is to incessantly suck up to the site admin by making repeated hybrid posts which are intended to harass me while worshiping the admin. We'll see his signature phrase "I agree with Thibault" over and over again ad-nausiam. As if this somehow buys him respite for the provocative and abusive comments he CONTINUES to make towards me.

Although you're probably used to being in that position, please get off your knees and stop brown nosing Stephenson. It's pathetic. And before you start talking about Netiquette, please learn what the term means yourself. We wouldn't be having this discussion if you did.

Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 10:23:37)
Provocation

"Again I find myself in complete agreement with Thibault"

No surprise here. The brown-nosing fest continues!

Thibault, please define "transparent". The troll is continuing to harass me, even going to far as to address me by name, taking liberties and condescending with statements such as: "Jason, insults are insults, rules are rules". That is clearly both abuse AND provocation.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 12:00:22)
Quote

I am sorry I thought it was clear the comments in my post Netiquette were not my comments at all - they were quotations cut and pasted from Thibault himself - they are his words not mine, they came from a previous thread on Netiquette. Specifically the comment: "Jason, insults are insults, rules are rules : No reason & no evidence will allow anyone to insult anyone in this forum anymore." This is Thibault directly addressing someone it not a comment from me. That is why I prefaced my posting with the words "Looking back over discussions on this I see its tough to make progress" I was looking back over previous discussions and it seemed to me that we were covering the same ground and progress was difficult I thought in the present discussion these words were relevant and it was fair to quote them. IMO these comments are as valid now as they were when Thibault made them. Thats is why in the posting I said: "I agreed with these comments of Thibault before and I agree with them now." My view is simple - using insulting words is not permitted under any circumstances and if I have a problem with any words used I will contact Thibault privately and I will not complain in the forum. So I will continue to post to argue my point of view in a courteous manner

Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 12:32:23)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

What's clear, Stephenson, is that you're a very sad and pathetic individual. You obviously have no life whatsoever. You've been harassing me and trying to provoke me nonstop. First you start this troll behavior in the other thread....now you're doing it here as well. Is this what you do to everyone who outsmarts you and beats you in chess, as I have done?

It's one thing to follow me around from thread to thread and harass me, but the brown-nosing and whining to the admin you've been doing has made me lose all respect for you entirely. Not that I had much to begin with.

You even go so far as to obsessively comb through all of my games, just to try to find one that you think will someone embarrass or offend me. You even start a thread featuring one of my games. Obviously none of your own games are worthy of mentioning, so you focus on me and my chess games, lol. Well I have news for you Stephenson, I'm not embarrassed at all about my correspondence chess game losses (or any losses in chess for that matter). I've learned a lot more from my losses than my wins. My 6 losses on FICGS have taught me more than my 118 wins here, including the easy win against you and your chess program.

Perhaps others can benefit from my 6 losses as well. Do the FICGS community a favor and post my other five losses, not just the French Defense I played against Bucsa Ioan, that you felt warranted starting a thread to discuss.

Unlike you, I'm a real chess player. I enjoy learning and wish to take my OTB game to the next level and I believe that correspondence chess is helping me to do just that.

What is YOUR OTB chess rating? Interestingly you didn't respond to that question when it was asked of you more than once previously, lol. Big surprise!

Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 12:54:06)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

My obsessive fan is quoting my game with Bucsa Ioan played last year. Actually you have it backwards Stephenson. I trusted my database, which wasn't up to date. I wasn't even consulting an engine until around move 18, when it's already lost for Black. I thought quite a bit about alternative lines in this game, but found myself agreeing with the Psakhis analysis. That line is recommended by Psakhis in his book "French Defence - Steinitz, Classical, and other Systems". Additionally, 13...0-0 has been played by the likes of GM Dreev, as well as GM Marjanovic, as recently as 2003. But alas, it pays to keep your databases up to date for correspondence chess.

The game was a valuable learning experience for me. I'm very happy that it occurred. My otb opponents will never get me in that position as a result :)

I can't help but feel sorry for you Stephenson. Firstly I'm sorry that you don't have any of your own games worthy of publication, and that you need to vicariously live through me and post my chess games. Secondly, I'm sorry that you don't play otb chess and appreciate the joy of playing chess using your own mind. But then again, in your case, maybe that's a good thing. :)

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 13:22:56)
Provocation

I am sorry I cannot respond to a lot of what you have posted as such a response would breach the rules. I have not examined all your losses - just the French games - so I do not know how instructive they are I will try to review them later but I can't promise anything. However I am a great believer in checking lines I play with the database to see whats been learnt and how the top GM's handle the particular lines. All I learnt from my loss was not to play that particular line and to cut out all dodgy openings. In fact the line you played is not the strongest and I believe black can equalise - unfortunately I found an even stronger line for white which seems to refute the entire variation. There is however a book by an english GM from 2007 which looks at sicilian side lines and claims that there is no refutation. When I have time I will stick all the analysis up and people can make up their own minds. On correspondence taking someone's OTB chess to the next level I am a bit sceptical. It definitely has a significant effect on the accuracy of opening play and this can get some valuable wins by itself. But other progress needs separate study and training. Silmans Reassess your chess for example will increase the rating of any one below FIDE 2300 if studied intensively IMO.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 15:47:39)
Mr cfc

Frankly I have alway taken someone saying they have an ELO rating to refer to having a FIDE rating and not a national rating I understand that you need to deduct about 35 points from sub 2200 ratings to get a FIDE equivalent. Well I have never met anyone before who thought that FIDE 2000 was such a high rating I dont mean that in a bad way I am just surprised that you think this is high. As for beating me at chess I thought this was not real chess? Well like I said there is a sense in having it both ways. Look we could easily organise a money match at cc say for Euro 1000 6, 8, 10 games whatever you want, rapid time limit you can have white in every game and I can give you 3 to 1 odds. You win 1 game you get Euro 3000 you fail to win a game I get Euro 1000. All you have to do is win a game you can even lose all the other games. Well like I said it does not prove anything - its a research competition. I dont want to hustle you but you have been making a lot of statements so if you are interested ....... But please dont challenge me to bullet games on playchess......

Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 21:36:18)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

What a <1500 player like yourself "has always taken" is meaningless. What is objectively true and factual is what counts. As has been explained to you repeatedly, elo is not exclusive to FIDE ratings, not even to chess in fact. Are you beginning to understand or still confused?

Also, there is no simple (deduct x) formula to get a FIDE equivalent. Sometimes a national rating is worth more than a FIDE rating. There are various factors to consider.

There is no "magic" about a FIDE rating. You just need to play in FIDE rated events. I've beaten many FIDE rated players otb, including FMs. It's really no big deal.

I never said 2000 was some sort of "high rating", so don't start with the lies again Stephenson. But compared to a guy like you who is rated under 1500, I'm like a more evolved being. Is that why you're so frustrated to the point of stalking me as you're doing? Is it a combination of that and the fact that I CRUSHED you in chess? When are you going to get over that? When are you going to stop whining and crying?

Why don't we play fact to face otb chess, if you have lots of Euro to throw around as you're claiming. Fly to Canada and I'll play you a match for 5000 euro. First to win 6 games or something like that. I'd probably have to spot you 5/6 just to make the match somewhat competitive.

I never challenged you to bullet chess, my <1500 rated acquaintance, but that would be the only other way to play human mind vs human mind chess. I'm certainly not about to fly to the third world country you live in, just to beat some "C" class chess player in person.

Let's take a little tally here. I've already beaten you at correspondence chess, and you've made it clear you want no part of playing chess at time controls that doesn't allow you to consult your program, so I've effectively won that as well. What is left? Arm wrestling? I kinda like my chances there too!

Jason Repa    (2008-05-14 21:31:38)
corr. & otb

"But cc rating does not implicitly say anything about chess strength."

I disagree. But first be clear that I'm talking about correspondence chess strength. I never said that corr. chess strength has a 1 to 1 relationship with otb chess strength. I know too many guys who are better corr. players than me that I could mop the floor with at any time control in a live chess game.

But having said that, I believe that people have high corr. ratings for a reason. At a minimum they're good at employing interactive chess engine research and have good updated databases. I think overall chess knowledge and judgment are factors as well. Stronger chess moves win more games. Yes, I understand that sometimes an ambitious 1800 can beat a higher rated opponent, on occasion, but it's overall results that are important, not anomalies. The same is true otb. Sometimes experts and national masters beat GMs. That doesn't mean they're a stronger chess player than the GM.

"Do you think the playing cc helps to improve your otb abilities?"

I'm not surprised you're getting differing stories. Like anything else, it depends on how you use the experience and of course on your individual aptitude. Some people will just memorize the opening theory they learn from corr. chess, if that. Others will do much more with those games, such as developing technique, increasing their strategic knowledge, learn more endgame theory, etc. I think it is without question that corr. chess can have great benefits for your otb chess game, if used properly. Just being forced to comb through opening books and game databases alone is useful.

"OTB requires the abilities to calculate deeplines correctly and to maintain concentration for a couple of hours"

I agree that the ability to concentrate well is important for otb chess, but I think you're overvaluing calculation. The reality is that otb is all about COMPETITION. It's a mental fight. I know guys are are great analysts, and with the right hardware/software would probably be great corr. players, but they don't handle the pressures and stresses that go along with competition very well. Judgment and competence, especially while under stress and duress, are of the utmost importance in otb. You can calculate as deeply as you want, but if you're expending energy calculating lines that you should have rejected, or mismanaging your time by thinking too deeply in a spot where it's not necessary, you won't get good results in otb.

I don't have any desire to try to get anywhere near 2700 level in corr. chess. And I agree with your analysis that it would not be fun anymore and become a huge drain of time sitting behind the computer. Perhaps not unlike what a professional chess player has to go through in order to prepare for their tournaments, with the chief exception that the professional chess player gets paid for such a sacrifice.

"...for the purpose of improving the otb abilities it would have been better to study chess books and solving tactical exercises than playing cc."

I don't see why these things have to be mutually exclusive. For me I get more motivated to study my chess books and look through my databases when the positions occur in games. I also think about what I'm doing and analyze the positions using my own mind when I play corr. chess. Maybe that's not the case for everyone, but it is for me. As for tactics, I think blitz/bullet against strong opponents can be very useful for developing that.

Wayne Lowrance    (2008-05-15 19:45:42)
Rating calculation

Hello all. I have been reading the discussions here and did not intend to add my t hought. But I guess I am anyhow. Chess is about having fun, making new friends, competing with your peers, last but not least improving your skill. I am playing in several M tournaments, a couple have players whose ratings have dropped below 2200. This not a problem for me. I think they should be allowed to play. With respect Wayne

Marc Lacrosse    (2008-05-15 23:29:59)
no taboos !

Hi Hannes

Although I am not a top level cc player, I still feel I do not too badly here (I will be over 2400 at next rating)...

... and I _never_ play main stream openings!

In fact I played quite a few disreputed lines here like these:
- 1.Nc3
- 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d3?! Nf6 4. Be2 ?! or 4.Bd3 !?
- 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3. d4 cd 4.Nxd4 Bc5 !?
- 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 Nbd7 4.Qd3 !?

My one and only loss in 43 games at FICGS was in a very doubtful but interesting gambit against one of the strongest players here.

So I cannot see why such evidently interesting openings like non-Najdorf-non-Sveshnikov sicilians should not be played at cc chess any more...

at least at my modest ~2400 Elo level ...

Marc

Jason Repa    (2008-05-16 00:23:32)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

Geez Stephenson, I thought you were done stalking and harassing me and had found something else to amuse your little mind with. Something shiny and metallic perhaps? But here you are continuing your trollish ways.

Actually, what this thread is REALLY about, is a pathetic little character who doesn't handle losing at chess very well. As was stated before, it's pretty sad that you don't have any chess games of your own worthy of publication or discussion, so you post one of mine and continue to rant, and rant, and rant about nonsense. I already BEAT YOU in chess. Quite easily, in fact. Could there be anything more ridiculous than a guy who loses at chess criticizing the play of the victor?

Normally when someone obsesses over me like this it's a female doing the obsessing. But hey, each to their own.

And yeah, it's pretty obvious you're someone with a lot of time on your hands. Nice of you to share that with us. But you only speak for yourself in that regard. Even with all your free time I was still able to beat you easily when we played chess.

Just look at this latest drivel you're posting. You go on and on and on about why I shouldn't have lost a chess game I played a year ago like this is some life and death event for you. It's really not a big deal to me. So why is MY game such a big deal to you? If you're trying to make an argument that I'm such a terrible correspondence chess player based on this game, why did I beat you so easily when you and I played? I'm also higher rated than you as well. If you're going to harass me with one of my losing games, at least have enough intelligence and imagination to vary the game once in awhile. You have 5 more to choose from.

Sorry but I've never met anyone clued out enough to put DOWN LOAD and DATA BASE before. This isn’t a minor spelling mistake or typo. This is a surprising lack of education. What’s next, “COMP -UTER”? A chess player should especially be familiar with the word DATABASE. But as I said earlier, some people mindlessly trust machines, and don't have the capacity to think for themselves. People like that like to brag about their meticulous spelling, because even a chromosome-deficient inebriate can figure out how to use spelling software. Most of us couldn't be bothered, because we realize that spelling is not important when making casual internet forum posts.

And no, Stephenson, the "point" about ELO is not dead. It's your ability to learn and understand simple concepts that appears quite dead here. This has nothing to do with me not "agreeing" with you. This has to do with objective fact. An ELO rating could be talking about GO, Backgammon, or other games, that FIDE has absolutely nothing to do with, in addition to national rating organizations. You were wrong. End of story. Continuing to defend your ignorance of the meaning of ELO is just making it all the more obvious what it is you are to everyone reading this. Again, Stephenson, LOOK IT UP.

Don Groves    (2008-05-16 06:03:34)
Erm...

Hi, Lincoln -- You learn quickly here to save long postings. That has happened to me more times than I care to admit ;-) The timeout for automatic logging off seems to vary considerably -- sometimes minutes, other times hours.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-16 18:19:42)
Beating FM's

If you have beaten more than 1 FM in a classical time control ie not rapid or blitz or bullet that is good on the other hand in short time controls it doesn't mean much at all I agree. Its tough to improve or learn about chess from blitz or bullet unless you go over the game ie for opening accuracy or tactical shots missed and make notes.

Benjamin Block    (2008-05-18 16:33:33)
New idea!

Hi, I often use the search game button to learing from better player. But i often found a lot games that i don´t want games with lower rating then me. So what about more functioning. examlpe filter game under 2000. and filter game with draw and white in and so on....

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-19 21:54:37)
Fritz 12, Shredder 12, Junior 12

While Rybka 2.3.2a w32 1CPU/mp still leads CEGT rating lists, Fritz 11 is now only about 50 elo points behind...

CEGT 40/20 (AMD 4200+)

Rybka 2.3.2a w32 1CPU - 2966
Fritz 11 - 2913
Naum 3.1 w32 1CPU - 2890
Deep Shredder 11 w32 1CPU - 2890
Hiarcs 12 SP 1CPU - 2869
Toga II 1.4.2JD 1CPU - 2864
Fruit 2.4 Beta A w32 1CPU - 2864
Zappa Mexico II w32 1CPU - 2844

Any predictions on the future ratings of Rybka 3 & Chessbase engines : Fritz 12, Shredder 12, Junior 12, Hiarcs 13, Zappa or other free engines ?

I can't find a rating for Junior 11 in CEGT rating lists, does anyone know it ?

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-20 17:35:16)
Qutie fnnuy :)

Qutie fnnuy to see taht wthaveer the oderr of leettrs (but frist and lsat), one awylas utsanerdnad the mniaeng of ervey stneecne. The biran is rlleay ainzmag dno't you tnihk ?

Hannes Rada    (2008-05-20 22:37:01)
3 fold repetition - working correctly ?

Does the server recognise a 3 fold repetition correctly ? If I am not too much confused, I think that my game against Balabaev - game 17830 - has been terminated after 2- fold repetition. Can you please take a look into that. Not really important because this game is definitely a draw, but it looks for me like a bug.

Hannes Rada    (2008-05-21 10:32:44)
3 fold repetition

Thanks, Thibault. Now it's clear.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-24 16:36:19)
Tournament winner in WCH

This is true in WCH round-robin tournaments only !

I explained why I've chosen this rule in previous threads, ie. :

>>

As you noticed, rating is quite important in FICGS world championship cycle (particularly established ratings, obtained from IECG / ICCF or after 9 games finished in FICGS) !

I think these rules are really the best choice in order to designate a world champion. It's more logical IMO to favour players who obtained previously the best results at FICGS and recognized organizations, and consequently a high rating. It takes time, of course. Even very strong players starting with a 1700 rating won't achieve a 2300 established rating before months !

Criterias in FICGS wch are (from most important to least) :

1) Winner of the previous cycle (qualify for the final match)
2) The eight best established ratings (play the KO tournament)
3) Points obtained in the wch tournaments
4) The tournament entry rating (TER)

<<

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-26 17:37:24)
Provisional rating

"Some players just take a very low rating even if they have a real high", well that's a quite strange choice but at least it helps to start tournaments quickly :)

Arnab Sengupta    (2008-05-27 16:53:56)
help

ok! so we came up with this variation- 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 10.O-O Nbd7 11.Ne5 Bg7 12.Nxd7 Nxd7 13.Bd6 a6 14.a4 e5 15.Bg4 exd4 16.e5 c5 17.Re1 Nxe5 18.Bxe5 O-O 19.Bxg7 Kxg7 20.Ne2 f5 21.Bh5 f4 22.b4 cxb3 23.Qxb3 Qd5 24.Qh3 Bc8 25.Nc3 dxc3 26.Qxc3+ Qd4 27.Qf3 Ra7 28.axb5 Rf6 29.h3 but now what? what should BLACK play here? Please i need your opinion to finish this variation. Do you think Black has any chance of Drawing the game here?

Michael Aigner    (2008-05-27 18:35:33)
Sorry but white is going to win

I think black has a maximum 10 % drawing chances in this position. e.g. [Event "Blitz:120'"] [Site "PC"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "New game"] [Black "Naum 3.1"] [Result "*"] [PlyCount "65"] [TimeControl "7200"] {256MB, Hiarcs10.ctg, HOME-PC} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c6 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 dxc4 7. e4 g5 8. Bg3 b5 9. Be2 Bb7 10. O-O Nbd7 11. Ne5 Bg7 12. Nxd7 Nxd7 13. Bd6 a6 14. a4 e5 15. Bg4 exd4 16. e5 c5 17. Re1 Nxe5 18. Bxe5 O-O 19. Bxg7 Kxg7 20. Ne2 f5 21. Bh5 f4 22. b4 cxb3 23. Qxb3 Qd5 24. Qh3 Bc8 25. Nc3 dxc3 26. Qxc3+ Qd4 27. Qf3 Ra7 28. axb5 Rf6 29. h3 Qd6 (29... Re6 30. Qa3 Rxe1+ (30... Qd6 31. Rxe6 Bxe6 32. Rd1 Qe5 33. b6 Re7 34. Rc1 g4 35. hxg4 Rd7 36. Qa5 Qd6 37. Qxa6 and White wins) 31. Rxe1 Bf5 32. b6 and White wins) 30. Re8 Be6 31. h4 g4 32. Bxg4 Bf7 33. Rc8 and White is clearly better Regards Michael

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-27 19:07:57)
E-Points

Hello Mik.

"chalnge", you mean challenge I assume.

Well, as E-Points may be converted in real money by winning silver/gold games, I bet you understand that it should lead quite quickly to some problems & abuses :)

Mik Kris    (2008-05-28 08:56:08)
Please understand I realy want to help

But this way any one looking for a fast game is at a disadvange compering to some one wanting a slow one Why cant you just add a function asking you if you are here you do want more people using the server dont you well most players that play go play faster games I realy love faster games and I am thinking of playing a diffrent html server

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-06-02 21:03:24)
Leagues ?

If this tournament is a multi-stage one, I suppose it looks like the leagues(?) system (kind of championship like in soccer), where the 2 top players in each tournament could replace 2 players in the tournament above :/

Disadvantages:

1) Players will not know which division they'll play.

2) Harder to organize automatically.

Interesting to discuss anyway !

Garvin Gray    (2008-06-03 15:06:41)
One division or maybe league play.

Mine was just a one tournament suggestion as a trial and did not envisage any kind of league concept. Thought it might help with the rating entry problems talked about in many threads.

But that has potential too. I thought this was worth a go as a single tournament ie no leagues.

If it succeeds and is popular, then it can go from there. If it fails, so be it, it just disappears into the ether like all other dud ideas.

Jason Repa    (2008-06-04 06:48:23)
Poker

"I should have said my statement was about those who know the mechanics of the game"

Actually, you've just confirmed that you don't know anything at all about the game of poker. As is the case for you with chess. And you obviously didn't understand the expression "-EV" , so I'll explain it to you. EV means expected value. It is the sum of the probability of each possible outcome of the event multiplied by the outcome value (or payoff). Thus, it represents the average amount one "expects" as the outcome of the random trial when identical odds are repeated many times. Obviously if this value is a negative number, money-management is completely meaningless as you will lose money in the long run. Money management is actually the easiest thing to figure out. It's a no-brainer for anyone who knows anything about money gaming. It has to do with ensuring that you have enough cash on hand to keep the risk of ruin down to a comfortable level, to account for standard deviation (bad luck). If you're a losing poker player, ie, one in which the net result of all your decisions results in a negative expected value, money management is clearly totally meaningless. This simple concept is quite obvious to most people. I've never before met an adult who required it to be explained to them like this.

People who's minds go beyond the superficial understand that there is much more to poker than working out the simple arithmetic of the game, such as how many outs for a flush/straight.... pot odds, implied pot odds, etc, which is probably what you mean by "knowing the mechanics of the game". Playing that kind of mindless, one-dimensional game might work OK at microlimits, but beyond that you'll need to learn that poker is much more of a game of psychology than it is a game of math. A mathematician by the name of Barry Greenstein, who incidentally has won more than $10,000,000 playing poker, once said that also. I've got a feeling he knows a bit more about the game than you do, lol.

Don Groves    (2008-06-04 07:18:03)
Poker

As usual, Mr. Repa, you eventually turn every disagreement into a personal attack. I'm surprised you didn't mention how much higher your chess rating is than mine. You prove my point about bluffing when you say that poker is more a psychological game than a mathematical one. That is one thing we can agree on. Yes, I'm quite sure Barry Greenstein knows a bit more about the game than I do, and I'm just as sure he knows at least that much more about it than you.

Jason Repa    (2008-06-04 09:11:18)
Poker

As usual, Groves, you're returning to your trolling ways once again. You're the one who started with the personal attack here, not me. I simply stated that that there is more to poker than mere bluffing and money management, as you contended. You seriously don't know anything at all about the game of poker. That's not an attack, that's a fact. I was studying the value of inflection points and stack to pot ratios when you were struggling to learn the difference between a straight and a flush.

Just as you're a 1600 chess player, so you're showing your mediocrity where poker is concerned by grossly oversimplifying what the game is about. Saying that poker is more a game of psychology than math is hardly saying that all there is to poker is bluffing, as you repeatedly and mindlessly keep stating. For starters, bluffing is just one tool in a strong poker player's toolbox, and it is both a psychological, as well as a scientific/mathematical tool at that. In no limit poker, for example, sometimes a player will spend hours trying to create a certain image just to set up one single play in order to win a large pot. There are all kinds of relevant intangibles that are so far beyond your comprehension it's not funny.

And I really couldn't care less what you agree or disagree with. I know what I'm talking about. You don't. I have a proven track record over the last two decades as a winning player. I'd be surprised if you're not in the hole overall. And FYI, everything I've said is consistent with what guys like Greenstein, Skansky, Harrington, etc have been saying for years.

Do yourself a favour, Groves.....go read a poker book and learn some basics. Then perhaps you'll be able to make a contribution to a discussion about poker.

Jason Repa    (2008-06-04 10:02:42)
Poker

Groves, it's pretty sad if you aren't capable of understanding what you did. But in your case I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

And I don't need to meet you in person to know what you're all about. Your words speak volumes. And FYI chess ratings aren't obtained by flipping coins. You're a mere 1600 and change player. It's not the result of "bad luck".

You equate the stating of facts with "insulting". The problem is when I'm dealing with a very modest individual like you, every objective fact I state is interpreted as an insult.

As I said, read a poker book, or get someone to read one to you so that you can learn the basics of the game. Perhaps then you'll understand that there is more to the game than simply managing your money and knowing when to bluff.

Don Groves    (2008-06-04 19:59:07)
Poker

Your definition of "objective facts" is a bit weak, Repa. You state that I'm not intelligent enough to get my Chess rating higher yet I just told you I don't play Chess anymore. Besides that, my meager rating was achieved without the use of computers. One of the reasons I switched to Go is because Go is not yet dominated by computer programs. Why don't you try Go yourself and see how high a rating you can achieve without the aid of a computer? Also, in my second post, I agreed with you there is more to poker than just bluffing, etc. I said my comments were meant for players who already had mastered the mechanics and mathematics of the game. Rather than acknowledging this, you commenced with an ad hominem attack so typical of you. I stand by my original statement that the stakes in poker must be high enough to make bluffing possible or the game becomes nothing but chance where the best hand wins every pot. The best psychological game of poker is five-card draw with pot-limit and table-stakes. Playing with cards dealt face-up as in stud or hold-em (which is a form of 7-card stud) is for those who can't handle the uncertainty of not knowing for sure when they have a lock or at least that the odds are heavily in their favor.

Jason Repa    (2008-06-04 20:22:20)
Poker

No, your ability to understand simple concepts is what is weak here groves. You keep whining that your paltry 1600 chess rating shouldn't matter because you haven't played chess in a couple of years, but what difference does that make? Are elo points easier to obtain now? And what about Go? You play that game regularly, yet you have a pathetic 1300 rating at that as well. You better open a window before you think up another lame excuse....I wouldn't want you to die from smoke inhalation.

I don't know how many times I need to keep repeating myself in order for the point to penetrate your skull, but your comment about "mastering the mechanics" of the game is pure nonsense. You speak as if the entirety of poker theory can be equated to memorizing basic strategy in blackjack. You seem to think the discussion of calculating EV is based purely on figuring out pot-odds and how that relates to the number of outs, etc, but if you had the incipience of a clue about the game you'd realize that there is much MORE involved than that. Poker is an information game and all the information you have at your disposal, such as the temperament and mood of your opponent(s), your perceived table image (or at least your interpretation of it), the history of the action that has occurred so far, the tells that you pick up and the false tells that you may be sending to your opponents, etc, goes into the calculation of the EV on any given play. The better a player is able to conduct these evaluations and convert them into value, at least intuitively....the better a poker player they are. Even online poker has some tell/false-tell action as the response time can be varied.

Re-read my previous post where I mentioned that mistakes can take various forms. I clearly state, and in simple terms such that even you should be able to grasp, that there is more to the game than straightforward arithmetic calculations.

And I realize that you don't work, but geez, can you not find something better to do with your time than try to provoke people on the internet? Why don't you use all that free time you have on your hands to learn how to play Chess or Go beyond the level of a rank beginner?

Don Groves    (2008-06-04 21:17:58)
Poker

Like I said before, you're terrific at insults! You've clearly had plenty of practice. Either that or you're just a natural born insulter. Maybe I just bring out the best in you, eh?

Don Groves    (2008-06-09 06:47:09)
Brackets - both Chess and Go

In response to Garvin Gray's first response in this thread: There is a way around the problem of being stuck at a certain rating because you never get to play against higher rated players (which is necessary to move up) -- allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification regardless of his/her rating. This is done on at least one site already (IECG, if I recall correctly). If the player in question does not improve his/her rating enough to stay at the higher level, he/she drops back into the lower classification. Thibault would have to agree to allow this of course. I think it's a good way to reward the winner of a tournament.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-06-10 15:19:31)
Rules : 11.1 Netiquette

Hello all, I would like to apologize to all members for reading such unacceptable posts in this forum. Rules are not so easy to apply in some cases, now I've taken measures.

Thanks for understanding.

11. General rules

11. 1. Netiquette

(...) It is possible to leave public comments for your games and to send private messages to other members. No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and may lead to get a limited access to the server during a few weeks, at the moderator's discretion. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private.

Wayne Lowrance    (2008-06-10 16:44:32)
Rapid chess entry rating

I am pleased that Thiabalt has/is taking steps to put a stop to this bickering and name calling here at the chess site. For my part I would like to apoligize to all for opening this "Rapid chess entry rating" topic in the first place. It is my bad ! And I will not repeat this mistake again. It was never my intension to creat such chaos. I thought it was a harmless topic and was giving an opinion. I feel bad that one individual has such a dislike for me. I have been playing c hess on internet for perhaps 20 years, and in all of that time I have never had anyone dislike me, I confess it does bother me. Wayne

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-06-21 16:49:05)
DMD

Hi Marc.

Rules specify that in such cases one should call referee a first time then again ie. one month later, then things become more clear.

P. Bhaskaran Dhanish    (2008-06-22 02:42:00)
Thankyou

Hi Thibault, Thankyou for your reply. And please call me by my first name, Dhanish.

Garvin Gray    (2008-07-02 13:36:39)
Closing of old topics

Making a recommendation: Can old topics please not be closed after 60 days?

On a couple of occasions now I have wanted to revive an old thread as it might be relevant now and I get the message that the thread is closed.

Two reasons for wanting to revive an old thread:

1) The past conversation is relevant to current matters and so having the old conversation would reduce people repeating themselves

2) Helps to reduce the number of threads talking about the same item(s).

Please change the current policy.

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?

Garvin Gray    (2008-07-03 16:30:20)
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_M__000010

One more player needed. Please join up so the six can start :)

Normajean Yates    (2008-07-04 16:02:52)
basic question re vacation

the faq says on vacation that : <<Vacation : 1. During [vacation], your clocks are frozen and it is no more possible to play, in order to reduce the effects on time controls. 2. Please note that the time limit per move clock still runs during vacation [...] you can add days leave during this period.>> Can someone make it clearer what point 2 means? Thibault?

Normajean Yates    (2008-07-04 23:25:37)
you dont get thibault's point

thibault's point is that engines can't do this kind of pattern recognition. At least no one yet knows of a way to make them do it - i mean a way that *works* rather than giving spectacular results on 10% of the positions and spouting nonsense lines on the remaining. I will refrain from ranting about innate and Kant and Chomsky - speciaaly since i just did it last week on chess.com ;)

Marc Lacrosse    (2008-07-05 19:36:23)
Qualification information ?

Because i did not realise that I had qualified for two WCh tournaments I recently enrolled for a third one and had three tournaments beginning almost simultaneously in january, which proved to be too much for me.
And now the deadline for the next Wch (005)is approaching and it just seems that i will win WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_M_01__000004.
So I am hesitating : when will Wch-004 next stage begin ?
I do not wish anymore to have more than one tournament starting almost at the same time.

More generally speaking, I wish I could get the following infos permanently updated on my "My messages" page :

* I enrolled for a tournament of type X on date Y. Presently there are already Z players enrolled for this tournament.
* I registered for championship X on date Y. this is supposed to start on date Z.
* In tournament Wch-X my present result ensures (or leaves the possibility open) that I will be qualified for next stage tournament that is supposed to begin on date Y.

Your opinion ?

Marc

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-10 21:21:06)
Free will

In my opinion it would be interesting to discuss what you mean by "free will" first :) .. I'm not sure there's a possible clear definition to this.

Normajean Yates    (2008-07-13 04:54:16)
Hahahaha !!

Oh, please follow Rodolfo's link! :) HIGHLY RECOMMENDED FOR POSTMODERNISTS ;)

Normajean Yates    (2008-07-13 23:01:01)
help - chat column missing

I can see a white-background black-text chat column / frame on the right in some of my computer, but they are absent in others. Can someone please help? Windows XP, firefox 2, adblock plus [popups enables for ficgs]

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-14 02:16:38)
posting

Hi Wayne, I did not delete any post in this thread !? Please post again...

Normajean Yates    (2008-07-13 23:08:00)
to make it clearer -

on some machines i see a ticker-tape ie horizontal-scrolling text - messages, quotes, forum posts etc - in a white box. I suppose that is the message box. But no chat column below it.

On others I see a fixed-text chat column.

Sorry, at first i put this into another thread by mistake, staring another thread. I dont know how to delete it.

Hannes Rada    (2008-07-15 19:07:00)
Learning effect ??

I suppose you are here to improve your chess ability. For this purpose a mirroring moves - strategy seems to be useless ....

Michael Sharland    (2008-07-15 20:12:15)
Wouldn't work anyway

If your opponent wanted to stop you they could just push you up against the time limit on one of the games as the mirroring player would always use at least a little more time than the opponent. Once the player has to pick a move, the opponent can diverge. Each player would than have a big time advantage in one game but that wouldn't be a big deal at these controls. Only a vacation balance advantage would allow this idea to still work against determined opposition. Usually, a better stategy is to diverge at the point where you can play a significantly better move than the opponent used and try and win at least one of the games while holding the other.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-07-18 04:55:03)
Mirror mirror on the wall

To put Thibaults explanation another way: the person doing the mirroring aleays plays his moves after the other other person. So after a while you can see who is the real player and who is the reflection. Thibault has a system of rules that are very open and liberal but there are limits. For example at FICGS it is allowed to discuss a game that is not yet finished!

Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2008-07-18 06:34:32)
Good Question

I found this in the Wikipedia:

The term Norma Jean can refer to several people:
* Norma Jeane Mortensen, the given name of actress Marilyn Monroe.
* Norma Jean (band), a Christian metalcore band.
* Norma Jean (singer), a Country music singer, nicknamed "Pretty Miss Norma Jean"
* Norma Jean, the stage name of Norma Jean Wright, R&B vocalist and former lead singer of the disco group, Chic
* Norma Jean (album), the 1978 debut solo album of Norma Jean Wright
* Norma Jean, a circus elephant with a marked grave in Oquawka, Illinois
* Norma Jean, Song by the Danish Heavy Metal band Mevadio

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-18 14:24:09)
Chessbase Deep Rybka 3

Chessbase, who distributes the best chess engines (Fritz, Shredder, Junior, Hiarcs, Zappa...) now also distributes the little fish : Rybka 3 and Deep Rybka 3 are available.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4772

Rybka 3 (by Vasik Rajlich) is the reigning computer world champion and should be at least 80 points stronger than the previous version Rybka 2.3.2

Did anyone test it already ? What about the improvements (particularly Monte Carlo Analysis in endgames) ?

Rybka 3 book with 3,387,966 positions (260 MB) is also available.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-18 15:14:55)
Names

Well, Normajean is probably not a so common first name for everyone but anyway please consider the rules about Netiquette and responding to provocation.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-23 14:00:26)
MoGo vs. Human

In 1997 Janice Kim (1 dan) beat Handtalk, then the strongest Go program, despite giving the program a 25-stone handicap.

On Thursday, August 7, Kim MyungWan 8p will play MoGo, probably the world's strongest computer Go program. MoGo will be running on a supercomputer boasting over 3,000 processor cores !! The game will be broadcast live on KGS - http://www.gokgs.com/download.xhtml

The human is "8p", meaning 8-dan professional; not quite 3 stones stronger than a 1d pro player, who in turn would give an amateur 1d at least 6 stones. Edward Lasker said that 3 stones handicap at Go is comparable to knight odds at chess.

Wolfgang Utesch    (2008-07-25 20:36:16)
But it seems, that ....

.... he has fogotten to announce his leave at FICGS!

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-07-26 13:30:44)
Good quotes

"Leaving sex to the feminists is like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist." "If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts." "There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper" - hmmm And finally a self evident truth: "Woman is the dominant sex. Men have to do all sorts of stuff to prove that they are worthy of woman's attention." Obviously all these quotes are from a woman :) How do you like them apples??

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-07-26 21:42:52)
The lady rocks

Normajean the lady who said that is a feminist lesbian (not martha):) "By midlife and early old age, as the hormones of both genders change, women are in total, despotic control of their marriages." "women's goodwill is crucial for preserving the male ego, which requires, alas, daily maintenance" "It is woman's destiny to rule men. Not to insult them, demean them, or stereotype them as oppressors" "Women are in league with each other, a secret conspiracy of hearts and pheromones"

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-26 23:43:11)
Strange Go games

Please share the strangiest Go games :)

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=22785

Marc Lacrosse    (2008-07-27 19:36:41)
The specifics of match play ...

Tanks to FICGS championships interesting formula I just entered Wch 005 in a quarter final 8-games match (against GM Balabaev).
This is the first time I have to play several simultaneous games against the same opponent in correspondence play.
There are interesting questions related to this unusual kind of tournament.
First of all, what kind of opening(s) should you play, and more precisely is it better to vary or to go for the same opening in several games?
Having had a look at my opponents former games I had prepared quite a few options.
As Black I decided to rely on my favorite Bc5 sicilian defence
Four identical games developped and very soon it appeared that these games should be decisive for the whole match
For long I was afraid that my opponent could come with some decisive prepared analysis leading to a 4-0 lead ...
But the opposite happened and all four games ended (draw by position repetition) before I had left my opening prep, after less than one month of play.
Thus I am left with four games where I am white
A considerable advantage IMHO ...

On this precise topic I wonder what is the opinion of top players here : is it better to be the one who vary early or should you go along your favorite analysis as long as your opponent won't diverge himself in case of match play

I have never read anything on this topic anywhere ...

Marc

Marc Lacrosse    (2008-07-28 15:59:14)
I see ...

Hi Thibault

OK I see : you were happy (as I am) with four draws in one single well-prepared line as Black but went on missing the qualification as your four white games were also drawn (and Farit's rating was superior to yours).
Maybe I will suffer the same fate ...
But as i have to win at least one game I feel this is easier to achieve with white ...
As white I am busy varying the positions a little and trying to play more actively ...
We will see...

By the way I think that the rule according which the highest rating is qualified in case of eight draws is really a significant advantage ...
... but i agree that we need a way to adjudicate drawn matches.

Marc

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-28 18:18:20)
8 games matches

"But as i have to win at least one game I feel this is easier to achieve with white ..."

Theorically (only ?). Anyway I made this choice during my match because I had about 80 running games at that time (quite inhuman :)) so I managed my rating :/

You know that this time control 30 days + 1 day / move is quite different from classical 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves, the pressure in the 8 games may be important, also the psychological factor [playing White feels more (sometimes too much) secure ie(?): Xavier won his 2 games with Black in the first Candidates final] and I'm convinced that every game counts these ways. The tie break rule (highest rating is qualified in case of eight draws) did not apply so often by the way.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-03 12:46:18)
Round Robin qualification

Thibault looking at the WCC rules for Round Robin tournaments. It says: "If necessary, a player could be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player." This must be how Marc Lacrosse came to be in the Round Robin final for 02 as he was not in any stage 1 or stage 2 tournaments for 02. With 5 qualifiers from stage 2 and a stage 1 M winner a 7th player was needed. How did you decide which player to leave out of stage 1 M 02 and put directly in the RR final? Presumably not TER as both Brunsteins and Marius had higher TER's. This is not a problem for 03 as there will be 4 stage 2 qualifiers and 1 stage 1 M winner. Just curious:)

Normajean Yates    (2008-08-11 09:33:10)
or maybe the question is not clear to me

Exactly what do you mean, Phil and others - getting a game annotated?

Specially since this is primarily a computer-chess site so of course you dont want engine annotation. You want the sort of human annotation that engines cannot do, right?

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-14 18:56:37)
:o)

Thank you... Maybe we'll know about poker in a while :) I feel my Go rating is over estimated though, my first Go games here prove that I really started from zero... anyway, always learning, as a webmaster also :)

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-15 18:00:45)
Nunn "refutation"

Here is a summary of the analysis after e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Nc6 4 d4!: a.) 4…fxe4 5.Nxc6 dxc6 6.Qh5+ Ke7 b.) 4…Nxd5 5.dxe5 d6 (5…Qe7 6.Qd4 and White is a pawn up, threatening Nc3-d5 – Nunn) 6.Bf4! “Black's position flat out sucks!” c.) 4…Nf6 5.Nxc6 dxc6 6.e5 with a clear extra pawn. d.) 4…Qh4!? 5.Nf3 Qxe4+ 6.Be2 Black's Queen is exposed eg 6…Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Re1 with advantage 8…0-0? loses to 9.Bc4+. e) 4...Qe7 is not analysed. 5 Nc3! (5 Nxc6 Qxe4+ 6 Be2 Qxc6 7 0-0 d5 8 Nc3 Kf7! and blacks not too bad) 5...fxe4 (5...Nxe5 6 Nb5!)6 Nb5 Kd8 7 Bf4 Nxe5 (7..Nf6 8 Nxc7!) 8 dxe5 and black cant develop eg Nh6 9 e6!d6 10 Qd5! In line a) 4..fxe4 5 Nxc6 Black can try bxc6!?(instead of dxc6)6 Qh5+ Ke7 planning to play Kf7 and d5. This might be the best try and although I white is better the positions are a bit unclear. After 4..fxe4 white also has 5 Bc4 d5 6 Bb5 Qd6 (6..Ne7 7 0-0 is strong) 7 c4 a6 when white will probably get the e pawn but black gets the bishop pair. So I am not now sure its a refutation!

Normajean Yates    (2008-08-15 18:32:37)
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

so it seems! in the 1920s or so in MCO-4 Reuben Fine dismissed the greco countergambit in 4 lines as a blunder! (this was AFTER the latvian work due to which it became later known as the latvian gambit)! So the battle rages on, even with fraser? But it does seem that the fraser exchange-sac line is dead - leaving the R-sac line.

Don Groves    (2008-08-16 22:12:59)
One change?

You could say Intergalactic instead of Internet. This would definitely cover all future games, at least in this Universe ;-)

Benjamin Block    (2008-08-18 08:52:18)
Try to translate!

I think it is something like that?
Hello Xavier and first congratulations on your victory in the match which t'opposait the MI (ICCF) Gino Figlio [Peru] in the final candidates. You should avoid at all costs void in all parties, finally brought blacks t'ont chance, how do you explain this result? X
avier: Hello, thank you for the congratulations. It is true that in case of zero for all parties, the regulation states Figlio winner in the event of a tie with victory (s) and defeat (s) I won the match. So I had to take risks in attacking and it is with blacks that I did it because I thought Gino, in these parts, expected without taking risks to ensure the void.
-- Can you tell us about how you approached this match against Gino and his conduct as different phases of the game?
X: It's pretty simple, in this match I was not at all favorite because with more than 200 ELO points FICGS to my disadvantage, and Gino titled Master International, with more than 2480 ELO ICCF point, I thought I n ' not resist going on 8 simultaneous games as a part everything is possible but on 8 parts ... it was for me a great challenge! In the course of the game I played diversity in my beginnings with white 4 parts 4 different strokes: 1.e4 1.d4 1.c4 1.Cf3. Gino did the same: 1.e4 1.d4 1.Cf3 1.Cc3. What made me doubt also because 1.Cc3 surprised me, I thought he had planned an early tonitruand and this is where I said that I should take risks with blacks. As the different phases of the game I assured the zero positions balanced for me concacrer deal has two parts, one with blanks and one with the black for at least make a difference in part to ensure victory. And ultimately it 3 victories me back, which seemed impossible given the quality of the game Gino played on this site to reach the final of the championship candidates.
-- You have made during a championship course without fault, no losses to report, you also posters statistics stratospheric to 78% against an average elo to about 2200, what's your secret?
X: My secret? I have no secret. If I had a secret I do not dévoilerais if I do win more! I think I got a little lucky because he is required by little I am not qualified to stage 3 (round-robin final) because there were 3 players equally and I had l 'advantage classifying the departure of this tournament as indicated by the regulation. As for my statistics, it is also thanks to the errors of my opponents who allowed me to win parts in balance.
-- What do you think the system mid-ko, semi-all-round championship FICGS and its new départages in matches in 8 parties? What changes would it be?
X: Very good question! The system mid-ko for me is a little too fast since a coup by day is overtime analyses to operate a complicated position, which is difficult when several parties in progress. Especially when you work. It is perhaps also through this pace that my opponents lack of time, made some uncertainty regarding postions or exploited my mistakes. But the pace has an advantage over the cadences ICCF which is 5 days a coup is that the parties had to 5 times less time! The départage new games to 8 parts is excellent, forcing the favorite to ensure all matches to nil win this duel and otherwise obtain an additional victory against the challenger is a very well thought out. The amendment that I could make is perhaps time management which is fast for a game system per server. Perhaps increase the clock starting 15 days, starting with 45 against 30 days at this time. And also the possibility of taking a vacation only on the tournament underway to manage other parts of the site. For example, take 7 days vacation on a chess tournament championship and be able to play a tournament Big Chess, Go or another chess tournament during the holidays. Being able to choose a start date of holidays in advance would also be appreciated.
-- Why t'être invested in correspondence chess? T'apportent there are other rewards compared to traditional chess and blitz?
X: I prefer chess match over time. For the classical chess is often play the weekend at a specific time and often on the move to make a tournament. The advantage for me, correspondence chess is that I can connect at any time to play my shots, which allows me, for example, making family meals on weekends and late at night to play a coup, which is not possible chess classics.
-- You knew not to succumb to the temptation and you only play a very reasonable number of parties on the site throughout the championship, do you think nevertheless that the correspondence chess are addictive and at what point? Did they affect your everyday life?
X: Yes! Limiting my number of games in progress is essential for me to try to have parts of quality rather than quantity. Have a lot of parts simultaneously is still something very difficult to manage! This is perhaps the key to my victory against Figlio, I watched its games in progress, it had nearly 90 on the site of the ICCF, it has been felt on his time devoted to analysis our parties on FICGS 8. On the everyday life impacts are family because it is true that I spend more time to analyze the parts and less time with my family, which is quite difficult for me. But when the results are there I do not regret!
-- What do you think about the current position of engines for analysis (Rybka, Shredder, Fritz and others) in correspondence chess? What are the qualities you complementary core player by correspondence, now centaur with the machine for legs?
X: The engines of analyses in chess matches are used by 95% of players ... Now we must adapt and learn to use these machines to calculate. Car simply play the best shot of Rybka 3, Fritz 12 or Hiarcs 12 mentally without thinking leads to zero if the opponent does the same or possibly lose if the opponent gives himself the trouble to consider using them as well. Knowing that when you're in the middle part of these programs give you often 4 to 5 strokes assessed similarly, and that is that we must choose the right time when it is not even necessarily cited by the analysis engine ...
-- You get the Big Chess now on the site, curiosity or interest? What do you think of this strange version of chess?
X: For curiosity and fun and I think Rybka 3 is not yet the Big Chess! This version is almost unprecedented I did not know this form of chess before therefore the one who invented this game was very well done! About I'm the one who asks you a question on the Big chess ... Is there possibility of castle with this game if so, how? (Editor's note: No, it is impossible to castle the Big Chess)
-- And finally the question that everyone arises, especially Francis and Wolfgang disputing that the second final candidates, think you can defend your title next year? :)
X: of course! I will defend the title! I would like if possible to know the timing and pace of the match. And I wish Francis and Wolfgang a beautiful final! I must honor in this competition which is well organized!
-- The match should be able to start during the first week of January 2009, the pace will again 30 days and 1 additional day by coup. Thank you for your answers, and even congratulations for this excellent performance!
X: Thank you! And see you! Bonne continuation to all and good parties!

Mladen Jankovic    (2008-08-18 09:46:41)
What did you use?

Google translate? That translation needs cleaning up.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-18 16:06:16)
translation

I will have a go off the top of my head at giving a sense of the interview in english (I dont know the phrase tonitruand but I am guessing it means dynamic!)?: Hi Xavier and first of all congratulations on your success in the candidates final match against IM (ICCF) Gino Figlio [Peru] You had to avoid drawing all the games and finally you succeded with the black pieces. How did that happen? Xavier: Hi thank you. Its true that if all the games had been drawn then under the rules Figlio would have won whereas if the match was drawn but with a win and loss I would win. Because of this I had to take risks and attack. It was with Black that I did this because I thought that Gino would play safely to be sure of a draw. - Tell us how you approched the match and how the different phases of the game went x: Its quite simple, I was not the favorite I have 200 ELO less on FICGS and Gino is an IM on ICCF with a 2480 rating. I did not think I could survive 8 games at once - in a single game anything is possible but 8 games .... it was a big challenge for me! In the openings I chose 4 different moves 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nf3 Gino chose 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nc3 I was surpised by 1 Nc3 because I was expecting dynamic openings and it was then that I decided I must take some risks with black. I kept most of the games balanced with a draw in hand and concentrated on 2 games 1 white and 1 black to get a result. In the end I got 3 wins which seemed an impossibility given the quality of the games Gino had played on this site to reach the final. - you have not lost any games in the championship and you have fantastic statistics 78% against an average elo of about 2200. What is your secret? x: My secret? I havent any secret and if I did I would not say because I would not win anymore! I think I have been a bit lucky because in the the Round Robin final there were 3 of us on the same score and I went through under the rules because of my rating. As for my statistics I was helped by mistakes by opponents who allowed me to win some drawn games. - What do you think of the system for the FICGS championship (round robin and knock out matches)and what changes would you make? x: Very good question. The matches are a bit too fast for me - 1 day per move when there are hours of analysis needed to exploit a complicated position its difficult when you have several games running Particularly if you are working. Perhaps that is why my opponents have made errors or failed to exploit my mistakes. But this time limit has an advantage over ICCF where it is 5 days per move the games here are 5 times quicker! Having 8 game matches is an excellent idea and obliging the favorite to draw all the games and the challenger to get a at least 1 victory is very well thought out. The change that I would suggest is to have 15 days extra starting time that is 45 days at the start instead of 30 and also the possibilty to take holidays for tournaments for example take 7 days for championship games and to be able to play big chess go or another chess tournament during the holiday. To be able to choose the start of a holiday in advance would also be good. - Why do you like cc and how does it compare to blitz and normal chess? x: I prefer cc because of the time factor. Classical chess is often played at the week end at a fixed time and you have to travel to the tournament. The advantage for me at cc is that I can connect at any time to play a move which allows me for example to have meals with the family at the weekend. Late night moves for example are not possible at classical chess. - You limited the number of your games on the site to a reasonable amount throughout the championship. Do you think nonetheless that cc is addictive? Does it affect your daily life? x: Yes! Limiting the number of my games is essential to try to have games of quality not quantity. Having a lot of games going at the same time is something very difficult to handle. It is perhaps the key to my victory against Figlio - I looked at his games - he had not less than 80 games going on at ICCF this must have affected the amount of time he could spend analysing his 8 games at FICGS. The effects on daily life are felt by the family because the reality is if I spend more time analysing the games I spend less time with the family. Thats difficult for me. But when the results come I dont regret it! - What do you think of the role of chess engines (Rybka Fritz etc)in cc. What are for you the important skills of a cc player - to supplement the machine? x: Chess engines are used in cc by 95% of players. You have to adapt yourself and know how to use the engines. To play just the best move of Rybka 3 Fritz 12 or Hiracs 12 without thinking leads to a draw if your opponent does the same or to a loss if your opponent is thinking. You have to choose bewteen 4 or 5 moves with a similer evaluation from the engine during a game and sometimes the best move is not among these. - You play Big chess. Interest or curiosity? What do you think of this strange version of chess? X : Curiosity and amusement and I think Rrybka 3 cannot yet play Big Chess! This version is new and I did not know it and the inventor has done a good job! By the way I would like to ask is it possible to castle at Big Chess? [No its not possible] - Finally the question that everyone is asking particularly Francois and Wolfgang who are contesting the 2nd candidates final. Do think you will be able to defend your title next year? :) x: Definitely I will defend the title I would like to know if possible the date and time limits for the match. I wish Francois and Wolfgang a great match! I would also like to express my appreciation for this tournament which has been well organised! - the match should start in the first week in January next year the time limit will be 30 days plus 1 day per move. Thank you for your answers and once again congratulations on a great performance. x: Thank you. Cheers. Best wishes to everyone and good games!

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-19 02:16:39)
Its a win !!!!

You must be joking!! Thibault its a definite win it will be over in a few moves!! If anyone thinks black can survive please suggest some moves. The key to the win is that the best black can do is reach the position in a) below with Bishop and 2 pawns v R and 1 pawn. White wins becuse his king has access to e4, the Bishop is restricted by his pawns on a7 and e5 and most importantly his passed a pawn is not advanced. It has been completely lost since move 63 ...Kxf4 Janos should have taken with the pawn 63..exf4 would have allowed him to reach a table base draw. On 66 Kd3 I had the win completely worked out and have been replying instantly since then. Adjudicating this is a draw is just plain wrong. Anyone who spends time on this position will see the win I have outlined and that there is no defence. The winning method is to force an exchange of rooks by Rc4-g4 with mating threats against the Black king - black cannot allow this and must play Rd4 allowing exchange of a pair rooks when the resulting R+P v B+P+P is won. Before playing Rc4 white checks with the other rook to cut off the f file. The only way to avoid the rook exchange is to allow the white King access to e4 - at the moment the black rook cuts off d3 and the bishop if it goes to b6 will cut off e3. If the king gets to e4 either the e5 pawn drops or the king gets to d5 and e6 either result is fatal Here are the main lines: a) 72..Bb6 73 Rg8+ Kf5 (73..Kh5 74 Rc1 Rd4 75 Rh1+ wins the rook) 74 Rf8+ Kg5 75 Rc4! Rd4 (see below a1 for 75..Bd4)76 Rxd4! exd4 77 Kd3 (This ending is completely won the white king penetrates through e4, the black bishop is useless - remove pawn at d4 and its a table base win) Here are the main lines 77... Bc5 78 Rc8 Bb6 79 Ke4 Kf6 80 f4 Kf7 81 f5 Kf6 82 Rc2 Kf7 83 Ke5 a5 84 Rc6 Bd8 85 Bc7+ Kxd4 Table base win Or 77 ...Kg6 78 Ke4 Kg7 79 Rc8 Kf6 80 f4 (if the pawn on d4 falls eg 80 ..Ba5 81 Kxd4 its a table base win) Ke7 81 f5 Kf6 82 Rc2 Ke7 (82 ..d3 83 Rc6+ Kg5 84 Rg6+ and Kxd3 = TB win) 83 Ke5 Kf7 84 Rb2 d3 85 f6 with a simple win a1)..75..Bd4 (instead of Rd4) 76 Kd3 Ba1+ 77 Ke4 Ra5 78 Rg8+ Kf6 79 Rc6+ Kf7 80 Rgc8 Ra4+ 81 Rc4 Rxc4+ (black cannot avoid exchanging) 82 Rxc4+ and this ending like the one above is completely won. eg 82... Ke6 (82...a5 83 Rc5 a4 84 Ra5 x a4 = TB win) 83 Rc6+ Kd7 84 Kd5 Bd4 85 Rh6 a5 (any Bishop moves loses a pawn = TB win) 86 Rh7+ Kd8 87 f4 x e5 = TB win b) If the Bishop does not go to b6 the white king gets via e3 to e4 and then penetrates through the white squares d5 and e6 and its over. Sample lines: b1) 72 ..Kf4/f5 73 Rf8+ Kg6 74 Ke3 Rd1 75 Ke4 Re1+ 76 Kd5 Be7 77 Re8 Bf6 78 Ke6 e4 79 Rc5+ and the bishop is lost b2) 72..Ba5 73 Ke3 Rb5 74 Rg8+ Kf5 75 Rf8+ Kg5 76 Ke4 Rb4+ 77 Kxe5 with a simple win b3)72 ..Rd7 73 Rxe5+ (take a pair of rooks off = TB win) Kf4 74 Rcc5 Rg7 75 Re4+ Kg3 76 Rc1 Bb6 77 Rh1 a5 78 Rhh4 - Reg4+ exchanges rooks = TB win

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-19 17:17:59)
Adjudications

Hi Benjamin I am not sure what you mean by help people without asking. The rules refer to adjudications as follows: "11. 5. Adjudications In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious." At the end of 11.5 is states: "There are no time limit for games else but the clocks, but it may be announced that certain multi-stages tournaments will have one. At the end of this time limit, a referee committee will adjudicate games." Obviously it was bit worrying without warning to have an announcement saying hey seems like a draw I am going to adjudicate. A draw would mean that I would not win the tournament - a win means I win the tournament so its an important game. But as I am certain the game is won and can demonstrate this I am not concerned - I have no idea what Janos thinks. I dont think this is the best way to handle this but this is where we are - I am just glad it happened after Janos played 63...Kxf4 which was the losing move. We are only about 12 moves away from 6 man table base wins in almost all cases. Please post any anlysis about the position you would like as Thibault has asked for comment

Marius Zubac    (2008-08-21 22:32:59)
Attention Thibault! Bug related to WCH2

Hi Thibault There is a bug related to entering my 11th move 11Bd2 in both games 22676 and 22678 from our match played in FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_2__000005. In slow move selection after I enter the move I get the message "Incorrect move : 7.0-0 , from player white". If I try to send the move I get the message that the move is not sent. Can you please look into this matter? Thanks Marius

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-22 04:22:51)
Castling bug fixed

More than 600 games using 0-0 with zero instead of "O" letter have been corrected, everything should work fine now (please report any bug if there's one anyway, thanks in advance)

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-23 09:07:33)
Wasted time

I understand the point about 5 players being a small group but I used up my holidays trying to beat Janos what would have happened if the game was a draw who would have been invited?? Janos twice offered a draw and frankly the only reason I did not accept was because I followed the rules and believed I needed to win to qualify for the final. How were you going to determine who to invite?? You knew that this situation was going to arise from the moment stage 2 started as there were only 4 groups and 1 M group there could only be 5 winners. Not only that but when I raised the issue of Marcs earlier partcipiation in round robin final I actually stated that this time as we will have 5 winners then the sitaution would not arise the group is complete so no invitations arise and in your reply you agreed I do not see why it is too late please comply with the rules as you have no right to invite other players in the rules do not allow it. Saying the administrators decision is final is saying you can suddenly change any rule at any time for any reason. I now face 6 opponents instead of 4 without any vacation time.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-23 11:43:19)
Rules change

All members are invited to comment on these points :

1) "Should all groups in WCH tournaments consist in 7 players at least, several players being invited if necessary at the tournament director's discretion" ? I'll change the rules this way if a majority agrees. In all cases the 3rd round-robin final must continue this way IMO but I may add a new rule :

2) "Referees are not error free and are not supposed to change the rules anytime they estimate it is a better choice, players accept the view that a tournament should be modified or any error corrected in all cases." (this is not irony, I'm not sure such a rule wouldn't bring some problems but we may try it if a majority agrees with that).

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-23 17:59:14)
still a mystery

I know understand that you had decided (I dont know when??) that you would not allow 5 person round robin finals. So you were going to "invite" two players to make up the numbers in WCC 3 final. Nobody knew this only you. Second you are reserving the right to invite anyone according to make up the numbers according to your own preferences . It may be some all of those who tied for 1st place or you may choose to invite some other highly rated players who did not enter the tournament. Nobody knows! Firstly lets reduce the "invitations" as follows: 1) WCC tournaments will be made of at least 7 players. 2) Any shortfall will be made up of the best losers from the previous stage 3)Best losers will be selected from those who tied for place in a group in the previous stage ranked by tournament entry rating and /or from those who came 2nd ranked by tournament entry rating. Under these rules everone knows where they stand and its transparent fair and consistent with existing rules.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-05 19:23:28)
Team challenge : Latvian gambit

"Will every play with every from opposite team?"

Good question : I think yes, at least if there are no more than 4 players in each team. Do anyone else want to enter a team or may we start the tournament ?

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-09 19:40:44)
Multi-site tournament

Hi all,

A multi-site tournament is being to be organized with 4 chess websites (not using real names), each player from each team playing 1 game with Black "at home" and 1 game with White in his opponent's home with 1 opponent of each website (3 in total, hope I'm clear), so 6 games in total.

2 websites in the competition are :

http://www.echecsemail.com
http://www.echeconline.net

6 games (3 games here and 3 games played on 3 other websites) seem a lot though, what do you think ?

Denis Ivanchenkov    (2008-09-10 21:01:07)
It depends upon

what my team-mates think. I'll be playing WITHOUT chess engine. If Michael Aigner and Rodolfo d'Ettorreare are OK with it then I'm in. If they think I should use chess engine (to avoid giving an advantage to opponents) then I leave.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-12 14:39:49)
Rybka 3.0 about 2300 at FICGS ?

According to Larry Kaufman from Rybka team in the discussion linked above :

"If we assume that both sides have the same opening book, then I think two things are fairly safe to say: 1. A good human chessplayer (or even a bad one with good centaur skills) + same Rybka will win a long match from unassisted Rybka. 2. In any individual game, the chance of a draw is fairly high. (...) I mean more than half the games, but not way more. The actual draw percentage depends very heavily on the opening book used."

I agree with that, so I assume that Rybka 3.0 thinking at least 24 hours per move would have a correspondence chess rating of about 2300 at FICGS.

Any opinion ?

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-09-24 16:03:18)
Latvian meatballs

With best play black gets into an ending and trys to grovel his way to a draw a pawn down. The main line runs: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qf7 6 e3 c6 7.d3 exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.O-O I think any deviations from this by black give an even worse game At this point Black can try 9...Bc5 then 10 b4! Bd6 (10..Bxc4 11 Ncxd5 is crushing)11 Re1 Ne7 12 Nexd5 cxd5 13 Nb5 Bxb4 (0-0 14 Nxd6) 14 Bd2 0-0 15 Bxb4 and the d5 pawn will drop leaving white as usual a pawn up for nothing 9...Bd6 10 Re1 Ne7 11 Nexd5 cxd5 12 Nb5 0-0 13 Nxd6 Qxf2+ 14 Kh1 Nbc6 (14 ..Bg4 15 Qd2 Qh4 16 b4 is great for white)15 Rf1 Bg4 16 Bxh7+ Kh8 17 Rxf2 Bxd1 18 Be3 d4 19 Rxf8+ Rxf8 20 Bg1 Kxh7 21 Rxd1 leaving the usual technically lost ending for black!!

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-26 20:31:40)
Statistics by country

Hi Alexis, Denis & all.. Here are current statistics by country :

USA 1066 FRA 363 GBR 261 CAN 189 DEU 160 RUS 130 ITA 126 IND 120 ROU 93 TUR 89 BRA 79 BEL 75 AUS 70 ESP 63 PHL 55 POL 53 SWE 51 NLD 50 ARG 45 MEX 43 ZAF 43 GRC 39 BGR 38 UKR 37 HUN 36 CZE 33 CHE 32 ISR 31 FIN 30 IDN 30 IRL 29 PRT 29 VNM 25 AUT 24 VEN 24 CHL 23 DZA 23 EGY 21 SGP 21 CHN 20 DNK 20 COL 19 LTU 18 NOR 18 MAR 17 NZL 17 SVN 17 HRV 16 IRN 16 MYS 16 PER 16 SRB 16 PRI 14 SVK 13 THA 13 HKG 12 JPN 12 EST 11 GEO 9 PAK 9 KOR 8 LVA 8 ARM 7 BIH 7 ISL 7 TUN 7 TWN 7 BLR 6 CYP 6 LKA 6 MLT 6 ALB 5 CUB 5 KAZ 5 URY 5 ARE 4 ASM 4 BOL 4 CRI 4 ECU 4 GHA 4 LBN 4 LUX 4 MKD 4 NGA 4 BGD 3 DOM 3 FRO 3 GTM 3 JOR 3 MDA 3 MMR 3 MNG 3 PRY 3 SAU 3 ZWE 3 ATG 2 BHS 2 CMR 2 ERI 2 HTI 2 IRQ 2 KEN 2 KGZ 2 KHM 2 MDG 2 MNE 2 MUS 2 NIC 2 NPL 2 PNG 2 TTO 2 UGA 2 UZB 2 AIA 1 ALA 1 ANY 1 AZE 1 BHR 1 BRB 1 GLP 1 GMB 1 GRD 1 GUM 1 HND 1 JAM 1 LBY 1 LSO 1 MOZ 1 MRT 1 NCL 1 PRK 1 QAT 1 SHN 1 SYR 1 TKM 1 UMI 1 VUT 1

All players in each country :

http://www.ficgs.com/directory_countries.html

There's a french version of FICGS - see home page - you may change the language in Preferences (English, French, Deutsch, Spanish).

By the way, I'll open chess & Go forums in every languages very soon, if anyone wants to be a moderator in his own language, please look at the next threads in this forum for more information.

Normajean Yates    (2008-09-27 23:27:51)
how to see private message?

I sent a private test-message to myself. It got sent but I cannot see it. Even after logging out and logging in again.

Can someone help - what can be the problem? In preferences 'private messages' is on (i.e. there is a tick-mark in 'private messages' box in my preferences).

Please, some one send me a private message to test if I can recieve private messages. [maybe self-messages don't appear...] I am member number 3879.

Thank you in advance.

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2008-09-28 16:45:05)
Big Chess Championship

To drive this theme I propose a champions-league-type tournament with a new round every 18 month. At the beginning the groups can be built according to our rating list.

Other ideas?

Best,
Heinz-Georg

Denis Ivanchenkov    (2008-09-28 17:30:23)
Iouri Basiliev

"I would accept any language by voting majority". For you to know that majority of people in Crimea are Russian speaking people. "It could be tatarian in Crimea in 10 years from now" It'l happen not until Turkish language became second official language in German. Again "I would accept any language by voting majority". Western "dermocrats" and their supporters here in Ukraine showed very clear that they "accept" only those views of "voting majority" that correspond to their own interests. and this is you and others like you to blame that word "democracy" (not so bad concept actually) turned into CURSE here in Ukraine and in Russia.

Iouri Basiliev    (2008-09-29 14:49:24)
By the way

Denis, your deductive abilities are very impressive but offten wrong. Russian and ukrainian are my native languages. I can speak english, french and german as well. >>I understand that he must be an immigrant from former Soviet Union.>> You are wrong. >>Very probably he is not well adopted in German society - and is treated as person of "lesser quality".>> I'm Prof. at Heidelberg Uni and do not feel "lesser quality" here or in France where i worked before :) Germany and France (at least the scientific community) are not the rasist countries. I wish you feel similar at Ukraine!

Iouri Basiliev    (2008-09-29 21:13:05)
Denis

U have not only extraordinary deductive abilities but great imagination. I have nothing against russian language. Moreover, Pushkin and Lermontov are my favourite poets. Lesya Ukrainka and Kotljarevsky are the greatest ukrainian poets imho. Communists (like you?) 70 years artIficially (i've no spell checker) propagate russian in Ukraine. It were only 10% of ukrainian schools at that time. Nowadays the situation is opposite. If you living in Ukraine, spend some time to learn ukrainian if you are able. When i sad i'll accept ANY decision by voting majority i mean i'll accept. I hate persons like Zvarych and another ProFFesors. My Ph.D. has been defended in USSR (not US) in deep 1989.

Denis Ivanchenkov    (2008-09-29 23:27:26)
Iouri Basiliev

"Communists 70 years artIficially propagate russian in Ukraine. It were only 10% of ukrainian schools at that time. Nowadays the situation is opposite." so you think it is good to use communist methods - making LESS than 10% of russian language schools? "If you living in Ukraine, spend some time to learn ukrainian if you are able." oh thanks for such a deep, wise and unexpected advice. and this is my advice for you - to read "European Convention for the Protection of National Minorities" this will also ansver your Alsace issue.

Iouri Basiliev    (2008-09-29 23:53:18)
Second language

<<you think it is good to use communist methods - making LESS than 10% of russian language schools>> where i sad this? as i told your imagination is very turbulent :) Russians are not "National Minorities", as Choukchas or Eskimos. If you so lazy to learn Ukrainian or you hate Ukraine, why you are living there? Go to Siberia or Chechen and hate Ukraine from there. You, probably, gifted by russian TV :)

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.

Denis Ivanchenkov    (2008-09-30 00:18:12)
Iouri Basiliev

"If you so lazy to learn Ukrainian or you hate Ukraine, why you are living there? " I, my mother (Ukrainian) and my relatives lived here, live and will be living - whatever aliens like you want/like/dislike! "Go to Siberia or Chechen and hate Ukraine from there. You, probably, gifted by russian TV :) " who you think you are to issue orders to me here in Ukraine? relax! live where you a$$ find warm place - in Europe and don't make stupid orders and advices to us Ukrainians. you are - the last person we will be listetning to. you didn't find your place in Ukraine or Russia - so go away to your western "friends".

Iouri Basiliev    (2008-09-30 09:36:24)
Denis Ivanchenkov

It is interesting and very exciting to know something new about yourself. I'm waiting of your explanations. But, please, take away russian TV's propaganda anti-orange rhetoric. Just your deep reasoning.

Alexis Bromo    (2008-09-30 20:25:32)
Iouri and Denis

Friends, please be polite to each other :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-02 20:15:08)
Game 22676, towards a new rule ?

Once again, an unusual case that may lead to an enforcement of FICGS rules. In our match, Marius lost 3 games on time and continues to play the other ones : FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_2__000005

Games 22676, 22678 and 22679 have been lost in an equal position.

Currently, the rules specify : 11.6 "Games are not rated for the winner if less than 10 moves have been played by his opponent (most probably forfeit, silent withdrawal or obvious cheating) or in global forfeit cases against the same opponent, ie. 8-games matches, but games where an advantage is obvious."

Of course, it is up to the referee to estimate an 'advantage' which is quite hard to define accurately, but the real problem is there's no real silent withdrawal in this case, as Marius had about 1 day only to play his last move. It is fair to cancel my wins in these games IMO but the question is how to make the rules fair enough in all cases.

My suggestion : "...or in global forfeit cases, including losses on time whatever the context, in at least 2 games in a 2 players tournament, ie. chess championship's 8-games matches, but games where an advantage is obvious."

What do you think ? Also does anyone see another unusual case that this rule wouldn't envisage ?

Thanks in advance.

Marcus Miranda    (2008-10-02 21:33:27)
time limit is part of the game

I believe that time is part of the game, if you let your time run out then that's it. In my opinion you should not cancel your wins in these games because you think that the position would lead to a draw, just ask yourself: what would be the position if your opponent did not have used more time than permitted? When a game lost on time is adjudicated to a draw or not rated, it says that time is not that important.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-10-03 22:42:17)
Psychology

I give an edge to Kramnik not in terms of chess ability or strength but he seems stronger psychologically more able to take the pressure. On the other hand the match is a bit short 8 games which I think is good for Anand. Finally Anand is favourite in the tie break games. For me the key opening questions are: Whats kramniks e4 defence? my bet is at least 1 outing for the Marshall which Anand has performed badly against and the Caro Kahn (which Kramnik has hardly ever played) and no Petroff at all! I think Anand will stick with his semi slav. After his problem in the Leko match Anand will not be able to surprise Kramnik with 1 d4! My prediction: either 1 win and the rest drawn for Kramnik in the classical games or an Anand win in the rapid tie breaks.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-10-05 20:04:28)
Slight amendment

Thibault thinking about your point that "as it is possible to win elo points this way (loss on time in equal or winning position) in round-robin tournaments, it should be possible in 8 games matches too" I suggest the follwoing "Rating changes will occur, in 2 player matches, for losses on time (whatever the reason) within the following constraints: the game(s) is at least 10 moves, only 1 time loss game will be rated unless there is a game where the winner is clearly better in which case a maximum of 2 games may be rated" My idea is that if someone forefeits all their games on move 11 in a match there should be 1 game rated (as in a tournament) so there is a price to pay but not too distorting. If in the 8 games say 5 are level and 3 (or 2 or 1) are clearly advantageous then 2 games could be rated. Alternatively just give 1 rated game as a max irrespective of advantage or not (ie just the first loss) provided it at least 10 moves. I am thinking of 2 situations a 6-0 result over 10 moves dead equal positions there should be some rating penalty (like tournaments) On the other hand soemone could let the clock run out in 6 games just before being mated in each game to avoid heavy rating penalty they should take a 2 game hit.

Andrew Stephenson    (2008-10-05 21:50:02)
Sorry

..I must have misunderstood I thought if games were forfeit on time in matches even after 10 moves they were not rated only rated if the games were better ie the foreited party was clearly worse?? So in the case of a an 8 games match 11 moves completed all lost on time in dead equal positions there would be no rating effect ie no price paid?? In a tournament game they would be these losses would be rated. I thought your proposal was to rate the losses in matches up to a max of 2 games ONLY if it was 10+ moves AND the position was clearly better.

Sebastian Boehme    (2008-10-06 19:39:00)
Sort of a hierarchy here

Well it is quite simple, the best engine on best hardware. Anyway good that at least Junior and Cluster Toga managed to get a draw from Rybka. Too bad Hiarcs played such a bad opening, or there had also been a chance for maybe a draw. Anyway congrats again to Rybka team for this win!

Scott Nichols    (2008-10-09 01:54:55)
Pawn promotion

Can someone clear up just how exactly to promote a pawn to something other than a Queen here. Not knowing just cost me a frigging half a point! :(

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-09 11:42:51)
Promotion

(Kevin, maybe we'll launch another tournament in a while)

Iouri, I don't think there's such a pop up window here :) .. Scott, please read the F.A.Q. in the help section... all explained. In bried, you just have to use the PGN format.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-13 12:31:56)
Hello Wayne :)

The norms calculation occur about once per month but it just consider tournaments where you have no more running games !

I just launched a calculation so you should see the changes now (and you must have been warnt by email for your norms and title). Well, actually I see no norm for you so you must have at least one running game in this tournament.

My best,
Thibault

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-21 02:49:33)
Game 5

Wow, Anand is now leading 3.5 - 1.5 after only 5 games and 2 wins with the Black pieces, a real surprise...

GM Kramnik (2772) - GM Anand (2783) [D49]
WCh Bonn GER (5), 20.10.2008

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 a6 9.e4 c5 10.e5 cxd4 11.Nxb5 axb5 12.exf6 gxf6 13.0-0 Qb6 14.Qe2 Bb7 15.Bxb5 Rg8 16.Bf4 Bd6 17.Bg3 f5 18.Rfc1 f4 19.Bh4 Be7 20.a4 Bxh4 21.Nxh4 Ke7 22.Ra3 Rac8 23.Rxc8 Rxc8 24.Ra1 Qc5 25.Qg4 Qe5 26.Nf3 Qf6 27.Re1 Rc5 28.b4 Rc3 29.Nxd4 Qxd4 30.Rd1 Nf6 31.Rxd4 Nxg4 32.Rd7+ Kf6 33.Rxb7 Rc1+ 34.Bf1 Ne3 35.fxe3 fxe3 0-1

Ilmars Cirulis    (2008-10-23 18:54:26)
... brr

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 d5 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6 hxg6 7.Qxh8 Kf7 8.Qd4 Be6 9.Be2 Nc6 10.Qe3 Nh6 11.d3 Nf5 12.Qg5 Nfd4
(13.Bd1 exd3 =)
13.Qxd8 Rxd8 14.Bd1 exd3 15.cxd3 Bf5
(15.-- Nb4? 16.Bg5 and 17.Kd2 +/=)
16.Bg5 Re8+ 17.Kd2 Ne6 18.h4
(18.Be3 Ne5 19.Bb3 Rd8 20.d4 Nc4+ 21.Bxc4 dxc4 22.Nc3 Nxd4 23.Rad1 Nc2+ 24.Kc1 Re8 25.Bg5 Nb4 26.Rd4 Nd3+ 27.Kd2 b5 =)
18.-- Ne5 19.Nc3 d4 20.Ne4
(20.Nd5 c6 =)
20.-- Nxd3 21.f3
(21.Nf6 Bb4+ 22.Ke2 Nxg5+ 23.Nxe8 Ne6 24.Nxc7 Nxc7 25.Bb3+ Kf6 26.Rhd1
(26.Rad1 Ne6 27.Bxe6 Nf4+ 28.Kf3 Nxe6 29.a3 Bf8 =)
26.-- Ne6 27.Bxe6 Nf4+ 28.Kf3 Nxe6 29.a3 Bd6 =)
21.-- Nxb2 22.Bb3 b5 23.Rhc1 c5 24.Rab1 Bxe4 25.fxe4 c4 26.Rxb2
(26.Rf1+ Kg8 27.Bxb2 Nc5 28.e5 Ne4+ 29.Kd1 Nc3+ 30.Kc2 Ba3 31.Rf4
(31.Re1 Nd5 32.Bxc4 bxc4 33.Rb7 Rf8 =)
31.-- Bxb2 32.Kxb2 cxb3 imho =)
c3+ 27.Kd3!
(27.Kc2 cxb2 28.Rf1+ Kg7 29.Bf6+ Kh7 30.Kxb2 Nc5 31.e5
(31.Bxd4 Nxb3 32.Kxb3 Rxe4 33.Rxf8 Rxd4 =)
31.-- Bg7 32.Kc2 d3+ =)
27.-- cxb2 28.Rf1+ Kg7 29.Bf6+ Kh7 30.Bxe6 Rxe6 31.Bxd4 Ra6 or 31.-- Kh5 (Unclear for me, but imho black can draw at least in one of them) =

I will check it one more time. But it looks that black can fight for draw after <<1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 d5 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6 hxg6 7.Qxh8 Kf7 8.Qd4 Be6 9.Be2 Nc6 10.Qe3 Nh6 11.d3 Nf5 12.Qg5>> too.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-24 00:53:32)
www.ficgs.com

The website address won't change : www.ficgs.com , no need to change anything to your favorites, but I'm not completely sure of what can happen if someone connects through the ip address so it won't be possible to connect this way, sorry :/

Please just check the login page (that will display a message tomorrow) regularly, when it's normal again, it means that you reach the new server.

Michael Aigner    (2008-10-24 19:38:43)
The only draw wa a lucky one!

Unfortunately I have to say that my draw against Ilmars was lucky becaus he mixed two moves. Until that White was clearly better. I played my games without any information about the openeing theory of the lavtian gambit - only brief analysis. Now I can say this is not enough to defend this opening. On the other hand there might be ways to survive with black if one knows ideas, plans, opening theory .... Is there any good book with more or less reliable analysis of this opening? Next time better opening preparation is definately needed ;-)

Normajean Yates    (2008-10-26 08:08:02)
but the point is...

Against the latvian - at least in correspondence - if white wants to win rather than research then white will play the main line 3..Nxe5.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-26 11:57:39)
SSL / https problem

Hello all,

If you use the site in HTTPS mode with Firefox 3 or a more recent version (the latest is 3.0.3), you may have intermittently encountered this error : SSL received an unexpected Change Cipher Spec record. (Error code: ssl_error_rx_unexpected_change_cipher)

This is a bug from OpenSSL that occurs with Firefox 3+ , I just added something to correct it so please just report any bug of that kind here if you have it yet. Thanks in advance.

Normajean Yates    (2008-10-26 20:06:26)
i disagree...

I disagree :) I mean - i dont know your OTB interest and it is not relevant - but even if we assume for the sake of argument that a superGM might defeat you 10-0 OTB with latvian as black , then that will be because of tactical complications they can create, NOT because of mastery over latvian [ok the two are connected.. they can *see* more of what can be extracted out of things...

Even if we assume above (purely for argumnt's sake) you are at least some kind of authority on authorities ;) [i mean you gave so many links...]
,br> Not really. I have a low opinion of Silman's books :( ;)

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-26 22:10:03)
Search wikichess & games in one click

New features in chess games !

It is now possible to search wikichess & games in one click from your running games in the fast moves mode (page move_express), see the S & W options below the chessboard. One more tool to get quick statistics from FICGS database before to play.

Please report any bug. Thanks in advance :)

Normajean Yates    (2008-10-27 07:46:24)
some more details please? ...

What is S & W? What is page move_express? When I go to any game of mine there is no S & W options. My preference default is fast_moves.

Normajean Yates    (2008-10-29 18:23:20)
to Iouri Basiliev

But we agree with you! Only, it is not mathematically proven, and we do NOT hope to prove it, so we want to increase the likelihood that the statement is true :) Or, at least we want to reduce the margin of error [all in the Bayesian paradigm] Bayesian because - if you talk of conventional probability P rather than likelihood, then if P is the probability that the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 is a win for white, then either P=0 or P=1 [as chess is a complete information game], only we do not know whether P=0 or P=1.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-30 12:32:47)
:)

Hi Garvin, yes this is a small "display" bug that will disappear by itself, not a clock problem.

To Don, Normajean and Rodolfo: don't worry I already thought about that (well, about FICGS at least) :-)

Normajean Yates    (2008-10-30 15:23:39)
Thibault plays bigchess blindfold? ;)

<<Big Chess is only in your mind>> - Thibault de Vassal.

That makes quite a good quote! [seriously!]

I have to see the board on the screen at least: I can't play bigchess *totally* in the mind ... ;)

Normajean Yates    (2008-10-30 20:15:55)
5x5 chess again - thibault please read!

Thibault, I know you dont want to start another variant - but since we [meaning ficgs] pushed the theory [and the demise :( ] of the latvian gambit further... and we will have another round of that, so

in 5x5 chess (5x5 board, starting position rnbqk/ppppp/8/PPPPP/RNBQK) [o-o-o etc allowed - all 8x8-chess-type moves allowed] - as far as I know this hasnt been solved yet - far from it; so:

Please consider introducing this some time in the future... ask around to see if there is enough demand... you can consider payment-only tournaments for 5x5 chess....

Plus it will make ficgs academically famous!

[I don't know who suggested this version first: I first read about it more than 25 years ago in a Martin Gardner article - at least then, no theory was known about it.]

Marc Lacrosse    (2008-10-30 20:29:24)
To Don : better "fast" correspondence

If you wish a faster but still really "correspondence" play I would recommend the following : 7d + 1d/move with a maximal time capital of 7 days (anything over 7 days is cut off).
No vacation allowed during course of the game (or vacation pause not working for these precise games so that you may take leave for other kind of competitions but still need to play in these ones).

I am ready to play any kind of test games/tournaments at this timing.

Marc

Normajean Yates    (2008-10-31 03:17:50)
replies to thibault's question..

1. No, computers cannot yet. Not even near. Afaik not even 'strongly conjectured to be a white win' or 'strongly conjectured draw' (3x3 chess has been strongly solved - it is not really a game because there is no suitable starting position - but there are complete tablebases for every legal placement of chess pieces on a 3x3 board. I posted the links in a forum thread a few months ago...)

2. Why this variant is special -

if you think about it, 5x5 chess is the smallest notrivial *natural* contraction of 8x8 chess.

Plus - or that is why - it was thought of many decades ago - as far as I remember, when Martin Gardner mentioned it about 25 years ago in his column 'mathematical games' in the USA-based science magazine 'Scientific American', he was merely mentioning it, he hadn't invented it...

I am waiting for one bigchess opponent to time out before going on 15-day chess-leave -- [she (Nicola) would have timed out on 27 Oct but it got extended because of the 7-day addition to clocks owing to server change] --- then I plan to find out the current state of 5x5 - whether some university etc. is researching it, etc. If there are results that indicate forced draw (or win) then I agree that there is not much point in doing it here...

Normajean Yates    (2008-10-31 22:52:08)
I love [16x16] bigchess! :)

But disclosure of bias: I am winning my first bigchess (16x16) tournament 6-0 I think ;)

[4-0 I have already, One opp is timing out, and the only remaining opp: well see game 23201... ]

Let me be clear, 16x16 is very nice, need 'far' sight in two senses of the word :), and I would still love it - even if I was losing!

If some genie gave me the option that 'okay, from tomorrow at ficgs there will be no bigchess but there will be 5x5 and 10x10 and Philip Roe's generalisation to 7x7 with a nice initial position worked out -

I'd say no! I want bigchess!

Normajean Yates    (2008-10-31 22:56:28)
re 5x5: thibault's point is well-taken..

Thibault said - "but I see no real interest to play it [5x5 chess] yet as the first 5x5 chess engine will be probably invincible :/"

Well that is true - lack of 5x5 development is because of lack of engine development... good point, and point taken. Best to leave it to universities...

Normajean Yates    (2008-10-31 23:07:40)
small correction + apology to philip..

When I mistakenly said Philip Roe's 7x7 chess -- I meant just what Philip meant - i.e. some variant (10x10?) with two of those pices which can move only to those squares of the 7x7 patch they are at the centre of where it couldn't move were it a 'normal' chess piece. Sorry for the mistake.. and for the correct but perhaps obfuscating expression of the concept in *this* post ... [I took Roe's clear prose and ran an obfuscator on it ;)]

Normajean Yates    (2008-11-01 00:00:10)
a *playable* 3x3 chess :-/

Well as I said 3x3 chess has been strongly solved - by complete set of tablebases - but it is not really a playable game for lack of good starting position - the english wikipedia has links and info on 3x3, 5x5 [it *was* Martin Gardner who proposed it in 1969 acc to wikipedia], 6x6.

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minichess)

Well here is a playable version of 3x3 chess - even 1x3 chess! at least Samuel Beckett would have called it eminently playable!

3x3: 2k/3/K2 w.
1x3: k1K w.

And the kings - wait for Godot!

Benjamin Block    (2008-11-02 17:13:30)
We can try

I thinked a bit today. Computer have a bit problem (closed positions.) And humen are long from cleared it. Some cool positons. I played some games vs my self. And it was very funny :UP: The computer will not fix it very fast. First we need to make a openingsbook before the computer can fix the game.
Why not test?

Normajean Yates    (2008-11-03 07:15:32)
It is *really* a bug. Not a feature.

[see my previous post in this topic] Suppose opponent and I both have only 10 day left, it is opponent's move -- and I go on 11 days vacation. Now what is happening is that opponent's clock is running! [example - see my previous i.e. starting post for this topic] but as the game is *frozen* opponent cannot move! So opponent will lose on time!

So, it IS a bug [unless opponent can now move if I am on vacation. But then, this rule change has not been mentioned in the help, faq etc. --

from 'terms and conditions - 11.4 (time rules)':
"Vacation : It is possible to take a maximum of 30 days leave per year, called vacation. During this time, your clocks are frozen and it is no more possible to play, in order to reduce the effects on time controls. "

Normajean Yates    (2008-11-04 03:43:33)
Rodolfo, this is not n queens prob!

1. 5 queens prob [none attacking any other] on 5x5 board has ZERO solutions, as is easy to see.
2. n queens problem - fast solution, all solutions, all solutions excluding symmetry etc. is routine exercise after teaching back tracking in a programming course. Also, writing recursive program in lisp, tail recursive program, program with function being called with itself as a parameter [in untyped languages - otherwise you get 'infinite type' error], lazy-eval-function-program [typically for Haskell] - are routine exercises for leaerning a new fundamentally different language for experienced programmers.

BUT I DO NOT SEE THE RELEVANCE OF THE N QUEENS PROBLEM HERE! WE ARE DISCUSSION 5X5 COMPETITIVE CHESS WITH START-POS rnbqk/ppppp/8/PPPPP/RNBQK w Qq !

nxn queens is 2 minutes programming exercise! Writing a good engine for above is a big project!

Continuing the topic of engines for above (nowadays called Gardner minichess) - we also need some endgame tablebases. That should not be difficult: modifying source code of nalimov tablebase generators. [download tbgen.c - or is it cc (c++)? I have the source - it is GPL anyway...

We are not talking about future ficgs things - we are discussing a point of some academic interest, that is all.

Benjamin Block    (2008-11-05 16:40:58)
I think i see.

What you want is a new openingsbook with nothing!
1.Press File->New->Openingsbook... (skift+ctrl+alt+F11)
2.Choose a good name.
3.Start on 3 in the other message.
4.Please answer my question where i can download the games.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-07 10:22:14)
Bug fixed

Thanks Normajean, all 0-0 & o-o have been replaced by the correct O-O. There may be a few positions with two identic moves (O-O) yet, please just let me know & I'll delete one.

Normajean Yates    (2008-11-07 20:38:47)
coorection.. I meant type 1.e4 c5 -

of course. Please read what I mean, not what I type :) [adapted from a classroom response attributed to Richard Feynman]

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-09 00:00:59)
Iatus

Salut Don... Well, I don't know the right terms, but some liaisons are written, some others are spoken... The aim of "apostrophe" symbol ' is (according to me) to make a written liaison while breaking a word in the case of two words that are hard to pronounce. Spoken liaisons happen more often (ie. "comment allez-vous ?") but are often not written. Hope I'm clear :)

Normajean Yates    (2008-11-09 04:18:14)
thibault, I think written liaison <->..

missing letters. This happens when one word ends in a vowel, the other starts with a vowel, and ending-vowel of the first word gets removed because of oral liaison. Then, and only then, I think the is the *written* liaison - and that is why the apostrophe :)

Je + adoube = J'adoube :)

['<->' was 'if and only if' - 'if and only if' would not fit in the title, and 'iff' or 'fif' would not be understood by some readers so I would have to explain anyway :)]

In wikipedia aricles I did not find separate discussion of *written* liaison :(

[the hiatus avoidance that thibault earlier mentioned applies of course to *all* liaison..., in *all* languages which try to avoid hiatus :)] [If it doesnt, then people will at least in informal conversation evolve a colloquial hiatus-avoiding version ;)]

The rules for general liaison are complicated (only for people not fluent in french! they are very easy for every french child!):

fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liaison_(linguistique)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liaison_(French)

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-09 15:19:50)
All games...

Doing the same as Rodolfo is clearly the best method, the FICGS search by opening is limited to 500 games.

Denis Ivanchenkov    (2008-11-12 06:16:44)
God or not God...

> By the way, is/are it/he/she/they necessary to anywhat ? necessary to pray to during financial crisis.
> Maybe we should open a new topic :) good idea! and then ficgs.com will look even more like igame.ru - there also were endless flames of one notorious user - I think his nick is translated as AllPeopleAreTheOne. Hope he doesn't speak English
Rodolfo d Ettorre > In IGAME.RU there was a player whose nick was "Sexy God", and he definitively existed :))

Normajean Yates    (2008-11-13 15:09:03)
to rodolfo: another strange coincidence

So we have two Ingmar Bergmans and three Ingrid Bergmans:

1.Your friend's husband and your friend.

2. The famous film director and his last wife [she was Ingrid, and took the husband's surname after marrying him]

3. The famous female actor Ingrid Begman, who was never Ingmar Bergman's wife! :)

PS: films reminded me: has Telesur started showing more literary and artistic programs? My friend Tariq Ali is on the board of advisors of Telesur, and he keep pressing them...

Anyway, please convey my greetings and solidarity message to President Chávez!

Denis Ivanchenkov    (2008-11-13 22:19:23)
wrszzzzzyrdybooom

>"do you blieve in the wrszzzzzyrdybooom! ?"
God is Who gives sense to man's life.
God (either existing physically or just as guiding idea in head of a man) is who/what struggles against destruction forces of material world.
God is the force that raises man up, that leads man to perfection in both material and spiritual world.
this is my definition of God

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-14 01:05:06)
Future Rating

Hi Wayne, there was a small change a few weeks ago to make it clearer... Please click the magnifying glass in Preferences, then click History, thus you'll see your future rating.

Normajean Yates    (2008-11-18 15:37:20)
rare files and torrent...

Well it is like looking for some particular rare thing in 2nd hand shops / fleamarket.. -- you keep trying every 2-3 months, you get some 'quite' rare files over time if you are lucky...

The frustrating thing is when you find a torrent but it is inactive - no one is seeding --- then you can post requests in newsgroups for someone to seed, and hope for the best..

For example, I have 25% of audio of a Chomsky-Foucault debate [I have the transcript - it is very interesting!] - 12 other people have the same 25% and waiting for someone to seed! [for the last 2 years]

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-19 00:51:01)
Poker Holdem at FICGS !!!

Finally, one of the biggest update this year !

Poker Holdem (or Poker Texas Hold'em) is available at FICGS !

This should be a start for long discussions... It was quite complicated to implement so I hope there will be no bug (please report if necessary). Please do not forget to read the complete rules here :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#poker_holdem

If you estimate you're an experienced player, please just let me know (through the form in My account) and I'll update your "poker holdem ELO" to 1800.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-21 00:21:52)
Slow moves / Fast moves

You must be using the slow interface (the fast one is great ;)) .. anyway, I'll try to improve it, at least to make it faster for poker.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-23 15:39:23)
Show both cards at Showdown

A small update to come for Poker Holdem as, according to the rules, if a player must show his hand, he's required to show both pocket cards, even if one (or two) of these cards are not necessary in the best hand. (thx Volker :))

I understand that this rule applies in all cases, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Don Groves    (2008-11-23 23:02:52)
One request

Thibault, Poker is great -- I think I'm addicted ;-)

But one change please, when a showdown happens, please expose the cards in their original positions so both players can know what the other's hole cards were, and which cards completed the common five -- just like it would happen at the table.

Without this, we have no way of "reading" our opponent to help determine how he/she plays out hands. A big part of the game's strategy is lost.

Normajean Yates    (2008-11-25 20:27:58)
Don, no it wouldnt...

Have you seen some of the 'obfuscated c contest' winning entries? Those programs are deliberately obfuscated: while in these ones the obfuscation is a side effect of the goal of keeping program size small.

Now if someone could also incorporate Q-search and forward pruning and the 'standard' extensions within 5000 characters...

On a side note: program optimisation [below algorithm level] also obfuscates code - I know: I was consulted as program optimisation specialist from 1988-1991. But *there* one *keeps* the original slow-but-structured version, only commented out. In fact, one '#define's a boolean switch in a small file; so that with a one-character change in that file one can switch between the structured code and and the fast code.

Don Groves    (2008-11-26 05:11:13)
Spreadsheet

I'd like to design my own "poker viewer" using Excel (or the equivalent) by reading in a file of plays and displaying the data in a useful format.

If you could just make the plays and the cards dealt at each turn available as a downloadable file, I'll do the rest.

It doesn't matter that there is no standard file format yet. Who knows, yours could eventually become the standard!

Clearly, fame and fortune are only two steps away ;-)

Francisco Gramajo    (2008-11-26 19:19:39)
Fold button needed.

Some times, the cards dealt are so bad, not even worth it to play. Please add a fold button at the showdown. Let me fold 7-2 by the way, pls...

Michael Sharland    (2008-11-26 20:32:17)
Time controls for Holdem

It seems clear that most holdem tournaments are going to require 200-600 moves to complete. This seems to indicate that the time control probably needs to be accelerated from 1 move / day in order to finish these in a reasonable time. Given that the thinking time needed for poker is only a few seconds rather than hours or days, the time needed for a move should be much less than for Chess or Go.

Some ideas might be to:

1) reduce the time control further to 1 move / 12 hours or even less.

2) cap the maximum days at 30 or so.

3) change the format to 2 out of 3 rather than 3 out of 5.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-26 21:58:40)
Time controls for Holdem

Correspondence time controls (> 1 day) are very delicate to manage. If we set an increment inferior to 1 day, it may provoke some problems with a few players trying to find some tricks to win on time or at least to keep a time pressure on their opponents (most players sleep during the night yet :)). With the current time control, most players still seem to play fastly and, of course, do not hope to win on time. And last but not least, this is much less stressful than rapid chess tournaments :)

However the maximum days could be inferior for poker, that's right, but let's see... I'm not sure it is really necessary to change something yet.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-02 20:07:17)
Update : challenges & move send

Hello all,

It is now possible to challenge a player for a chess, Go or Poker holdem game ! You can choose the game by clicking the pictures near "Challenge a player" in My games, you can also change the 'challenges' option in Preferences. This is an important improvement as advanced poker & Go games are a faster way to improve ratings ie. in order to qualify for the FICGS poker holdem & Go championships. (advanced chess has its own rating, different from the correpondence chess rating)

Also a new improvement in the 'move send' process, it should be much faster now, please report any bug if you notice one.

Don Groves    (2008-12-05 06:48:54)
Game 23611

I must have won that hand as I now have 1 out of 3 rounds won, but I never did see the result.

If we must look at another page to see all results, can you please include a link to see the results of the previous hand?

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-05 09:32:13)
Game 26311

You mean that hand ?

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26311&move=379

I can't see any reason why it didn't appear yet, please let me know if it happens again (please do not play the next moves before I can analyze it) thanks :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-08 19:33:05)
Levon Aronian's open letter

Now Levon Aronian comments the latest FIDE's decisions in an open letter :

"(...) With the GA's recent actions, it seems that there is a democratic deficit within FIDE. The GA did not consult the players currently taking part in the Grand Prix in their decision processes. Please keep in mind a very important point – these players, including myself, have a legally binding agreement with FIDE regarding the World Championship cycle and the Grand Prix. Therefore it is FIDE's duty to consult the other party of the contract – the participants.

Does this mean that the chess players have lesser rights than others? The GA appears to act with no concern for the players. The decision to suddenly change the World Championship cycle has damaging effects on the career plans of leading chess players. It is also reasonable to ask: why should we go through several tournaments over several years and fight for a place in a tournament that another player gets by losing a match? The GA's decisions remove the motivation for players like myself to take part in the World Championship cycle."

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5059

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-12 15:56:50)
Now Michael Adams...

Open Letter from Michael Adams

"I have regretfully withdrawn from the whole Grand Prix series. Some of the reasons I took this decision are the sudden switch of venues at very late notice, the replacement of players whose results thus far will affect the results of the whole Grand Prix both in terms of prize money and World Championship qualification and the fact that when I made my decision the status of some of the future GP events was still unclear.

The changes to the World Championship cycle also concern me as making major changes to a cycle in progress in such a sudden manner is very undesirable. There also seems to be no guarantee that further changes will not be made in a similar manner in the future. The changes are obviously immediately very negative for all Grand Prix participants but also in general it seems to me that the rewards for success in such tough events as the Grand Prix or the World Cup are now much too minimal."

Michael Adams
11th December 2008

Next ?

Normajean Yates    (2008-12-13 14:50:13)
it is true. :)

" 'FICGS is one of the most important organisation of correspondance chess.' Is it true ?"

It is true! Or at least, we hope it becomes true!

Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2008-12-16 06:43:01)
Alternatives

If you want fast games why not play the 2 hour blitz? Isn't the idea of correspondance games to have time to analysis in depth? I find at least my opponents play to fast, do they really make a concise analysis of a game?

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-16 11:18:59)
Wild chess

Good idea, we may try such thematics soon :)

But I have to find a line leading to this position.....

Normajean Yates    (2008-12-17 18:05:42)
anyway, about the 16-queens mate-in-4:

Svante Carl von Erichsen showed it was possible to solve without computer help:

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=problem_read&id=311

As for proof game, The foll is from my rec.games.chess.analysis post [it *was* .analysis I think - feeling too tired to search usenet]

" This one is mine:

1. 4k3/qqqqqqqq/8/8/8/8/QQQQQQQQ/4K3 w - - 0 109: [pos. 1]

White to play and mate in 4.

There are no duals - only one moves mates in 4. [there is no mate in 3 or less.]

Move given at end of post, with sample continuation.

These two were posed by me and solved by likesforests [see fics (www.freechess.org) or chess.com] in 20 minutes total!

2. Give a proof game for pos. 1, ie Show that the position in prob. 1 is legally reachable by giving a game that leads to the position.

3. Okay, so you can reach a position where you have 16 queens on board. Can you construct a game which reaches a position with 18 queens? If so, do so! [the last part carries 99% of the credit - it is to pre-empt the answers "yes" and "no".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(note: these can be more conveniently viewed at chess.com in the thread "advantage of moving first - mate in 4 in symmetrical position" in the forum-category "more puzzles")

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Solution to 2: by likesforests

[Event ]
[Site ]
[Date ..]
[White likesforests]
[Black likesforests]
[Result 1-0]
1. a4 b5 2. a5 b4 3. a6 Bb7 4. axb7 Nc6 5. Na3 bxa3 6. b8=Q a2 7. Rb1 a1=Q 8. Qb3 Qa6 9. Qa2 Qb7 10. b4 a5 11. b5 a4 12. b6 Qa6 13. b7 a3 14. Qb3 a2 15. b8=Q a1=Q 16. Qh3 Q1a5 17. Qbb3 Ne5 18. Qbg3 c5 19. Rb3 c4 20. c3 cxb3 21. c4 b2 22. c5 b1=Q 23. c6 Qba2 24. c7 Qb8 25. Bb2 f6 26. Bc3 Kf7 27. c8=Q d5 28. Qc4 Nc6 29. Qch4 d4 30. d3 dxc3 31. d4 c2+ 32. Qd2 Ra7 33. f3 Q5a4 34. Kf2 c1=Q 35. d5 Qca3 36. d6 e5 37. e4 Nge7 38. d7 Kg8 39. d8=Q Qa8 40. Qb6 Nb4 41. Qbe3 Nbd5 42. exd5 e4 43. Ne2 f5 44. Qeh6 f4 45. Kg1 e3 46. Nd4 e2 47. d6 e1=Q 48. d7 Qea1 49. d8=Q Nd5 50. Nc2 Nc3 51. Ne3 fxe3 52. Qdg5 e2 53. Qdf4 e1=Q 54. Qfg4 Qeb1 55. f4 g6 56. Qc5 g5 57. f5 Bg7 58. Qgc4+ Rf7 59. f6 Bf8 60. Q5b4 g4 61. Qe5 g3 62. Qe1 Ne4 63. Qcb3 Nd2 64. Qhc4 Nf3+ 65. gxf3 g2 66. Be2 Bg7 67. Kf2 Bf8 68. Ke3 g1=Q+ 69. Kf4 Qgb6 70. Qcc3 Be7 71. Kg4 Qe6+ 72. Kg3 Rf8 73. fxe7 Rf7 74. e8=Q+ Rf8 75. Qeb5 Qf7 76. f4 Re8 77. f5 Re6 78. fxe6 Qff8 79. e7+ Qf7 80. Rf1 Qaf8 81. e8=Q Qa8 82. Qbb2 Q4a7 83. Qed2 Q3a6 84. Rf3 Q8b7 85. Qcc2 Qac4 86. Q4b3 Qad6+ 87. Kg2 Qdc7 88. Q3a2 Qce6 89. Qhe3 Qed7 90. Q8e4 Q8e7 91. Qb2b3 Qag7+ 92. Qg3 Qbb2 93. Bc4 Qbf6 94. Kf1 h5 95. Rf5 Qfxf5+ 96. Ke1 Rh6 97. Qxh6 Qfh7 98. Qhxh5 Qfxc4 99. Qee2 Qcf7 100. Qbb2 Kf8 101. Qgf2 Ke8 102. h4 Kf8 103. Qhg4 Qhxh4 104. Qgg2 Qhh7 105. Qbh5 Ke8 106. Qhh2 Qfe6 107. Qff3 Q6f6 108. Qff2 Qff7 1-0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

solution to 3: by likesforests

Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[White "likesforests"]
[Black "likesforests"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. a4 b5 2. a5 b4 3. a6 Bb7 4. axb7 Nc6 5. Na3 bxa3 6. b8=Q a2 7. Rb1 a1=Q 8. Qb3 Qa6 9. Qa2 Qb7 10. b4 a5 11. b5 a4 12. b6 Qa6 13. b7 a3 14. Qb3 a2 15. b8=Q a1=Q 16. Qh3 Q1a5 17. Qbb3 Ne5 18. Qbg3 c5 19. Rb3 c4 20. c3 cxb3 21. c4 b2 22. c5 b1=Q 23. c6 Qba2 24. c7 Qb8 25. Bb2 f6 26. Bc3 Kf7 27. c8=Q d5 28. Qc4 Nc6 29. Qch4 d4 30. d3 dxc3 31. d4 c2+ 32. Qd2 Ra7 33. f3 Q5a4 34. Kf2 c1=Q 35. d5 Qca3 36. d6 e5 37. e4 Nge7 38. d7 Kg8 39. d8=Q Qa8 40. Qb6 Nb4 41. Qbe3 Nbd5 42. exd5 e4 43. Ne2 f5 44. Qeh6 f4 45. Kg1 e3 46. Nd4 e2 47. d6 e1=Q 48. d7 Qea1 49. d8=Q Nd5 50. Nc2 Nc3 51. Ne3 fxe3 52. Qdg5 e2 53. Qdf4 e1=Q 54. Qfg4 Qeb1 55. f4 g6 56. Qc5 g5 57. f5 Bg7 58. Qgc4+ Rf7 59. f6 Bf8 60. Q5b4 g4 61. Qe5 g3 62. Qe1 Ne4 63. Qcb3 Nd2 64. Qhc4 Nf3+ 65. gxf3 g2 66. Be2 Bg7 67. Kf2 Bf8 68. Ke3 g1=Q+ 69. Kf4 Qgb6 70. Qcc3 Be7 71. Kg4 Qe6+ 72. Kg3 Rf8 73. fxe7 Rf7 74. e8=Q+ Rf8 75. Qeb5 Qf7 76. f4 Re8 77. f5 Re6 78. fxe6 Qff8 79. e7+ Qf7 80. Rf1 Qaf8 81. e8=Q Qa8 82. Qhc1 ( 82. Qbb2 Q4a7 83. Qed2 Q3a6 84. Rf3 Q8b7 85. Qcc2 Qac4 86. Q4b3 Qad6+ 87. Kg2 Qdc7 88. Q3a2 Qce6 89. Qhe3 Qed7 90. Q8e4 Q8e7 91. Qb2b3 Qag7+ 92. Qg3 Qbb2 93. Bc4 Qbf6 94. Kf1 h5 95. Rf5 Qfxf5+ 96. Ke1 Rh6 97. Qxh6 Qfh7 98. Qhxh5 Qfxc4 99. Qee2 Qcf7 100. Qbb2 Kf8 101. Qgf2 Ke8 102. h4 Kf8 103. Qhg4 Qhxh4 104. Qgg2 Qhh7 105. Qbh5 Ke8 106. Qhh2 Qfe6 107. Qff3 Q6f6 108. Qff2 Qff7 ) h5 83. Qhc8 h4+ 84. Kg4 h3 85. Bf3 Rh5 86. Bg2 hxg2 87. h3 Rh4+ 88. Kxh4 g1=Q 89. Rf6 Qga7 90. Qec6 Q8b8 91. Q8a6 Q8e7 92. Kg4 Kf8 93. h4 Qbe8 94. Rd6 Qg8+ 95. Kf3 Qbg6 96. h5 Q6g7 97. h6 Qad7 98. h7 Qa5 99. h8=Q Qdxd6 1-0

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

solution to 1: 1. Qaxf7+!

Sample continuations:
1... Kd8 2. Qexe7+ Kc8 3. Qdxd7+ Kb8 4. Qdd8#
1... Qxf7 2. Qh8+ Qxh8 3. Qxh8+ Qf8 4. Qfxf8#

"

Normajean Yates    (2008-12-18 17:53:56)
ok- but meanwhile this kludge may work..

ATTN Thibault,

Will see big surprise - hopefully a pleasant surprise - when I return in January.. meanwhile:

Earlier the message used to be emailed. Now, if the move-message part of the code hasnt been drastically changed, then:

Why not plug in the earlier message-emailed code-fragment; so that the message is *both* diplayed on the game page - as it is now; *and* emailed - as it was earlier?

As a temporary measure, while Thibault is busy with big things? :)

[already on unofficial leave, will go on official leave tomorrow so that I can extend leave into january, as some people have done..]

Ben Milton    (2008-12-23 10:18:20)
WOW

WOW, are you serious... It took me at least half an hour to copy paste the emails one by one. Would it be possible for me to get the Epoints because i really prefer not to give out passwords.

Gultekin Gumusyazici    (2008-12-28 18:18:43)
Thibault de Vassal

Just Remember Kasparovs's complain about deepblue (bot-robot). He cried "This machine steals my photographic memory and plays as me." Chess game with common rulez has turned game determines winners whose memory realizes most likely picture of usual games. This is bot behaviour. Cheating is about neglecting improvements that is not common at pictures adopted as most likely winner moves. I always try unusual moves to surprize bots. At start I success but then bots leads game to other direction where most likely picture occurs by not doing move they fail. That is bot cheat. As Atalik has taken moves back.

Gultekin Gumusyazici    (2008-12-28 18:57:50)
Advanced chess game project

A. Primitives about common chess. 1-Although there is at least 50 more variation of chess game. They are not evaluated as common as standard.(Since they have no software with bot players that is strong as human at those variations, And Standart chess players have no tendency for them cause they re not up enough yet with that stupid standart chess game which is most suitable for software. Or might them be less intelligent as expected?) 2-Rules are rules even they are meaningless. 3-It reflects only bi-dimentional thinking. 4-Mostly depend on probability. (Remind you that probabiliy is a tool applied only known data- "not unknown") 5-No one complains much. (That is Conservation, And it is against the realization of Universe and science). 6-.............. To start with responsing against me please fill your facts about chess here. Then we can evaluate fact about chess. To develop advanced chess rules that mostly suits human to enlight his abilities not robots.

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 ?!

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-04 14:14:38)
Rybka 4

Vasik Rajlich wrote a few comments on what can be expected from the Rybka engine/team in 2009 :

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=9199

Three engine releases are planned in 2009:

* Rybka 3+ - Rybka 3 playing strength, with bugfixes and cosmetic improvements, for Rybka 3 customers
* Pocket Rybka 3 - published by Convekta/ChessOK, packaged with their Pocket Champion interface, conforms to S. Tsukrov's Pocket-UCI protocol
* Rybka 4 - better search, better eval, new analysis features

"Our tournament goal for 2009 is to win a top freestyle event in 100% automated mode. (...)"

Very interesting, a new challenge for Eros :)

Wayne Lowrance    (2009-01-05 18:06:24)
Rybka 4 Fritz 12, Hiarcs 13 & future

It is my thought that Vas is running close to empty on improvements from Rybka 3 to Rybka 4. Rybka 3 was a huge, huge improvment.Other programmers are getting closer, specifically Naum. I sorta think Vas is looking a ways in the future when cluster comps are taking hold. Before Rybka 3 release there was a lot of excitement about Monte Carlo, but Rybka 3 Monte Carlo is not effective overall, It is just a novelity as far as my evaluation is concerned. Maybe too, like cluster MC will have a place. Correspondence chess players sh ould be delighted with Rybka three. A few minor improvements can be made, but wont improve ELO much, such as deep evaluation pv listing. Right no for CC player the current PV thing is crazy. Well nice topic Wayne

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-05 18:34:24)
Depth 23

It would have no sense to propose such a challenge. No, only Rybka moves (played by Ben) will be limited to depth 23.

I think I would accept the challenge (for at least 100 Epoints) if the full analysis by Rybka is posted after the end of the game :)

Ben Milton    (2009-01-06 11:08:51)
Question

Would someone please tell how to be a strong centaur player? I have been playing online computer assisted chess for 2 years now and still have not learned how to be stronger than rybka 3 by itslef. I use Fritz11 GUI. Any reccommendations? would be appreciated

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-06 14:14:28)
How to beat Rybka 3 ?

Hi Ben, the main -enormous- advantage you have over Rybka 3 is of course that you know by advance what she may play at least in "some" cases. At correspondence chess, you have to create a trap according to the horizon's effet (don't remember if this is the correct term) or analysis depth. Well, it may represent several weeks of analysis though, to understand such engine's weaknesses, then to incitate her to follow you in a good line, knowing the book she uses.

Playing against Rybka 3 in a freestyle chess tournament will be even harder, only someone who perfectly knows the engine & has a very good understanding of the game may hope to have a good score (over 60%) against the engine IMO.

Finally a good centaur would have quite good chances to win this match in my opinion.

Ben Milton    (2009-01-06 15:24:33)
Thanks

Thank you very much, but the problem is even though i might know what the opponent might play, i still dont know what move to play so it leads to a trap, the best i can do is to go as deep as possible. Also i heard a few things about "IDeA" which is a tool centaurs use to go deeper but unfortunately Fritz 11 does not have that...Any how if youd be willing we can have the games and i am willing to give you all my e-points (12) if you win and if you dont i dont want any e-points in return. I jus want to see the results. How does it sound?

Marc Lacrosse    (2009-01-06 21:54:35)
Too much time lost lately I fear

I do not see anything interesting in these developments : there are better dedicated sites for this kind of things
Isn't it just a way to try expanding general traffic and thus advertising income?
If this is the aim, I do agree to some point: You have offered to us all a very nice tool for free and I will allways be very glad if you can earn something significant from your site's activity
But I fear that you are more and more busy in money-making trials than in core site improvements (chess and go).
This could well lead to a problem as it led one day or another many another site that followed the very same path...
If you do not care enough with improving the core of your site people will leave as soon as another one offers more appealing features partly built on what you were first to offer.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-06 23:45:25)
Tournament director

Wayne, I do not say that it is impossible to implement, but anyway I don't like to leave the server alone to administrate the tournaments or to calculate the rating list by itself... as a tournament director, I prefer to run some programs by myself, see & check what happens.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-08 21:17:38)
Paragraphs

See at the top of the page : "please use <br > html tag to begin a new line"

About the tournament tables, did you try to click the magnifying glass near the name of the tournament ? ie :

http://www.ficgs.com/crosstable_FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000001.html

About the tournament page & diagrams, that's a nice suggestion, I may change this quickly.

Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2009-01-09 08:31:05)
Why?

What is the purpose of this challenge? Do you accept Thibault conditions in the post above this one? and who you will proof the engine is playing alone with book and you are not leading it as Marc Lacrosse pointed?

Tom Smith    (2009-01-11 11:54:02)
Newbie time question

Hi, new player here. I am slightly confused by the time controls, in the rules it states minimum of one move every 60 days (which to me is a little over the top) but the tournaments state 40 days then 40 days /ten moves but it doesnt state if the first 40 days is for each single move or for a set amount of moves, say for example 40 moves in the first 40 days. Could some one please clear this up for me? Thank you. Tom

Tom Smith    (2009-01-11 12:16:27)
Engines allowed?!

Hi I have another issue with the rules and conditions here, I came across the following: Computer assistance is authorized, as any other kind of help but in the "no-engines" tournaments. This in itself is confusing, am I to believe that players are allowed to use engines to play for them in the "no engines" tournament?? Unless it is a mistake and means engines are allowed but NOT in the no engines section. If this is true then do most people use enignes here? I really do not want to play on a site where engines use is considered ok!I am far too weak to play engines :) Would somebody please clarify this section of the rules for me please. Thank you Tom

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-11 14:27:55)
Engines allowed

Hello Tom, actually there is a "NO ENGINES" tournament category. Well, I'll try to make it clearer. It is not possible to verify if engines are used or not in any correspondence chess place, so chess engines are allowed in all tournaments but this specified category where games are not rated.

If you really want to play "chess" without engines, you may try BIG CHESS here :)

Ilmars Cirulis    (2009-01-11 15:59:53)
Quote from information theory

"Why have sex? Because sex is good for your bits!"
(Information Theory, Interference, and Learning Algorithms" by David J.C. MacKay)

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-11 18:39:05)
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov

I just watched a french tv documentary on Canal+ : "L'effet papillon" (the butterfly effect), a very rare & surprising topic in France : Kirsan Ilyumzhinov !

The president of Kalmykia & FIDE, long ago introduced by Boris Eltsine at this rank, was clearly presented as a despot in this poor region of Russia, not really far from North Korea (not speaking of distances). The images from "city chess" near Elista were quite terrible, a phantom city, part of the cult of the personality beginning in schools (children learning that GM Ilyumzhinov is the one example to follow)... Images from a few 'sponsor' industries of one competition held in Elista were just another way to suggest how Ilyumzhinov finds the money to keep the hand on the world of chess. Finally we saw a few GM timidly saying that probably everything was not clear in the FIDE.

Well, I do not believe 100% of what is said on tv, that's just what french people saw today, each one is free to make his own opinion after watching this kind of portrait.

Normajean Yates    (2009-01-12 03:57:26)
to make it very clear.. but=except

Thibault is using very literary english here. When he says 'but', he means it in the sense of 'except'. [Very literary, because he *never* says 'except' ;)]

I think that the 'but' confused Tom Smith. Just remember that one meaning of 'but' is 'except', and all will be clear :)

Don Groves    (2009-01-12 22:50:39)
Cheating?

Hello, Tom -- It seems to me that "cheating" is defined as doing something that is against the rules of the game. Here, the rules specify that engines may be used, so using them is not cheating.

I understand your concern about players letting an engine play their games for them, but I don't think many here do that. I think the players here generally use engines to do deep analysis of moves they themselves have selected, not to select all the moves via the engine. Otherwise, there is no learning and the player is only harming him- or herself. This is only my opinion, of course.

Another point to consider: all top players in tournaments have advisers that help them prepare lines and analyze games during adjournments. And they all use engines as part of this process. Do you consider this practice to be cheating?

Philip Roe    (2009-01-14 05:00:51)
Tom, if you are still with us..

Not everyone here uses engines, even in events where it would be allowed. As proof, some of us occasionally play moves that would disgrace a cell phone (and have long ago learned not to aspire to high honours).

However, the site has many nice features, and the absence of rules, "bizarre" as it may seem at first, does mean that whatever is going on is not actually cheating.

Tom Smith    (2009-01-14 19:13:17)
Reply again

i also forgot to respond to a couple of points. No I dont consider any engine use cheating, or using opening books etc.I am a average player I think, I dont have a rating or anything and I get whipped by computers, that is why I wondered if it was common practise here to use a computer to play for people as I would just constantly lose in 10 moves if that was the case, this was why I made this thread to see if I can expect to lose every game or whether some people would be like me and just play. In hindsight I couldve made my point a little clearer to have avoided any bad feelings which is why I am now trying to explain more clearly.

Tom Smith    (2009-01-15 07:10:20)
wow...

normajean you are one crazy lady. Thibault, I have chosen the wrong site I feel, would you please cancel my membership, I entered a standard 40 day tournament, would you please remove from that too as I wouldnt want to hold that up. Thank you

Normajean Yates    (2009-01-15 07:18:06)
Tom, post your address please

I presume that you are a british citizen / resident <shame>. Please post your address (Broadmoor Hospital, perchance?). So that if I feel so inclined, I instruct my lawyers to sue you for libel.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-15 12:34:27)
Engines vs. Human

Hi Normajean,

1. At standard time controls, I think Rybka 3 can beat the best GM, there is just no time enough for a human to avoid a single error. But grandmasters probably still have a better vision of the game at least in calm positions. At correspondence time controls, no one can say it but I feel a good GM could rivalize yet with the best engines. This is unlikely to change before a while IMO.

2. The best anti-human engine at any time control is probably Rybka 3, but there will be concurrence soon.

Garvin Gray    (2009-01-18 17:26:53)
rules question

Ok, what I was suspecting was the situation is in fact the case.

To clarify in different speak and to guarantee we are talking about the same situation.

Game 232- The river is Ad and Player 1 has gone all in for 55 chips.

You are now asking if player 2 calls, will player 2 have to show cards, is that correct?

Do I have all this correct?

Went for an internet search to see if there were any sites at least claiming official poker rules status and there were none from my searching.

In my opinion, Player 2 has called Player 1, so both players must show their cards.

Normajean Yates    (2009-01-20 07:22:04)
oops forgot quotation marks !

To make my prev post absolutely clear:

I did NOT say 'I am a chess amateur, playing only for fun! I do not have any chess engine. Good game to everyone!'

Nicola said it.

Normajean Yates    (2009-01-28 09:46:51)
NPS comparison is meaningless..

between different engines. [ of course if you run the same engine on a faster computer you get better NPS and more powerful hw+sw combination, but that is trivial.. :)]

You will find ample discussion on this in the rec.games.chess archives 1994-2002 period.

I thought everyone knew this - I thought at least Thibault knew this! ;) [I still think he does, he is just being modest ;)] - that's why I didnt post this before.... :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-30 16:43:43)
Svante Carl von Erichsen leads 2-0

Svante Carl now leads by 2-0, one game (22802) has been lost on time, the 3 running games are on the rope...

Any opinion on the games ?

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=22802 http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=22803

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-02-02 21:54:00)
Poker championship : New rules, deadline

Finally, a 2 stages single round-robin tournament (no ratings limit, everyone can play) seems a better choice for the poker holdem championship !

The deadline is now february 8, 2009... Join the fun !

Here are the new rules :

"FICGS world poker holdem championship is a 2 stages single round-robin tournament. All games are played in 30 days + 1 day / move.

Round-robin tournaments are groups of at least 7 players. The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage. If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account. Groups are built grading all players by rating and distributing them to obtain similar elo averages. Players may be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player.

Rules for poker holdem are official rules. You may find more information about the FICGS betting structure here. Both players must play until one resign or game is adjudicated. One game is played in 3 winning rounds of 100 chips by player played in no limit mode. The minimal bet is always 1 chip and does not depend on the blind's value. The small blind's value is doubled after the 50th hand, then after the 70th, 80th, 90th and 100th hand (the big blind then is 64 chips) of each round."

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-02-03 13:37:42)
Chess WCH 4 round-robin final

The chess wch #4 round-robin final should start as soon as the situation is a bit clearer in game 22698 (Helmer vs. Broniek)

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=22898

I can't analyze it right now, any predictions ? :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-02-03 14:29:07)
Chess WCH 5 stage 2

The chess wch #5 round-robin stage 2 should start as soon as the situation is a bit clearer in game 22401 (Bernal Varela vs. Tommasi)

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=22401

Normajean Yates    (2009-02-18 22:56:37)
re Einstein's quote:

"Creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. ----> I think from Albert Einstein"

(Yes, it is attributed to Einstein; and I have not seen it atributed to anyone else)-

So, clearly, Einstein was cleverly using engines in no-engines games ;)

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-02-25 00:21:15)
Topalov vs. Kamsky games

Topalov now leads by 3.5 / 2.5

Two games left to equalize...

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-02-28 03:35:14)
Svante Carl wins FICGS Go WCH (again)

Congratulations to Svante Carl von Erichsen who keeps the FICGS Go champion title by beating Ke Lu 5d on an impressive 5-0 score, also reaching a rating of 2653 !

A rematch just started between our two top Go players, as Ke Lu convincingly won the 3rd FICGS Go WCH preliminary tournament by 7/7

You can follow the games here :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000003

Svante Carl kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match :

FICGS - Hello Svante Carl, first of all congratulations for your win in the FICGS correspondence Go championship final. Your opponent was Ke Lu 5 dan, you won 4 games out of 5 already (the last game is not finished yet), how do you explain such a result?

Svante Carl - Hello! Thank you very much! It is certainly astonishing for me that I was able to hold my own in these games. I believe that the main factor that helped me in getting on even terms with such a strong player was that I could spend much more time analyzing each move than in a face-to-face or online direct playing situation.

FICGS - Did you have a particular preparation or plan before to start the games?

Svante Carl - The only things I planned beforehand was to really give my best, and to make the games as distinct as possible.

FICGS - The site will now try to attract more correspondence Go players from Asia (with a few chinese, japanese or korean words on the home page already), what do you think about the games format played at FICGS (30 days + 1 day / move, chinese rules komi 7.5 points) and the championship rules?

Svante Carl - I like the format. I am also interested in the rules of Go as well as the rules that surround Go, like tournament rules and time settings. My current conviction is that the "real, pure" Go rules are area rules with superko, and territory rules should be seen as a shortcut which should give the same result. I have come to think that the "Taiwan rule", i.e. White gets a point of compensation if Black got the last play (before the first pass), is a sensible part of the rules. FICGS has taken a very easy route by declaring the rule set and leaving negotiation of the result to the players. While in the end, it is only important who won, I think that showing a result as e.g. "White+3", "Black+Resign" adds a lot of flavour. As a time system, I think that bonus time (a.k.a. Fischer time), like on FICGS, is a very general and sensible approach to timing a game like Go. I think that many "real-world" tournaments and internet servers will switch to that in the future, for all, blitz, speed, normal, slow, and correspondence games. The championship format is quite nice. I like the title holder/challenger way of tournament series. The only thing I would like to see is some sort of nigiri to determine the colours in the odd game. Attracting players from Asia is really a worthwhile goal. I look forward to playing players from all over the world.

FICGS - Does correspondence Go bring you something more than real time Go? What is more addictive according to you?

Svante Carl - Since I think that analyzing is a forte of mine, I might be a bit stronger at correspondence Go than at "real time" Go. I don't think that one is more addictive than the other.

FICGS - Do you often play real time Go online? What servers do you prefer?

Svante Carl - I usually play on KGS, but not too much, perhaps one or two games per week on average, often in "bursts". KGS is quite nice, but not perfect. Sometimes I play at CyberOro, but there is much less communication; I like to watch pro games there.

FICGS - Do you use softwares that assist you in your games (FICGS rules allow this)? What do you think about computer Go in general nowadays?

Svante Carl - I only use a board or a simple SGF file viewer for analyzing. There are no playing programs that could help me. The programs have advanced quite much recently, but I think that it will still be a long time before they can beat me in an even game. Currently, most tests of these programs are against professional players with high handicaps, and I think that this is a good situation for the bots, since they get exponentially weaker the further the game is from the end -- high handicap practically eliminates the opening, their weakest spot. I would like to see more tests against amateur players at the bots' own level.

FICGS - Do you play other games (board games, video games...), what is your favourite one?

Svante Carl - Go is certainly my absolute favourite. I also know chess, although I am really weak at that. I also like "german board games", there are some really nice pearls there. In video games, well, there are also some pearls, but they get drowned by a mass of ... not so good games..., I don't waste time looking at that scene any more. I also played some online poker, but it wasn't able to keep me interested.

FICGS - Will you defend your title again against Ke Lu who also won the 3rd wch tournament?

Svante Carl - Of course, I am looking forward to that!

FICGS - Could you give us your impressions on the games, how it went from the beginning to the end, do you think that time pressure were a non-negligible factor in the result (the clocks of Ke Lu were quickly near 1 or 2 days left)?

Svante Carl - I was a bit surprised that he let his time drop to such a low level right at the beginning, perhaps he was not familiar yet with the vacancy feature at FICGS. I can't see his reasons for this, or how much time he actually could spend on his games. I was ahead in each game when it timed out, though.

I think that game 2 was quite even from the start. The skirmish in the lower left resulted in me capturing a little group, but he got a nice framework on the lower side. My prospects of reducing this were a bit hampered by the fact that my right side group was not completely settled. I found a way to sacrifice some stones to settle my group while fixing the framework's extent and keeping sente to secure my top side, at which time, the game was still almost even, but I think that I was a few points ahead then. Later, I could seal the top side with some extra points through some rather blunt forcing moves.

In game 3, my opponent made an approach with White 24 that is usually regarded as bad in this situation, because the pincer Black 25 works out very well in conjunction with the stone on the left side. He tried to settle with White 26, but I refused to make things so easy, even though the result from the usual joseki would not have been bad. He resisted Black 27, but I think that White 28 is an overplay. The resulting fight left me with nice profit in that corner and sente, while he made some centre thickness. I then tried to carefully neutralize this thickness, but I may have played some slack moves in the course. Later, I was able to keep a little moyo in the lower right centre, and then I poked into his right-side territory where he had left a serious weakness earlier.

Game 1 started out with an interesting fight in the upper right. After White 42, both the three captured black and the two almost captured white stones retain some serious aji, which I came back to fix on my side a few moves later. When I could set up a splitting attack with Black 77, he was able to connect his two weak groups, but in bad shape. I continued to keep this dragon separated from the top, planning to invade the top side afterwards. However, with White 110, instead of connecting by playing B6, he saved some centre stones, and I proceeded to separate and kill the dragon. He may have overlooked that my upper left side group was still able to live after 110 and 111.

In game 4, after White 22, Black's stones on the left side have a strange relation. The three stones in the corner are a bit far from C10, but putting another move here is way too slow. He tried to remedy this situation with the following moves. After Black 27, there are weaknesses left in both sides' shape. When I entered with White 32, I thought that his weakness at F13 would let me settle easily, but he attacked very hard. After White 60, there are some weaknesses in my shape, but he also has a weakish group in the centre. Playing at K10 with White 76 before taking the two stones with H2 felt very important to me. At move 94, I couldn't find a good move to complete my moyo at the top, but I thought that I had found a good point to invade. This was much harder than I thought, since after Black 95, the 3-3 point fails to live. With 96 and 98, I thought that I would get a ko, but he played a line that I had excluded earlier on account of too many cuts in Black's outside shape. However, with Black 107, he made things very difficult for me, since cutting at P16 doesn't work out too well -- my inside group doesn't have enough liberties. I cut at Q14 instead with the hope to at least get some outside forcing opportunities that might have been able to keep me in the game. I think that Black 115 should have been at R12, because after White 116, R12 and N16 have become miai. Black 117 just doesn't work at all. I really got lucky in the end here. These impressions are naturally one-sided, and I would be really interested what stronger players might say about these games.

FICGS - Thank you very much and have good games !

Svante Carl - Thank you!

Michael Sharland    (2009-03-04 20:57:02)
Show the cards & history

I'll agree with Don that just showing the cards in place would be more intuitive and is what everybody is used to seeing.

As far as the viewer goes, I would say that it is a nice improvement but finding key hands is still very difficult when the history gets long. One should be able to more easily navigate through the history by hand rather than move. Also, it would be nice if the PGN did clearly demark where points are won so key hands can more easily be found.

Keep up the good work.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-07 01:46:52)
(!) if one move more to play

Looks normal, the symbol should appear only when there's (at least) one move more to play (so you may have one pending move when you load "My games", the symbol will appear only when you have 2 pending moves when the timer expires - that was not the case in your example).

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-10 18:25:31)
Topalov vs. Anand

Veselin Topalov vs. Viswanathan Anand [reigning FIDE world champion] is the final match in the current FIDE world championship cycle, but it is now official that FIDE postponed the match already, from September 2009 to (at least) April 20th, 2010, and opened a new bidding process.

Where will the match take place ? To be continued.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-10 18:28:08)
Big Chess WCH

Yes, I agree... 2 rounds would be enough. If the current champion plays a final match against a challenger, it would take one more year at least. That's a pity.

Don Groves    (2009-03-11 04:16:19)
On all FICGS pages please

The (!) would be even more useful (imho) if it appeared on all FICGS pages, not only My Games. When I'm on My Games, I'm looking for new moves but if I'm browsing the Forum, for example, having the (!) appear in the page title would alert me to switch to My Games.

Marc Lacrosse    (2009-03-15 15:35:28)
a problem with tournament scheduling.

This is the third time I find myself enrolled in a tournament at a completeley inapproppriated time with regard to my professional duties and leisure time possibilities.

Thibault, you should do something. At least when a tournament start has been delayed for months (or more) like this one please do send a mail or message to all players announcing the date of beginning and asking for confirmation of their participation.

For what regards myself and this wch-4 round-robin final I am in the complete impossibility to free the required amount of time by now : so I regret but I have no other choice than announcing my forfeit for all these games. Please do take my name off.

By the way I won't enroll in any other championship qualifications as long as there are no better rules regarding scheduling and announcements of tournaments start date

It's completely unacceptable to stay without any news for months and then to suddenly discover that you have a new set of games running.

Marc

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-15 17:55:32)
a problem with tournament scheduling

I agree, Marc.

Well, to summary the situation is :

1. It actually happens that tournaments start up to two months late in wch cycles.

2. It would take too much time (compared to the wch tournaments duration) to ask for a confirmation to all qualified players (+ spamfolder & other problems), particularly when a few players may suddenly be invited in a tournament.

3. Players can only withdraw their participation before the wch tournament starts.

IMO, to keep this rapid format, the rules should evolve to : "A player may withdraw from a wch tournament up to 15 days after it started, if he did not play a single move. In this case a player will be immediately invited in replacement. As it is not possible to wait for all confirmations, this player may withdraw from the tournament by following the same rule."

This may at least partly solve the problem. By following this new rule, you may be replaced without any penalty.

What do you think ?

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-15 18:58:58)
wch cycles & rules

In addition and to make the rules clearer and less hard, we may envisage to launch a wch new cycle every 8 or 9 months - in practice 6 months seems to be really short. There are always a few games that can't be adjudicated before the very end.

About the idea to send an email to qualified players to warn them about the start date of the tournaments, I agree that it would be the best way but it may also delay tournaments (+ spamfolder & so on..). In the news, I wrote that the round-robin final would start as soon as game 22898 finished a while ago, then deleted it, which is not enough also. So if all tournaments surely start when a new cycle starts (clearly announced in the news page), it may solve the problem. What do you think ?

Marc Lacrosse    (2009-03-18 10:48:07)
Yes but ...

Interesting idea but there could be a negative side effect : we could see an increase of the number of players leaving or silently withdrawing which is one of the most annoying aspects of correspondence chess IMHO.

Marc

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-18 11:04:06)
Ratings floor

That's a real problem (any other opinions on this ?) In my opinion, a rating floor may lead to more trouble in higher ratings : A player who starts at 2300 and drops to 1700 has more chances to drop all his games again than to play seriously. Anyway, once more there's no perfect solution IMO.

Nadia Kaif    (2009-03-20 04:35:16)
Which is the best forum

Hi Everyone I am new here. I would like to know about the best chess forums around the world. Please share what you know.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-31 22:22:54)
Poker ratings

I've just changed the rating rules for Poker. I noticed that poker ratings moved really fast, most probably too fast. Also I think it is better to favour experience to new ratings, at least under a certain rating limit (just like Go rating rules). I'll keep an eye on ratings during a few months. Consequently now the poker rating rules are :

"The poker holdem rating list takes account of rated poker holdem games played at any time control.

If you have no poker rating, you have to play at least one rated poker holdem game to appear in the rating list. Poker holdem ratings are adjusted in real time after each result :

Performance = Opponent Current Rating + 350 if the game is won, -350 if the game is lost.

Case of a win (rating > 1999) : New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20
Case of a win (rating < 2000) : New Rating = ((18 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 20

Case of a loss : New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20

The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is superior to 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player.

In case of a loss against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Current Rating - 200."

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-06 02:31:08)
2 months advantages

Avoiding rating peaks and a clearer history are probably the most important points.

Don Groves    (2009-04-08 06:58:42)
Time control

My suggestion is still the same -- have an intermediate time control for some minimum number of moves in a given period. For example, at least one move per week when not on vacation. I feel that if a player cannot make one move per week, they must have too many games for their available time.

For Poker, it should be even more moves per week since there isn't nearly as much to analyze at each move.

Nick Burrows    (2009-04-12 21:16:56)
Olympiad

I think it's a good idea also

I am alligned with Marc's anti-nationalistic thinking in a political sense, but here it is simply a 'construct' to initiate some camaraderie and interest.
after all we still all enjoy the olympiad, and playing for club teams can be fun, because chess is such an individualistic pursuit that any opportunity to play in a team, is really just an opportunity to socialise with people that you have a shared interest with.

Pitting players from different countries against each other, has no ultimate meaning - but at least it's an idea that will initiate interest and is therefore positive.
For the people without enough countrymen for a team, why not a UnitedNations team? so all can be included.

William Taylor    (2009-04-12 23:33:05)
Teams vs Olympiad

Nick: I haven't played teams tournaments on Playchess but I'd guess they're similar to those on ICC. I agree that they feel rather pointless, but I think that's just because they're over quickly and you won't play in the same team with the same people again. Getting a (perhaps starting annualy) team tournament or league going on FICGS would be quite different I think, with longer time controls, hopefully well-established teams and perhaps prize money. Maybe there's room for a team tournament and an Olympiad - if not either would be nice.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-14 01:14:32)
Draw offer and rules

Hello all, I'd like your opinion on this case :

A player sent a message with his move in a chess game saying "I offer draw", but he forgot to check the draw box.

His opponent replies with his next move saying his opponent most probably forgot to check the box, but finally the first player plays a new move saying he is sorry but now prefers to continue the game.

What's your opinion on this ? Should the rules be changed to adjudicate the game as a draw (if the draw offer was clear enough) or should the draw checkbox preval in all cases and in this case should it be added in the rules also ?

Thanks for your comments on this.

Nick Burrows    (2009-04-14 04:31:04)
Draw offer

I think that the message i offer a draw is clearly stated and binding and should be in the rules.

However, the second player should send a message back saying 'i accept your draw, you didnt tick the box.'
Now the game is drawn.

The act of making a move in o.t.b chess signifies the refusal of a draw offer, so now the position the players have reached is not the position a draw was offered for.

Therefore i don't think a draw should be adjudicated, although perhaps the player who offered then refused, doesn't play 'in the spirit of the game'.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-14 15:37:00)
Draw offer and rules

Very good point. I quite agree with this but it is now a bit complicated for players (more or less beginners) to know what to do in such a case. We can also imagine the case of a player saying "I resign" without checking the resign box.

FICGS rules are official (FIDE) chess rules when proper FICGS rules don't exist. It may apply there, but I feel we should clarify and why not change the rules to make it clearer & simpler.

Let's see what is your favourite proposal :

1) A draw offer sent in the message (draw box unchecked) should be considered as a real draw offer if the opponent called the referee to accept it and did not reply to the move.

2) A draw offer sent in the message (draw box unchecked) should be considered as a real draw offer if the opponent called the referee to accept it, even if he replied to the move.

3) A draw offer sent in the message (draw box unchecked) shouldn't be considered as a real draw offer because there shouldn't be such human decision in server chess and it could be ambiguous.

The proposition 2) may bring problems IMO, I think 3) is generally better in server chess (maybe even in OTB chess when the sheet in not signed, I suppose the case happened already) as there should be as few human decision as possible, 1) is more fair in a certain way though.

Nick Burrows    (2009-04-14 17:12:27)
draw?

If the player recieving the written draw offer replies with 'i accept the draw - please tick the box', does the software allow for the first player to offer the draw out of turn?

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-14 20:23:03)
Time control in Poker games, new rule ?

Hi all,

The first poker holdem games started a few months ago, it may be time to discuss new improvements around time controls in "correspondence" (> 1 day) poker games.

The problem is obviously that the dead man defence [to last the game until death when losing] could apply, at least theorically. In my opinion, we should try to find an idea to reduce the thinking time for the players who are in an inferior "position", or for both players, or maybe the maximum total time accumulated (now 100 days) and/or the time to play a single move (now 60 days)... well, actually there are many possibilities but I can't find one simple, clear & fair enough. To change the basic time control 30 days + 1 day/move would not be a good idea IMO, an inferior increment would bring problems also.

Ideas are welcome !

William Taylor    (2009-04-14 20:26:59)
draw offer

Definitely not number 2. Either number 1 or 3 would be fine. Ideally a draw offer would be binding, but I can see that there could be problems if it's worded slightly strangely. For example, it might look like a clear draw offer but the person who wrote it might not speak English as their first language and might not have intended it as such. Perhaps number 1 would create more problems than it would solve.

Will Denayer    (2009-04-14 20:51:22)
Draws

I agree with Mr.Lehnhoff in this. The rule should be clear: if you want to offer a draw, you need to tick the box. That keeps everything very simple.

Normajean Yates    (2009-04-15 00:11:37)
I vote for #3.

Rules should be to resolve things if a players is violating the spirit of the game severely. If opponents change their mind; IMO this does not fall in that category; it shows carelessness of draw-offering player.

Players who make draw offers should read the rules once more and make the offer clearly; then there is no problem.

Otherwise an opponent can actually change their mind... this is: more important than the fact of not-OTB: looong-time-controls. [One can imagine these time controls OTB also, 40 days/10 moves - in theory! ;)]

So, #3.

Don Groves    (2009-04-15 02:01:35)
Time controls

In all FICGS games, I think there should be an intermediate time control to prevent silent withdrawal, or what you call the "dead man defense."

If a player cannot make at least one move per week when not on vacation, the game should end.

If fewer than ten moves have been played, the game would not count in the ratings.

Normajean Yates    (2009-04-15 13:34:38)
shortest possible bigchess checkmates?

Experienced bigchess players please respond!

What are the shortest checkmates in bigchess, for white and for black (e.g. in 'normal' 8x8 chess they are the "fool's mates" - 3 moves = 5 half-moves for white; 2 moves = 4-half-moves for black..)

So which are the bigchess "fool's mates" (shortest mates)?

Normajean Yates    (2009-04-15 21:32:20)
needed earlier is bigchess viewer..

Before that, we need a bigchess-pgn- viewer (simple, one game bigchess-pgn, no side-variations) :)

Also, an offline bigchess-pgn-viewer (available for download) would be most welcome...

M. Thibault, please add to (big)chessfriends' wish-list ;)

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-17 01:19:40)
Draw offer and rules

"To allow that player to change his mind after seeing the next move is a violation of chess ethics" .. every violation of chess ethics do not end the game, actually this is an even more complex problem that we could discuss also.

In my opinion the case should be clearly explained in the rules & help section. Well you probably understood that I'm quite favourable to #3 but let's try to convince each other.

Don Groves    (2009-04-17 09:37:49)
Draw offers

I don't see anything ambiguous about sending "Draw offered" or equivalent words to the opponent. It's the same thing as saying those words over the board. The intent is clear and unambiguous.

What is ambiguous to me is allowing a player to send those words to an opponent and then claim later that they were not intended to offer a draw.

Scott Nichols    (2009-04-17 12:47:18)
Team chess league?

What about instead of teams from a certain country, we could form teams from the many friends we have found here. It could be in the form of a league. An open section, a section where the "average" of the 4 players is under 2200, 1800 etc. We could form the teams on our own and enter the waiting list as a team with some fun names. What do you think?

Nick Burrows    (2009-04-17 19:46:43)
increment

That is certainly an improvement, whether it is enough to solve people 'dying' is unclear.
Perhaps, change to this and see how it plays out.

Normajean Yates    (2009-04-18 00:53:38)
Don, why is the tick box there, then?

Don (Groves), I don't see that someone who can clearly say 'I offer draw' can find ticking the 'draw offer' box *in addition* so difficult.

Some people are *not* courteous, (remember, we both had this common chess-opponent who just would not resign days after being checkmated; Thibault adjudicated both our games?) that's why I prefer unambiguous rules. I dont mean I prefer legalese everywhere; far from it; I just think that, say in the case under discussion, ticking the 'draw offer box' (in addition to courteous remarks on the position etc if any) is unambiguous and simple, so why make it complicated?

If only people were all showed a certain minimum level of niceness; if only people didn't retract verbal draw offers (without draw box ticked) on ficgs; if only people didn't kill; if only people didn't run concentration / extermination camps, if only people didn't drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and so on - it would be a much more beautiful world. But sadly, things are not so...

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-18 22:45:26)
?

Hello Ulrich, I just logged through your account and I can open the games without any problem, could you please describe what happens ? You may also try the "fast moves" mode.

Normajean Yates    (2009-04-18 23:17:19)
Don+Rodolfo, what about verbal *moves* ?

By the same logic, what is wrong with my saying 'my next move will be Ne4' and helpfully putting a link in the message to a diagram of the resulting position?

after all, you get clock time for free, because you are thinking on my time!

Would you consider *that* binding? If so, would it be 'binding' for you to do the right thing i.e. request Thib to add time to my clock and subtract it from yours? [if Thib. doesnt, at least you tried..)] ;)

Extending the logic - start a game here but make moves informally by email, AFTER the game is over then for ficgs's record we repeat those moves on the ficgs board [which is still at starting pos.] --- how much of that is 'binding'?

Normajean Yates    (2009-04-19 23:35:17)
Don, please to read my post again :)

it is all in the title... (*this* one, I mean)

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-20 14:10:03)
Draw offers

Well, if the rules were clear enough, this discussion wouldn't have happened, I presume. Finally I'll just make clearer than only the tick boxes should be taken in account. One rule more will be better than nothing in this case.

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2009-04-21 17:54:24)
Team chess league

I propose to start with 4 players per team.

Daniel Parmet    (2009-04-21 19:26:04)
team league 1st then olympiad later

the olympiad sounds like a great idea except I think Thibault is right there still needs to be more players sign up for countries and teams of 4. Maybe just a team league for now for u2200 and u1800 would be coool.

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2009-04-21 20:25:51)
Team chess league

I don't like the idea of national teams even if "my" team exists only of players of one single country. If four players decide to play in a team, then this team should also be able to take part in this team competition.

William Taylor    (2009-04-21 20:54:07)
Teams

Let's get a team league going and then an olympiad can come later if people want it. I don't like the idea of 2-player teams at all, so perhaps an olympiad should wait until we've got more players. 4 players sounds fine for the team league (5 or 6 would be fine too - I wouldn't go lower than 4).

Scott Nichols    (2009-04-21 22:51:04)
4-person teams

It should be 4 players to a team. The under 2200 section the ratings should AVERAGE under 2200, e.g. a 2511, 2278, 1804, 2205=AVG. 2199.50. Same for other sections. Teams should form on their own and enter a waiting list. A league would be the best if we can get that much organized.

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2009-04-22 22:01:52)
Team chess league

Maybe I'm the only one, but if the same nationality is compelling for all players of a team, I am not further interested in this competition.

Don Groves    (2009-04-23 06:52:56)
Please send a move with a draw offer!

I think this is standard in correspondence chess and it is necessary on FICGS because there is no way to respond to a draw offer without also sending a move in return and this is hard to do when it's not your turn!

Don Groves    (2009-04-23 22:35:20)
Move with draw offer

I understand the offer is not valid -- the problem is how to continue the game!

It seems the only solution is for me to send my opponent a private message declining the offer. This could lead to misunderstanding.

On the other hand, the system says it is my turn, so can I make another move even though my opponent hasn't moved?

A can of worms has been opened...

A quick solution could be to add another check box for declining a draw offer.

Does anyone know how this is handled on other sites? A

Normajean Yates    (2009-04-24 00:37:23)
clarificatory note to my post above..

To be absolutely clear, those were *proper* draw offers; i.e. move sent with draw-offer-box checked.

In fact in all three cases no message was sent; neither in the message box, nor by email, nor by semaphore, nor by postcard, nor by carrier-pigeon.

Normajean Yates    (2009-04-24 05:24:14)
re lennon/yko ono and chess...

Oh dear, quoting lennon's 'imagine' made me some sort a sitting duck but nobody's noticed it yet so I'll preempt that line of attack by pointing it out myself :)

I had forgotten, in the 'no more war' (that was the Vietnam war) sit-ins /bed-ins /exhibitions/ 'happenings' by Ono and Lennon, Yoko Ono had exhibited this sequence of chess sets where the two sides were indistinguishable --- or, more clearly, there was only one side - there was no 'Other'. [and only Yoko Ono 'playing']..

So, if I were to be consistent, I shouldn't be playing chess or any competitive game - against living beings at any rate - here or anywhere -:(

But, saved by something Thibault used to have on this site [I suppose it is still one of those quotes whose turn to be the 'featured quote' comes] - essentially, one is competing against oneself...

but woe! :(
If so, then once I have won a game [ie see the win clearly] why do I insist on actually completing the game, if I am 'only' competing against oneself?

I think I managed to score something which has the feel of an own goal ^^:-|

Normajean Yates    (2009-04-26 17:51:27)
to Don: re courtesy(contd.)

This is a continuation - to be precise, completion - of the post of mine earlier in this thread; the post titled 'Don, why is the tick box there, then?'.

I said in that post 'Some people are *not* courteous': and something stirred in my memory and I remember it now so It has to be said.

In the international chat box some months ago, I posted something about Goerge Orwell fighting in the Spanish civil-war - the anti-fascist-Iberian-uprising part of it, to wit - as part of P.O.U.M. - a marxist but independent-of-moscow (and soon crushed by Moscow) party which co-operated closely with the anarchists (CNT-FAI)(Confederación Nacional del Trabajo - Federación Anarquista Ibérica).

Well I only reached as far as the P.O.U.M. when *you* (Don Groves) interrupted by posting (in the international chat box) "what are you smoking, Normajean?"

Now, Mr Groves, I leave it to you to decide whether it is not *extremely* discourteous, not to say downright bloody rude, to innuendo that someone who [in fact] posted something above your intellectual level is therefore not making sense and is in fact on street drugs.

What I smoke or not smoke is my bloody business; the point here is that you are free to take the view find that all string-theory papers (just visit http://arxiv.org/) and so on are nonsense and therfore the authors and the referees are all on street drugs; and Hawkins and Penrose are, and Einstein was, on street drugs likewise (for it is commonly cranky *engineers* who tend to equate general relativity with its weak-field-limit/approximation);

But;

Since I haven't yet heard anything from you that has a hint of a modicum of apology for that *insulting* (or, on the least worst construction, extremely *partonising*) remark of yours; so:

People playing chess against you would be well advised to have clear rather than informal rules, because the evidence suggests that you are part of the 'be-gratuitously-rude' club.

In my opinion.

Thank you for reading this.

Normajean Yates    (2009-04-26 21:40:27)
Thibault, of course not! :)

I was happy, in fact! :) And thank you for your appreciation!

As far as the previous post is concerned, it is to remind Don Groves [he is 70 years old and probably doesnt realise when he is insulting / being patronising to people.

That's why if you think it is inappropriate, I request that you wait till Mr Don Groves reads it [or mail it to Mr Don Groves] before you delete that post (and this one)...

But Thib, even if you have to delete the posts, keep the first line of this post, please? - The line about my happiness and my gratitude to you! I am human after all and *need* some appreciation!

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-26 23:20:26)
I mean...

I meant that I do not think that "what are you smoking ?" is insulting, at least when it's said to you (in that context, because of your verve compared to most people) - it is really familiar though. If Don does not realise when he's insulting by saying this, I'm not sure that everyone realise he/she's insulted when he/she's told that.

As for Grothendieck, I prefer not to look at his works until I have a broadband connection, it may take too much time. (33 kbps here, yes!)

Normajean Yates    (2009-04-27 00:17:39)
Thib; Grothendieck and vietnam..

Thib, at least, look up Grothendieck's solidarity with Vietnam: he first presented the new foundations of algebraic geometry (which later formed his book EGA) at a seminar in the jungles near Hanoi when the USA was saturation-bombing Hanoi (the guerrillas has shifted the university to the jungles for the seminar for Grothendieck's safely; Grothendieck did not want it but it was argued it that because of his presence the University might be "accidentally" targetted by the USA which might result in deaths of lots of people, not only him.)

Normajean Yates    (2009-04-28 09:12:25)
to Don:Ah well, if you dont recall it...

Mr Groves,
So you don't recall it; and then there is the fact that I thought *all* the chat-posts were available for recall if one clicked 'more messages' at the bottom of the chat column, but I saw that there was a cutoff there so unless *someone else* remembers or unless Thibault has the archives, I am in the unenviable position of not being able to prove it...

My memory says there was in fact no emoticon with your comment. But my present higher-than-the-usually-high blood-pressure plus a colitis-attack I am down with, means that I cannot be sure of that...

However, in my experience, my hypertension and the occasional colitis attack doesn't trigger the confabulation of a whole sentence like "what are you smoking"?

In view of the other interactions between you and me here I will let bygones be bygones; and I still would even were that chat-post still available...

However, I try to avoid *unnecessary* stress and complications in my life; so henceforth for my own protection I prefer to keep a safe distace from you, at least for a certain indeterminate cooling-off period. Thats fair enough, I think.

Normajean Yates    (2009-04-28 15:45:15)
Rodolfo I feel so guitty..

Please do not mock me - or *do* mock me - I deserve mockery...

Scott Nichols    (2009-04-29 04:06:05)
Lesson learned by all.

Nick always has a good answer. I liked his answer in the team chess debates and here also. But hats off to King Thibault. Are you a counselor in the real world Thib? You could charge big bucks for your sage advice. Unless of course FICGS has made you independently wealthy. :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-29 21:59:19)
Player games search

Right.. not a mockery, I know that the site is not clear enough on such things, sometimes there are so many ways, but none is really obvious :)

Daniel Parmet    (2009-04-30 00:30:12)
Error in bold

Thanks Thibault for the new filter but there is a minor error. When I click running tournaments it still leaves all tournaments bolded as though this were selected. (no big deal really just thought you'd like to know)

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-30 12:00:07)
Error in bold

True, it should be clearer now. Thanks !

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-30 12:47:48)
Rated or unrated ?

Should this team tournament be rated or not in your opinion ? At a first sight it seems to me that high-rated players would think about playing twice as they can meet players with low ratings, but according to at least one of them I may be wrong on this...

Don Groves    (2009-05-01 00:25:42)
Good change!

The page is so much clearer now and easier to navigate -- merci beaucoup!

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-01 20:57:25)
Applying FICGS rules

I just had a deeper look at the 12 games and I applied FICGS rules only (just like in the match Lacrosse-Ghysens).

According to me, Xavier has an advantage in game 28302, it is not so clear in game 28305 but IMO this game should be rated also. As a result, 4 games will be rated in this match, Xavier's future rating is now 2577.

Normajean Yates    (2009-05-02 00:56:55)
I am patient !

- will remind once very 6 months :)

Another suggestion: let's some of us become free members of some online chess-games database site; so that we can post there to suggest including ficgs games - then transposition problem will be solved at least for completed games... just search that database site..

I use chesslab.com among others - I suggest some of us lobby chesslab.com for including ficgs games. After all, these are much higher-than-average quality as these are engine+human (=centaur) games...

Sophie Leclerc    (2009-05-06 04:04:43)
Team

I want to play, Anyone who wants to have me in your team or want to play, contact me please.

I believe each team can get only 1 point per round, a 2-2 would count as a draw and 3-1 would count as one point.

William Taylor    (2009-05-06 11:20:14)
Scoring

My slight preference would be for a more normal system such as 2 points for a team win, and 1 for a draw, with board points only being used for tiebreaks. (I think this could potentially lead to more 'team tactics' - for example, if you saw that one member of your team had an easy win and the other two games were likely to be drawn, you might opt for a safe line rather than going for wild complications - and if one game was going to be lost, you might head for the wild complications in an effort to win.)

Vadim Khachaturov    (2009-05-06 16:14:00)
team tournament

Consider me in. I dont care whether it is rated or not. As to points score, we can do it in both ways: total points score and 2-1-0 points system. I would join any team with a big pleasure.

Iouri Basiliev    (2009-05-07 11:32:54)
1st team tournament !

If someone from Ukraine want to play in the team - please answer here or write to me. Preliminary team name is "Yellow-Blue Warriors" :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-11 23:05:09)
Poker & chance

90% luck ? This is true when you're talking about a certain number of hands, not in all cases of course.. So when you consider several tournaments (norms), so ie. 6 games * 6 tournaments * 600 moves (let's say 300 hands), we're talking about 10,000 hands .. The chancy factor "disappears" when you play 500,000 hands. I do not pretend to explain anything about poker theory, but it is quite clear to me that theorically the possibility of norms is not a totally stupid idea (but it still has to be discussed for sure).

Daniel Parmet    (2009-05-11 03:02:30)
thoughts

oh also the reason I don't play more big chess is cause the average game goes over 200 moves and that assumes they resign once its clear they are lost... I can see games going to 600 moves if you play to mate.

Iouri Basiliev    (2009-05-14 00:28:53)
Yellow-Blue Warriors

One more player, please!

Normajean Yates    (2009-05-15 21:00:55)
yes, and:

no team is called 'the crusaders' so perhaps 'moudjahidienne' is not appropriate.. though I suggested the french spelling [I hope I got it right this time] becuse it reminds English-speakers of Algerian freedom fighters [the religious ones - iirc the term does *not* occur in Frantz Fanon's 'the wretched of the earth' nor in Sartre's famous introduction to that book] against France; and not the taliban-types - though when the mujahidin were fighting the *soviets* with US help [understatement], Nixon called them freedom-fighters..

I am not sure whether jihad means 'holy war' or just 'war' - in the latter case mujahidin would mean or would have meant warriors.. ('crusaders' - from the derivation from the cross, definitely meant holy warriors - I say 'meant' because to say 'mean' would be to commit the etymological fallacy (i.e. equating etymology with current meaning; which would make 'wife' a synonym of 'cow' or something iirc..)
Don (Groves), or anyone volunteering, please look it up --- I am so exhausted now I don't have the energy. Maybe in a couple of days - now I am suddenly curious about this - what does and did 'jihad' actually mean - does or did it necessarily have holy connotations?

The term itself is from pre-Islamic polytheistic Arabia, (Mohammed was *not* known for coining new words - that was *Shakespeare* (and later, Joyce ;)) strengthening my doubts..

Normajean Yates    (2009-05-16 04:01:40)
oh - right, Don!

yes I remember now - jihad <-> mujah-i-din : 'din' pronounced 'deen' = religion/faith.. [<-> = coomon root; I dont know what the root is - I purchased the Oxford english <->arabic dictionary but it is at present tedious for me to refer to because Ive to learn or look up the arabic alphabet first, in the arabic alphabetical order]

thanks Don -- (also, happy that my recent stupidity seems to have been really excused; I wrote that request to Don [to 'look it up' - i meant 'unless you know already' but forgot to put that in :)] with (apologies to Kiekegaard) 'fear and trepidation' ..

Normajean Yates    (2009-05-17 02:38:48)
wow - great game!

bigchess game # 31148 Pichelin-Legrand 0-1; as Thib. posted above... I voted for it as 'besr game' - people please follow it and consider voting for it!

Normajean Yates    (2009-05-17 03:09:39)
Don : point of etymology revisited!

Don Groves posted and I agreed:'"The Arabic suffix "uddin" or "idin" means "of the faith." Hence a mujahidin is a "warrior of the faith," or a holy warrior.'

Still havent gotten down to learning to use the oxford arabic-english dictionary, but:

Don, I'm afraid your derivation won't do - you might still be right, but not for the reason you gave.

You see, mujahideen is just the plural of 'mujahid', 'mujahid' = one who does 'jihad' [arabic and hebrew are both semitic languages: people who use the term 'anti-semite' often forget this (because of the nonscientific 'ham' and 'sam' myths thrown in - so like hebrew, arabic has this - root in the middle, and modification affects the root and possibly adds prefix and suffix.. i remember reading this in chomsky - linguistic paper not political)

Khatoon (= lady; no religious overtone here); plural Khwateen = ladies

Talib (=student); plural Taliban

Mujahid (='jihad'-doer); plural Mujahideen

So we are back to the question:

Etymologically speaking, does 'jihad' just mean war, or does it mean holy war? (the current meaning is a different question..)

On this point: until 2001 no one including me would see any problem in saying - such-and-such is a lone crusader for human rights (or for animal rights, or for the separation of church and state, or for whatever cause) - Bush-Cheney-Blair&co since ensured that the word 'crusade' became an avoidable word again..

Imagine reading the following sentence in 1999, and in 2009:

"Richard Dawkins has launched a *crusade* against all religions in general, and against christianity in paricular." ;)

Normajean Yates    (2009-05-22 05:19:29)
Curioser and curiouser! How..?

I don't see how the following happened, given my reading of the rules: William Taylor, you are probably the best person to explain where I am getting the rules wrong!

William Taylor in:
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_02__000005:
points: 6/8. *not* the leader: Domenico Riccio was the sole leader with 7.5/8, second was Norman Wilson (6.5/8) -

William Taylor, you were third in your stage-1 group so how did you get to reach stage 2?
(FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_04__000004 William Taylor and four others tied for 2nd place out of 7)

Well I suppose the stage-1 group-2 top two players withdrew, right? (I *could* check it myself, but the tedium/learning ratio would be too high ;)

William Taylor    (2009-05-22 07:28:56)
Different world championships

I qualified for FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_04__000004 from tournament FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_07__000004, not tournament FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_02__000005. However, I didn't win that tournament either - I came second.

My initial guess as to how I qualified from that one is that more than 1 player needed to qualify to make up numbers for the next round - it was quite a large group and I seem to remember reading something about that in the rules. Second guess - Vadim Khachaturov withdrew. Third guess - the large sum of money that I sent Thibault with an e-mail saying 'please let me into the second round' had the desired effect.

That answer is based on about 30 seconds' thought - I'll have a closer look when I get back from what I suspect will be a highly unpleasant physics exam.

Vadim Khachaturov    (2009-05-22 11:13:20)
WC reglament

William, there is the fourth and the most real reason of all this. The number of groups for the second stage changes unexpectedly from WC to WC (3-5). Its clear, that the number of winning place in first stage group will change too.It brings to some paradoxal situations. E.g. my proceeding to the second stage after sharing 3-5th places in WC 3, and not proceeding after sharing 1-2nd in WC 5.The worst thing is that one cannot know how many groups of stage 2 will be before WC starts.

Normajean Yates    (2009-05-23 03:17:28)
Thib. thought of everything: & poured ..

Thib. thought of everything: all the answers are hidden in the rules somewhere ;)

And also poured water on some pleasing speculations on the lines of [from William's last post: ;Third guess -' - ] the large sum of money that [William] sent Thibault with an e-mail saying 'please let me into the second round' had the desired effect. ;)

And since the reason was what Thib. posted, that was money down the drain - wait: why was *William* the Chosen One to be invited 'to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player' - any connection with those large sums...

... over to 'Private Eye' and 'News Of The World' ... ;)

Normajean Yates    (2009-05-23 07:50:33)
wikichess: extra goodies! but why ..

If you access wikichess *without* logging in; you will see the following extra goodies:

1. '... or enter a line' [below which is a form to enter an opening line for search]

2. 'Or find an opening in the chess openings directory.' [link to chess openings directory]

3.'Openings most analyzed :' [at present:] Traxler counter-attack, Latvian gambit, Kingston defense [all hypertext links]

These goodies are excellent! But Thib. has forgotten to make them available if you are logged-in. Thib, please rectify! (Or is there a reason why you have to be logged-out to access these? I can't think of any...)

Normajean Yates    (2009-05-26 12:31:32)
Thib. - best wishes for site in these ..

.. recession times.Improvements, to-do lists etc. can wait if necessary.

I fell in love with the site at first sight - such a classy approach - not like some of the garish american sites.

So I hope that in these times of recession, there is no serious cash flow problems you are facing... I am sure all of us want this site to live long!

Again I say; improvements, to-do lists etc. can wait if necessary: please concentrate on cash flow [if there is a serious problem there] -- that is the practical thing to do. This site is excellent as it is now!

Again, best wishes to Thibault the person, and may ficgs live long!

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-26 17:30:46)
Thanks :)

There's no problem with to-do lists.. actually it is just absolutely necessary.. I can't think about everything. I still have many things to improve, this year I developped much more the "other side" of the site and this was very exciting, I learnt a lot while doing this.. that will be useful for future improvements and it brings more and more visitors [the current statistics are about +10% every week for a few months (that's good :))] on the server (I try to redirect as many as potential players as possible here).

Speaking of the server, I'm not afraid of crisis or whatever, the statistics are just better and better now, that helps the site to distribute Epoints (potential money) prizes. Almost nobody claims for real money prizes but that's the finality (to distribute money prizes in free tournaments).. There are plenty of "successful" sites on the internet that offer money prizes (or costly services) for free but all of them are built on unrealistic views IMO, so they implode or cheat in a way as soon as they encounter success. Most of us know about the Facebook case that still lose money. FICGS grew very slowly during 2 or 3 years but IMO it was based on realistic views so don't worry, the site will survive after both of us, I'll take care of that :)

Normajean Yates    (2009-05-27 05:02:24)
Thank you Thib: and I am so relieved!

First, about the 'thank you' to Thib.: that is for responding :) Now, to business:

>Thib said: Speaking of the server, I'm not afraid of crisis or whatever, the statistics are just better and better now..

I am so relieved! Seriously.

>Thib. said: FICGS grew very slowly during 2 or 3 years but IMO it was based on realistic views..

Exactly! That was one of the first things I noticed when I discovered this site (early June last year, I think) - I phoned my partner [she and I were in different countries on that day; coincidentally, this month also..] - told her this site *will* survive, and chess.com will *not* survive [too much money wasted by Eric of chess.com even then] - [It was only in in May last year that I had noticed chess.com in its present incarnation (earlier it did *not* offer chess-*playing*, it was a chess-reference-material site only)

(My partner doesn't play chess but of course one doesn't have to be a chess-player to be interested in issues like this!)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(beginning of digression about chess.com (as a contrasting example):)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

well chess.com has *technically speaking* survived; but there is a graded level of paying members [silver-gold-diamond-platinum-what not] - each year paying membership has to be renewed [I am a free member there; I don't play games there now except on special request :) ] -- and..

Guess what, chess.com in a few months intoduced a system that gave a *playing advantage* to paying members: the more expensive grade you are in, the greater the paying advantage. So, as far as correspondence chess is concerned, can chess.com be now considered a chess site?

(In fact I posted a thread there last year suggesting that they should introduce auction: at any time any of the opponents in a game can bid to win a game. [even if they have lone K against K+Q+Q+R :}] - then if opponent doesn't make a bigger bid then the bidder wins the game. Minimum bid € 20,00 :) (chess.com is a US site ;) )There was some heated discussion over it.. Eric (the site owner - he is a decent chap, all said and done) prudently stayed away from that discussion :)

I posted in various threads there also directly saying that chess.com is probably the only *chess* site where the more you pay, the greater advantage you have in a *game*. Is that chess?

None of the above is defamatory: it is obviously true for anyone to check - and clearly Erik silently agrees - well good luck to him...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(end of digression about chess.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Thib. said: so don't worry, the site will survive after both of us, I'll take care of that :)

:)
I am sure now that you will :) (but not because both of us will suddenly die tomorrow, I hope ;))

Normajean Yates    (2009-05-28 03:40:31)
Thib, my auction suggestion was sarcasm!

Thib. please read it again (the part where I suggested auction at chess.com - or you can loook at my thread on this there - it is called 'the best chess money can buy' ;)

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/the-best-chess-money-can-buy

(I am not sure whether the link works for members only or for everyone; anyway free membership is a 5-minute process..)

That was sarcasm! I meant this: suppose you are left with K+Q v K. Sure win for you, no? At least you can't lose, even on time (insuff. material) ? Now my sarcastic suggestion was that: opponent bids €20 for the game, now if you cannot bid higher then opponent *wins* the game automatically!

Of course I thought until yesterday that no chess site will offer *that* kind of auction! but you said:

>Speaking of auction at chess.com, that's a funny idea and I just wonder why I did not think about a system where you can bet some epoints at any time in any game...

Surely *you* don't want *that* kind of auction here, do you? ;)

Exal de Jesus Garcia Carrillo    (2009-06-02 23:36:57)
How to change my country flag?

Hey, I want to change my country flag to my natal country Mexico instead the Chilean flag, Chile is the country I'm living currently.

so please help me, thanks.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-03 17:15:24)
At most...

I agree tambien, of course. At most, some positions are "dead", really easy to understand perfectly.

True, it is not so easy to throw some fire on the board in real games at a high level, so in correspondence chess games, but every good player know he has to (if he wants some chances to win at least), so this is the main part of the game nowadays, and when there's fire on board the complexity of the position may be sometimes far away from human and/or chess engines understanding. The problem is that human nature make us reproduce known positions much more than unknown ones, unlike chess engines, that's why computer games are not so often draws and may be really funny to watch !

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 !

Wayne Lowrance    (2009-06-04 01:44:44)
Draw offers

Tribault I do not know how it is addressed in other sites. But clearly you need to be careful where you tread here. Repeated draw offers seems on the surface rude. I have not seen the game, but according to Nick Burrows he feels he has winning chances and hence has refused the draw offers. That is clearly his right. If this evaluation is accurate the the repeated offers are in very bad taste.
I do not know if you have a review structure here for handling complaints. Having said this it is best if this site just runs on its own without intervention. Maybe extreme abuse should be reviewed. I dunno
Wayne

Michel van der Kemp    (2009-06-04 10:01:38)
re

Offering a draw is one thing, offering a draw in several consecutive moves is another. I would think that is harassment, especially when the other player has answered politely he thinks he has chances. Harassment should be fought.

I remember a case in FIDE tournament, where one player would offer a draw with each move. The player was first warned by referee, and when he didn't stop, was expelled from tournament.

One could argue if consecutive draw offers in correspondence chess should still be considered harassment, but it is still irritating to say the least.

Normajean Yates    (2009-06-05 03:07:37)
oh then minor technical change...

instead of the game having been drawn automatically, referee *adjudicates* it as a draw.

This ensures that fide rules are not violated, because a game result *can* be changed by adjudication: for example:

Suppose OTB, immediately after a game is over, the winning player is found to have a hidden transciever with a *log* showing that moves *were* transmitted and move-suggestions *were* recieved. And the player breaks down in tears and admits to cheating: pleading for leniency - not in re that particular game, but for a shorter ban-from-tournaments than s/he expects to get. In this case, at the very least the game would be readjudicated as a loss for said player, no?

Also, on ficgs the 50-move rule is not implemented; so a game won here which would otherwise be drawn under the 50-move rule - wouldn't *that* violate fide rules? For corr chess, it is more iecc/iccf than fide - fide will come around :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-05 13:13:41)
"reformed chess", "improved chess"

Speaking of rook endings, of course some -maybe most- are dead or at least understood positions, some are very complex for the human brain... I don't think chess is so unfair even with 2 pawns more, every good player has to know the endgames theory, that's the most important part of the game IMO (at least when learning), such draws only show that one didn't manage to complexify the game enough.

Nice ideas in these links Hannes, and there are many others even without changing the way the pieces move (e.g. time handicap..) but it is harder in correspondence chess. Actually we may regret that chess is chess in this current version. As chess rules are everything but "natural", it could have been different, maybe it should have been. It is too late to change anything now because most people want to play the same game than Fischer and Spassky :) .. History prevails, even very intelligent recent games like Blokus will never be the king of the game.

By the way does anyone know about the drawish problem in Xiangqi and Shogi ?

Normajean Yates    (2009-06-05 14:17:11)
no no 50-move rule shouldnt be there..

in correspondence chess - Thib. you were right not to implement the 50-move rule - please don't!

Hey people, don't you want to announce tablebase-mate in 132 with distance-to-conversion 98? If the 50-move rule is implemented, you'll never get that chance!

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-10 02:13:43)
Garvin' suggestion

Hi Wayne, actually I was thinking seriously about Garvin's suggestion in the case of keeping the 30 days per year but consequences were not clear to me indeed, I think that more days is a quite good compromise for everyone (30 days was the only choice due to previous wch cycle duration). It may slow down rapid games but that's probably better than to see a few games lost on time.

Garvin Gray    (2009-06-10 09:49:40)
change to rapid time control.

For the rapid games, I think the issue is the 1 move per game increment.

Perhaps having the time control as 20 days plus 3 days per move would be easier for people to manage and it guarantees that a player will have at least three days per move.

Marc Lacrosse    (2009-06-10 11:08:12)
Garvin : I do not agree

"For the rapid games, I think the issue is the 1 move per game increment. Perhaps having the time control as 20 days plus 3 days per move would be easier for people to manage and it guarantees that a player will have at least three days per move."

This is simply turning "rapid" games into standard ones !

If you feel that the one-day increment is too short then do enroll in standard tournaments

For what regards myself I already stated that I prefer a small number of fast games over a larger number of slower ones (this is even the reason why I more than once declined to play in advanced wch tournaments that were supposed to begin simultaneousy with other competitions I am in).

Just my two cents.

Marc

Daniel Parmet    (2009-06-24 02:50:06)
Learning Go

Greetings!
I really really want to learn to play Go (and play some of it on ficgs of course!). Does anyone have recommendation for the easiest way of learning the basics? Good websites for rules, follow masters etc. I appreciate any and all help!

Don Groves    (2009-06-24 04:05:04)
Go basics

Hi Daniel -- Sensei's Library is the best for learning Go: http://senseis.xmp.net/

Be forewarned, it's highly contagious ;-)

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-30 00:17:13)
WCH 6 waiting list

Hi Wayne, it is too early yet to open the waiting list, I only set the date to announce it but that's right, it may be not clear enough. You won't miss it anyway :)

Robert Mueller    (2009-06-30 17:08:22)
WCH6 has already been played

At least stage 1 has been played. How could anyone sign up for this event now, if it is already between stages 1 and 2?

Nick Burrows    (2009-07-04 07:55:18)
Minimum rating idea

A common problem encountered in correspondance chess is that of strong players forefitting several games and their rating dropping by hundreds of points

This spoils the tourny for lower rated players who often have a 2200 rated player in their group with a misleading rating of 1600.
It also de-stabilises the ratings across the whole site as many players grades are false.
Lastly, and of least concern because players who made the drop deserve some handicap - the artificially low-graded player has a whole year of uncompetitive matches as he waits to regain points.

In o.t.b tournaments in England, a method employed to stop rating cheats is that a player who has won a certain class of tournament previously, cannot re-enter at that level.
The equivalent here would be that your rating has a minimum value, equal to the highest rating requirement of a tournament class you have previously won.

This seems to solve the problems experienced by many on this site.

It may be said that the rating drop is a necessary deterrent to prevent players from doing this. My experience is that it occurs from factors out of one's control (illness) and any deterrant is irrelevant - just as a death penalty doesn't stop heroin addicts from stealing!

What d'yall think?

Nick Burrows    (2009-07-05 16:16:49)
Recent groups

It actually seems the norm rather than the exception that the lower groups are 'stacked' with at least 1 or 2 ex-2000+ rated players with low ratings

In my first Class C group after my rating drop there were 4 of us battling it out!

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-07-08 15:05:34)
Kasparov meets Obama

This is quite a surprise to me already, Barrack Obama met former chess world champion Garry Kasparov and other opposition leaders in Russia !

Nobody knows exactly what has been said during this meeting but the site Theotherrussia.org provided a full transcript of United Civil Front Chairman Garry Kasparov’s statement to president Barack Obama and an interesting interview of Garry Kasparov... The name of the forgotten Khodorkovsky appears several times.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5562

A good summary could be : "Obama seems like a man who doesn’t try to solve problems that don’t have solutions. He saves his energy and political capital on realistic goals. If there’s a big obstacle he simply takes it off the table and deals with what can be done." (Garry Kasparov)

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-07-09 23:20:06)
Men versus women

"(...) gender stereotypes can have a greatly debilitating effect on female players leading to a 50% performance decline when playing against males. Interestingly, this disadvantage is completely removed when players are led to believe that they are playing against a woman. This may, in part, occur because women choose a more defensive style when playing with men."

A must read article (at least funny) !

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5567

What do you think ? :)

Don Groves    (2009-07-13 11:00:55)
Team points

The team points are all 0/0 until at least two teams finish all their games against each other. Has that happened yet?

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-07-13 17:03:23)
Rules (reminder)

If a team scores 4-0 or 3-1 against another team, it is 2 points for the winning team and 0 for the other one, 1 point for each team if the score is 2-2.

So we still have to wait to see significant results. I'll publish clear results here as soon as possible.

Iouri Basiliev    (2009-07-13 20:24:46)
1st team tournament

Thx Thibault, it's clear now.

Klearchos Loukopoulos    (2009-07-14 21:47:18)
withdraw, me too!

Would it be possible to be removed from

FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000086

thematic chess, first moves : e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 d6 Nxf7.

Just this one, not the other one that is currently on nor the other, for which I'm still in the waiting list.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-07-15 13:23:38)
Withdraw

Hello Klearchos, you've been removed from the waiting list !

Klearchos Loukopoulos    (2009-07-16 01:24:05)
Re: withdraw

Many thanks!

Wayne Lowrance    (2009-07-23 17:29:16)
Rybka tablebase work qround bug

Thanks to Kullberg of Rybka forum fame. This long known bug has a work around that works. Just set max cpu to N-1, then exit and go back to engine paramaters and reset it to N where of course N is equal to max cpu's of your computer. then exit. That is all there is too it. It works, no one knows why, save Vas who said "it is now clear".
Wayne

Klearchos Loukopoulos    (2009-07-24 18:01:32)
vacations question

Hi all,

I just took a vacation but when I see my games I can still see the clock ticking and removing time available. Is that normal?

Cheers,

Klearchos

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-07-24 19:53:29)
time per move

Hi Klearchos,

This is normal as the max. time per move is always 60 days even if you take days of vacation (to avoid too long delays for a single move), but your total time for the game is frozen.

Daniel Parmet    (2009-08-11 20:08:24)
Quotes!

The following 11 quotes are all by me:
1- "Experiences are the keys to life."
2- "Happy endings are just stories that haven't finished yet."
3- "If you expect nothing then the following will happen: either 1) you will receive nothing and thus can be happy your expectations were met or 2) You will receive something and thus be happy you have received something. And.... Happiness ensues..."
4- "Step up and face your fear or you will never be what you should be."
5- "A mistake is only a mistake if you let it happen twice. Otherwise it is a learning experience. your experience."
6- "Life is painting a picture over many years with different paints and tools."
7- ""Horney concluded that love was at least a temporary escape from all her anxiety and insecurity" - Karen Horney
Does anyone else think that someoe named 'Horney' shouldn't be talking about love?"
8- "Take each event in a singularity and say if time passes will any of this matter?"
9- "Plans are ideas that never come to fruition."
10- "You should only get upset about the little things cause you have no control over the big things."
11- "Causing another problem without fixing the initial problem just makes the initial problem worse as time continues"

The following are classic quotes:
11- "If you lose the game you should win the analysis!"
12- "Every passing minute is a chance to turn it all around." - Vanilla Sky
13- "Life is pain my dear and anyone who says otherwise is selling something." - Princess Bride
14- "The 7ps: Prior Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance" - U.S. Military
15- "Water water everywhere but not a drop to drink!" - Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner
16- "You can get in way more trouble with a good idea than a bad idea cause you forget the good idea has limits" - Warren Buffet
17- "Teach a child to be polite and courteous and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to merge his car onto the freeway."
18- "Experience is the thing you have left when everything else is gone."
19- "There is no tomorrow without the pains and pleasures of today" - Gabriel
20- "If life weren't this complicated, it would be nowhere near as fun. Why? WHY NOT!" - Catch-22
21- "When you've done things right people won't know you've done anything at all." - Futurama
22- "The right perception of any matter and a misunderstanding of the same matter do not wholly exclude each other." - Kafka's the trial
23- "the Trausi follow the normal practices of Thracians in general, except in one particular- their behaviour, namely, on the occasion of a birth or a death. When a baby is born the family sits round and mourns at the thought of the sufferings the infant must endure now that it has entered the world, and goes through the whole catalogue of human sorrows; but when somebody dies, they bury him with merriment and rejoicing, and point out how happy he now is and how many miseries he has at last escaped." -Herodotus Viv
24- "When a Persian herald demanded the surrender of arms, the king shouted back 'come here to get them'; and when he had seen that he was surrounded, he commanded his men to have a good breakfast since their dinner would be served in hell." - Herodotus
25- "I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
26- "Why, we don't even know what living means now, what it is, and what it is called? Leave us alone without books and we shall be lost and in confusion at once. We shall not know what to join on to, what to cling to, what to love and what to hate, what to respect and what to despise." - Fyodor Dostoyevsky Notes from the Underground
27- "Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." - Scott Adams
28- "Nobody is always a winner and anyone who says otherwise either is a liar or doesn't play poker."
29- “The darkness immutable tranquility holds sway.” - Jun’ichiro Tanizaki
30- “People who are constantly asking 'why' are like tourists who stand in front of a building reading Baedeker and are so busy reading the history of its construction, etc., that they are prevented from seeing the building.” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
31- “Either move or be moved.” - Ezra Pound
32- "The real meditation is the meditation of one's identity..... You try finding out why you're you and not somebody else. And who in the blazes are you anyhow??" - Ezra Pound.
33- “The image is more than an idea. It is a vortex or cluster of fused ideas and is endowed with energy.” - Ezra Pound
34- “The thought working its way towards the light.” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
35- “There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.” - Ansel Adams
36- “When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence.” - Ansel Adams
37- "Wanting to think is one thing; having a talent for thinking is another." - Ludwig Wittgenstein
38- “Philosophers use a language that is already deformed as though by shoes that are too tight” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
39- “Nothing is more important for teaching us to understand the concepts we have than constructing fictitious ones” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
40- “don’t for heaven’s sake, be afraid of talking nonsense! But you must pay attention to your nonsense” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
41- “In a conversation: One person throws a ball; the other does not know: whether he is supposed to throw it back, or throw it to a third person, or leave it on the ground, or pick it up and put it in his pocket, etc” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
42- “I really do think with my pen, because my head often knows nothing about what my hand is writing” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
43- “What I am writing here may be feeble stuff; well, then I am just not capable of bringing the big, important thing to light. But hidden in these feeble remarks are great prospects.” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
44- “I ask countless irrelevant questions. If only I can succeed in hacking my way through this forest!” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
45- “Even to have expressed a false thought boldly and clearly is already to have gained a great deal” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
46- “Don’t concern yourself with what, presumably no one but you grasps!” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
47- “when you are philosophizing you have to descend into primeval chaos and feel at home there” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
48- "You cannot step into the same river twice." - Heraclitus
49- "Eternity is a child playing, playing checkers; the kingdom belongs to a child." - Heraclitus
50- "Nothing endures but change." - Heraclitus
51- "For a guest remembers all his days the hospitable man who showed him kindness." - Odyssey Book 15 Line 75
52- "Watching [GM Nigel] Short peruse the photos of young women, I had a fanciful notion that the development of specialized skills and character traits in early childhood is like a country fair in which you are alotted a fixed number of tickets to spend on the various concessions. This particular fixed number of tickets to spend on the various concessions. This particular fair is of short duration and happens only once in a lifetime. Nigel took the chess roller-coaster a dozen times, and rode the honesty ride twice, and so he had insufficient tickets left to take the Train Beyond Adolescence more than a stop or two. I myself missed the athletic concession, and I should have ridden -damn it- the chess coaster three or four times." - King's Gambit: A Son, A Father, and the World's Most Dangerous Game by Paul Hoffman page335
53- “I don’t know, but I do know with great precision why nobody else knows either.” - John H. Cochrane
54- "One must have chaos within oneself, to give birth to a dancing star." - Friedrich Nietsche
55- "I created chaos on the chess board and my strength lay in finding hidden harmonies. I always cultivated being at peace in chaos. manifest your unique character on the chess board." - Josh Waitzkin
56- "Leave numbers behind and ride the wave of the game." - Josh Waitzkin
57- "The weakness of an artist is dogma." - Josh Waitzkin
58- "Everything i've learned, i've eventually unlearned. I spend more time unlearning than learning. You must challenge your own micro thought constructs." - Josh Waitzkin
59- "It is like a tunnel, the deeper you get into the more you see there is to learn." - Josh Waitzkin
60- "Your emotions are there for a reason. Observe their ripple." - Josh Waitzkin
61- "The same mold, teachers have learned a certain way. great teachers should listen first." - Josh Waitzkin
62- "Change from psychology and technical errors, transition from opening prep to first middlegame decision or tactical to strategical." - Josh Waitzkin
63- "There is some part about any discipline that should appeal to any person." - Josh Waitzkin
64- "Identify thematic connections by breaking down the walls between different disciplines." - Josh Waitzkin
65- "You know your country is dying when you have to make a distinction between what is moral and ethical, and what is legal." - John de Armond
66- "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
67- "When you stop learning you start dying." - Scott Adams
68- "If you could buy some people for what they are worth, and sell them for what they "think" they are worth, there would always be a profit margin."
69- "Don't compare your life to others. You have no idea what their journey is all about."
70- "Life is too short to waste time hating anyone."
71- "When in doubt, just take the next small step."
72- "When it comes to going after what you love in life, don't take no for an answer."
73- "Frame every so-called disaster with these words 'In five years, will this matter?" - Ellis
74- "If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's, we'd grab ours back."
75- "Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need."
76- "There are three sides to every story: your side, their side and the truth." - Bablyon 5
77- "Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher." - Japanese Proverb

My apologies if some of the classics are in the ficgs quote file already as I just keep my own (and pull quotes from everywhere). I tried to cull out the duplicates.

Ralf Mulde    (2009-08-18 00:24:11)
DESC corr. chess Open 2009 invitation

Dear chessfriends,

German e-mail Correspondence Chessclub (DESC) invites everyone to
join the DESC Open. Join with uns and have fun playing chess!

Everyone in the world who can play chess (and has the possibility to
use an e-mail-system) is invited herewith to take part at this tournament.

It's a cost-free tournament, no one has to pay any fees.

Please register per e-mail at [ turnierbuero@desc-online.de ] until
Sept. 19th 2009.

Your registration has to include

a) your family name
b) your first-name
c) your e-mail-address
d) and the remark < Anmeldung zum DESC-Open 2009 >.

The tournament will start at Oct. 1st 2009.

Reflection-time will be 30 days per 10 moves,
first time-exceed forfeits the game.

Moves will be transmitted by e-mail in the well known pgn-format.

During this pre-tounament, every player will have four to eight
games in groups with five to nine players.
The best three of them will reach the next round.

More informations are shown at DESC's homepage:

http://www.desc-online.de/turniere/open/2009/

Take part, have fun! You and your friends will be welcome!

Best regards, IM Joerg Kracht, Michael Schirmer, and Ralf Mulde

Charlie Neil    (2009-08-22 11:23:40)
Vacation Time on Ficgs

I am confused about what is the point of booking vacation time, as the "game clock" will keep running. Can someone explain to me please.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-22 15:16:12)
Unrated (no computer) matches

Hi Daniel, this has to be discussed. This would be on another path than the "competitive" way the server followed until there, particularly to avoid the "just for a glance" games that are just thrown and lost on time after a few moves like on most other correspondence chess servers... But after all maybe most players here wouldn't do it because they also play rated tournaments.

The other point is "confusion" because of too many tournaments... Many new players are still lost when arriving here and I feel I have some work to make it clearer before to add such new categories... To be continued.

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2009-08-23 13:51:45)
Slow moves

Hello Thibault!

Please don't remove the "slow moves" for poker games.

I don't like the "fast moves" because it doesn't show the situation after I have sent my move (hands and new community cards).

I don't need the chat windows but I don't like to be disconnected if I write a message to an opponent (I do that in poker games too)

Best, Heinz-Georg

Daniel Parmet    (2009-08-25 07:00:59)
unsure which 'chat' window

confused, by chat window you mean leaving notes for myself about the game or sending a message to the opponent?

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-26 19:21:42)
Stan Vaughan vs. Varuzhan Akobian (WCF)

Many of you probably saw this strange banner in a Chessbase news article, with this title :

"THE WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP"
World Chess Federation, Inc.

WCF "WORLD CHESS CHAMPION" Stan Vaughan
vs. WCF official challenger Varuzhan Akobian in WCF TITLE MATCH 2009 (starting on December 1st, 2009 at Riviera Hotel Casino, Las Vegas)

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5717

The Chessbase article says that when FIDE stripped Fischer of the title in 1975, he set up the WCF which sanctioned his "World Championship" rematch with Spassky in 1992 (with a record of five million dollars prize). After winning the event, Fischer was scheduled to play WCF official challenger Stan Vaughan, but he retired.

Well well... I cannot even find a page on Wikipedia on Stan Vaughan, but the article on Chessbase also mentions that Vaughan would have been 29 time US Champion of the American Chess Association, retaining the title at 2008 Robert Fischer Memorial and also, but not least :

* 1988 US Correspondence Chess Champion
* 1989, 1995 Mensa World Correspondence Chess Champion
* 1995-2007 WCCF World Correspondence Chess Champion
* WCF “The World Chess Champion 2001-present 2009
* Retained the title in 2007 with an 11-0 title match victory over Francisco Metz, an International Master from Mexico and former 1975 USCF's US Amateur Chess Champion

To finish, Garry Kasparov would have turned down the opportunity to play him in a match for 5 million dollars in 2008 - not a big surprise.

Does anyone have more information on all this and eventually games played by this un-unknown correspondence chess champion ?

Garvin Gray    (2009-08-29 16:05:33)
Issue for 2150 rated players

I am starting to notice an issue with how the rating bands are set for tournaments, both standard and rapid.

Currently I am rated between 2150 and 2200, depending on the rating period. After having been in this rating band for a couple of rating periods, I am noticing it is very difficult to get rated games against players rated above 2200.

This makes it very difficult to improve my rating, or at least have it proven that my playing standard is not deserved of a higher rating, or a lower rating as the case maybe.

I know it is possible to look at my results from players rated similar to myself and try and work out conclusions from there, but to not have the opportunity to play people rated above myself does not afford me the opportunity to see how I go against them, or to record results against higher rated players that might suggest I am underrated.

I suggested awhile ago that each of the tournament bands need to be 200 points apart, with the standard and rapid tournaments operated on odds and evens 200 point rating bands. I still believe this to be the answer to a lot of the sites ills as I still see many tournaments where players just under the rating cut off not entering when the rating band is 400 points.

Don Groves    (2009-08-31 00:58:08)
My .02 Euros

As I understand it, the current limit for a game to affect ratings is 350 ELO points. If so, then why would any player near the top of a 400 rating band enter a tournament unless at least one other player near his/her rating has already entered? Otherwise, that player stands to gain little or nothing from winning.

It seems logical to me that the rating band be smaller than the rating limit to insure that all the games will be rated.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-02 02:06:53)
Response

The rationale for the 400 points bands in class tournaments and 200 bands in rapid tournaments is to reduce the number of opportunities to play rapid tournaments (that are much more time consuming and may lead to general forfeits)... I still do not understand why 400 points bands are a problem as most players play the tournaments that may help to increase their rating (as Michael said, by the way the Rapid M seems quite dedicated for 2100-2199 rated players, actually a future improvement may be 100 points bands).

Anyway, I see no strong reason not to try this change... let's do it unless someone sees this strong reason.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-02 02:15:29)
second stage

It was perfectly clear :) It should start on november 1st, 2009.

Garvin Gray    (2009-09-02 07:33:40)
to be clear

Apologies if my post irks anyone, but just to be clear, the standard and rapid rating cutoffs have to at the opposite 100 point bands.

So as I said previously,

It is only that in the standard time control that the bands be 1700-1899, 1900-2099, 2100-2299, 2300-2499 etc and for rapid it would be 1800-1999, 2000-2199, 2200-2399, 2400-2599.

Of course this idea also works if Thibault decides to have the standard tournaments using an even rating cutoff ie 1800-1999, 2000-2199 etc.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-02 16:22:35)
Poker rules

I didn't even know about the "Roberts Rules of Poker" :) Looks like I've much to learn yet, I'll look at that soon.

Don Groves    (2009-09-05 00:09:13)
Too much French wine?

CHENNAI, India (Reuters) - A leading French chess player turned up drunk and dozed off after just 11 moves in an international tournament in Kolkata, losing the round on technical grounds, domestic media reported Friday.

Grandmaster Vladislav Tkachiev arrived for Thursday's match against India's Praveen Kumar in such an inebriated state that he could hardly sit in his chair and soon fell asleep, resting his head on the table, Hindustan Times newspaper reported.

Indian papers carried pictures of the world number 58 sleeping and the organizers' futile attempts to wake his up.

The game was awarded to the Indian on the technical ground of Tkachiev being unable to complete his moves within the stipulated time of an hour and 30 minutes, the paper said.

The player was warned and reprimanded by the organizers afterwards but has been allowed to take part in the remainder of the competition, the paper said.

Wayne Lowrance    (2009-09-07 23:52:52)
A Big Mouth on Rybka Forum

Howdy Thibault & all.
There is a poster on the Rybka forum who has sort of a big mouth. He claims that Rybka IA feature is not best for CC games, claims it is too time consuming and at any rate he blubbers and brags that those who use IA are not able to defeat him. I am using my own language here in a jist of the conversation of his. He further says that he never spends more that a matter of hours cogitating his move using a 3 tear "long game" approach to working his moves. Timers such at 60' 40 moves @ 1st tier etc (don't remember his 2nd tier timer. In any case he claims he can get to depth 40 in mid game situations using a "long game" three tier mode. and finds moves that are superior to IA running a day or more (he doesn't seem to understand that most CC players use IA in a special Centaur way and the Program is a tool. He gives little respect for 2500 CC rated Centaur players using the feature IA. He beats such players all of the time, he say's with his Rybka usage with his very modest hardware against 2500 players using IA. I am skeptical. I asked where he plays CC (out of courosity) and he will not tell where. a Poster in response to his post believe he plays CC where computers are not allowed, I have no idea in this regard. I told him that I play at FICGS where computers are welcome and a 2500 rating on this server is very high. There are many well known players held in high regard playing at FICGS that would "clean his clock" with him playing as he say's he does. So what is my point. I am wondering if I can invite this guy to join FICGS and that his lofty rating can be accepted. I shall invite him to Join our SM #11 tourney. Wayne

William Taylor    (2009-09-08 00:45:12)
Depends

It depends whether you mean a solid, consistent number 1, or just being number 1 on one two-month period's rating list. The latter could happen at any time - he has been number 1 briefly on the live rankings before - though admittedly Topalov has quite a lead at the moment. I think Carlsen is still some way from being a dominant number 1 in the way Kaspy was though - that may not happen at all of course, and if it does I think it will take at least a year but probably rather longer.

Wayne Lowrance    (2009-09-13 21:55:35)
Geeze

Howdy gang, Thibault, I guess I am dense. Would you please post here when the changes are effect, AND just why the hey they are
thanks
Wayne

Wayne Lowrance    (2009-09-14 17:11:09)
sorry my response misleadingg

Oppps just looked at my query response. It sounded disrespectful, which I did not intend it to say, also a typo that made it sound worse. Sorry.
Wayne

Garvin Gray    (2009-09-14 18:27:48)
changes already made!

Wayne, the changes are already in effect and have been for at least a week.

Scott Nichols    (2009-09-16 08:58:46)
Quick Corr. Chess

With the recent narrowing of the band in standard tournaments, it occurred to me that there is even less opportunity to get games than before. For those of us (and I think it is many) who check the site many times daily waiting for the next move, there just isn't enough games to feed our tremendous appetite for chess. I propose a new catagory, Quick Corr. chess, I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but here it is. It would have it's own Quick chess rating. Bands would be, Over 2000, 1600-2000, and under 1600. Time limit-10 days per game, increment-8 hours. I truly believe there is a market for this here. Advanced chess requires that you actually be at the comp. for a length of time till game is done, so it is not an option for many. But as you can see there has been quite an increase in advanced games being played. So---if you are one of those players like me, that check for moves first thing in the morning and last thing at night, sneak your laptop into the bathroom at work to see if your opponent took the sacrifice you just offered, etc., and time after time are disappointed at not seeing any new moves, please offer your support and suggestions on this. Thank you, signed "Starving for chess". :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-22 17:37:12)
Important issue : Moves taken back

Hello all,

A player (no need to specify the game, at least not yet) asked me as the FICGS admin to take back his opponent's move which is an obvious mistake. In this case both players agree to take back the move to not waste the game, after that the player who made the mistake kindly asked to the other player if it was possible take back the move. At this point, all depended of the other player's fair play, but of course only the FICGS admin can take back a move in any game.

However I just wonder if it is fair in all cases to do this, particularly when a player shows a great fair play in all his games.

I've just read the rules again and nothing is mentioned on this and what should do the FICGS admin (or tournament director). Note, I've already taken back a few moves when both players agreed to do this in the past.

Question, not really a poll but your opinion would be appreciated : Do you think that the FICGS admin should...

1) take back all moves in this case.
2) take back some moves in this case (at his discretion).
3) never take back any move even in this case.

IMO, choice 2) is the best one as more or less complex cases may happen, what do you think ?

Thanks for sharing your views !

Wayne Lowrance    (2009-09-22 20:13:41)
Take Backs

Thibault allow take backs if both parties agree. Very refreshing situation, I like it. #2 please
Wayne

Daniel Parmet    (2009-09-22 22:07:10)
#2

#2 please cause I think you need to allow it if its something obvious like Kf1 instead of castling.

Daniel Parmet    (2009-09-23 03:44:25)
NO OTB Comparisions

I'm sorry I play 160 otb games a year I find this comparison unfair... OTB any touching of a piece or movement of a piece cannot be an accident. In corr and online games it is easy to have such accidents that are out of your control. After all there is no touch move rule in corr at all. I can touch the pieces come back later touch them again and repeatedly do this only submitting my move 60 days later after having touch every piece 100s of times.

Most online chess leagues have take back rules for obvious things like kf1 instead of castling.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-23 11:12:43)
Kasparov leads 2-0

Too bad, I cannot find videos of the games on Youtube :/

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-23 11:19:51)
Big debate

The debate is growing and things are just getting more fuzzy :)

I do not really agree on the comparison with OTB chess, accidents may happen also (less often) eg. when you're lost in your thoughts... anyway, I guess that there is no takeback at ICCF, am I right ?

Of course this rule will also apply for the other games (big chess, Go, poker holdem). Right now, my opinion is not clear yet :/

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-23 17:47:40)
Results

6 games out of 21 finished on table 1
18 games out of 21 finished on table 2
10 games out of 21 finished on table 3
16 games out of 21 finished on table 4

No clear result yet, but I can say without any doubt that Yura Lemekhov does it very well on table 4 !

To be continued.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-24 14:13:33)
Karpov wins game 3

.. but he lost game 4, Kasparov leads 3-1

Anderson Barradas    (2009-09-25 07:22:58)
My opinion

I think option 3 is the only possible. First option could make games longer than they already are, and second could lead to abuses.

Daniel Parmet    (2009-09-25 18:07:10)
good idea

yes please add java script to resign as confirm box.

Fergal Dalton    (2009-09-28 10:28:51)
Deleting an account

Please delete my account too, thank you.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-29 10:10:30)
Human vs. Centaur

Hello John, NO_ENGINES are the only "normal" tournaments, in all other ones engines are allowed, simply because there is no way to avoid it in correspondence chess. I'll try to make it clearer soon.

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 !

Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-19 17:32:20)
Corr. Chess Maxims

Btw, I hardly would call you an otb player since you haven't played in TWO years. Clearly, you are not up on the rules as I've explained them to you already how they work with USCF. But since you're not a td, and I am then I will explain them again.

If repeated draw offers is ruled a distraction by a TD: 1st offense warning. 2nd Offense warning. 3rd offense time penalty. 4th offense time penalty. Pretty much all a td can do is time penalties for something like this. If he ruled it a loss, he'd face an appeal to the ethics committee. He'd lose the right to TD events and the result would be overturned to Nihl in the end anyways as that is not a correct ruling by the td.

Ulrich Imbeck    (2010-06-08 12:11:08)
time to learn french

its time to learn french :-)

Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-29 23:10:41)
Next freestyle tournament

I am still not clear on what a freestyle tournament is?

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-10-05 19:20:02)
Shaking hands with Kasparov

Obviously, there's at least one member of this small lucky club here :)

http://www.ficgs.com/player_767.html

Lucky Pablo ! (see bottom of page)

Garvin Gray    (2009-10-07 13:03:35)
dates please

To answer whether a set of dates are good or not, it would need to be declared what the dates actually are?

For me this is more important. I would suggest going with the Friday, Saturday, Sunday option as for some people they will have to play at really 'rude' hours, so scheduling for the weekend would be more likely to more entries.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-10-08 12:47:47)
Message transmission (with slow moves)

Hi all,

Sorry to all players who use the slow moves process, I just realized the problem with 'empty moves (-)' at poker, you had to copy your message, now it is fixed... Please just warn me here if you still encounter any problem.

Thank you.

Benjamin Block    (2009-10-18 21:36:58)
I agree

Thibault you make a really good work. I hope you take some money self from the google ads you are really worth it. It is hard to think any person that can take over this site when you do not want or can. I really hope that my grandchild will play on this site and have that fun as i have and always will have (i´m still i child). PS: Please stop smoke we don´t want you to die in prematurly. You really work hard. Do you ever sleep?

Lazaro Munoz    (2009-10-26 11:15:01)
Crazyhouse

You would need some special rules to prevent long boring clock time out waits, such as when one side is mated on the move. He will sit out and wait for the events on the other game. Typically what happens is that it will be mate on the move in the reverse direction. So either have adjudicated a win for the side with more time on their running clock or force them to move at least every 10 days say.

By the way if you try crazy house, you might want to also introduce shogi where pieces become the property of the opponent and can be dropped in. You won't need special char set since you can use the chess set with mods such as inverting them like the rook for the lance, golds can be queen, silvers inverted queens, etc and promoted pieces, the piece with a circle surrounding it.

Don Groves    (2009-10-27 06:16:48)
Shogi

I would learn a classical game like Shogi if it were offered on FICGS

William Taylor    (2009-10-30 14:03:25)
Just made it...

I just sneak in at number 50. Clearly I must try harder. :)

Lazaro Munoz    (2009-10-30 19:09:42)
rating bands

That is the way LSS (IECG's server) works. If you come in first place in a section, you get a ticket to higher section. If you win two sections you get two promotion tickets to a higher section, etc. If you have no more tickets you will only be able to enter in current rating group for class tournaments, everyone can join the opens of course.

I guess if you win a section in which you were promoted into, you would get a super-ticket to a two-level up (at least you can dream).

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-03 18:28:43)
Options

Actually this player could do it quite easily by many ways, including private messages.

To be clearer, the options :

1) The thread could be created when the game starts.
2) The thread could be created only when the game finishes.
3) The thread could be created when the game starts, the players can read or write only when the game finishes, the specators can read/write at any time.
4) No thread at all.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-03 19:44:40)
FICGS WCH 6 stage 2

To "clarify" the way groups are built, when looking at previous cycles there was 4 groups in most round-robin stage 2 and 7 players in every round-robin final, so there was 4 players qualified +1 from M group in stage 1 +2 players invited due to their result in the tournament (~1st place shared).

So I could have chosen to build 4 groups for this stage 2 as well, but there isn't a M group in this cycle and 3 players should be invited for the round-robin final which is a lot compared to the initial number, or it could be a double round-robin of 4 or 5 (with 1 invited) players, that I try to avoid as I think it is less efficient than single round-robin tournaments with more players... well I try to explain this complex way to decide how the groups are built to make it transparent at least, if not clear. As it is not possible to make a perfect algorithm, finding the best player should be the priority while building these groups, that's why IMHO it seems correct to see 2 (3 in rare cases) players qualified in these stage 1 tournaments.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-04 16:58:01)
Advanced games (blitz) : improvements

Hi all,

You probably noticed that there was many forfeits in advanced games as :

1) Many new players try it but do not read the instructions.
2) The system is not efficient enough to warn the players when a game starts.

The facts :

a) When you enter a waiting list for an advanced (blitz, lightning, bullet) game, you HAVE to withdraw before leaving, or the game may start without you - the way to do it may not be clear enough.
b) When you challenge a player, you may leave the computer, the system will not start the game without you (or in rare cases).

The idea of FICGS is to provide a web interface without any software to download, consequently everything is not possible... Now it only opens a pop up (if possible) & sends an email when a game starts, and it updates the page if you are in My Games.

Possible improvements :

1) To add a sound or voice message when a game starts.
2) To close advanced games waiting lists :/
3) ...

Well, it looks like I need some ideas. Anybody help ? :)

William Taylor    (2009-11-05 14:10:51)
Yes

Of course hold'em is a game of chance to some degree. I think it's also obvious that there is some skill involved. Now that I've stated the obvious, I will leave the rest of you to discuss how much chance is involved... ;)

John Smith    (2009-11-13 02:56:53)
Introduction to Centaur Chess

Hi all,

While I have played allot of chess, so far I only used my computer for an occasional analysis and mostly for the database features.

I am assuming it takes to know engines quite well to become good at advanced/centaur chess, so any advice would be really helpful.

1) Which engines are better at what type of positions? Is Deep Junior best at unclear sacrifices?, Rybka best for positional play?, Schredder best for endgames?

2) Which engines understand different pawn structures better, e.g. which is the best engine to study a stonewall-structure game and which is best for a King's Indian Mar de Plata game?

3) How to interpret the engine value for the position? e.g. if I, say as White, sac a pawn and the evaluation is -0.1, that is less that 1 pawn, does this mean I have enough positional compensation for the pawn?

4) Which engines take long-term weaknesses into their evaluations, even if they can't see anything concrete within their horizon?

5) Which free engines are worth consulting? toga? stockfish? Glaurung? thinker? Which of these are good for complex positions, which for quiet ones?

6) Are there any engines which improve their play during time, that is they learn? e.g. if in a position guiding the engine by hand proves that another move than its preferred one is best, will it be able to spot the move again, if the same position is re-entered?

7) Which is the best interface for analysis?

8) Is there a page with statistics of how each engine performs in every opening?

Thanks!

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-13 16:44:56)
Centaur chess

Hi John, I'm afraid there's no clear answer to these questions, in my experience it is not possible to classify chess engines so accurately, each position is differently understood by chess engines, and actually is differently not understood, in example many great moves were found in some way "by chance" by engines like Deep Junior... But this is old computer chess already, Junior has not been updated for a while and Rybka is probably best in all parts of the game for a few years (maybe that is to change).

As Michel said, experience is the key IMO.

John Smith    (2009-11-13 18:19:12)
thanks for your responses

I see, it is a quite unexplored area.

Have engines advanced really that much though? Surely, there has been progress, but I did an experiment, I annotated some of my games using Fritz6 and Fritz 11. What caught me off guard was the fact that their 1st recommendation was the same everywhere, and in fact, oddly, Fritz 6 converged first to the "correct" reply.

They still sometimes fail to find some critical moves made by positional masters like Karpov or Kramnik. Of course they have also found many moves of their own (Bxh2!? vs Kasparov) which were not even considered by human masters.

Since my initial questions are probably on too abstract grounds, I'd like to ask a purchase question. I will buy Rybka soonish, however I was wondering if it is worth purchasing other engines as well.

- Is Shredder 12 worth it? are there some parts of the game where it does better than Rybka?

- Are they planning to release a new Deep Junior?

- Is the old Deep Junior 11 worth it, or because it hasn't been updated, even in positions where its strengths lie it has been surpasses by other engines?

Michel van der Kemp    (2009-11-13 19:26:27)
If I really want to delve into it

If I really want to delve into a position, I let two different engines analyze a position. If I'm out to win, I let both engines look for closed lines that don't lead to quick exchanges, unless they lead to clear advantages.

If engines evaluate a certain position very different, then those moves will catch my interest very quick, because those are the lines that may be highly imbalanced. I let both engines descend into those lines playing them against each other, and when you see the evaluation of one of the engines drop or go up, then it's a good time to draw a conclusion.

I hope that was clear a bit.

So yes it's good to have multiple engines.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-16 22:28:27)
Results !

Finally, according to my calculations :

- Finished matches [Team (Points)]

Knights who say Ni (1) - Dark knights (1)
Knights who say Ni (2) - Happy pawn (0)
Knights who say Ni (2) - Ghost knights (0)
Dark knights (2) - Happy pawn (0)
Dark knights (0) - Yellow blue warriors (2)
Dark knights (2) - Ghost knights (0)
Happy pawn (2) - Ghost knights (0)
Yellow blue warriors (2) - Ghost knights (0)

- Unfinished matches

Knights who say Ni vs. FSF : 1-1
Knights who say Ni vs Yellow blue warriors : 2-1
Knights who say Ni vs. Our team king : 2-0
FSF vs. Dark knights : 1.5-1.5
FSF vs. Happy pawn : 1-0
FSF vs. Yellow blue warriors : 3-0
FSF vs. Our team king : 2-0
Dark knights vs. Our team king : 2.5-0.5
Happy pawn vs. Yellow blue warriors : 1-2
Happy pawn vs. Our team king : 1-0
Yellow blue warriors vs. Our team king : 1.5-1.5
Ghost knights vs. Our team king : 0.5-2.5

I hope I didn't make mistakes for the unfinished matches. Nice victory by Yellow blue warriors against The dark knights !

So Garvin, in your match against FSF (Koslowski), FSF leads by 1-0

John Smith    (2009-11-17 09:54:56)
engine styles

I would be thankful if I had a little more information on engine styles:

- Which is the most positional engine(s) (has positional knowledge+plays more positionally)?

- Which is the most solid engine(s)?

- Which engine(s) that goes for wild complications most often (and is strong in complex/unclear positions)?

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-27 19:30:34)
Ivanchuk may quite professional chess

What's wrong with Vassily Ivanchuk ? In his interview in Chessbase news, he says he may quit professional chess because of this match lost to an unknown player... Not only a match, a "crucial" match he said (like any other?), but it seems to me that there are a lot of things hidden behind the words. Maybe it's just time for him to change his life, at least I hope it is so simple.

End of the interview : "I only feel that the world has crashed down around me. Everyone is against me, and I don't see the way out…"

Strange...

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5941

William Taylor    (2009-11-29 19:52:10)
Yoghurt story?

I don't know it - please tell me!

Michel van der Kemp    (2009-11-30 12:51:02)
Andersson

Didn't Ulf Andersson become ICCF World Champion? At least I remember a game where he beat then world champion Gert Timmerman (2200-2300 FIDE rating) with black. I know for a fact he was at one point the highest rated player in ICCF.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-30 21:18:17)
Big chess rules

Hi Pavel,

When you enter a big chess tournament waiting list, it is specified "(...) The special rule is no castling is possible", so by default, en passant is authorized like in regular chess.

It is not so clear though, so I'll add it in the rules, thanks for pointing it out :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-30 21:19:51)
Computer assistance

It is clearly impossible to top a correspondence chess rating list without computer assistance... IMHO :)

Pavel Hase    (2009-11-30 23:56:42)
Value

Value is higher, my guess.
N - all fields, but horde moves for displacement, very slow piece.
B - only 128 fields, but only 2 moves for displacement (if clear board)
R - all fields, only 2 moves for displacement
Q - only 2 moves for displacement, but over one move, than Rook.

Guess
N - 3 (2-4) (From two pawns other sides any chance, but if pawns nearly, anyway 8x8 chess. Board 8x8 Notin, needed max. 4 moves, here?) Other tip? Mutually support afore own pawns.
B - 6(!) Very higher movement, than Notin. Other tip? Between own pawns, menace opponent piece.
R - 11 (10-12) Anyway 8x8 chess, pieces for middle game and endings. Interplay here is heavy work.
Q - 23 (20-30!) If interplay Rooks is heavy work, then Queen probably better, than two Rooks. Anyway 8x8, attention, traps and time for raven.

Sorry, my english language is weak.

Michel van der Kemp    (2009-12-01 00:40:00)
Andersson & computers

I would think Anderson used all the help he could get, since he is a professional. So if a computer could help him achieve what he needed he would use that.

But mind you this is a maybe 5 years ago, when rybka was unknown, and computers like Fritz were the best engines. Back then humans were still (somewhat) thought to be superior I think, at least in strategical positions. So maybe he didn't use computer assistence.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-02 17:50:27)
Major update : Go openings (joseki)

A major update just occured, finished FICGS Go games (chess & poker as well) are now analyzed by the server that gives the name of each known joseki [the first 2 moves at the moment] played in each corner, sometimes it also gives the way it should be played...

See an example at the bottom of this page :

http://www.ficgs.com/game_2481.html
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=2481

Finished games are not analyzed in real time, but this update opens new perspectives to see one day a function to search games by joseki.

Please do not hesitate to comment this update or to report any bug you may see.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-02 18:28:19)
Major update : Chess openings & endgames

A major update just occured, finished FICGS chess games (Go & poker as well) are now analyzed by the server that gives the name of each known opening & classifies the games by endgames, castlings & promotions !

Best, now you can find games by material on the board (like Chessbase) for endgames with less than 10 pieces. Just click "Search games" in the menu, eg. enter KRPP vs. KRP (whatever the order of the letters & colors), and you'll find among others this game (see the description of the game at the bottom of the page) :

http://www.ficgs.com/game_3724.html
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=3724

Note : Finished games are not analyzed in real time, but this update clearly opens new perspectives :)

Please do not hesitate to comment this update or to report any bug you may see.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-06 16:45:22)
Idea to avoid DMD at Poker holdem

Maybe an idea to avoid the "Dead Man Defence" at poker... I feel that this is not employed really often actually (at 2000+ ratings at least) as it is not at the player's advantage after a while but it may be an improvement anyway.

The idea is to keep the same time control but to force players to play a certain pending move before to play a new move in his other games again. In example, I have a pending move in poker games 1,2,5,6 : I play my move in games 1 & 2, my opponents play their moves, then I cannot play in games 1 & 2 again (the symbol in My games wouldn't be "!" but "#") before I played the other moves. Atually it wouldn't be so simple as it may be quite uncomfortable at every move, but something like this if I can detect real DMD.

What do you think about it? BTW did you notice that some of your opponents may use DMD while playing other games?

Benjamin Block    (2009-12-09 21:40:03)
release rybka 4

Any one know the release date for rybka 4. Is it before christmas?

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-09 22:10:27)
Rybka 4 release date

It may happen before 2010 :)

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=13306

Wayne Lowrance    (2009-12-11 21:08:34)
clock implementation

Hello Thibault. In my tournament SM11 my clock increment may not have been added after first 10 moves in all my games. If you have a time stamp would you please examine it. My remaining days left does not suggest that 40 moves have been added at end of the 10 move slot in my games. Knowing my operating habits it sure sound wrong.

Understand this please, unless you can verify with time stamp or whatever I do not want any adjustments. I will play as the remaining time in each game remains. Wayne

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-11 21:32:06)
40 days increment

Hi Wayne, I see no problem with the clocks, I can see in the logs that 40 days have been added after move 10, you can see it in our game at least where you have more than 40 days remaining. About the other games, your opponents played fast, that may be a reason, by the way you also take several days per move in our 8 games match. Too many running games may be another reason (I know that :))

Time flies away, definitely !

Wayne Lowrance    (2009-12-12 20:13:50)
Renting Rybka

Follow up. I learned a long long time ago that the choice of opening book and move selection is the number one important parameter. Number two is the strength and skill of the Centaur. Here most all is using Rybka as the primary program so it figures that the last dependent variable is centaur skill.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-20 14:23:36)
Boris Spassky vs. Viktor Korchnoi

Entitled the "Battle of the Giants", a match just started in Elista (Kalmykia) between the 10th World Champion Boris Spassky (aged of 72), and Viktor Korchnoi (now aged of 78, multiple World Championship challenger mainly during the Karpov era, but still active in competitive play).

Korchnoi won the first game, game two ended in a draw. This kind of match is always a pleasure to follow for long time chess fans :)

Here is the first game !

Hannes Rada    (2009-12-23 20:35:19)
Merry Christmas !

Merry Christmas !
Feliz Navidad !
Frohe Weihnachten !

to all FICGS members !

Please add season's greetings in a few more languages ..(Italian, French,....)

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-27 01:50:07)
Chess rating calculation

Hello Pablo! Bonnes fêtes également :)

All rating rules are explained here (there's a french version), feel free to ask if you have any question.

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html

About the 10 moves rule, why 10 more than 9 or 8... well there must be a clear rule & easy to remember. I don't think that miniatures are a big problem, there may be an "unfair" situation in some rare cases, but it shouldn't happen at 2100+ elo ratings. The rule may be not perfect but I did not find a better one yet (any idea? :)).

Pablo Schmid    (2009-12-27 02:02:01)
rules of 10 moves

Thanks for the quick response, my proposition would be no limit of move at all to win points, as in OTB chess. Maybe an idea could be to not make winning points in a game where the player did not connect for a long time before the tournament begin as it is clear that it is a "forfeit", as in OTB when someone don't come.

But maybe you will convince me that your idea is better than mine?

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-27 20:20:33)
Bergmann - Schuster

One of these matches we like to watch :) .. many interesting games and many wins, but I'm afraid it is a good advertisement for the sicilian defense once more, Hannes please help ;)

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_3__000007

Hannes Rada    (2009-12-28 21:45:47)
Sicilian ?

I see only 1 Sicilian in this match.
And I see many different openings. That's good - That's more entertaining than 8 times Najdorf ....
So no need to advertise for this Sicilian. It will be anyway played to much for my taste :-)

Originally it was very doubtful for me to play 8 times the same opponent. But then I realized that it can be quite interesting. At least when you're rating is better than those of your oppoent .... :-)

Wayne Lowrance    (2009-12-29 00:56:03)
Rybka demise

Howdy all. I feel like voicing my opinion of Vas and Rybka. I honestly feel his hold on the chess community has weakened to the point of breaking. He has his problems. His source code apparently has been compromized. This has led him to not releasing a Rybka3+ as promised. The release of Rybka4 is very cloudy. Then there is this cloud Rybka internet rentel thing that is supported by no one it seems, me for sure.
Anyways this is just back drop for recent developments in free software engines that are very strong and are pushing R3 in ratings. I am thinking about the following engines, that I have downloaded and find very interesting AND strong :

Stockfish 1.6
Brite 0.4A
Spark 0.3

I have minimal experience with these engines. I just want all my friend here on FICGS to be aware of them and if interested they can download them and be on equal footing. My wish is for better chess and I have no ambition to have secret progams.
The important thing I feel is that the loss of Rybka engine does not put much of dent in play quality. It was gonna happen sooner or later, and now it seems sooner.
My honest evaluation today is that Rybka3 still provides the best insite to best mid game play.
I want to put in a word for Zappa. I fairly often use Zappa as my CC engine partner because of better end game analysis. Rybka has no peer in mid game analysis. Well I share these thought with you all for what it may be worth. Best 2010 Cheers. Wayne

William Taylor    (2009-12-30 11:38:30)
RobboLito

There are lots of discussions on talkchess about whether or not RobboLito is a Rybka clone (some of which are made longer by the fact that not everyone sticks to the topic). As far as I can tell there is no clear consensus - perhaps most are saying that until someone provides clear evidence that Robbo is a clone it should be assumed not to be, but some are adamant that it is a clone (either of Rybka 3, or of something closer to Rybka 4 - leaked code). Vas says it is a clone, and that the hackers have even informed him of their progress via e-mail, but he has apparently not provided evidence for his claim as he did for the Strelka case (Strelka was a Rybka clone). Many programmers on the forum say that they cannot see any evidence that Robbo is a Rybka clone by looking at the source code, and it often gives quite different evaluations.

Sebastien Benoit    (2009-12-30 17:22:55)
On reverse enginerring

I'v read some of the arguments for and against the theory that RobboLito is a Rybka clone and I must say that I'm more inclined to beleive it is not. But for those who think that the reverse engineering of a software as complex as Rybka is not possible... sorry but it is possible! A team ( don't know how many guys would be needed) of good computer scientists would certainly be able to reverse engineer enough of it to get a global picture of what kind of optimisations it has. And remember that computer chess is not new and a lot of knowledge is available trough books and of course, the web.

Some are claiming that a reverse engineered clone of Rybka would have the same level of functionality as the original. They say that, because they don't really understand the process. Reverse engineering doesn't necessarily lead to an approximate clone of the origninal source code. It is more a process of understanding how it works. Once you got this understanding you can write from scratch and add incrementally whatever functionnality you desire.

William Taylor    (2009-12-30 22:17:44)
Wayne

Stockfish is not a commercial program, and has only been released relatively recently (I think), but it is already at about the level of Rybka. I know it's based on Glaurung, which has had years of work put into it, but perhaps Robbo is also based on a strong open source program. I'm not saying Robbo's not a Rybka clone - very likely it is - I'm just pointing out that it is possible for free, open source programs to approach or surpass the level of commercial ones.

On another note, for anyone interested I ran a quick 12xRR 2 2 tournament today with Rybka 3 32-bit, Stockfish 1.6 JA and RobboLito 0.085g3 w32. Rybka scored 13/24, Stockfish 12/24, and Robbo 11/24. Of course, the time control was very quick and I'm not putting this result forward as a serious test, but it seems that the 3 (or 2) may be close enough to be competitive. An interesting time for computer chess.

William Taylor    (2010-01-03 11:59:09)
ECF

English Chess Federation grades are available online here:http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/
They are very different to FIDE ratings, but can be converted fairly accurately using the formula: ECF x 8 + 650 = FIDE

As for go, I believe at least the Chinese, probably the Koreans, and possibly the Japanese do publish rating lists online, but it would be difficult for me to find them - your best bet is asking on godiscussions.com.

Daniel Parmet    (2010-01-08 07:53:48)
Fed Up

I think it will all be cleared up in good time. Patience friends.

Wayne Lowrance    (2010-01-11 21:33:11)
Fed Up

Howdy Thibault. Clone or no Clone. Technically I am not qualified to check source etc. But I will say this. The evals are very very often identical after checking .
Also, in some brief eng-eng matches, I find that Rybka is stronger, at least for longer timers which would suggest favorable CC play. Wayne

Daniel Parmet    (2010-01-22 21:44:09)
Quote festival, part 6

Check out this beauty: "Excelling at chess has long been considered a symbol of more general intelligence. That is an incorrect assumption in my view, as pleasant as it might be. But for the purposes of argument and investigation, chess is, in Russkin-Gutman's words, "an unparalleled laboratory, since both the learning process and the degree of ability obtained can be objectified and quantified, providing an excellent comparative framework on which to use rigorous analytical techniques.""-Kasparov

Daniel Parmet    (2010-01-26 01:01:46)
SuperGMs watch Corr?!

Carlsen mentioned to the media after his game with Shirov that the improvement in the game of 22... Bc3 was taken from a Correspondence game he found. (Carlsen's own old novelty was 22... Be5 where he lost to Shirov). This is at least the third time i've heard Carlsen using correspondence games for his own opening research and I know also Peter Leko does this. How many supergms you think are accessing all the correspondence sites around the world looking at our opening ideas?! Cute thought!

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-01-26 16:24:43)
Go chinese rules : should pass count?

A player just told me that in chinese rules for the game of Go, consecutive pass change the score of the game (thus in some cases the winner as well), I just visited a few websites that do not even mention this rule that is taken in account by some Go programs.

In my opinion it does not have any sense to link this to the score of the game, but I may be wrong... Does anyone have an opinion on this and clear examples that show it should be taken (or not) here at FICGS ?

I'll add a word on this in the rules after it is clearer to me.

Thanks in advance!

Don Groves    (2010-01-27 06:01:17)
Go chinese rules : should pass count?

Since Chinese rules count occupied points as well as surrounded points, passing is a serious mistake unless that player is certain of victory (at least 184-1/2 confirmed points on FICGS).

Consecutive passes end the game, so how could the score change?

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-01-27 09:18:36)
Wijk aan Zee 2010

Finally, the tournament is now open again in Wijk aan Zee group A, after that Alexei Shirov won consecutively his first 5 games with a comfortable lead, Vladimir Kramnik finally catched him at 6.5/9 after a win over Magnus Carlsen with Black pieces.

Here is the game :

In group B, A. Giri leads by 6.5/9, in group C, Li Chao leads by 6.5/9 as well.

Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2010-01-27 21:06:17)
Go chinese rules: should pass count?

The question is not posed very clearly, and it seems that more explanation is required. Passes do not count in "chinese rules" per se. I think that maybe some confusion arose because there are some rule sets that put some value on all or specific passes.

Anyway, you should read e.g. this very nice write-up of the matters to consider, "On the rules of Go" by Ikeda Toshio, which you can find at gobase:

http://gobase.org/studying/rules/ikeda/

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.

Zholy Zhou    (2010-01-29 03:22:40)
make cool 3D flash banners for website

Recently I've been asked by a friend who wants to make a 3D flash banner for his website of wedding business. Many people included me thought that making a 3D flash banner is a very difficult thing for those who don't know flash skills, but I should say it's not like what you think if you have got a 3D flash banner making software Aneesoft 3D Flash Gallery.

This article will show you how to create a cool 3D flash banner without Adobe Flash. A viewer can click on the banner to be transported to your website. You can use it on your own website to present your products or services. Also flash banners can be used to market your website as a banner ad on another website. A flash banner is much more attractive than still images. I bet you'll be agree with me if you see the 3D flash banner.

What you'll need:
1. Digital photos and background music for 3D flash banner
2. Aneesoft 3D Flash Gallery(http://www.aneesoft.com/win-3d-flash-gallery.html)

Step 1: Download & install Aneesoft 3D Flash Gallery
We'll be using a very nice 3D flash banner making software 'Aneesoft 3D Flash Gallery' to making a cool flash banner for wedding websites, head over here and download the free trial version(http://www.aneesoft.com/download/win/aneesoft-3d-flash-gallery.exe). Next step is to install the program.

Step 2: Import wedding photos, add captions, edit photos
You can add up to 500 photos that you want to use in your flash banner, type in caption and arrange the photos here. 3D Flash Gallery supports a wide range of file formats for images, such as .jpg, .bmp, .gif. You're able to add hyperlink for each photo of your flash banner to be transported to your website.

Step 3: Choose from a variety of flash banner templates
3D Flash Gallery offer you an easy way to make a cool flash banner by choosing from variety of flash banner templates. A flash banner template automatically put preset decoration to your flash banners. When you select a preset banner template, you're able to enhance it by customizing some additional settings, such as background, thumbnail effects, playback options and scrolling actions. For the adventurous users, explore the powerful advanced features and tools that gives you total control over how you compose your flash banners.

Step 4: Add some background music files to flash banner
In this step, you can add background music files to play along with your flash banner. To do so, click Add Music button to browse and add your music files. You can add, remove and edit the music files. And you may check the option to control the background music looping or not.

Step 5: Preview and publish your cool 3D flash banners
It is advisable that you preview the 3D flash banner at least once, before your publish it. Click and drag mouse for scrolling and tilting the 3D flash banner. Click on the thumbnail to zoom in and out the photos. You have several options to share and publish your 3D photo gallery. It depends on your needs.

Lazaro Munoz    (2010-01-29 06:05:09)
Piece Values in Big Chess

I am amazed at the number of opponents that are still applying piece value from regular chess in big chess.

I made some regression analysis based on what we value in regular chess in terms of mobility and applied to big chess. Using the pawn and knight as the standard since in both games 3 pawns will probably beat a knight (if they are separated far enough). I assigned the pawn the value of 1 and and knight a value of 3 and extrapolated variables that we seem to use in valuing the other pieces such as number of squares it can reach, and penalty for being stuck on the same color.

I got the following values:

Pawn=1
Knight=3
Bishop=7 **
Rook=9
Queen=16

** The bishop value changes by pairs available, for example 4 white square bishops don't even come close to value 2 white squares and 2 black squares bishops so this is best value but it can go down to 6 or even 5 as pairs are lost.

Interesting, just like in chess a rook+bishop almost equals a queen and two rooks beat a queen. And a queen equals the value of the pawns (ok similar).

I still find opponents who exchange bishops for knights with impunity, not knowing the true values of the pieces.

I notice that nobody has ever mentioned this. I hope I did not give out some deep secret.

Of course you mileage may vary.

--laz

Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (2010-01-29 07:10:50)
Piece Values in Big Chess

well. Some ending may really hard.

just like bishop versus knight, I don't think it would be easy to win.

of curse, do it if you got your queen trapped. man,

I love this game, we all start with four weak pawns. and lose at least 1.

Don Groves    (2010-01-30 05:08:14)
Quote festival, part 6

Chess can only be "solved" by discovering a line that leads to a win by black or a draw by white from the first move. Hopefully, this will never happen.

Lazaro Munoz    (2010-02-03 14:39:33)
GO: Game 32800

There is a game Shengxian-Xiangren, rotated a bit:

(;GM[1]FF[4]SZ[19]AP[SmartGo:2.8.3.0] GN[s2005-08-09tc] PW[Huang Xiangren]WR[4p] PB[Lin Shengxian]BR[7p] EV[Guoshou (Taiwan), 1st]RO[League] DT[2005-08-09] KM[6.5] RE[W+10.5] T[Region:Taiwan];B[od];W[dp];B[pq];W[po] ;B[ed];W[qq];B[qk];W[pr];B[oq];W[or] ;B[qp];W[pp];B[nq];W[rq];B[qd];W[kc] ;B[ic];W[gc];B[eb];W[ib];B[hb];W[ob] ;B[jb];W[pc];B[pd];W[kb];B[ie];W[nc] ;B[qb];W[dc];B[ec];W[ce];B[cg];W[dd] ;B[ef];W[db];B[cn];W[fp];B[en];W[gn] ;B[jp];W[fl];B[dl];W[co];B[bn];W[hp] ;B[no];W[qi];B[oj];W[qc];B[rc];W[rb] ;B[sb];W[oh];B[ra];W[nd];B[ne];W[me] ;B[nf];W[mh];B[lg];W[id];B[hd];W[jd] ;B[hc];W[le];B[ki];W[nj];B[nk];W[mg] ;B[gm];W[mj];B[bf];W[be];B[hm];W[hk] ;B[jl];W[ei];B[ci];W[hh];B[ii];W[hi] ;B[ij];W[eg];B[cq];W[dq];B[bp];W[cr] ;B[br];W[cp];B[bq];W[jq];B[kq];W[iq] ;B[qn];W[qo];B[pn];W[qg];B[kr];W[mk] ;B[ok];W[re];B[pb];W[nr];B[oo];W[rn] ;B[rm];W[ro];B[ph];W[pg];B[pi];W[qh] ;B[og];W[mf];B[dr];W[er];B[cs];W[ff] ;B[ml];W[ee];B[gd];W[cj];B[bj];W[ck] ;B[bk];W[cl];B[el];W[ek];B[di];W[dh] ;B[df];W[ch];B[bh];W[bl];B[ak];W[dj] ;B[bi];W[de];B[dg];W[eh];B[da];W[ca] ;B[ea];W[bb];B[gk];W[gl];B[fm];W[hj] ;B[hl];W[fk];B[pf];W[rj];B[rk];W[oc] ;B[rd];W[oi];B[pj];W[qf];B[qe];W[sf] ;B[is];W[hr];B[io];W[kk];B[ll];W[ik] ;B[jk];W[kj];B[jj];W[mr];B[gg];W[fe] ;B[hf];W[bg];B[ag];W[cf];B[bg];W[bo] ;B[al];W[ao];B[es];W[fr];B[mq];W[hn] ;B[in];W[ka];B[eo];W[ep];B[sj];W[si] ;B[qj];W[sk];B[sl];W[rg];B[je];W[jc] ;B[ia];W[lr];B[lq];W[gh];B[kl];W[li] ;B[lk];W[lj];B[lh];W[ni];B[jh];W[ng] ;B[of];W[kf];B[bm];W[dk];B[sj];W[ri] ;B[sd];W[se];B[oa];W[na];B[pa];W[dm] ;B[em];W[dn];B[ai];W[il];B[im];W[fd] ;B[fc];W[ja];B[ib];W[fs];B[ds];W[ke] ;B[fg];W[fh];B[go];W[ho];B[fo];W[gp] ;B[ls];W[ms];B[ks];W[op];B[np];W[ih] ;B[sn];W[so];B[ap];W[jg];B[kh];W[hs] ;B[ae];W[ad];B[ip];W[ir];B[js];W[hg] ;B[gf];W[if];B[he];W[jf];B[af];W[sk] ;B[bd];W[ac];B[sj];W[sm];B[sk];W[sn])

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-02-03 16:59:57)
Go chinese rules : should pass count?

Thanks again Svante Carl, these pages are really interesting to read. There are so many rulesets for Go... I'm not sure to understand everything though.

I can't understand why, in a deterministic game such as Go where Black always plays the first move, there should be an extra half-point or full-point for White if he plays last or not, the same for any pass stone, so in my opinion the way games are scored here shouldn't change, but I'm not sure if something should be added in the rules. Do you think that something like "pass stones are not counted" would be useful & clear enough ?

Any opinion ?

Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2010-02-03 18:25:37)
Go chinese rules: should pass count?

Pass stones are irrelevant for area counting, so I think that you should not even mention them. It would only cause confusion.

Pass stones and last move compensation are methods to reconcile area and territory scoring. Last move compensation has another merit: in area scoring, the usually possible results always differ by two points, because when a point changes ownership, it is a loss of one point for one and a gain of one point for the other player. Last move compensation "sharpens" the possible results, and makes scoring very similar to territory scoring. However, this also is not necessary, so, at least as long as you don't fully understand this yourself, I would advise to keep simple area scoring and not mention anything else.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-02-05 21:48:48)
Advanced games : Problems & solutions

Hi all,

There's a real problem with the advanced games so far, anyone who tested it lost on time at least once without having played and/or won a game because his opponent forgot to play or to retire from the waiting list.

The challenges partly solves the problem as the program verifies if both players are connected to the server (also I added some warning messages explaining how to use the advanced games) but it seems it is far to be enough.....

Anyway I agree that a web interface is not really designed to such games, particularly when it is hard to find an opponent for these games (which is probably the main problem).

Whatever the way, both opponents should probably be able to discuss just before their game in the chat bar, so one solution would be to verify if the players wrote (or even posted a kind of "start" message) in the chat bar during the last few minutes, it would be a way to be "SURE" that both players are ready to play, even if I'm not sure that it would be enough again.

In my opinion, no more advanced game should start if both opponents did not confirm their presence to the other player in the chat bar.

Any opinion on this ? Any other idea to solve this ?

Thanks in advance and sorry again to all players who experienced this.

Nigel Colter    (2010-02-09 11:42:18)
Clock not running

Hi Thibault

I have noticed that the clock is not running in games 37213 and 37316.

Please advise.

Regards
Nigel

Garvin Gray    (2010-02-09 16:08:18)
Advanced games : Problems & solutions

An idea might be set a time period that challenges are valid for ie after a person sends out challenges or joins the waiting list, if no one has accepted inside a certain time period (say 15 minutes) the challenge automatically expires.

If the challenger wants to keep their challenge going, they have to re-send, helping to ensure that they are online, or at least near the computer.

Dinesh De Silva    (2010-02-14 07:06:24)
Accept Draw and resign......

It's an act of confused consciousness, which might be made out of generosity or curiosity, but which ultimately leads to a loss of half a point for oneslf plus a loss of rating points for oneself which through the law of 'a reaction for every action' guarantees the opponent some gains, thereby making the initial decision maker a "bad clicker!".

Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2010-02-21 02:51:44)
Learning Go

Recently, someone asked how to learn Go, or who would teach Go, on the side bar chat. The question and my answer has been removed from there, so I'll post some hints here.

First, to learn the rules, I would recommend "The Interactive Way to Go" at http://playgo.to/iwtg/en

To learn playing, play as much as possible, first on small boards (9x9), then going to bigger ones (13x13, 19x19) when you feel that you can keep track of the game there. Play with proper handicaps to keep the game even and improve your feeling for the board.

Teaching can take the form of simple game reviews, where the stronger player analyzes a single game and shows the weakest points and how to correct them; the "Go Teaching Ladder" organizes a lot of such reviews (http://gtl.xmp.net). It can also be done in interactive sessions; these require either face to face contact or a "live" server, though (e.g. KGS at http://gokgs.com). It is generally thought that the teacher should be about 5 stones stronger than the pupil.

Especially in the beginning, the advice is to play, play, play, and not be too fixated on ranks or winning percentages.

Garvin Gray    (2010-02-22 08:37:37)
E-point tournament

Been thinking about this for a while. Do you think it would be worthwhile to offer a tournament where there is an e-point entry fee?

For instance, Seven player entry, entry fee is ten e points and the winner receives 65 or so e points. I would like to see it at least tried once.

Philip Roe    (2010-02-22 16:39:32)
Rating calculation

The link is not totally clear, but the way I read it, your performance is based on your opponents TERs. This is then used to modify your current rating. Am I right?

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-02-22 23:20:19)
Rating calculation

Thanks Hannes, Philip & Wayne... Yes I am not clear enough, I should have used the term "performance", sorry :/

Ulrich Imbeck    (2010-02-23 01:59:54)
Learning Go

http://www.goproblems.com/ seems to be nice.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-09-08 00:58:52)
Ilyumzhinov leaves Kalmykia presidency

FIDE president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov would fully rely on his reelection at the FIDE presidency (15 years already), "leaving" the presidency of the Kalmykia republic after 17 years...

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6659

To be continued.

Philip Roe    (2010-03-12 15:45:54)
Tournament Leaders

But 1/1 is not better than 4.5/5

Daniel Parmet    (2010-03-12 20:58:47)
Rating calculation

A sidenote, but yes you can still win tournaments (otb at least) where you win the tournament but lose rating points. Look at the 2009 US Open where GM Jesse Krai and GM Alex Lenderman both won the event with 7.5/9 and both lost 2 rating points.

Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2010-03-13 00:09:43)
Poker Min Bid

Actually, since this is heads-up, one player is always small blind, the other big blind. If the small blind is 1, and the big blind 2, that means that this amount is already in the pot when the players get their hole cards. It is then still the first betting round, so the small blind can then "complete" for 1 (so that his bet in this betting round is now 2), or raise to at least double the big blind. See No-Limit Rules: http://www.pokerlistings.com/texas-holdem-betting-rules

Strategically, the bets should always be seen in relation to the current potsize. This follows from the calculation of odds and outs. It cannot be said that you should at least always bet potsize.

Lazaro Munoz    (2010-03-10 12:34:40)
Tournament Leaders

I am confused. In my section FICGS_CHESS_CLASS_C_000127 I have a full point lead and have had this lead for several weeks, yet I am listed as co-leader with another player (Panov) [I am not complaining, just confused]. I know that I have completed a game more than Panov. Is this 'leadership' based on total points? If so it has a bug; if it is based on points gained vs points loss then we are tied (just like every player would be at the beginning of the tournament). Btw, my game against Panov was a draw, I don't if that goes into the calculation and we both have a game in progress against the same opponent.

Daniel Parmet    (2010-03-10 19:55:47)
Tournament Leaders

it doesn't update right away.

Lazaro Munoz    (2010-03-11 02:58:55)
Tournament Leaders

Its been like that for weeks! How long is "right away"?

Don Groves    (2010-03-11 05:26:50)
Tournament Leaders

Leaders should be based on percentage of games won. 2/2 is better than 3/4.

Garvin Gray    (2010-03-12 05:02:35)
Poker Min Bid

Having watched quite a few poker tournaments on TV, I have seen quite a few instances where players have been told that the minimum bid is a certain amount. This is usually the amount of the big blind.

I think this change would speed up some of the games and does make sense, to me at least.

Don Groves    (2010-03-12 06:52:06)
Poker Min Bid

It doesn't make much sense to me to bet less than the pot. If you feel you have the better hand, bet at least the pot amount. Otherwise, you are giving the other guy better odds to chase you. A smaller bet may entice the other guy to call with a losing hand, but most players here are too smart to fall for that.

Kamesh Nookala    (2010-03-13 19:38:12)
Rating calculation

Hello,

Though i agree that my Rating is calculated on the basis of my opponent's TER in the previous tour plus my present rating, i want to bring on record certain facts, just to check if there is some error.

Rating after 1st March update = 2126

Games won after 1st March, in previous tours, where my TER is lower than the opponents :-

1) Rapid B 000132 (Game# 37866)
2) Rapid B 000137 (Game# 39182)
3) Rapid B 000137 (Game# 39186 - less than 10 moves, so no points for me)
4) Rapid B 000140 (Game# 39605)

Games drawn after 1 March, from the previous tour, where my opponent has better TER than me:-

1) Rapid B 000142 (Game# 40050)

Now, the detailed stats:-

First thing happened is, i drew a game from the previous tour on 1st March itself, i.e. Game# 40050 stated above. What i got is, lost my rating by 12 points. That means (2126-12 = 2114)

I gained 9 points from a draw in the Rapid M tour, which means 2114+9 = 2123

Excluding game at S.No.3 above where the moves are less than 10, i won the remaining three and i got 0 points from three wins. My substantial rise in rating afterwards is detrimental to me and my TER in that particular tour is no consideration at all is the moot question, because, at least i felt like i deserve a single point from each win i secured :)

However, if i missed something, i regret sincerely and tender and unconditional apology :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-13 21:26:08)
Help : Tablebases, Rybka 3

It will never be exactly the same to play with the help of this interface... At least it is quite feasible to install 5 + some 6 pieces tablebases.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-13 21:27:24)
Tournament Leaders

The reason is that I generally update this table every 15 days.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-13 21:43:04)
Rating calculation

You have to make the difference between ratings updated in real time (like advanced chess ratings) & the FICGS correspondence chess rating calculation, the idea of those ratings updated every 2 months is to avoid peaks, consequently when you win, draw or lose three games after the last rating calculation, your future rating does not take account of the first result THEN the second one THEN the third one, it is actually completely recalculated by taking account of all results at the same time, so you DO NOT win or lose points AFTER EACH result, your performance is recalculated according to the formula explained in the rules & that looks like the french FIDE rating calculation. One thing that explains "strange" variations after 2 or 3 results only is that the rating calculation is just more accurate when you have many results & particularly when your score is near 50%.

That should answer to the discussions I had with Kamesh & Ralph, but maybe my explanations are not so clear, sorry about that again.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-16 10:37:01)
Interview with E. Kotlyanskiy

Congrats again to Edward Kotlyanskiy, new FICGS chess champion after beating Xavier Pichelin (2577) in the 12 games final match of the 3rd cycle.

Edward kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match and correspondence chess in general :

_________________________

> Hi Edward, first of all congratulations for winning this 12 games match against the former FICGS chess champion, Xavier Pichelin. You had to score at least one point more than your opponent, what was your strategy when the games started?

Knowing that I had to score at least +1 against Xavier, I had to try to get the games into complex positions where there are many options to play for both sides. At the point when the games started, I was the underdog to Xavier (mainly due to the face that I was rated about 200 points lower). In part, I think that one of the reasons why Xavier allowed the games to reach such complex positions is due to the fact that his rating was undoubtedly higher than mine and therefore he probably assumed that he could “outplay” me. Although this was simultaneously a brave and admirable choice, I think an option that many other players would have pursued would have been to play “drawish” lines with the hope of having all of the games ending in draws. I have great respect for Xavier due to the fact that he didn't choose such a path and allowed us to put on a hard fought show that was worth watching.

> What could you say on the hot moments of the match?

The first game in which I thought I had very good chances to win was game 34739. In this game (particularly on move 18) Xavier played the move Nb8?? Looking back at the move, I realized that the game was lost for him. I assumed that Xavier probably underestimated the threat of f5. There were no good responses and/or countermeasures for the move f5. For example, if 19) gxf5, I have 20) Nxh5 Nc6 21) Rc3! Bxh4 (Qd8 was also possible) 22) Qf4 Be7 23) g4! His king is just clearly caught in the attack! 19) exf5 also fails to 20) e6 f6 (trying to keep the king safe) 21) Bxh5!! gxh5 22) Nc6 Rc3 and therefore it’s easy to see that it is just a matter of time. Xavier did try something better although even that failed due to some nice moves. I believe that 21) g7 came as a surprise to Xavier (or that at least he hadn't seen this move when playing Nb8). After Nxh5 (another neat move), another line that I thought Xavier would enter (which is also losing) is 22) Qxc2 23) Qxc2 Rxc2 24) Nf6+! Bxf6 25) exf6. Clearly my pawns are just too strong! Knowing that I am winning after the mentioned alternatives, the other games (although I won three others) were just necessary to hold without falling for any tactics/tricks.

A second game I want to briefly comment on is game 34729. I played a very nice (although I am not sure if it is winning just yet) move known as 17.a4! It was a very nice way to open the position on both of our kings. In all honesty, the move that I think was winning in this situation 25) Rd3, I did not even consider too highly until the position reached that very move. After a relatively short analysis, I was indeed pleasantly surprised to see that; overall, it was completely winning for me.

> What could you say on the advantages and inconveniences of this 12 games match format played at a quite fast time control?

From the days when I first starting playing correspondence chess, I have always been accustomed to making moves rather quickly. In fact, when I first started playing, in some games I made moves within 10 minutes of looking at the position. Although I take a lot more time to analyze now-a-days, I still consider the speed of my play to be relatively faster compared to most other correspondence players. Playing 12 games simultaneously can have drawbacks as not having enough time to properly analyze; however, I didn't have such a problem. With the exception of a few games that I was playing on IECG at the start of the FICGS Championship, the 12 game series was my main concern.

> Without revealing your secrets, how would you define modern correspondence chess as a centaur (playing with chess engines)?

These days, it is impossible to play correspondence chess on a high level without consulting the engine. It is also unlikely that one can achieve a lot of success just by following the engine blindly (even after a long analysis). Personally, I know that some of my friends believe that in correspondence chess you are just following the engine but I believe that most “high level” correspondence players know that it just doesn't work that way.

In my opinion, one of the most important skills that a correspondence player should have is having some sense of where the engine he is analyzing with is faulty. To give a well known example, many people know that there are certain endgame positions that an engine alone can't be trusted in (a simple case is the wrong color bishop). In essence, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of whatever engine you are analyzing with is critical to playing correspondence chess at a “high level”.

> Why did you choose to play correspondence chess, do you play OTB (over the board) chess as well?

Before starting correspondence chess, I played OTB chess for quite a few years. When my schedule became busy, I realized that I wouldn't have much time to play OTB in clubs. I came across correspondence chess and got hooked on it very quickly. Also, I began to enjoy more of the subtleties of the game; something that is just lacking in OTB blitz games. I imagine that some people prefer to play practical chess (OTB) in which a move order wouldn't make much of a difference; however, I guess I am a perfectionist and believe the game should be played on as high of a level as possible.

> How many correspondence games do you usually play at the same time (on different chess servers or by email)? Would you say that it is an addiction?

Usually, I played about 5 to 10 games on average on all different sites. I did play via email on IECC but wasn't fond of playing by email therefore I went back to server only sites (IECG, FICGS, Schemingmind).

I can definitely say that correspondence chess is an addiction. All too often, I catch myself analyzing games when I really should be doing something much more time sensitive. Well, at least I can say that this addiction paid off in that I am the new FICGS champion!

> Are you interested in other games?

As far as board games go, chess is primarily the only game I play. At times I do play games like monopoly and scrabble with my friends. Another interest that I have is billiards.

> The next challenger for the FICGS chess champion title is SM Eros Riccio (winner of several PlayChess PAL freestyle tournaments). Do you think that you'll play him? What does this perspective inspire in you?

I can't wait to play Eros! I believe that he would be my toughest opponent yet (although I have played GM Leitão, Rafael (fide elo: 2619) and managed to draw). Eros is like an unstoppable juggernaut in corr chess. That said, I look forward to our games and I am certain that they will simultaneously be challenging and entertaining.

> Thanks and best of luck in your future games!

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-17 14:42:57)
1st team tournament : games & results !

Hi Iouri... Well, my old computer can't even see it (just realized that modern computers are about 40x faster :/) , but I just checked the shredder bases online, this is checkmate in 21 moves indeed. It was predictable anyway :) .. I just resigned.

Table 1 : 4 unfinished games remaining (Iouri leading)
Table 2 : 0 unfinished games remaining (Volker won)
Table 3 : 2 unfinished games remaining (Ostap leading)
Table 4 : 0 unfinished games remaining (Yura won)

One thing is sure already, our yellow-blue chessfriends did it very well !

So...

"Team 1" - "Team 2" : points (score)

"Ni" - "FSF" : FSF leads by 1 point
"Ni" - "Dark" : 1-1 (2-2)
"Ni" - "Happy" : 2-0 (3-1)
"Ni" - "YB" : 1-1 (2-2)
"Ni" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Ni" - "No" : 2-0 (leads by 2 points)
"FSF" - "Dark" : 1-1 (2-2)
"FSF" - "Happy" : FSF leads by 1 point
"FSF" - "YB" : 2-0 (2.5-1.5)
"FSF" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (leads by 3 points)
"FSF" - "No" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Dark" - "Happy" : 2-0 (2.5-1.5)
"Dark" - "YB" : 0-2 (1.5-2.5)
"Dark" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Dark" - "No" : 2-0 (3-1)
"Happy" - "YB" : YB leads by 1 point
"Happy" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Happy" - "No" : 2-0 (3-1)
"YB" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (2.5-0.5)
"YB" - "No : 2-0 (2.5-1.5)
"Ghost" - "No" : 0-2 (1.5-2.5)

Total :

Knights who say Ni : 8 points (-)
FSF en passant : 7 points (++)
Dark knights : 8 points
Happy pawn : 4 pawns (--)
Yellow Blue warriors : 7 points (+)
Ghost knights : 0 points
Our team king (knights with no name) : 2 points

(+) meaning : leads in a match yet, (-) meaning : is leaded in a match yet

Nothing is decided yet... but it looks like Yellow-Blue have good chances, which is particularly impressive with a player who made 0/6 !

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-21 01:13:54)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010

Dear chessfriends, the next FICGS chess freestyle cup waiting list is open until april 3. This 6 rounds swiss tournament will start on april 3, 13:00 server time (first three rounds, every 2 hours) and on april 10, 13:00 server time (last three rounds, every 2 hours). Prize is 100% of the entry fees in E-Points + 100 E-Points. FIDE GM & IM, FICGS / ICCF GM, SM & IM are invited to enter the waiting list for free, please just send a message to webmaster through My account page to register.

To enter the waiting list :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=entry_tournament&tournament=ficgs_chess_cup

Feel free to reply here if you have any suggestions, I hope that this format (2 consecutive saturdays, 3 rounds per day) will be ok for the most !

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-21 22:52:10)
SSDF rating list (march 2010)

The new SSDF rating list reveals at least one thing : Between an old Athlon 1200 and a modern Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, there is at least a 120 point gap. Unfortunately, Ippolit/Ivanhoe/Igorrit/Firebird are still out of the list.

SSDF RATING LIST 2010-03-21 %120316 games played by 311 computers
Rating + - Games Won Oppo
------ --- --- ----- --- ----
1 Deep Rybka 3 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3227 27 -25 1005 83% 2962
2 Naum 4 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3149 25 -23 986 74% 2963
3 Deep Shredder 12 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3124 26 -24 863 70% 2972
4 Deep Fritz 12 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3117 37 -36 373 60% 3043
5 Deep Rybka 3 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 3090 39 -38 332 58% 3033
6 Deep Fritz 11 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3081 22 -21 1142 68% 2946
7 Zappa Mexico II x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3068 27 -26 696 59% 3002
8 Naum 3.1 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3052 30 -29 572 59% 2990
9 Deep Hiarcs 12 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3039 22 -21 1087 61% 2958
10 Deep Shredder 11 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3038 26 -26 726 58% 2981
11 Hiarcs 11.2 MP 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3010 25 -25 761 54% 2984
12 Glaurung 2.2 x64 MP 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3007 22 -22 1001 60% 2933
13 Shredder 12 256MB A1200 MHz 3006 39 -39 320 45% 3040
14 Naum 4 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2998 29 -29 574 50% 2996
15 Deep Junior 10.1 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2975 25 -25 766 48% 2992
16 Rybka 2.3.1 Arena 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2926 22 -22 964 52% 2912
17 Fritz 11 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2915 27 -27 669 47% 2935
18 Deep Fritz 8 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2912 25 -26 753 39% 2991
19 Shredder 8 MP 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2908 28 -29 603 39% 2984
20 Deep Shredder 11 256MB Athlon 1200 2907 30 -30 534 45% 2941
21 Hiarcs 11.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2879 23 -23 941 49% 2882
22 CM King 3.5 x64 MP 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2866 31 -32 530 33% 2990
23 Junior 10.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2864 19 -20 1271 47% 2882
24 Deep Junior 8 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2859 29 -30 589 36% 2961
25 Fritz 10 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2851 34 -33 458 64% 2749
26 Zap!Chess Z. 256MB Athlon 1200 MH 2842 21 -21 1060 50% 2840
27 Fruit 2.2.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2833 19 -19 1385 62% 2750
28 Spike 1.2 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2817 26 -26 714 57% 2766
29 Chess Tiger 2007 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2775 25 -26 748 46% 2805
29 Rybka 1.0 beta 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2775 64 -69 115 38% 2860
31 Zap!Chess 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2737 30 -29 562 53% 2713
32 Gandalf 6.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2735 24 -24 855 56% 2693
33 Pocket Fritz 3 Hiarcs Ipaq 214 624 MHz 2733 64 -58 142 66% 2617
34 Chessmaster 9000 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2720 36 -35 385 56% 2680
35 Pro Deo 1.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2714 24 -23 876 57% 2660
36 Pocket Shredder Ipaq 114 624 MHz 2698 83 -70 100 74% 2520
37 Deep Sjeng 1.5a 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2675 31 -31 493 52% 2663
38 CEBoard Fruit 2.3.1 XScale 400 400 MHz 2647 65 -61 129 62% 2564
39 Revelation Rybka 2.2 XScale 500 MHz 2632 47 -45 240 62% 2549
39 Ruffian 2.0.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2632 49 -49 205 46% 2661
41 Pocket Fritz 3 Glaurung 2.1 Ipaq 614C 2528 69 -74 100 40% 2604
42 Pocket Fritz 2 XScale 400 MHz 2508 48 -46 225 57% 2459
43 Resurrection Rybka 2.2 StrongARM 203 MH 2484 43 -43 260 51% 2477
44 Resurrection Fruit '05 StrongARM 203 MH 2395 67 -63 120 60% 2320
45 Hiarcs 9.5a/9.6 Palm TungstenE OMAP 126 2392 35 -35 400 45% 2426
46 CEBoard Crafty 2004 HP RX4240 400 MHz 2375 52 -54 180 41% 2443
47 R30 v. 2.5 2274 41 -38 343 69% 2136
48 Palm Tiger 2009 Tung C 400 MHz 2229 66 -71 110 38% 2317
49 Chess Genius 1.4 SX1 OMAP 310 120 MHz 2151 50 -48 210 60% 2081
50 Chess Tiger 14.9 Palm m515 16MB 42MHz 2103 69 -74 100 39% 2182

Garvin Gray    (2010-03-22 02:44:37)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010

Thibault,

I would like to propose that the competition be postponed for one week. So the playing dates are April 10 and 17. I have just realised that April 3 is the Easter weekend and I am not available.

I suspect that others will be in the same boat and so this will reduce entries.

Please change the dates to April 10/17.

Cheers,

Garvin

Don Groves    (2010-03-25 22:50:03)
Challenges

Thib: Please give us an option in Preferences to remove our name from the challenges lists.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-28 04:01:07)
Vasily Smyslov dies at 89

Vasily Vasiliyevich Smyslov (born March 24, 1921) was the 7th chess world champion, he beat Mikhail Botvinnik in the world championship match in 1957 and lost the title one year later.

He died on March 27, 2010.

(I must say I was surprised to learn he was still alive, another proof that chess is good for the health)

Don Groves    (2010-03-31 09:19:17)
Poker dealing algorithm

Yes, everything will happen eventually, but some unlikely repetitions have already happened many times. At least two royal flushes for example. Also, there seem to be too many cases of the flop being all of the same suit. I have seen this several times in only the past few days.

I don't understand what you mean by "prove that no card is dealt out of the algorithm, but I'll have to change it..."

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-31 10:01:23)
Poker dealing algorithm

I mean that there is no card generated 'randomly' [without any control] like on many poker sites that can e.g. give better cards to super players and say "it was just luck"). I can prove that all cards come from the same algorithm, but of course if I reveal it, I'll have to change at least some parameters of the algorithm for the next games.

Anyway I can make a study and generate billions of hands (would it be enough, I'm not even sure) automatically to see accurate statistics but really, I would be surprised to see any problem.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-31 10:03:10)
Bug in game 41452

Ahh... strange then!

Please report (before to play) if you see something like this again. Thanks a lot.

Garvin Gray    (2010-03-31 10:14:29)
Computer keeps locking up... assistance

I keep having this issue where my computer keeps locking up when I analyse positions for a while. I believe this problem is caused because the engines are using 100 percent of the available computer memory.

Does anyone know a way around this? ie to have the computer use on ninety percent of its memory, so leaving 10 percent for other stuff.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-31 17:06:17)
Touch move option !

Here it is, now you can choose if your moves should be sent as soon as played (without having to push the "Send" button), this works for chess, chess 960 & Go !

This should be a much more convenient option for freestyle/advanced games... at last :)

See your Preferences to change the option.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=data

As usual, please report any bug... Any suggestion is welcome ! Thanks.

Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2010-03-31 19:42:53)
Poker dealing algorithm

"..., but of course if I reveal it, I'll have to change at least some parameters of the algorithm for the next games."

I don't get this. There is a well known algorithm for shuffling cards, the Fischer-Yates-shuffle. All you need is an unbiased random number generator. There is no need for secrecy.

If you use anything else, it is most likely wrong.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-03 21:33:36)
Weird technical problem

Hi Michel, yes we were a few ones (Mauro, you & I) to play with fire with less than 5 seconds (sometimes 1 second only) on the clock... the real problem is that everything can happen anytime with internet, by the way I lost my last game on time with William because my connection was broken after only 2 moves :( .. And Mauro was playing with a GSM because of his internet provider also.

So I have no clear answer on what happened to your move if you had remaining time, but it is sure that the server received it too late. The email only says that you "tried" to move to h7 (actually this is a way to verify that you didn't resign accidentaly) but as the email does not say that you resigned, it means that you lost on time.

Sorry about this and thanks for your fair play!

Wayne Lowrance    (2010-04-05 03:22:11)
How to check tablebases integrity

Thibault, do not waste your time trying to generate them, you won't live long enough. download them at sesse.com
You need 1 terribyte to down load them all. and takes over a year I am informed.
I just started downloading lil over a month ago and have about 25 poitions total downloaded and working.
Please, a word of caution at Sesse download site. He will not allow hardware accelerators (whatever they are). DO NOT download more than a file at a time. You will get blocked.
Thibault I have not used 6 man bases yet.
Caution: Do not have your engine loaded/running when downloading, otherwise expect engine crashing.
I pass on to those interested a decent list of 50 bases to downoad.
Been at this one month +/- so as I learn I will pass on.
Wayne

Garvin Gray    (2010-04-05 16:48:43)
Poker Min Bid

There is also the other side of the story about rating accuracy in this situation where if players are getting bored with how long the games are taking because things just go back and forth, then they are less likely to play.

This leads to more inaccurate ratings. I think it would be easier to get more accurate ratings by there being many games against different opponents, even if each individual game is not perfect because the minimum bid has been increased.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-05 18:04:46)
Issues + New pairings

Hi Garvin, what is your browser ? I guess that you use cookies so your problem is quite strange to me as the links posted in the forum only open a new window (that should use the same session - works fine on Firefox & Chrome, at least)...

About the freestyle tournament, I just tried to add a new player during the tournament and the software seems to accept it. Finally I think it cannot be bad to authorize players to enter the waiting list until the end of the tournament, so I just added this rule.

Consequently the pairings for round 4 changed :

Table 1 : Boehme - Taylor
Table 2 : Evans - Pichelin
Table 3 : van der Kemp - Petrolo
Table 4 : Moreira - de Vassal
Table 5 : Gray - Nichols

Sorry to the players for this update, but I'm still trying to find the best rules for this kind of tournaments.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-10 14:20:52)
Freestyle vs. Access providers

It looks like that access providers are a real problem during freestyle tournaments... In 4 rounds, 2 players (at least) lost a game on time because of them and 1 other had to play with his mobile phone card because his access provider was not able to see ficgs.com during a few hours.

It is possible that week-ends are a quite bad choice to play as most internet providers encounter most problems from friday evening to monday (and take much more time to solve it).

I do not see a clear rule that could solve all this, maybe more rounds would attenuate the problem... If you have any idea, let's discuss it!

Thanks.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-10 19:37:35)
Congrats to David Evans!

David Evans wins this 2nd FICGS freestyle cup!

Here are the final standings (please note that the FICGS crosstable may be slightly different from the pairing software's one) :

1. Evans, David : 4,5 / 6 games played (berg 11,75)
2-3. Petrolo, Mauro : 4 / 6 games played (berg 12,5)
2-3. Taylor, William : 4 / 5 games played (berg 9,5)
4. van der Kemp, Michel : 3,5 / 5 games played (berg 6,75)
5. Boehme, Sebastian : 3 / 5 games played (berg 6,25)
6-7. de Vassal, Thibault : 2,5 / 5 games played (berg 6)
6-7. Nichols, Scott : 2,5 / 5 games played (berg 4,25)
8. Pichelin, Xavier : 2 / 6 games played (berg 5,75)
9-10. Moreira, Jose : 1,5 / 4 games played (berg 3,5)
9-10. Gray, Garvin : 1,5 / 3 games played (berg 3,25)

Of course and unfortunately, the number of "played games" includes losses on time without playing. There were numerous problems with access providers during this tournament...

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-10 21:19:28)
Challenges

This is the software's fault (my bad), not the player's... because there's a "challenge all players" function that is supposed to be used... so this is unlikely to be harrassment! Please keep cool in this case, you may move the challenges at the bottom of the window if you don't use it by clicking the arrow (towards the bottom). I'll add an option in Preferences to completely hide it, and probably a blacklist function also. Now working on.

Garvin Gray    (2010-04-11 16:18:23)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010

It may or may not lead to more draws, this I do not know. But what it will do is allow more time for analysis and human decisions ie centaur play, which I think is the main part of freestyle and one of the main reasons we all participate in these competitions.

If the time control is too fast to allow decent analysis, then each game is just engine v engine with different computing speeds as a variable.

This whole issue could be viewed also as each freestyle comp will have slightly different paramaters to try and satisfy most people's taste.

Robert Mueller    (2010-04-11 16:21:54)
Match Against Rybka Forum

Actually, it seems they already have seven players:

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=16195

If you build a team, please count me in.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-11 20:59:51)
Match Against Rybka Forum

Oh ok, thanks Robert, I didn't see this discussion at Rybkaforum before...

The idea discussed with "Vytron" is : Half players would play their game here at FICGS, and the other half would play their game at the Rybka forum... Of course there would be a kind of time control there but this would be a friendly match before all!

So please post here if you're interested to play in the FICGS team and specify if you would be ok to play your game at the Rybkaforum.

I'm in, of course (if my new rating allow me to play :)), and I'm ok to play at the Rybkaforum.

Robert Mueller    (2010-04-12 05:14:47)
Match Against Rybka Forum

> So please post here if you're interested
> to play in the FICGS team and specify
> if you would be ok to play your game
> at the Rybkaforum.

Thibault, I would like to play for the FICGS team. I would prefer to play here at FICGS.

Garvin Gray    (2010-04-12 06:02:19)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010

I would certainly prefer only one or two games per night a longer time control.

I am strongly against the idea of allowing free entries whilst other pay. With allowing free entries, they have not done anything to show their commitment to finishing the tournament and could just withdraw/not show up at any stage.

While this can also happen for those who have paid an entry fee, at least these players would lose their entry fee.

Also, I am strongly against this idea of free entries and no chance to win prizes as it means some players can just play risk free with no concern for their overall tournament standing, whilst those competing for prizes have to be mindful of their tournament position.

In effect it will create two different mini tournaments and some players will be adversely affected.

I would rather a smaller tournament, but where all the players are playing under the same conditions ie time control, entry fee, ability to win prizes.

Garvin Gray    (2010-04-13 17:22:52)
Match Against Rybka Forum

I have a proposal though. We could ask the organisers from the Rybka team if they would be willing to play their team in 'rating order' or whatever they are going to use.

The reason I am against having players play in any order is that it will lead to more mis-matches and does not tell much about the players of either forum.

Lazaro Munoz    (2010-04-13 20:40:15)
More ratings questions

This time one big chess. According to rules for big chess (I actually read it first before posting :), it says that the original rating that is used for calculations is the correspondence rating, which should have been 1785, however it appears that 0 was used instead. In the section that I almost finishing I am now 5 out 5 with 1 game left. The ratings of the other players ranged from 1800 down 1200 (roughly) initially. My current provision rating is 1609 and it seems that all my opponents have lost at least 200 ratings points in the process of playing in this tournament.

If rating system had used a real low rating as the initial for myself it would have been unfair to both myself and all of the other players in my section.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-13 22:30:46)
Big chess ratings

Hi Lazaro!

"Big chess ratings are first estimated from current correspondence chess ratings (current rating -300 points, with at least 1400), then adjusted in real time after each result (...)"

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_big_chess

When you entered your first big chess tournament, the TER was not specified but your current correspondence chess rating was used (minus 300) to calculate your first big chess rating with your first result, so a rating of 1609 seems ok taking account of your opponents ratings. The first results may look quite arbitrary but some rules prevent to lose too many points when losing against a strong opponent with a low rating. Anyway there should be more class categories to get more chances to improve ratings (to be continued), we needed more players but maybe we can do it now.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-16 23:18:05)
Poker : touch move + bet button

I've just changed the value of the "Bet" button from half the opponent's pot to twice the opponent's pot. This looks like more logical & may accelerate games... But the min bid rule has not changed yet! The min bid issue is being discussed there :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8254

Please note that the TOUCH MOVE option (see Preferences) now also works with Poker (fold, call, bet, raise & all-in buttons) & Big Chess.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-21 15:22:13)
Final Match details

It is not so clear yet indeed, I just asked Vytron to confirm, if there's a special rule, I'll specify it as soon as possible in the original discussion :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8422

Garvin Gray    (2010-04-21 19:06:39)
Wider rating range tournaments

That title reads like I am doing some back-tracking (for those keeping track) and in a way I am.

I have previously asked for the rating bands of the standard and rapid waiting lists to be 200 points apart as rarely does someone join from outside those rating ranges.

Since then I have noticed that I am getting 'stuck' having to play the same people (feels that way at least).

We have only a couple of tournaments a year where players from different rating ranges are paired together and even in the World Champ groups, the 2300's or so are protected from the rest of the membership.

I would like to see some RATED tournaments created which allows more play between players of different rating ranges.

I believe this would also help with rating list accuracy as it gives the potential for players to increase their rating if they perform and would also sort out the over-rated players quite quickly.

Garvin Gray    (2010-04-21 21:30:59)
Wider rating range tournaments

Returning to the 400 rating range will not help for two reasons.

1) Players have shown with both the 400 and now 200 rating ranges that they will not join a tournament if most of the other players are rated below them, even if e-points are offered for winning the tournament
This will not change by going back to 400 point rating bands.

2) The only time players participate in tournaments where they could lose rating points is in the World Champ tourneys, where the prize (qualifying for next round and six games against strong opponents) is greater than the risk of losing rating points.

Hence why I have at least brought up the idea of another set of tournaments. The idea would be every one enters, players are allocated to groups (each group is as equal as possible), then the winners of each group go through to another round robin final group.

The difference between this and the World Champs is that there is no knockout stages and everyone starts from stage one. This means even the 2400's would have to play in stage one to win the tournament.

Wayne Lowrance    (2010-04-23 01:11:29)
Wider rating range tournaments

Garvin, you have a very good point. I have been there and so I know how your feeling. It is very difficult to advance that is for sure.
Garvin It can be overcome, I have! please refer to my rating climb. I started off at rock bottom despite the fact that I had a rating of 2300++ going in here at ficgs. I did know know I could transfer part of my rating (1800 I Think) but I started at the bottom (1500 if memory serves).It has taken me for what seems forever to arrive to where I am now. I have worked very hard to achieve the Title and it's rating. I have a nice comp now, but the first couple of years I grew in stature with a 1.8 ghz single cpu. Have used that cpu most of my stay here.
What is my secret ?. Answer I have non. First is I have a excellent CC book (lousy for blitzing). I feel the real only way to advance here on FICS is outbook and out think your opponent in opening lines (ask Thibault :) So MY thoughts are that it would follow that I am not in favor of your proposal. Having said that, I will support what ever way Thibault goes with your ideas. Good luck my friend, I am behind you, but honestly cannot say I will support any new rating grading. Wayne

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-24 17:02:39)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Tano-Urayoán just posted an interesting idea in the following discussion:

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8507

I was totally opposed to this idea at a first sight, but after a while I found some real advantages.

The idea : Any player could pay an entry fee to enter a high class chess tournament (e.g. 20 Euros for class M, 40 for class SM, 60 for class GM), whatever his rating.

Of course what we all see first is : Anyone can pay to make increase his rating faster, that is just unfair!

But let's imagine that a player rated 1800 pays an entry fee of 40 Euros to enter the class SM waiting list.

1) The waiting list will be filled faster!

2) If this player is actually stronger than its rating show, he'll find its place faster (the other players will not lose so many points because their ratings are protected - see rating calculation rules).

3) There could be such an extra rule: Players who are already in the waiting list or who will play the tournament may share 50% of the entry fee in Epoints, which would be a kind of compensation for them.

4) These entry fees will help to have more prizes in free tournaments (another compensation) and bigger prizes in e.g. freestyle cups, although I don't have any idea on how many players would be interested in this, so the site will become more popular and so on...

Anyway, please share your views if you have any idea to improve this one, and your opinion is needed here of course!

Garvin Gray    (2010-04-24 12:08:38)
Wider rating range tournaments

Thibault,

The idea of qualification for a higher rating group might get people entering more tournaments in their 'correct' rating group.

Also, even if there is just one lower rated player in a higher group (earned by winning), is that really so bad as it at least gets that division playing, rather than sitting around waiting for someone to join.

Wayne Lowrance    (2010-04-25 03:14:27)
Careful wht you do with our loved F

Thibault, okey dokie, I understand you, for sure, and you are right at reviewing your change options. You should. I am only one voice but I wanted to be heard.
I have said enough on Money entry into a high classification. You know I do not like it.
I agree 100% with your thinking regarding money. You need to profit. So any change that goes there and does not affect membership in a negative way is good for you. If the membership do not like certain changes, and they leave then money for you is affected. So it is a two way street.
Regarding chess rating should overall increase. Ok with me but do not see any advantage, all relative.
Regarding Increasing Title requirements.
That may be valid. Not sure one way or the other. Gotta think on that. But shooting from the hips, sounds ok.
Wayne

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-27 23:01:42)
Careful wht you do with our loved F

More interesting (or challenging games at least) games, more chances to increase its rating, I guess.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-28 08:53:55)
Careful wht you do with our loved F

Very true Hannes...

Many players try to reach the highest ratings before to relax and play more for fun & more openings (there is often a period to learn to lose &/or break the ego at correspondence chess, unlike Go)

A way to find more fun may be in faster games, with more madness and wins/losses... I hope that more players will try bullet games here :)

But that's not a reason not to talk about the ratings issue to try to make it more coherent if possible.

On the rate of draws, I'm not sure if it is so high yet, games played at the highest level may have less draws than in the category below as players do everything to avoid drawish lines. It is probably always too high anyway :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-02 16:17:36)
Game 6 draw, Anand still leads

Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-05 15:41:56)
Topalov wins Game 8

Topalov strikes back in Game 8, now the score is 4-4, and as Mircea noticed it, the game follows a line until move 18 in another game played here "de Vassal vs. Leemans 1/2-1/2", I'm not sure if 18.a5 is a real improvement but it worked well against a world champion, at least!

Don Groves    (2010-05-08 09:12:52)
How many games at once?

Back when FICGS was younger, I believe there was a limit of 50 games at one time.

I think this limit should be reinstated. A player may think he or she can handle 100 or more games but what about the opponents who then must wait up to a year for a game to finish?

I still feel there should be a rule that mandates a shorter maximum time between moves (no more than 7 days) but limiting the number of simultaneous games could have the same effect, that of speeding up games to a reasonable duration.

If a player cannot make at least one move per week in any game, then they don't have enough time for the number of games they are playing.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-08 21:08:51)
New proposition

Here's a new idea, based on the fact that I don't think I'll have time (before a while, at least) to implement a script that would allow 1 or 2 tournament's winners to enter a higher class waiting list... many particular cases, not so easy.

The idea :

We could allow one (actually 2 would be still ok IMO) tournament's winner to enter a higher class waiting list for 10 Epoints (not Euros, big difference as most Epoints are won in free tournaments and cannot be cashed out if not played in tournaments with entry fee). I would place the players in the waiting lists by myself but finally it may satisfy everyone -> A player rated 1900 could enter a 2000+ waiting list but could not enter a 2200+ waiting list, the server can offer more Epoints prizes (that just increased for chess tournaments, by the way), and players could find their place more easily in the ratings.

Any opinion?

Garvin Gray    (2010-05-09 03:17:39)
Careful wht you do with our loved F

Thibault,

I have previously addressed the issue of what happens if players tie for first.

In my opinion, it should be person with highest rating at the end of the tournament that gets the invite to the next division.

I have proposed end of tournament rating for this at it would be a more accurate guide to each players potential.

The entry fee for this qualified player should be the amount they won in their previous division.

I am against four or five players qualifying as it could lead to collusion between players, or at least the appearance of collusion (paranoia).

Also having the possibility of more than one player going through could lead to more draw agreements as players realise they do not have to score 5.5/6 or so to get the spot in the next division.

Daniel Parmet    (2010-05-09 03:36:39)
How many games at once?

If you lower the time limit for response on games to 7 days then I will ask for you to delete my account. This little time defeats the entire point of correspondence. You have no right to dictate how I can and where I should spend my time. The reason I play correspondence is because I can spend 10 days on juicy positions or sit on draw offers or if my real life gets too busy ignore my games all together. If you take this away from me then correspondence is dead to me or at least this site is.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-09 23:02:05)
Rybka 4, news, tests & results

It looks like Rybka 4 is to be released, this discussion could gather the news, tests & results in matches of this new version against Rybka 3 and other engines (thinking about Stockfish 1.7.1, Naum 4.2, Fritz 12, Shredder 12, Hiarcs & engines that are "possible" clones of Rybka: Firebird 1.2, Ivanhoe, RobboLito, Ippolit & so on)...

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-09 23:24:12)
How many games at once?

Of course it is laughable, I took the extreme opposites but while everything goes faster & faster on the internet and everyone MUST become more & more addicted so that the world runs fine (just meaning more money), my choice is definitely not to follow that way, also because this system will not work so long IMO. People will slowly quit Facebook after a time or at least will not use it the same way, and many already started to stop to play all these thousands stupid applications. Maybe it cannot be really a good comparison but the idea is there.

Correspondence chess was much slower before email chess & server chess, and it is now fast enough IMO. I don't know how other players feel it, some ones have time for sure, as for me I have some time to play but a 14 days limit per move would be really stressful to me though... I cannot imagine how many games more I would have lost with such a rule.

I know that a few players would like faster moves, however I feel that most players are fine with the current rules and I really want everyone to be cool here. We've lost a bunch of good players because of the previous rules such as unlimited number of games.

Now we should debate it game after game as most players who would like faster moves at chess still play in class tournaments (while rapid category was designed for them). Go is a game of patience definitely, but I have some work to do to accelerate some games (something towards automatic adjudication), and the major problem will be for poker games.

So, what are we talking about? :)

Wayne Lowrance    (2010-05-09 23:25:22)
Rybka 4, news, tests & results

Howdy Thibault. is this release info new where did you get it if so.
Wayne

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-09 23:31:20)
Careful wht you do with our loved F

Sorry Garvin, I was not clear enough, I meant "what to do if let's say 5 players rated 2000-2200 (who won 5 different tournaments !) suddenly ask for an entry in a 2200+ (class M) waiting list".

We can discuss your other suggestions of course, everything is possible there, but we must find an "agreement" on the other points before :)

> The entry fee for this qualified player should be the amount they won in their previous division.

I guess that we could try this way, but it seems a bit unfair for the winners of strong tournaments, any other opinion?

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-09 23:34:06)
Rybka 4, news, tests & results

Well, as it is possible to pre-order it at Chessbase & Chessok (Aquarium), I guess it should be released soon!?

The author of Rybka (Vasik Rajlich) said the first part of may...

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/3546/aquarium.jpg

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-10 15:16:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Well, the discussion continued in another thread :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8555

Garvin's ideas may work fine, but while some players will like the benefits, some others will be deceived not to be able to take advantage of it (quite a chancy factor)...

Here is my new proposal (based on a few Epoints, not real money) :

- 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.

Please correct anything that looks unclear and let's discuss it again :) Thanks for all your help Garvin & all!

I'd like to have Wayne, Michel's & other opinions on the proposed changes, is this at least more acceptable according to you?

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-11 18:48:52)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Stéphane, please specify if you agree any conditions (which ones?) described a few posts above... that's the main point.

Garvin, I need some opinions like Michel's one (even if I cannot convince him), it helps me to make my ideas clearer and to bring better arguments. I feel that we approach something now, but we really have to specify what conditions we're talking about (e.g. entry fee in Epoints or real money) when discussing. So should I understand that you agree my previous posts?

Daniel Parmet    (2010-05-11 19:31:54)
Rybka 4, news, tests & results

but its not actually being released either right? Its just they send you some online server login password bs. Its not a real engine this time around.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-11 19:37:04)
6 options

So, to be clearer here are the 6 options :

1) Tournaments winners may entry the next category waiting list according to the conditions described a few posts above and for 10 Epoints.

2) Tournaments winners may entry any higher category's waiting list for 10 to 100 Epoints according to his rating (e.g. 10 Epoints for the next category, 30 for 2 categories above, 60 for 3 categories above, 100 for 4 categories above).

3) Any player may entry the next category's waiting list for 10 Epoints.

4) Any player may entry any higher category's waiting list for 10 to 100 Epoints according to his rating (e.g. 10 Epoints for the next category, 30 for 2 categories above, 60 for 3 categories above, 100 for 4 categories above).

5) Any player may entry any higher category's waiting list for 10 to 100 Euros [not Epoints] according to his rating (e.g. 10 Euros for the next category, 20 for 2 categories above, 40 for 3 categories above, 100 for 4 categories above).

6) No change.

Please choose :)

As for me, while choice #2 looks like a non-sense between my first proposal (choice #5) and my last proposal (choice #1), I feel that choices #1 and #4 could be ok, the #4 may help to build bigger prizes while the #1 is the most fair (after choice #6 of course).

How would you rank these choices?

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-11 20:14:40)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Hi Kamesh, I think we should just follow the conditions that I copy again here (valid for choice #1, a tournament winner may buy a ticket if) :

* 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.

Let's say the winner of a class B tournament then wins a class A tournament after having bought a ticket, he has good chances to see his rating increased after the next rating calculation and before that his possibility to buy a new ticket (for class M) expires. Maybe the possibility to buy a ticket should be valid 3 months, I'm not sure.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-12 16:51:21)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Not exactly a vote Garvin, anyway a few opinions are much better than nothing and still matter to discuss.

My answer to Scott & Tano-Urayoán : I agree that none of these proposals is more fair than the current rules, but here is why at least choice #1 has also many advantages, for FICGS but also for the players : Of course, those who made it the hardest way like Wayne may feel that this is unfair to change the rules, but rules constantly evolve & this would be really a minor change (in the case of choice #1). The point is that while e.g. IECG uses this promotion system, it is unfair the same way that a player from IECG can register at FICGS with his IECG rating that benefited of this rule. From the start FICGS rules were harder than IECG rules when registering, but as ratings move faster here I thought that it would be a compensation, but it is not a reason enough not to improve the rules again if possible.

The reality according to me : choice #1 is less fair than current rules, and choice #4 is even more unfair, but the current rules aren't so fair either. Rules that would be completely fair may exist but would have too many bad consequences for sure, and at least FICGS would not have been a success by using it. Anyway, I will not take any decision today, let's wait for some more arguments, the whole discussion is actually even more interesting than the point that is discussed in. Finally, I'm quite favourable to try (as Garvin suggested) the choice #1 and discuss the consequences after a few months.

William Taylor    (2010-05-12 17:53:24)
Rybka 4, news, tests & results

I was under the impression it was being released as normal, but there may be a stronger version held in reserve for the online thing.

Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2010-05-13 03:25:06)
Rybka 4, news, tests & results

This was posted in the Hiarcs forum by Harvey Williamson:" Now it is all over it is time to share a little secret. The day before the World Championship final in Sofia started I had a conversation with Vishy's team. For the duration of the match they have had access to my fast 8/16 core machine as well as all my databases and Hiarcs opening books. Also, of course, all the engines on my machine. I Hope this managed to negate slightly the fact that Topalov had access to the latest Rybka on its Cluster for a few months leading up leading up to the final."

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

Wayne Lowrance    (2010-05-16 21:42:34)
Quick review Chess Engines

Howdy, Rybka 4 Beta 5 is out for beta testing. It is much too early to draw conclusions regarding elo strength. So far it is not looking great.
Many of the bugs from R3 are at present in R5 beta. For example the tablebase bug, bishop under promotion still not fixed, 5.04/5.12 bug tree search is reportedly still there.
In addition It is said to have severe time problem.
This is a summary of what I have been reading. But, these reports are beta remember. So R4 may still be top program after release.
In the mean time Stockfish and fire are 2 programs that are right there with rybka3 and maybe a little stronger. On my computer testing R3 is still tops.
Now, there is a new program, Houdini is available. I downloaded it this morning and have been running eng-eng matches with R3, 2 threads. So far Houdini is holding it's own. You can download the program here.
http://www.cruxis.com/chess/houdini.htm
I think CC players now have many equally strong engines available to help with their Centaur abilities and should be interesting to see the progressions Wayne

Benjamin Block    (2010-05-17 14:47:44)
Why not make big chess engine.

I really want to make a big chess engine but the problem is that i don´t know how to programme yet. I will start learing it in school 2011, i really look forward to it.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-17 23:18:18)
Question

Still thinking about the last Garvin's idea... the real question is IMO: can one estimate that it is fair that a player who is 50 elo points below the rating cutoff, let's say a player rated 2150, have the same right than the winner of a previous class A tournament to buy a ticket for the next class M tournament?

There are advantages to this idea of course, a problem is that there will be even less possibilites for tournaments winners to have a ticket... (well, it goes in the other way also)

I like the idea though... My personal answer to this question would be probably: All this is far too complicated to be summarized this way to this question, winning a tournament IS a matter of chance also, winning a game IS a matter of chance (we prefer to call it statistics) also, and this rule, whatever the details, IS unfair anyway. So there is no clear answer IMHO, but if someone has one, please share it now :)

Peter Marriott    (2010-05-26 21:54:45)
Rybka 4!

Rybka 4 is released! Find info on http://www.rybkachess.com/index.php?auswahl=Purchase+Rybka <bf> if you wanna buy it!

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-06-02 03:03:10)
Fire 1.31 vs. Rybka 4

It seems that the forthcoming match between the top chess engines will be Rybka 4 (just released) versus Fire 1.31 (a new free engine from the Ippolit/Ivanhoe/Robbolito series that may be a clone of Rybka but we still have no clue about this). By the way does anyone know the differences between Fire 1.31 and Firebird 1.2, it seems to me that only the name changed.

Of course Stockfish & Naum are in the race but it will be interesting to see if the creator of Rybka has found a way to keep its great engine above its supposed clones.

Wayne Lowrance    (2010-06-02 16:39:14)
Fire 1.31 vs. Rybka 4

Thibault the changes are, Maintanence release. Some cfg issues fixed. But I think what ever it, is stronger than 1.3.0. Just my gut feeling.

Peter Marriott    (2010-06-03 20:48:56)
Fire 1.31 vs. Rybka 4

You mean 1.2 is stronger than 1.3? I don't think so, 1.3 definitely stronger, maybe not by much, but stronger. 1.31 is a maintenance release, not 1.3. If you wanna know specifically what the improvements are, go to: http://www.chesslogik.com/fire.htm

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-06-11 19:36:43)
FIFA world cup 2010, predictions

Hi all, I guess that this FIFA world cup 2010 is worth a discussion :)

So there are now 32 teams in the race... Any predictions on who will reach the 1/8 finals, 1/4 finals, 1/2 finals and final match?

Full list of teams:

South Africa, Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Cameroon, Algeria, Australia, Japan, Korea Republic, Korea DPR, Brazil, Paraguay, Chile, Mexico, Argentina, Honduras, Uruguay, England, Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Serbia, Italy, Switzerland, Slovakia, Greece, Slovenia, Portugal, France, United States, New Zealand

A way for me to see how many chances you give to France for this one (at least we can do better than in the Eurovision contest :))

By the way, why there are 2 Korean teams this time? I couldn't believe that "Korea DPR" is North Korea !?? Do you know something on this?

Wayne Lowrance    (2010-06-25 21:03:22)
Save/Reload hash in Rybka

Howdy all. I am very excited. I just learned how to use the above option found in Engine folder. All these years I have never used it, never understood it, so saw no need.
I am on Rybka forum all the time and saw this talked about. What a great tool in my opinion. Here is how it works.
How many times have you ran infinite analysis only to have to shut down or reboot etc. If you do it you loose all of Rybka analysis accumulated to that point and a complete loss of time.
For example:
suppose Rybka has been analysing for hours and is a depth 26 current. Before rebooting Rybka go to engine folder and tick "save hash" All of Rybka current positional analysis collected up to 26 is then saved in a file you create.
When you restart Rybka, load your game and go to engine folder in Rybka, tick "load hash" and start. Rybka will begin at depth 26 where it left off from your hash save.
Golly Terrific.
Wayne

Rolf Staggat    (2010-07-06 11:43:46)
Speeding up Poker games

In two games I play since 18 months... Please try "rapid"-games, maybe in smaller groups than 7. 10 days + 12 hours sounds good to me, maximum 30 days (not 100).

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-07-07 13:33:08)
Round-robin stages in the chess WCH

Just a word on stage 1 & stage 2 for the chess WCH round-robin tournaments: I understand the disappointment of players who share 1st place but do not qualify while some others do... Sometimes we need a few more players to build 7 players tournaments, in this case most often players who share 1st place are ordered by place in the tournament, then by current rating. As there are many special & complex cases though, the official rule is "Players may be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player".

I know that the round-robin system may be quite frustrating (that's why I wanted the knockout in parallel that I'm sure now it's more interesting & fair) for the players who share 1st place, particularly in the round-robin final (Alberto Gueci knows that..... he shared many first places before to play the knockout matches), but the round-robin is the only way so that everyone can play and once again the idea is: "if you share first place but you didn't qualify, at least you won rating points for the next cycle". I have no idea of a better system...

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-07-25 18:56:22)
Layout improvement

I'm now trying a few improvements for the layout (mainly for the fast moves process), please report if something displays badly because of a long name, tournament's name, anything... Feedback is welcome :)

Kamesh Nookala    (2010-07-28 21:37:36)
Match vs. ICCF

Unfortunately, I have this tendency of getting carried away too far in minutes.. Perhaps i was born a Rocket last birth. I just gave an idea, which will develop further (i hope atleast) and for the time being, I will try to control myself :)

Ruben Comes    (2010-07-29 07:43:42)
Match vs. ICCF

Seems like a good idea.
But Thib said I do not think they are interested, at least institutionally.
Perhaps they can form a team of ICCF private.
Of course, I would play for Ficgs team, I'm not sure if I have the strength you need.

Wayne Lowrance    (2010-08-02 05:06:18)
Match vs. ICCF

Howdy. I think this would be fun. I would suggest some sort of mechanism that will prevent more than 2 to 3 days response with normal TC of 1 move/day. Maybe no increment.
I would be very pleased to represent FICGS team. Lastly I think the players should play tables starting at table 1 highest rank and so forth.
Just my view point. I am really overloaded with games but would add this to my list.
Wayne

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-03 12:46:54)
Congratulations to "FSF en passant"

Finally here are the final results !!!

"FSF En passant" won this very interesting tournament by 1 point ahead of 2 teams !! The suspense was until the very last games to know the final team ranks.

The fact to note: Yellow Blue warriors finish second while they were actually 3 players in the team, Yura Lemekhov played an amazing tournament (5.5/6 , perf 2456) ... (the last player stopped to play :/)

Thanks to all players, it was lots of fun! I'll try to make the things clearer in the tournaments pages for the next edition...

10 points for : FSF En Passant

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2270)
Volker Koslowski (2264)
Sebastian Boehme (2175)
Roland Markus (2096)

9 (tot: 15.5) points for : The knights who say "Ni"

Michael Aigner (2602)
Xavier Pichelin (2577)
Hannes Rada (2559)
Thibault de Vassal (2473)

9 (tot: 13.5) points for : Yellow-Blue Warriors

Iouri Basiliev (2173)
Dmytro Romaniuk (1937)
Ostap Hladky (2176)
Yura Lemehov (2171)

8 points for : The Dark Knights

William Taylor (2140)
Scott Nichols (2089)
Don Groves (1991)
Josef Riha (1989)

4 points for : Happy Pawn

Stephane Legrand (2209)
Garvin Gray (2125)
Daniel Parmet (1961)
Ilmar Cirulis (1805)

2 points for : Our team King

Alexander Blinchevsky
Stanimir Denchev
Benjamin Block
Ranganathan Raman

0 point for : The Ghost Knights

Vadim Khachaturov
Yugi Inving
Sophie Leclerc
Jorge Orden

Ni FSF Dark Happy Blue Ghost King

Aigner 1 = = = = =
Pich 0 = = 1 1 1
Rada = = 1 = 1 =
DeVas = = 1 0 1 1

0 Lehnh = = = = =
1 Koslo = = 1 1 1
= Boehm = 1 = 1 1
= Marku = 1 = 1 1

= = Taylo = = = =
= = Nicho = 1 1 1
= = Grove = 0 1 =
= = Riha 1 0 1 1

= = = Legra = = =
= = = Gray 1 1 1
0 0 = Parmet 0 1 =
0 0 0 Ciruli 0 1 1

= = = = Basili = 1
0 0 0 0 Romani 0 0
= = 1 1 Hladky 1 =
1 = 1 1 Lemekh 1 1

= 1 = = = Khacha =
0 0 0 0 1 Inving 0
0 0 0 0 0 Lecler 0
0 0 0 0 0 Orden 1

= = = = 0 = Blinch
0 0 0 0 1 1 Denchev
= 0 = = = 1 Block
0 0 0 0 0 0 Raman

"Team 1" - "Team 2" : points (score)

"Ni" - "FSF" : 1-1 (2-2)
"Ni" - "Dark" : 1-1 (2-2)
"Ni" - "Happy" : 2-0 (3-1)
"Ni" - "YB" : 1-1 (2-2)
"Ni" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Ni" - "King" : 2-0 (3-1)
"FSF" - "Dark" : 1-1 (2-2)
"FSF" - "Happy" : 2-0 (3-1)
"FSF" - "YB" : 2-0 (2.5-1.5)
"FSF" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"FSF" - "King" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Dark" - "Happy" : 2-0 (2.5-1.5)
"Dark" - "YB" : 0-2 (1.5-2.5)
"Dark" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Dark" - "King" : 2-0 (3-1)
"Happy" - "YB" : 0-2 (1.5-2.5)
"Happy" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Happy" - "King" : 2-0 (3-1)
"YB" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (2.5-0.5)
"YB" - "King" : 2-0 (2.5-1.5)
"Ghost" - "King" : 0-2 (1.5-2.5)

Definitely, even if the "Knights who say Ni" team decided before the match to play unusual openings in most games, this tournament shows again that the strength gap between top players and players rated 2150-2300 is not big at all as many of these players tend to reach the 2400 barrier...

Scott Nichols    (2010-08-09 21:12:59)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Just a note to say how this new rule is affecting at least one player here (me), :) I "earned" entry to a higher class tournament by winning the class just below. I paid my ten E-points and received entry into the next higher class. We have been playing for a while and I am holding my own ok. I have met new players and am overjoyed at the chance to play them. They are all friendly and welcoming. Life couldn't be better, ......but....... Maybe it's just me, but I feel at this point that I never REALLY earned my way into this realm. The old way was to suffer through months and years of climbing the rating ladder a little at a time and then finally reach that next level. Also, just my opinion, is that these days there really isn't a big difference in strengths between 1850 and 2450 given that we all have fast computers running on Rybka mostly. The difference I find is the human side of the ratings. The old days whether Shredder could beat Fritz, or Deep Junior could beat Hiarcs are long gone. So I guess what I'm trying to say without rambling any further, is that as much as I like playing in the higher section, I would prefer to "EARN" it the old way. Just one players opinion, Thank you

Andres E. Leon    (2010-08-11 14:35:34)
Future Rating Question

Thank you very much Thibault, now it is clear. My apologies to waste your time with such things. Thank you very much again and I take the opportunity to congratulate for building this place where all chess fans can play, and discuss about engines, data bases, etc..

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-12 22:46:32)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6

Hello all, 2 players are needed for a replacement in the tournaments CHESS CLASS GM #2 (average 2496) and CHESS RAPID SM #6 (average 2408).

Please send me a private message (or email info*ficgs.com) if you're interested, thanks in advance.

Note: There's no specific rule when choosing players for replacements so the fastest players with the strongest ELO will play.

Steve Vollmer    (2010-08-16 11:59:20)
Quote festival, part 6

Sir Frances Galton:

Men who leave their mark on the world are very often those who, being gifted and full of nervous power, are at the same time haunted and driven by a dominant idea, and are therefore within a measurable distance of insanity

Garvin Gray    (2010-08-18 17:21:58)
Newest/oldest posts first

In forum, I would like to have the option to be able to see the newer posts at the top of each topic, rather than having to scroll down through 50 older posts to get to the most recent postings.

There does not seem to be a feature to show new posts first.

Please add :)

Kamesh Nookala    (2010-08-31 17:09:11)
Latest deletions of chat

It happened yet again.

Somebody, please wake up Thib, he needs to correct this before people run crazy after this :(

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-09-01 14:01:03)
Latest deletions of chat

Hi Philip, it is true that the interface is not so easy at the beginning... the mouse over the pics tell what's the click's effect. I don't know how to improve it yet but suggestions are welcome :)

Don, it wouldn't be a problem to do that but as the chat bar is available on all public pages as well, I prefer that everyone be able to moderate it quickly if necessary... I'll update it so that the posts be deleted when at least 2 or 3 persons click the arrows, then we will see...

Garvin Gray    (2010-09-11 19:03:18)
Next freestyle tournament

Hello all,

From just seeing a couple of comments in the chat section, I am very concerned regarding plans for the next freestyle tournament.

It seems like it is going to be organised at short notice ie just one or two weeks notice.

I think this is a major mistake and would result only in those who happen to be available by coincidence being able to play.

I really do hope I have wrong. I think the next freestyle tournament needs at least one months notice so it can be properly promoted.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-09-11 20:25:34)
Next freestyle tournament

Hi Garvin, it will be the case... I was not sure about september week-ends and finally I shouldn't be able to organize it before October 16-17 which looks like a good time...

If anyone finds a good reason not to do it on October 16-17, please send me an email... I should announce the definitive choice in a few days.

Scott Nichols    (2010-09-16 22:44:58)
Corr. Chess Maxims

We should start a list of Corr. chess maxims (rules of conduct). Some suggestions...#1. There is more honor in resigning than to just quit playing and leave. #2. Generally one offer of a draw is enough for at least 10 moves. #3. The player with the most to lose, e.g. rating points, should be the first to offer a draw.

I'm sure others have suggestions, :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-09-17 00:29:38)
Svante Carl von Erichsen on Go WCH #4

As you probably read in the news, Svante Carl von Erichsen won the 4th FICGS Go WCH, beating his challenger Huayong Yang 3-2, Svante Carl wins the Go championship for the 4th time in a row!

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000004

Svante Carl kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match & computer Go:

FICGS - Hello Svante Carl, congratulations once again for winning this match against a surprising challenger who started here a few months ago with a 10 kyu rank, Huayong Yang, now rated 2438 after scoring 2 points in your 5 games match (which is a great achievement for sure). What did you think about his play & yours in these games?

Svante Carl - I think that he greatly underestimated his rank initially. As far as I know, he had not played for a long time and believed that his ability had therefore deteriorated. I do not think that you can drop more than one or at most two stones, though -- it is like cycling or swimming, you never unlearn it. I had the impression that we were quite evenly matched in summa, but our strengths are in different aspects of the game; I cannot really put my finger on the difference, though.

FICGS - After a previous win, you said that you spend a quite long time to analyze, which probably helps you to reach a higher level than 2 dan (your EGF rating) compared to OTB play... It looks obvious to me that correspondence chess moves generally ask for much more time than Go moves at a high level but I may be wrong, how much time did you spend on your longest analysis during the match? Do you remember for which move?

Svante Carl - I usually spend at least a few minutes on each move, except when the continuation is obvious. I often use more, and if I do not find a satisfactory move then, I will even postpone the move to another day, so that I can sleep over it and let my subconcious work on it.

FICGS - Do you watch other games played by your future opponent before starting your match? Do you think that this is really important in preparation like it can be in Correspondence chess?

Svante Carl - I sometimes glance over the games in the championship qualification tournament, but I do not try to prepare this way. I do not think that such preparation has any value in Go, especially in correspondence Go, since you have time during the game to do deep analysis. I usually try to take each game out of standard fuseki patterns pretty quickly, anyway. Of course, I know that my opponents in these title matches are always very tough and demand my utmost respect.

FICGS - Do you still follow the recent developments in computer Go? What do you think about the latest Go engines? How much time do we have yet before the best Go players are caught by computers according to you?

Svante Carl - I have the impression that the currently most promising technology (Monte Carlo/UCT) has the potential to achieve a rank of about 2 or 3 dan (EGF/KGS). I think that the next fundamentally new idea or breakthrough might add 2 stones, to get to 4 or 5 dan. I do not have any idea where it might go from that, but I think that it gets always harder.

What I would find interesting is having more intermediate board sizes. The best bots are almost on par with the best professionals on 9x9 now. I would propose to try to achieve a similar level on 11x11, then 13x13, then 15x15 etc.. Regarding 9x9, I think that the currently predominant komi of 7.5 points is too big, and that this has a negative impact on the experiments because the bots do not play in a balanced environment. It might be worthwhile to introduce the Taiwan rule (last move compensation) to get more fine-grained scores.

FICGS - What programs did you use this year to analyze? (just trying, of course it may be part of your secrets ;))

Svante Carl - It is not a secret. I just use an editor, usually EidoGo or CGoban3, to visualize the variations I imagine.

FICGS - Finally, what thoughts would you like to share on your 5 games, that could help us not to miss the best times or to help us to understand the most complex moves...

Svante Carl - I cannot give a detailed commentary, but I can try to summarize my impressions.

I think that Game 5 was quite balanced until move 21, but I think that the white invasion was a bit ambitious then. Of course, White did not need to die there, but after moves 32-33 I think that Black had a good result anyway (move 32 should go out faster in my opinion; note how E14 helps Black in enclosing White).

In Game 3, I think things got quite difficult for White in the lower left, but I let him take the initiative by backing off at move 35 (I should have simply closed off F10 then). White gained control of the centre as a result, and in the large endgame, I lost too many points there.

In Game 4, I fell behind in the opening through some slow moves (there was some discussion on the Life-in-19x19 forum about this, see the link in the comments of that game). In the endgame, Black then lost some points in the centre, so that I was a bit ahead when the game timed out.

In Game 1, I made some bad decisions on the left side, and never managed to turn things around. I think I was behind by about 5 points in the end.

In Game 2, I think that Black should not have ignored move 24. After I got quite some territory from my moyo and also reduced his top side, I could play it safe.

I look forward to the games with Olivier Drouot that recently started, but I also hope that Yang Huayong will re-enter the championship cycle.

Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-18 19:23:42)
Corr. Chess Maxims

I disagree with two of your ideas Scott. The first player to offer a draw should be the higher rated is wrong. And a draw can only be offered every 10 moves. These are clearly wrong ideas.

In fact you may recall from our own game, where you admitted to being wrong on said issue.

In general, I think it should be the person with the reason to play on should be the one to offer a draw. If its clearly so dead equal then either player. Definitely not by rating though.

Scott Nichols    (2010-09-19 00:07:15)
Corr. Chess Maxims

It is precisely our game Daniel which brought up the draw offer maxim idea. To offer a draw every move or two is clearly distracting. Plus it also included the other maxim about rating differences. You were Black, about 80 points lower in rating, so I had the most to lose by accepting any draw offer.

Maybe in the endgame when it is a book draw, either player can offer the draw "once". But our game was barely out of the opening. Of course these are just "general rules of conduct" and each game is different. So I stand by my original ideas.

Scott Nichols    (2010-09-19 01:45:45)
Corr. Chess Maxims

I remember that game now, it did end in a draw. And you are right about what I said at the end. But I also remember the repeated draw offers that were rejected each time. You were Black, lower rated and we were barely out of the opening, so it was a distraction. I play OTB chess also and believe me, continued rejected draw offers would get that person a loss for that game. A person shouldn't have to ask someone to please quit doing something irritating, most people get subtle hints. Also, I disagree about "telling a person so", that should be done by the TD or Webmaster. That could be another maxim. "in case of any disagreements, please consult TD."

A "maxim" is just a suggestion, not a "rule". So people, especially newcomers, can know what IS and IS NOT proper during the course of a game.

Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-19 22:34:47)
Corr. Chess Maxims

The more you talk Scott the less you make sense. You should just stop. Your idea for Corr Maxims is good and your #1 Maxim makes sense. The fact that #2 & #3 don't just means you made a mistake. Everyone makes mistake. But okay on to your rambling points.

What does Obama or IL have to do with anything? I don't even get it.

Hmm bad analogy time, okay yes talking on your cell phone in a theater gets you kicked out. At small establishments even just banned. Certainly not a right nor is it proclaimed as such anywhere. It is not "protected" and is well known to be improper. Unlike offering a draw being 80 pts lower has no negative connotation anywhere. Its not illegal. It is protected by the rules. It is not known to be improper. Incorrect analogy.

Driving slow in the fast lane. Highways actually have minimum speed limits and I have seen people get tickets for going below the minimum. On top of that, most states have laws about he fast lane being for passing purposes so they have rules about "slower" traffic keep right (state dependent). So not only is it again something protected by law, it is improper, it can be illegal (state dependent). So again an incorrect analogy.

As much as you wish to live in this strange world where you have to be a higher rated to offer draws, thats not how the rules of chess work. In fact, I would quit playing chess if things did work that way (because it makes no sense). I know people that have as their personal rule not to accept draws if they are the higher rated (fine, thats silly but your choice) (and it always backfires too since they usually end up losing the trying position so badly trying to win it as the "higher" rated should). But at least in the end the rules are preserved - my right to offer a draw was not revoked. You seem to be missing the point that at move 1, ONE player would always be at a disadvantage under your system of only the higher rated being allowed to offer draws. This is quite silly because as all chess players know - no rating system is perfect. Trying to tell someone that a 1989 is 100% better than a 1988 is impossible yet you willing to deny the 1988 his rights of offering draws when he plays that person 1 pt above him? You might just be better off declaring you don't accept draws (I know players like that too). But then you might see people head towards drawish positions knowing your policy and playing them for 200 moves until you're bored. You starting to see the point yet? Whatever system you concoct, there are tradeoffs. The one you proposes has tradeoffs that make no sense for anyone.

Scott Nichols    (2010-09-20 00:34:24)
Corr. Chess Maxims

I knew you'd keep it going. You can't tell a bullhead like you or Obama anything. I know the reason you don't care about ratings is the same reason every loser says after he's lost again. "Well, I don't care about that anyway."

You haven't proven anything except that you seem to want to have the last word in any discussion. See you STILL can't seem to grasp the fact that a maxim is NOT a rule. If you can scroll back up to the top you will see that maxim #2. says "Generally one offer of a draw is enough for at least 10 moves" In your first post you already got it wrong by saying, "And a draw can only be offered every 10 moves." So the only thing you've proven is that you can't read and can't understand English. Here is another maxim.."Always check who the TD is before you enter any tournament."

Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-23 07:59:05)
Quote festival, part 6

Then I apologize.

I like the Voltaire quote but like most things Voltaire says, I think its dripping with sardonic flavor (if you have read Candide). The problem in my mind is that reason comes and goes with all people. No one seems to always possess reason or common sense. The problem philosophically speaking can be addressed in any number of ways. Skeptically, you can ask if one could EVER claim to have reason. Etymologically, as you have done, one can pose the question of whether you can ever have reason. And the third problem, which consequently solves the 2nd problem, is linguistically. Here, you might look to someone like Wittgenstein who would ask the question of whether you need to specifically define the concept. Can you leave the concept open ended where it merely attempts to address a relative issue we can all pretend to agree on. In this case, you will notice that this is how language actually operates except when people like to get overly serious or detail oriented.

For example, if someone says "that is reasonable" you would know what they MEANT whether you agreed with them or not. It does not need to be laboriously defined that said action, thought or word was in fact the exact embodiment of "reason."

Don Groves    (2010-09-23 08:07:10)
Quote festival, part 6

Seems like we agree then. There are things that can be reasoned about and there are other things that cannot. Part of wisdom is knowing which is which. And, as Wittgenstein said, that which we cannot reason about we should not speak of at all -- at least in a reasonable way. That's what metaphor, paradox, and parable are for. We may not be able to define certain things rationally, but we can hint at them.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-09-23 11:03:26)
Road to Grandmaster

Very good idea! The site is nice and I'm surprised not being able to find a few other blogs like this one... and it will motivate you even more to reach the 2500 mark for sure! Please keep us aware :)

Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-24 20:19:04)
whole database transfers made simple

sure Wayne, I answered your first pm. Feel free to send anymore. I'll keep walking you through it til we get done what you want. Conversely, if its simpler, I can do the first 5 steps on my end for you then all you have to do is step 6. Though, its probably better for the future if you learn how to do this.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-09-26 14:47:45)
whole database transfers made simple

I just tried to add some explanations on the different ways to do that in the Help section (bottom of page). Please let me know if it can be clearer, but I've still to add a direct link to a PGN file of "My games" in the My games page, of course.

Wayne Lowrance    (2010-09-26 20:46:49)
whole database transfers made simple

Is this what your talking about ?

How to import my Chess games in a chess database ?

There are several ways to import your chess games played at FICGS in a chess database like Chessbase or SCID. 1) You may download the complete FICGS correspondence chess database: Click "Search games" in the menu, right click & save "All games (PGN)". Import the file in your database, then you may filter the games by using your name. 2) You may create a PGN file by going to "My games" (please use the chess filter, click the rook icon if you also play Go or Poker, you may also select pending, running or all games) then clicking the printer icon. You just have to copy/paste the content of the new page into a new text file, then importing it in your chess database. 3) You may download the PGN file of a particular game or tournament, right click and save the "download" link at the bottom of

Do you mean "left mouse click" if I right click I get Link copy options, none of which seem to do what I want. I do not see a way to save "all games pgn" in any case which is what has stopped me for days. Left mouse click copies all database to where i want to open, Ie scid (which I cannot figure out either), notebad, but i see no filtering capability in notepad. So I do not know how/able to do "Import the file in my database" as your instructions say, sorry Thib, I am a pain in the butt. can you clear these things up for me ? especially your step 1.

Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-27 21:38:34)
Quote festival, part 6

"The beginning is the most important part of the work" - Plato
"Nothing is more unpleasant than virtuous person with a mean mind" Walter Bagehot
"Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept trying when there seemed to be no hope at all." - Dale Carnegie
"Necessity never made a good bargain" Benjamin Franklin
"Good People are good because they've come to wisdom through failure. We get very little wisdom from success, you know" William Saroyan
"In the absence of clearly defined goals, we become strangely loyal to performing daily trivia until ultimately we become enslaved by it." - Robert Heinlein
"A satirist is a man who discovers unpleasant things about himself and then says them about other people." Peter McArthur

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-09-29 17:56:58)
Ilyumzhinov leaves Kalmykia presidency

...and Kirsan Ilyumzhinov wins again, he will be president of FIDE during 4 more years, 2010-2014. Hard defeat for Karpov.

Jonathan Gresham    (2013-10-12 23:24:13)
Communism

I've been reading about Communism and have concluded that I agree with a lot of the points that the book brings up in favor of it. The working class would overthrow the middle or rich class and thus establishing a one class system. The only thing that would have to be sacrificed would be freedom of speech but when it comes down to it freedom of speech can be sacrificed justly. In exchange for that you would get free education, healthcare etc. Things would be communal being that you would work within communities and share the wealth. This kind of idea has been put forward before and has failed but I believe that with the right leader it is possible.

Garvin Gray    (2010-09-30 20:37:21)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

I wish to propose that the stage one groups starting from the next WCH tournament be paired differently.

Currently, from my understanding, all the players who have not qualified for the high rated round robins or elimination matches are paired into separate round robins of about seven players in each group.

Seed number 1 is in group 1 and so forth until all groups have been allocated.

The idea of this being to try and ensure that each of the groups is of equal strength.

Where I think this falls down is the issue of players with provisional ratings ie players with new ratings of 1800, 1500.

I have had the experience of having one or more of these 1800's in my group and after the group is finished, it is clear that the 1800 player has achieved a rating of 2100 plus, meaning that my group had three players with playing ability over 2100, meaning my qual group was unfairly disadvantaged.

How I would like the stage one qualifying to work from now is:

1) All players with recognised ratings are paired as per normal.
2) All the provisional rated players are put into groups by themselves.

Then normal qualification rules apply for getting to stage 2.

It is highly unlikely that a low rated player will qualify from the provisional rated groups as someone from each of those groups will be about 2100 or so by the end of the first qualifying stage.

I do ask for this to be endorsed for the next WCH.

Garvin Gray    (2010-10-01 13:21:12)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Colour allocation- There are two answers to this, the most pure solution is to have double round robin groups. If this means six player groups and more groups in total, so be it, but at least it would solve the issue.

Berger Pairing Tables- It seems that the round robin groups are not paired using the Berger Pairing Tables for single round robins, why not?

If they are not, then they should be, solves all these issues of colours. This should be the case for all round robins on this site.

Garvin Gray    (2010-10-01 13:30:27)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

GG- "2) All the provisional rated players are put into groups by themselves." ,

TB- You mean they play together in special groups?
We can think about it as well but one goal of the championship was to help those players to find their place quicker in the rating list before the next cycles. I'm not sure if a 2300 player provisionnaly rated 1800 is an advantage for anyone else in the group more than seed 1.

GG- It is not an advantage to have an 1800 in your group if they play to a standard of 2100. It is a severe disadvantage.

It means there is one more person in some groups that plays to a rating way above their provisional rating.

I am very concerned that you seem to be putting the needs of increasing those players ratings in the WCH above the integrity of the competition as a whole. It means you are unfairly affecting other players chances of qualifying, just for the sake of allowing new members the chance to gain a few extra rating points.

The new members still have a lot of chances to increase their rating through playing in normal tournaments, which is where the longer term members had to get their ratings from.

I am saying that those with provisional ratings should be seeded into groups by themselves in stage one.

Whoever wins these groups will clearly be about 2100/2200 playing strength and so will not be crushed in stage two anymore than those with long term 2100 ratings.

A secondary option is to seed some of these players using their advanced rating (if they have one), so at least then there does not end up being three or four 2100's trying to qualify from the same group, while having other groups with only one or two 2100's.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-01 17:39:15)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

I only meant that it is an advantage to play a 2100 player actually rated 1800 rather than 2100 in his group... Gives more chances to qualify but of course, a few Elo points will probably be lost in the process. There is a matter of luck there of course, just like when a player loses on time or forfeits his games in a group, that's why I try to launch almost 2 new cycles per year, it is not possible to avoid the lucky factor in a championship but it is possible to give more chances to everyone...

Anyway I don't think it is possible to build groups of perfectly equal strength (btw many players rated 2000-2100 after 50+ games are actually worth 2400 and more, but lost many games on time) while we need clear rules (if those players are in special groups, do they qualify the same way?).

Another option would be to prevent players who have not finished a certain number of games to enter the WCH waiting list... :/ I don't think it would be appreciated.

Scott Nichols    (2010-10-01 19:29:31)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

In my last WCH bracket I was rated 514 points above the avg. of my opponents.

I would like to suggest--All players over 2000 with at least 50 ficgs games played should be "seeded" into round 2. This would give players an incentive to play more and to try to reach the 2000 plateau.

Players below 2000 and less than 50 games would all have to play stage 1 to "qualify" for stage 2.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-02 00:03:55)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

The number of players in each round must be coherent (round 3 : 5 to 9, round 2 : 5 to 9 x 5 to 9, round 1 : 5 to 9 x 5 to 9 x 5 to 9) ... if things are easier for players rated 2000-2300 during the first round, it will be harder for them later (e.g. 1 player qualified in a group of 11 players!).

But it is true by experience that the rating limit for the M group may be below 2300 (by the way it was for the last championship)

I'm against such a rule "All players over 2000 with at least 50 ficgs games played should be seeded into round 2", a bit complicated IMO, and players rated 2250-2400 will have the same kind of complaining then :)

Scott Nichols    (2010-10-02 21:45:32)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

I'm sorry Daniel, but it still doesn't seem to be any clearer...

Daniel Parmet    (2010-10-02 21:51:28)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Yea its not clear to me either. I thought that it meant 2300s get seeded into stage2. No one gets seeded into stage 1. Winners of stage1 have to play stage2 to get into stage3. However this is not at all what it says.

It says EVERYONE plays stage1. If someone 2299+ wins stage1 they can skip stage 2. If someone 2299 or lower wins stage1 they go on to stage 2.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-04 19:17:37)
Private messages to the webmaster

Hi all, it looks like one of my email providers blocks FICGS emails these days so I may have missed a few messages if you sent it to me via the "My messages" form (to "Thibault de Vassal"), that's now fixed, if you noticed I did not reply to your message, please resend it to me.

Sorry about that.

Garvin Gray    (2010-10-05 16:31:02)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Thibault, I am more than happy to let others give their opinions, but I really do not think you understand at all what point I am trying to make.

This is now three times that you have misunderstood what I am trying to say.

Geez I wish we could quote better in these forums. It would make discussing points much easier.

Thib: So your point is that it is a disadvantage "in the tournament", right? I do not agree with this, if the best player was actually this 1800 player, he should be able to play the championship anyway (and you have the advantage of ratings there for tiebreaks)...

GG- I am not arguing at all that the 1800's should not be able to play in the championship. Please stop mis-quoting me. I have also stated this previously. I am stating that they should be in groups in stage one all by themselves.

The disadvantage is with how the groups are paired and I finding it very difficult to not get completely pissed off with having to explain items many times for you to understand what I am trying to say.

You keep failing to respond directly to my points and I keep having to point out how you have mis-quoted my points, which does not help in the debate at all.

The groups are currently paired in the first stage with the highest rated player in Group 1, second highest rated player in Group 2, third highest rated player in Group 3 and so forth for eleven groups (in this example there are eleven groups). Then the 12th highest rated player is placed in Group 11, the thirteen highest rated player in Group 10 and back we go to the 22nd highest rated player in Group 1. The pattern keeps repeating back and forth until all players in stage one have been allocated to a Group.

Now with the 1800's being seeded in these groups with their 1800 rating is that they end up being about the 4th or 5th seed in some groups, but are not allocated to each group.

Now when some of these 1800 players start performing at a rating of 2100, it means in some groups that the top seeds have received three players of similar playing level and some other groups have not. This makes some of the groups disproportionately unfair.

If these 1800 players were somehow seeded accurately according to their playing standard, meaning they entered stage one in their proper seeding position, it would push all the rest of the players down one spot and so the Group allocations would be fairer.

Another option could also be to make it a rule that players must have a proper rating ie not provisional, before being able to play in the championship. I have tried to avoid suggesting this with my proposal to have them play in a group all by themselves.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-05 17:09:25)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Aaaaaah... makes me mad :/ Okay, one more time:

GG- I am not arguing at all that the 1800's should not be able to play in the championship. Please stop mis-quoting me. I have also stated this previously. I am stating that they should be in groups in stage one all by themselves.

Thib- I just said "if players with a provisional rating play together in special wch groups", that's the way I (mis-)understood you, so I did not say that you argued that they shouldn't play wch... The thing that is not clear to me is "I am stating that they should be in groups in stage one all by themselves.", so does it mean:

1) Provisionnaly rated players should play in special groups
2) There should be the same number of provisionnaly rated players per group
3) Tie break shouldn't be TER for provisionnaly rated players
4) Provis. rated players should earn their WCH entry, eg. # ended games >50
5) Something else

About cases 1), 3) & 4) I answered it in the discussion that I just re-read entirely.

Sorry for mis-understanding you & thanks for your patience... If I still completely miss it, maybe better would be that another player try to explain me what you mean by "they should be in groups in stage one all by themselves".

Philip Roe    (2010-10-05 17:20:42)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

I think that the management of the WCH should not be too heavily weighted toward ensuring that "the best player" wins. On behalf of the underdogs, I would like us to have at least a sporting chance. If the cards are too much stacked against us the idea of an "open" tournament is lost, and we won't enter.

I looked at the statistics for cycle 000007. The top seed won outright 7 times, and tied for first on 7 other occasions. The second seed won outright twice, and tied first 7 times. The third seed won 5 times and tied twice. The fourth seed won once and tied twice. Out of all the winners, only the the two fourth seeds who tied had provisional 1800 ratings.

Are these numbers really a cause for concern?

Daniel Parmet    (2010-10-05 20:41:54)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

No according to the numbers given by Philip my point is huge.

7 wins, 7 ties meaning 14 went on.
2 wins, 7 ties meaning 2 went on.
5 wins, 2 ties meaning 5 went on.
1 win, 2 ties meaning 1 went on.

Notice that because of color and tiebreaks the giant separation in place 1 2 and 3. It actually went back on spot 3 because they had white most likely. Clearly spot 2 is the worst position to hold in the tournament. Everything is against you. Color and tiebreaks.

Anyways, I agree it needs to be discussed. If others disagree with me then thats that I guess.

Rolf Staggat    (2010-10-12 16:09:10)
Road to Grandmaster

William,
in the same time you need to become a GM you could learn ten languages perfectly or promote in different sciences. It´s a waste of time. You do not live for a thousand years.
I organized some open-tournaments in earlier years. The older GMs taking part there all had only little money. If you are rich by birth, then just do it, otherwise better not.

Wayne Lowrance    (2010-10-15 23:37:53)
Serious new Virus

Subj: Confirmed by SNOPES: Important - read immediately

VERY IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ THIS - These e-mails are floating around currently in HP

Anyone-using Internet mail such as Yahoo, Hotmail, AOL and so on. This information arrived this morning, Direct from both Microsoft and Norton Please send it to everybody you know who has Access to the Internet. You may receive an apparently harmless e-mail titled "Here you have it" If you open either file, a message will appear on your screen saying: 'It is too late now, your life is no longer beautiful....'

Subsequently you will LOSE EVERYTHING IN YOUR PC, And the person who originated it will gain access to your Name, e-mail and password. This is a new virus which started to circulate on Saturday afternoon.

AOL has already confirmed the severity, and the anti virus softwares are not capable of destroying it.

The virus has been created by a hacker who calls himself 'life owner'.

PLEASE SEND A COPY OF THIS E-MAIL TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS, And ask them to PASS IT ON IMMEDIATELY!

THIS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY SNOPES.
http://www.snopes.com/computer/virus/hereyouhave.asp

Robert Osborne    (2010-10-16 03:56:45)
Serious new Virus

You are a fantastic guy Wayne... it is an honor and pleasure to be acquainted with you.

And I hope you took no offense at my reply (I see now that is possible) as I was merely describing how that nutty email works (the CAPS part was essentially a "cut & paste" from your above message. My sincere apologies for sounding like it was some sort of accusation. I know you were sincere in your warning. I should have written:

"by sending / forwarding this, we (meaning me too) actually become the "virus engine" by searching our contacts and forwarding it to others."

Somewhat ingenious (certainly devious) as the viral code that would normally do this task would probably be squashed by our anti-virus software.

Again… apologies as I have nothing but respect for you.

Respectfully,
Rob Osborne

Lalit Kapoor    (2010-10-20 08:18:46)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

The same happens to me. I started as 1805 (provisional) in WCH 8. Now after 5 games finished I scored 4.5/5. Against 2nd seed I got a draw. And against seed 1 I will get at least a draw with slight advantage as Black in endgame.

Garvin Gray question is right. The 1800 (provisional) player gets an advantage for being an underdog.

But at last there would be only one champion and he have to qualify all stages.

Scott Nichols    (2010-10-20 20:06:33)
Freestyle Fun

Freestyle tournament is only 11 days away and already it promises to be an exciting event. Hopefully more will join, especially our friend from India, :)

We have an exciting array of players already though...,

Yuriy Perikov-a new player from Russia who has raised his rating almost 100 points in just two games.

David Evans-Last years winner. I am sure he will be looking to repeat. A definite threat.

Uh-Me-I'll be trying, :)

Marcel Jacon-I don't know anything about Marcel, but I'm sure he will be a tough opponent!

Garvin Gray-A longtime player with much experience. He seemed to improve dramatically after his computer went into the "shop" for a week towards the end of our 24 game drawn match. He will have to be watched out for.

Ruben Comes-What can I say? He is a definite favorite in this event. With his powerful openings, middlegame and unerring endings, he will be hard to beat.

Robert Mueller-I don't know Robert, but I hope to one day if I can ever get up to his level. Another strong favorite here. With an 80% win rate against top level competition, how could anybody bet against him!

Jose Moreira-Another strong unknown to me. Very experienced and I am sure a threat.

Thibault de Vassal-Our glorious leader! If his connection can hold out, we all know Thib is as strong as anybody. It would be nice to see him pull this off.

Sebastion Boehme-Don't be fooled by Sebi's relatively low Advanced rating. He is very strong, experienced Freestyle player. Another shaky connection cost him last year. I consider him to be right in with the favorites of this event.

So there it is "so far". Exciting huh?

Hannes Rada    (2010-10-21 22:27:32)
ICCF forum closed

ICCF seems to have some (major ?) problems. At least it's not very democratic to forbid their customer the free speech ....

Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-22 10:25:55)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Hi to all the FICGS players! In the last few days there has been in the works a strong tournament on the Rybka Forum. I know that most of you play a lot of games not only here but on others sites. I have been looking into the interest of having a type of World Chess Corr Blitz Championship. With the time controls being 2 to 3 days per move. There will be a time out or some kind of extra time system in place to get you a chance to AN critical positions. As of now there are discussions on the Rybka Forum for a Tournament Format that would be comfort to most of the players who play. I have been talking to the person who does the web design there and would are working out a new sub forum to keep this tournament organized and working a clock system so everyone can keep track of there time. I'm also having a prize fund organized to the top 10 finishers. Not so much for give money to the players, but as more a means to keep all the players interested and not have any problems with aborted games. This tournament will have 3 TD's to help with any problems that may come up. We are planing on having the tournament just after the new year. I have the interested of Wayne Lowrance and Ruben Comes has said he will play. If any are interested in playing in a World Chess Corr. Blitz Championship or if you have any questions or comments. Let know on here or your can leave a message on the rybka forum my user name is "thehug"

Garvin Gray    (2010-10-22 17:01:57)
Freestyle Fun

Deadline : 2010 october 30 - 13:00 server time

Thib- Can you please confirm that the times mentioned above are accurate for when play will be occurring for the upcoming freestyle tournament.

Also would you be able to post some time zone conversions for major cities, so all of us from all over the world can work off those times.

Cheers,

Garvin

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-25 02:42:33)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Hello Jimmy! Sure, I keep an eye on the discussions... I may spread the word when all this will be a little clearer to me (maybe I'll consider to play if I'm not too busy and if the tournament is open btw, will it be a round-robin tourney? what happens if you have too many players?) Feel free to use the chat before that though.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-26 19:27:17)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

An open swiss should be at least 6 rounds long, that's the main problem. I still don't get how this tournament may run, a complete simulation with 16 players would help me, definitely.

Kamesh Nookala    (2010-10-27 06:35:12)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Well not really.

I am sorry if am being candid in stating that my first access to corr world is FICGS. It created the best impression which even ICCF could not. I am confident that your efforts will bring a great change to the rybkaforum. Keep the spirits high my friend, come what may :)

As far as my game vs Vytron, I am not sure where it is leading me

Kamesh Nookala    (2010-10-29 04:43:02)
Freestyle Fun

Catch ya guys tomorrow in action. Leaving for Office and i will only return tomorrow as having a night halt at in-laws place today.
Good Luck to all :)

Garvin Gray    (2010-10-29 14:54:31)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Each tournament is slightly different and if a faster time control is used, then players will adjust. Just like playing rapid time controls in otb chess.

It is advertised as a blitz tournament, so of course the time controls will be shorter than the normal type of corro time control. All I have been trying to do is point out issues relating to players competing from different parts of the world.

I am certainly one of those who would be seriously affected by using the 40 move time control you have suggested previously.

I live in Brisbane Australia, so most of my opponents will be at least 4 to 8 hours at least behind me, so it is very common for me to receive moves in the middle of the night, or have a whole batch of moves awaiting me when I wake up.

This can mean that I already start with losing about 8 hours on the clock before I even get to look at a position.

I accept this in the time controls on here because that is just how it is and I am not that disadvantaged as it works the other way where I reply and my opponents are asleep/at work.

But under the 40 move time control posted, I would be severely affected and my only 'crime' would be living in Australia.

Ramil Germanes    (2010-10-30 10:30:27)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Sir Jimmy: Please include me if I'm qualified. I want to join the tournament. Thanks!

Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-30 11:24:51)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

go to the rybka forum http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/forum_show.pl Get a user name and leave me a post on the forum with WBCCC or just sent me a message

Garvin Gray    (2010-10-31 11:13:19)
Freestyle Fun

Ok i am sick of this issue. When I attempt to click on the links provided, or even when I try and open them in a new browser, I keep getting the please login screen. Which means I can not view the link.

This is an issue I am throughly sick of getting.

Sebastian Boehme    (2010-10-31 20:00:30)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !

Also here goes my 50 cents about the tour.

First of all: Thib, very nice tour. Without you we would not have such nice events. FICGS rocks!

Secondly: Congrats to Eros, who made a last minute join and made me think: oh maybe he is out of shape, but you proved the opposite!

Last but not least....am grrrrr about my own performance a bit. I think time management I need to practise a little better next time. ;-)

Many regards,
Sebastian

Gino Figlio    (2010-11-01 04:04:09)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !

Congrats Eros!
I enjoyed all the games and friendly atmosphere. This was a first but very nice freestyle experience for me.
Many things to learn from and hope to do better next time!
Special thanks to Thibault, how do you manage to play two roles at the same time and excel on both?

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-11-02 10:33:17)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

14 days + 2 days / move is much longer than 30 days + 1 day / move. Maybe 20 days + 1 day / move, or 10 days + 1 day / move could be ok... 1 day increment is the strict min. 10 days initial clock is min as well IMO. So a game could last ~180 days at most = 6 months anyway !

Honestly, maybe you should give up the idea that everyone (eg. me) should be able to play, if you think that most players interested are ready to play a really fast corr. time control, maybe you should do it this way but IMO an increment less than 12 hours may lead to many losses on time.

Wayne Lowrance    (2010-11-02 22:18:30)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

yep, I am aware of both sites. That is not the problem as I see it.
Those sites are good if you have arrived at 6 man positions. The problem occurs far before that during analysis. Example player(a) in deep analysis with his hardware/programs determines that a 6 man tablebase will occur and player (b) with his hardware/program is unable to verify that and thus will object to 6 man ruling as He cannot verify it. Not much time will be saved I am afraid if the game continue until the current position is a 6 man position.
Of course a lot of communication can resolve it for player (b) but that is a big work load for someone. So I am very much in favor of the idea, but do not see clear solution to it.
Wayne

Jimmy Huggins    (2010-11-06 07:30:29)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

You make a good point about Christmas and even sometimes people do things on the New Year. I have to probably go with the January 14th idea. If only because I would like to give Dadi as much time as he needs to get the clock system to work. By I will leave a line on the Forum and see what people say. As for the give a week to get play to reply. I had already decide on that. I will be so much easily to do it that way. As to have to repair 2 or 3 times.

Garvin Gray    (2010-11-07 11:23:10)
rybka 4 opening book

Hello all,

I downloaded the Rybka 4 opening book and have had no end of problems trying to make it work.

I have read the rybka forums on adaptors and how to install, but they make about as much sense to me as a foreign language does.

I have contacted chessok and now am in back and forth emails about this topic and my dis-satisfaction with the products.

Is someone able to explain how to get the rybka 4 opening book to work in aquarium and Fritz 12 in really simple language. No coding please.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-11-11 01:59:17)
Email notification does not work

Ah, that's probably a consequence of the server's release update... I'll fix this tomorrow as soon as possible. Thanks for the report!

Paul Valle    (2010-11-12 23:08:30)
Harding's Database

I was very disappointed when recently learned that Harding has discontinued his Corr-Database... just when i planed to buy one....

I was therefore wondering if any one with this database could do a search for me on a unorthodox opening. I need it for an article.

Paul

Peter Marriott    (2010-11-19 17:43:42)
Arena 2.5 Beta

Arena 2.5 Beta released!
http://www.playwitharena.de

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-11-30 22:32:53)
Improvements to score Go games

To all Go players,

I just made some significant improvements in the Go scorer (the option that enables to score Go games - see symbol "$" below the board in the fast moves mode)

Now the scorer recognizes many unfinished shapes & counts empty lines on the board correctly.

Still it shouldn't be totally trusted in all cases, particularly when some shapes in the center have no clear limits.

Any feedback is welcome. Note: you still have to remove dead groups by yourself.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-12-07 08:54:50)
Eros Riccio vs Eros Riccio in WCH 5 ?

Be sure that I'll keep an eye on it (definitely I cannot play, my game vs. SpiderG at Rybkaforum shows how slow I am :/) I'm sure to learn from this experience though!

Wayne Lowrance    (2010-12-08 01:05:03)
Thib can you make this more clear

Eros seems confused, and for sure I am. is this the quality statement ?

Knockout tournament winner will play round-robin cycle winner in a 8 games candidates final match (stage 4). In case of equality (4-4), the knockout tournament winner is qualified for stage 5 if all games are draw, the round-robin cycle winner if not all games are draw.
Wayne

Garvin Gray    (2010-12-08 01:29:56)
Thib can you make this more clear

the knockout tournament winner is qualified for stage 5 if all games are draw, the round-robin cycle winner if not all games are draw.

Makes sense to me- If all eight games were drawn, then the KO tourament winner advances.

If some games were decided by win/loss, but the result ended up as 4-4, then the RR cycle winner advances.

Wayne Lowrance    (2010-12-08 02:14:53)
Thib can you make this more clear

Thank you
Wayne

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-12-08 09:50:49)
Eros Riccio vs Eros Riccio in WCH 5 ?

Hi Wayne, if you find a better way to say it in the rules, please do not hesitate to suggest! :)

To find the chess WCH rules please follow :

1) Waiting lists -> Chess World Championship
2) Help -> General Rules -> Chess World Championship
3) http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html -> Chess World Championship

Hannes Rada    (2010-12-15 21:56:00)
Chess positions too complex for engines

Hi Thibault,
Thank you for the examples.
I do not agree with your position against Peter Schuster. Almost every engine is now playing Qe2 i.o. Tb1 ?
So the engines now 'understand' this position a little bit.
Your position against Wolfgang Utesch is a classical fortress and indeed a bit funny. Here all engines show +5 and Rybka even +6 .... :-)
The 'tragedy' here is not the final position, but the fact the engines would go for such a position in their analysis, as it seems to be a clear win for white. I would file this under typical missing endgame understanding.
I.e. Rybka still does not understand wrong bishop endgames....

Philip Roe    (2010-12-16 03:31:35)
Chess positions too complex for engines

This ending is taken from Nunn's Chess Endings (Om. Garcia-Otero,Cuba 2002).
ChessPosition (see diagram)

White, to play, can force a Queen and Pawns ending that would be a long slow win, but he can also make a very profound triangulation that leads much more forcefully to the win. Nunn was very impressed that White found this at the board.

I would be interested to know how the engines do on this position.

Thibault de Vassal    (2010-12-25 03:01:57)
Paypal box in My messages page

A small question, what would you say about the Paypal box in the My messages page?

1) It is useless
2) It is annoying
3) It is not clear that the site is free
4) It is not important, so why not
5) It is just ok
6) Something else

I hesitate between 3 & 4 actually...

Thanks for your help :)

Jai Prakash Singh    (2010-12-28 16:11:11)
Chess Course by GM Igor Smirnov

Hi Chessfriends,

Can someone visit the link

http://chess-teacher.com/home#oid=1014_5

and please review if I shall buy this course to improve my endgame.

Garvin Gray    (2010-12-29 12:44:11)
WBCCC news

I do not understand, what does this mean? Can you explain further please?

Jimmy Huggins    (2011-01-11 19:49:20)
WBCCC Pairings for Round 1 will be here

If you have the new Aquarium 4.06. You can now test the new software! Just leave a post here. http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20068 and sent a message to Dadi Jonsson that you would like to get your user name and password to use the new software.

Eros Riccio    (2011-01-13 02:36:42)
Eros Riccio is the new FICGS chess champ

Thanks everyone guys... Thank you Edward, it was a real pleasure for me to play with you, not only for the interesting games, but also for the many friendly chats we had during our exchange of the moves, you are a very nice person and I also look forward to playing you again soon in the future.

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-01-15 00:34:20)
Eros Riccio is the new FICGS chess champ

Should be great, unfortunately things do not work that way (at least the current rules)... anyway Eros deserves those 6-8 months of "rest", at least to win his future matches in the 7th & 8th cycles :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-01-18 15:24:39)
Houdini 1.5 leads TCEC comp. chess tourn

Advanced chess "centaur" players should be interested by the following:

A "super" tournament for computers, named TCEC, just started. Premier Division finals started with the participation of the world's top engines.

Tournament format: double round robin

The participants:

1 Houdini 1.5
2 Rybka 4.0
3 Shredder 12.0
4 Stockfish 2.0.1
5 Naum 4.2
6 Ivanhoe B47cB
7 Hiarcs 13.2
8 Critter 0.9

I don't know much on this tournament, actually it may be a CCRL/SSDF system-like but as a tournament (and without rating list?), anyway thus it was able to reach the chess news in Chessdom & Susan Polgar blogspot.

The point is that the supposed "possible" Rybka-clones Ivanhoe & Houdini (both based on Ippolit, just like Firebird) entered the race... and Houdini is leading already, ahead of Rybka.

It is announced that Rybka 4 is playing, does anyone know who's behind this version of Rybka and what is the hardware? Does Vasik Rajlich know about that?

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2011/01/houdini-15-leads-tcec-computer-super.html

http://www.chessdom.com/news-2011/computer-chess-live-2011

http://www.tcec-chess.org/

Jimmy Huggins    (2011-01-18 21:11:52)
Following the WBCCC games Round 1

With less than 3 hours to go for the WBCCC Round 1 to begin. I will help everyone out here to follow what games they want to follow. Here are all the links for games.

B=Board, this is so you know who is at the top table and so on.

()=There real name on here if its needed.

B1-Wayne Lowerance vs ralunger(Ramil Germanes)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20187

B2-Uly(Vytron) vs Loboestepario(Gino Figlio)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20188

B3-Moz vs deka
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20191

B4-parmetd (Daniel Parmet) vs Sebastian Boehme
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20192

B5-National12 vs SpiderG (Peter Marriott)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20193

B6-Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein) vs Omprakash
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20194

B7-Mark Eldridge vs Weirwindle
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20195

B8-stepanie vs Ruben Comes
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20196

B9-Balabachi vs jitan
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20197

B10-Natmaku vs CumnorChessClub (Kevin E. Plant)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20198

B11-Keoki010 (George Clement) vs Tomski1981
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20199

B12-CumnorChessClub(Kevin E.Plant) vs wight054
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20215

B13-Scott Nichols vs indrajit_sg
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20201

B14-donkasand vs David Evans
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20202

B15-ppipper vs Fulcrm2000
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20203

B16-Anne-Marge vs SchachProfi (Alex)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20204

B17-Kamesh(Kamesh Nookala) vs TheHug(Jimmy Huggins)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20225

Everyone plays 2 games in our Swiss style format per round. This is everyone's 2nd game.

B1-deka vs Wayne Lowrance
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20206

B2-Loboestepario(Gino Figilo) vs parmetd(Daniel Parmet)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20207

B3-ralunger(Ramil Germanes) vs Moz
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20208

B4-Sebastian Boehme vs Uly(Vytron)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20209

B5-Weirwindle vs National12
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20210

B6-Omprakash vs stephanie
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20211

B7-SpiderG(Peter Marriott) vs Mark Eldridge
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20212

B8-Ruben Comes vs Schachmatt(Matthew O'Berin)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20213

B9-Tomski1981 vs Balabachi
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20214

B10-CumnorChessClub(Kevin E.Plant) vs wight054
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20215

B11-jatin vs keoki010(George Clement)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20217

B12-Sekos vs natmaku
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20219

B13-Fulcrum2000 vs Scott Nichols
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20220

B14-David Evans vs Anne-Marge
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20221

B15-TheHug(Jimmy Huggins) vs ppipper
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20222

B16-SchachProfi (Alex) vs donkasand
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20223

B17-indrajit_sg vs Kamesh(Kamesh Nookala)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20224

This should make it easier for everyone to follow the games. Please leave comments for the players. They will would very much like it. I will try to update the forum as games go on and finish.

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-01-21 21:57:28)
Houdini 1.5 leads TCEC comp. chess tourn

Houdini 1.5 : 24 pts, Rybka 4 : 23 pts

Things are still unclear in this engines tournament...

Scott Nichols    (2011-01-22 20:40:13)
Houdini 1.5 leads TCEC comp. chess tourn

Is it over, or do Rybka & Houdini have a playoff?

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-01-22 20:49:23)
Houdini 1.5 leads TCEC comp. chess tourn

Ah, maybe it was finished already... So Houdini wins with no loss! Bad score for Hiarcs 13.2 & Naum 4.2 :/ Dunno what can be concluded from all this, we all knew that Rybka & Houdini are the best engines nowadays.

N Engine Pts SB

1 Houdini 1.5 24.0 147.00 1= == == == 11 1= 1=
2 Rybka 4.0 23.0 128.00 0= 0= =1 11 10 1= =1
3 Stockfish 2.0.1 20.0 128.00 == 1= 0= =0 == 11 =1
4 Ivanhoe B47cB 17.0 115.00 == =0 1= =0 =1 01 ==
5 Critter 0.9 17.0 114.50 == 00 =1 =1 == 01 ==
6 Shredder 12.0 12.0 91.50 00 01 == =0 == == ==
7 Naum 4.2 12.0 80.50 0= 0= 00 10 10 == ==
8 Hiarcs 13.2 11.0 91.50 0= =0 =0 == == == ==

Mitha Sweet    (2011-01-22 21:57:16)
How to play in here..

Hello all, My name Mitha I am new here, Please explain how to play chess here.thanks.

Scott Nichols    (2011-01-26 18:41:45)
Houdini 1.5 leads TCEC comp. chess tourn

Is there a place to download the games?

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 :)

Michael Aigner    (2011-02-04 08:18:41)
Houdini 1.5 leads TCEC comp. chess tourn

It´s not over - it is a close match

1 Houdini 1.5a + 6 = 17 - 4
2 Rybka 4.0 + 4 = 17 - 6

and 13 games to go....

Jimmy Huggins    (2011-02-12 04:18:32)
WBCCC Round 1 Update

This is the first update for the WBCCC, I guess some of you have been following some of the games there. There have been a lot of interesting games and some surprises a lot the way. As I'm reporting on the FICGS forum I will make most of this about the FICGS side. Here are some results so far and starting at the top boards.

B2 Uly(Vytron) vs Gino Figlio- Gino does a good job of defending a ..2.e6 line of the Sicilian. And both players agree to a draw after 34 moves.

B4 Daniel Parmet vs Sebastian Boehme- This was a Poison Pawn line of the Sicilian. The game ended before it even got out of book. A short draw, I think both people agreed that it was a good result for each player.

B6- Matt O'Brein vs Omprakash- A surprise if only for how short the game was. Matt shows his tactual muscles when his higher rated opponent much of had and oversight in this defense. As 23.g6! h6 24.Bxh6! and it looks like black has burned his bridges in this game.

B8-Stephanie vs Ruben Comes- This maybe the biggest surprise in round at least in terms of the bigger name on the FICGS side. Stephanie what looks to be a prefect opening all of the B90 lines and everyone agrees 32.Bc3! to be a new novelty and a very good one at that. Stephanie went on to grind Ruben down to a lost endgame. I very interesting game that has be to be seen to believe, I guess this going to show, that not all B90 lines lend to draws.

B13-Scott Nichols vs indrajit_sg- This was a long fought draw. When looking at the game early I thought white may have some chance to take advantage of his open g-file. But not a lot materialize later in the endgame(form the engines point of view).

B14-donkasand vs David Evans- David enter into dangerous territory with this B90 line. At move 19 he played ..Rb8 which looks to be a move to get out of book, because the other moves didn't look so good. Credit to David for finding a draw line in this game. Its another game with a look.

Kamesh Nookala vs Jimmy Huggins- What can I say I played an experimental opening and it backfired :) A well played game by Kamesh. Thanks for the chance to have a good fight with you.

Now on the 2nd set of games(Each player has 2 games in each round)

B3 Ramil Germanes vs Moz- Ramil here played a safe line in the B90 form the white side. So this looked like and easy draw.

B4 Sebastian Boehme vs Uly(Vytron)- Vytron plays and interesting side line of the Crao-Kann and play was very shape, but I got the feeling black played to ambitiously and had the worse of the position. He found a good defensive sacrifice and the good was hold to a draw. I think Sebi had winning chances, but I will have to look over the game to come up with an idea on that one. Anyway a great game to look over.

Ruben Comes vs Matthew O'Berin- Maybe the sharpest and most ambitious game in round 1. This goes in the the B97 lines, but Ruben goes for the Qf3 side line and produces a complex position after Rd3. I love this game so much I want to post the link again for everyone to please watch this game and post a comment about it.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20213

B13 Fulcrum2000 vs Scott Nichols- Scott tries his luck to be ambitious and backfires with his Bh4 idea. Even when looking at the game. I was thinking it to be a good idea, but as it turns out. It goes as just losing a tempo. I thought this was one of the more instructive games of the round. I liked the way white played the endgame.

And the last result I have for the round for the FICGS players is

B17-indrajit_sg vs Kamesh Nookala- This was an interesting draw were white plays and early sideline in the Sicilian that tends to be drawish unless black forces the play. Another well played game by both sides.

I just want to say there are a lot of games one should look at. As more results come in on the FICGS side I will posted. In my opinion one should follow Wayne's games I have enjoyed his play so far. He had to comeback some in his wild game with black vs deka, but I get the feeling this game will ended in a draw. I would also follow the underrated Matt O'Berin in games to come. He has proven to be a great player so far.

Kamesh Nookala    (2011-02-17 08:37:45)
request again tour

Dear Scott,
That's a nice suggestion. But its implementation as of now with the WBCCC already underway is something which, at least for me, is a bit stressful. I am not at pc, and cannot be, 24x7. Of course, for people like you and many others, this will be an interesting factor. Thumbs up for such a suggestion!!

In the present scenario, I would highly recommend hosting of Freestyles at regular intervals BUT WITH WIDE PUBLICITY in all possible forums. With the WBCCC Format and given the fact that Freestyle at FICGS finishes in just 2 days or can even be 4 days (two Saturdays and two Sundays depending on the number of rounds we can increase keeping in view the Number of Players), I put my thrust upon another Freestyle event soon. Many can feel comfortable with a freestyle than a 10 days (no increment) battle, where the guys at home can have full advantage of and those at work under constant pressure :)

This is just my opinion :)
PS:: I am, not for a single moment, saying what you suggested is bad. That can help people like you. I believe it is awesome. But, for the present situation at WBCCC

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-17 12:15:42)
request again tour

Stressful, for the least... In my opinion such tournaments are quite inhuman but I'm not sure if I could resist to play it myself :)

Anyway there may be a few points to discuss yet... With the use of the current vacation system, such tournaments may last a few months in the worst case.

I agree with Kamesh that Freestyle tournaments should probably be the priority, by the way I'll open a new thread for the next one soon. Finally the main difference is that round-robin tournaments don't ask any work (or so few) from my own, but I just wonder how many players are ready to play this format.

Kamesh Nookala    (2011-02-17 19:13:14)
Friends, let's revolutionaize FICGS!!!!

Hi Guys,

FICGS is a great place. Atleast for me. I am very much attracted to the style of play. For more competitive play and attracting more correspondence chess players, while maintaining the purpose of correspondence chess, I think we all can help contribute in making FICGS the greatest server of all times to come.

I know what matters is real stuff, like the ICCF, but why not strengthen the identity of FICGS itself. We can have some games with various other servers (for e.g. the Rybkaforum match we had)
This way, in a calendar year we can have our tours fixed with each server, be it German or anything else.

As far as Thib is concerned, he is too much preoccupied maintaining the server. So, I request each and every member of this Server to throw some of their valuable inputs.

Warm Regards,
Kam

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-23 18:31:34)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

I hope there will be as few changes as possible. The "history" of the championships will be clearer this way.

I still have no idea of a better & clearer system for provisionally rated players but all ideas are welcome...

Jimmy Huggins    (2011-02-24 18:49:15)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

If it is a problem with unrated players. Is it possible to have all players have to play at least 1 tournament before they enter Wch, I know that is not a lot of info to go on. But a provisional is a lot better than no rating at all.

Jimmy Huggins    (2011-02-27 00:40:41)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Do you have to have played at least one tournament. To not be a provisional?

Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2011-02-27 07:26:35)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Why?

What happens if the level of all the provisional players in this special groups is really below or at least 1800?
At least one players in this group will have an easy ticket to the second round and that is unfair to the rest of the "regular" groups.

Garvin Gray    (2011-02-27 09:28:07)
Plea for classical rating help

I do not have a solution for what I am about to whinge about, but it is a situation I am getting a little tired of on this site and I see the situation as rather terminal to my participation here.

For the last 12 rating periods, I have had a rating between 2100 and 2200. In the one tournament where I got to play a field with consistent 2200's, I scored 50% or better.

What I am noticing more and more is that for me it is impossible to get opportunities to find out what my true standard is on here.

I am continually having to play people rated around myself or below and these includes those who are provisionally rated 1800 or 2100. When these games are drawn or lost, my rating is dragged down quite a bit.

I do not ever get the opportunity get those points back by playing people above 2200.

It is an issue that I am so sick of and I feel that my progress is being stunted because of it. My rating progress is certainly being stunted.

We do have the higher ticket idea, but that still takes six months to win one and that does NOT help a persons rating all that much.

With the WCH cycle as it is, I also do not have an opportunity to qualify straight through to group 2, like those with higher ratings do.

As I said, this is a bit of a whinge, but I really am sick of this issue and would like some more opportunities to try and find out what I am like against higher rated opponents.

It is part of the reason why I have also asked that the top rateds in the WCH are not segregated from the lower rated as they are atm. I think they should be made to start from stage 1.

Only the defending champion and possibly the defeated previous finalist should receive preferential treatment.

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-27 21:20:59)
Plea for classical rating help

I don't know if only the defending champion and/or finalist "should" have any treatment after all... That's the whole debate of the FIDE WCH and I wanted to make it quite the opposite way.

On the opportunities for 2100-2200 players to cross the 2200 barrier, your last 4 ratings were 2160, 2157, 2160 & 2135. The tickets system also allow you to enter the CLASS M (2200+) waiting list for 10 Epoints if your rating is above 2150. I'm not trying to sell anything there but it is an option that is dedicated to help in such cases.

On the WCH cycle, maybe another idea would be to "extend" the M Groups idea to the 2200-2300 players. With 2200 to ~2400 players in these groups, there will be more strong players in Stage 2... I'm not sure about the whole consequences but it may be worth a try, what do you think?

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-27 21:34:13)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Hi Garvin, sure there might be a language issue... sorry about that :/ I think I only try to interpret what you say in terms of consequences on the whole thing but I may be wrong at some points, be sure I'm not trying to avoid anything deliberately.

The provisional rating already takes account of if the player uses an engine or not (at least I try to make an estimation on what the new member says in the registration form).

As I just said in the other discussion, maybe we could try to extend the M groups to the 2200-2300 players, it may satisfy everyone as it is probably easier to cross the 2000 barrier than the 2200's, what do you think?

Garvin Gray    (2011-02-28 02:09:54)
Plea for classical rating help

I do know what my previous rating are. That is my point, my rating is stationary and I believe this is because I am not getting the EVEN opportunity to improve it by playing higher rated players often enough.

If I had many games against 2200+ers and had a poor record, then the conclusion would be very different ie not good enough yet for that rating.

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-28 16:05:47)
Plea for classical rating help

My point is that you never entered a class M waiting list while you were able to do it during maybe 6 months... During this time you entered many Rapid M & Class A tournaments (you play many games) so there may be also a rating management question into the problem IMHO. The same way you played 3 rapid silver tournaments, 2 against players with low ratings and 1 against Eros (good opportunity!) that you lost. These times many ~2200 rated players enter this waiting list.

Anyway I'll make other proposals in the other discussion today.

Daniel Parmet    (2011-02-28 23:29:13)
Plea for classical rating help

I feel I have the same problem as Garvin. But it does not bother me as much as I consider playing otb the real place for improvement. I just use corr as a chance to test my otb ideas. However, I still try to seek out the strongest players I am allowed to play. The restrictions I have found in most correspondence sites though is that I am not allowed to play the stronger players. The 2150 rule does not help me as I am at a mere 2100.

Daniel Parmet    (2011-02-28 23:31:07)
Plea for classical rating help

Actually my rating will probably take a severe plunge on the May 1st list because many of my games against 1900-2000s will be drawn each one will majorly drag my rating down despite the fact this is the predicted outcome as black.

Jimmy Huggins    (2011-02-28 23:37:33)
Plea for classical rating help

I guess that is one reason why you like my tournament. You get a chance to face strong players at every point, almost.

Daniel Parmet    (2011-02-28 23:50:22)
Plea for classical rating help

yes this is exactly why I love your tournament ;) losses do not bother me. I learn from them. This has been my philosophy ever since I picked up chess a mere 3 years ago. What bothers me is all the restrictions people put into to place to prevent players from improving. Most do it unintentionally. However, many US organizers do it intentionally. They either cap their event sections strictly for 2200+ or they make insane rating determine entry fees. For a non 2400+ player to enter a GM norm swiss event it can cost $400. Or for an expert to enter a 2200+ section will cost you an extra $50 at the Goichberg style events or an extra $100 for the National Open.

It is this kind lunacy that makes improvement hard. You can have all the time and money in the world and still find through no lack of effort or skill that you are not allowed to improve.

I find most of the otb tournaments I am allowed to play in now... I usually end up being seed 1 or 2. Not exactly encouragement for me to use my whole weekend is it? I would dream to be able to enter a swiss where I am the bottom seed. But for this to happen I have to break the barriers without the extreme advantage of being allowed to play strong players.

FYI, I practice what I speak. The local tournament I am running next in my area will feature 5 masters (1 IM, 2 FM and 2 NM) - and it has a low entry fee. This is the type of event I wish was more common...

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-01 11:04:48)
Plea for classical rating help

Same problem in France as for OTB chess (as far as I remember).

Daniel, I see that you made it the very hard way too (starting from 1300), it took a while to reach 2087 but I have no doubt that you'll reach 2100, then you can enter a Rapid M (by the way a ticket can do it already). There are solutions!

Garvin Gray    (2011-03-02 14:59:29)
Plea for classical rating help

Thib- The tickets system also allow you to enter the CLASS M (2200+) waiting list for 10 Epoints if your rating is above 2150.
====================
Apologies for the slow replies. From looking at both threads on these items I wanted to wait to see if there were any trends. Not so far.

On to the comment I have picked out above, I just looked at the SM Rapid group and I notice three players who I think have accepted the 10 euro scheme into a tournament with 2300 players.

When I saw your comment about the ticket system, I was concerned that it could mean that a few 2150 ers enter the tournament and it ruins the experience for all.

This seems to have occurred where the scheme is in place to give the opportunity for a person to play higher rated opponents.

In fact, rechecking the SM rapid, no player is above 2300.

Perhaps the 2150 scheme should be limited to one acceptance per 2300 group. When that tournament fills, another 2150 person can accept.

So as it stands, I will not be joining that tournament as it will acheive nothing more than I am getting now, and I would be paying 10 euro for the privilege of getting nothing more than what I get now.

Garvin Gray    (2011-03-02 15:29:50)
The most common mistake in chess

I thought the most common mistake is the first one. Learning the game :P

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-03 14:26:01)
Plea for classical rating help

Sorry as well, I missed your last message in this discussion. So...

1) On tickets for class M ("...if your rating is above 2150"), that was my point, nothing prevented you to use this trick when your rating was above 2150.

2) On the next Rapid SM, only 2 players used it, Marius was above 2300 then lost many elo points as he had to forfeit several games, Miroslav also was above 2300 and lost a few points. That's a border case and it may happen. Anyway only 2 players under the rating limit can enter a waiting list.

3) To clarify, there is no 2150 scheme! 2150 is for the case of Class M, for Rapid SM you have to be rated 2250-2299 or to win a Rapid M event to use the ticket system.

4) You are probably right on the Rapid SM case anyway, maybe the ticket system rule should allow players to use a ticket only if there are no more than 2 players (including players not using a ticket) under the rating range.

5) Anyway you couldn't enter the Rapid SM waiting list unless you win a Rapid M tournament. But my point was only that you could have joinded a Class M several times (with most players rated above 2200)...

Garvin Gray    (2011-03-05 11:51:24)
Plea for classical rating help

Been thinking about this issue a bit more.

I think the only solution is that more tournaments are specially run where players from the different rating bands meet more often.

So there should be a couple of more tournaments where there are no special divisions where the top players are put together against each other, rather than having to fight it out from round one with the rest of the riff raff.

This idea seems great, but the old question comes up, it only works for the intended purpose if players from the top end of the rating list actually participate.

Would they? I am sceptical.

Alexander Blinchevsky    (2011-03-05 23:05:45)
Strange game

Thanks, Thib. Please see this post as an official report to the referee. :)

Mariusz Maciej Broniek    (2011-03-06 08:56:45)
Strange game

Hi;0)
maybe I am wrong in my opinion, but I think, that playing chess is for fun! I have a 7yo son, and he traing hard to learn playing chess. In lose position he play move by move and what is bad in that situation? It is only a hobby, its only for fun.. Not for rating, not for 1,0,=. All in FICGS used computers to play, he used a young brain and learn lose too. It is very important in my opinion. I have few games in the same sytuation - I am winner - but I have a time and... dont wont to die too ;0)) BECAUSE IT IS ALL ONLY FOR FUN.
Kind regards to you Alexander
Mariusz

Rolf Staggat    (2011-03-06 14:44:18)
The most common mistake in chess

The most common mistake in chess is to learn the rules

Garvin Gray    (2011-03-09 22:26:30)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

I will offer an argument in another way- please do not use the word progressive. As soon as I read that word, I think progressive politics and I run a mile :p

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-10 02:45:04)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

I'm not clear enough, as too often :/

Let's say that there are 33 players over 2150 in the waiting list. 8 will play the knockout, 7 (over 2300) will play the M group and 18 will play in two N groups of 9 players. From the M group, 2 will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 will play round 2. From the N groups, 1 from each one will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 from each one will play round 2. So from these 33 players, 12 will play in the round-robin groups stage 2.

Maybe this formulation (that should be included into the wch rules) will be clearer:

"Players with a rating superior or equal to 2300 will play 1st stage in class M groups if possible. From these groups the two players obtaining the best score will qualify for the round-robin final stage 3, the player obtaining the lowest score will be eliminated, the others will play stage 2.

Other players with a rating superior or equal to 2150 will play 1st stage in class N groups if possible. From these groups the winner will qualify for the round-robin final, at most half the players from these groups will qualify for round 2."

Garvin Gray    (2011-03-10 02:49:48)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Let's say that there are 33 players over 2150 in the waiting list. 8 will play the knockout, 7 (over 2300) will play the M group and 18 will play in two N groups of 9 players. From the M group, 2 will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 will play round 2. From the N groups, 1 from each one will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 from each one will play round 2. So from these 33 players, 12 will play in the round-robin groups stage 2.

I think this should be slightly changed.

1) The top eight rated players will play the knockout matches.

2) The next seven highest rated will play the M group round robin

3) Players 16 to 33 will play in 2 groups, called group N.

and then so forth.

The reason I offer this as a re-wording/change is that it is a little more flexible and it could be that more than 7 players above 2300 nominate, or that less than 7 players above 2300 nominate.

So in effect it just makes it clear that players will be allocated purely in rating order, rather than specifying a particular rating cut off.

Jimmy Huggins    (2011-03-10 11:02:48)
Notes for WBCCC Round 2

With the last game about to come to a close. I wanted to remember everyone that the next round is going to be starting sometime next week. At some point today Garvin will talk about the next pairings. When they are official released. I will start making the next game links available. Directly for what games you want to see.

Players please give some input about the starting time for Round 2 if you have an opinion :)

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21156

Sebastian Boehme    (2011-03-11 10:21:26)
Notes for WBCCC Round 2

Remember might be a little more "slangish", but yes remind is how I know it.
Anyway please bear with Jimmy, he is a good TD. ;-)

Jimmy Huggins    (2011-03-14 17:39:50)
WBCCC Round 2 to be a short delay

I'm sorry about this, but the tournament will be delayed by a day or 2, because of a withdrawal at the top of the pairings. If it was a lower point group, we could have probably winged it. For more details players please read this.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21227

Me and Garvin will work hard to get this fixed as soon as possible, follow this thread or here and I will get it corrected. When we have things fixed pairings wise I will post ASAP.

Jai Prakash Singh    (2011-03-23 03:50:19)
New site on Chess Thinking Systems

Petrosian System link is now active at

http://chessthinkingsystems.blogspot.com/

or directly

http://chessthinkingsystems2.blogspot.com/p/petrosian-system.html

Please read and comment.

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-24 15:36:57)
5th Go WCH, analysis by SC. von Erichsen

Svante Carl von Erichsen is FICGS Go champion... for the 5th time! After his win in the match that opposed him to Olivier Drouot, here are his analysis on the games:

_______________________

- Congratulations for this 5th win in the FICGS Go championship! By seeing the score you give less and less chances to your opponents who seem stronger each time though... Several games may look quite mysterious to weaker players. What happened during these games?

- Svante Carl von Erichsen:

Hi!

I do not have the impression that my opponents have less and less
chances. I also make many mistakes, and was in a clearly bad position
in at least one game. Olivier made many very unusual moves in the
opening, which were difficult to handle in a calm manner.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47578

In game 3 (47578), this is apparent at move 18. White has gone for a
very centre-oriented game, while Black has made more direct profit.
It is difficult to say who got the better deal. Move 18 itself is
very unusual, and I am not sure whether the result was satisfactory
for me. I think that moves 41 and 43 were important, as stabilizing
the group in the centre takes priority when the centre is dominated by
White like this. At move 53, it is clear that Black needs to stabilize
the top group, but D18 seems more important in retrospect. Move 62 is
a bit odd---I think that living with S16 instead would be better. I
think that Black got a territorial advantage here. Since White got
additional central strength, Black turned to make his central group
safe again, which should be enough to win now. White 94 tries to
shake up things again, but getting separated on the lower side makes
it very hard for him.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47580

In game 5 (47580), Olivier chose a very unusual move again at move 8.
I think that the outcome until move 17 favours Black, however. At
move 36, it looks like Black will have to live in the corner, but the
white enclosure does have its holes. Alas, White's response to the
forcing move at P10 was a severe blunder, as Black can take back the
right side. Move 55 was big, but I had not anticipated that the fight
after move 56 would be so hard for me. I think that after move 93,
White put too much emphasis on hollowing out what once seemed like
prospective black territory. The ponnuki in the centre was worth much
more than what White made on the second line. With that strength,
reducing the white framework on the left was no question. I think
that White then tried too hard in the centre.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47576

Game 1 (47576) was characterized by a big fight starting from the
joseki in the lower right corner. I guess that a stronger player
could point out several mistakes by both sides. It resulted in a big
exchange, where quite some aji remained in both positions. Move 90 is
an unusual idea, it would be more normal to extend on the side. 91
and 95 were intended as forcing moves to give some support to the top
side. I think that Black has good prospects after move 99 and
especially after 113. White started an interesting invasion on the
left then, which was however stopped by the blunder at 138.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47579

Game 4 (47579) again featured some unusual moves in the opening,
namely moves 7 and 9. I think that immediately plunging through at 10
was not good. It was quite difficult for me to keep territorial
balance afterwards. I think that my invasion at the top was
premature, but it seemed like I could not keep up without it. The
attack at L13 was severe. I got lucky that Black kept back a bit, so
that I could get the cut at E7, which was more important than the six
stones around N13. It would have been possible to save them at move
98, but at the cost of letting Black break through L10. Sacrificing
them allowed me to cement the centre to put me comfortably ahead. L9
was then the start of a desperate attempt to reduce the centre. I was
quite sure that I could capture it, even though simply connecting
would most likely have been enough. I then made a big blunder again
with move 130 (I had to double hane), allowing a game-deciding ko.
Black had a lot of threats against the lower right corner, and I think
that this exchange would have put him ahead. However, he thought he
had an internal threat at D10, which I think was not one, as there was
no additional eye in the centre yet.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47577

In game 2 (47577), he got me in the opening with another of his
experiments (move 7). I think that I could have been satisfied if I
simply played the keima to P2 at move 14. However, I activated the
central stone instead, which led to Black getting solid positions on
both sides, while I lived small in the corner and struggled in the
centre. I then succeeded in making him overconcentrated on the lower
side, but at the expense of a quite large corner and not making many
points myself. Move 80 tries to stir things up more. I think that if
Black had secured O13 with move 97, the game would have been over.
However, things only began to look good for White after move 127,
which had to be played at R8 (it is sente against the middle group
then, so Black can live with S5). It is still not over, however, as
White has two weak groups to take care of. The lower side group can
live locally with a ko at G1, but the other group has to struggle---it
would be nice to find a clean sacrifice plan here, because it is hard
for the two groups not to compete for eye space. This was the last
game to end, and my opponent seems to have chosen to resign all when
he did not see a way to win the overall match anymore.

All in all, these were very interesting games where I think I learnt a
lot. I wish to thank my opponent, who played very well.

Thanks!

Svante

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-31 19:50:04)
Segregation of Games on this Server

Finally, I just made a small update to solve this problem, now you may download chess finished games by 2 months periods, see:

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=search_games#chess_database

Please report bugs if any... Thanks!

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-04-05 23:34:02)
Major update : Wikichess / hashtables

Finally....

Wikichess now supports hashtables, with some advantages :

- The program detects & manages transpositions by itself.

- If both players are rated over 2000, their moves will be automatically added in Wikichess if the move before is already in the database and if the line is not a transposition (still some work).

- By clicking "W" in the fast interface, the search is done by hashtable and no more by line, which returns better results.

So in a few months Wikichess should be much more useful than now :)

Please report any bug if you find ones... Thanks!

Kevin D. Plant    (2011-04-20 12:18:31)
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000041

Why does it show the following

FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000041
Leaders : George Clement Mark Eldridge

who have 2/4 and I have 2.5/4

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-04-21 11:53:57)
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000041

The tournaments leaders/winners are not updated in real time. Now it should be ok.

Harshil Meraiya    (2011-04-24 10:20:30)
Active rating lists

Actually it's outrageous. I've been playing for 1 yr and haven't lost single game. still my rating is 1767 while persons just joined and playing no game at all have 1800. Such a stupid site. I'm leaving this site. Nothing is more idiotic than this! Such a waste of time!!

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-04-27 12:43:14)
Active rating lists

@ Harshil : To delete your account, please use the form at the bottom of the page "My account", specifying that you want it to be deleted. It should be done within days.

Jimmy Huggins    (2011-04-29 11:23:50)
WBCCC-New stuff and Round 2 Update

Hello everyone! Its been a while since the last time I have updated. I would like to talk about recent happening. Then I will give an update on the games for this round.

I have had some talks with a few players. And I would like to announce that starting next year there will be more prizes. Besides the money prize next year. I haven't decide yet how many of these I will have yet. And its possible there could be more ideas to come by. Please also know that there will be money prizes still this is just something on also to add to the interests.

1.Subscriptions to annotated games. For example Chess Today, Chessvibes, chesspublishing.com and Opening Master. There can be others, these are just examples. If you have other good ideas here please post. Most likely this will be a combined prize here.

2.Rental time on the new Rybka Cluster- Not sure how exactly this one would work. It could be a lot different in a years time for the Rybka Cluster. But I think this would have some interests.

3.Hardware- Again not sure how I would do this. But I would probably have it as a middle to high end setup for a prize. Hardware is always a every changing process its hard to know what is good at that time.

Any other suggests are welcome. Probably the best realistic prize is the first one. If I have multiple prizes like this. The way it would probably play out is like a lottery system. Start with the winner and work your way down. On what they want and go 2nd, 3rd etc...

The last prize to talk about.(And maybe the best) I have had talks with the people of chesspublishing.com and next year. Whatever game is voted for "best game of the round". Will have there game analyzed, by one of the titled players on that site and have the game published. I will try and have it open to everyone that follows the games for the WBCCC.

The next thing of interest for next year. Is that we will have a conditional move system in place. It was thought in a blitz setting to be a great asset to have. For example if your opponent is in a different time zone than you and the next move to you would be a force move. It would be nice to have this option to make the forced play. Without having to say up late at night to make this obvious move. This is all the new stuff. Round 2 Update to come.

Jimmy Huggins    (2011-04-29 14:45:26)
WBCCC-New stuff and Round 2 Update

The last round was very exciting! And this round has had some great games as well. To speak of there is just 4 games left. Here is the report of the most important games this round.

Starting at the top boards. We have have...

B1-Loboestepario (Gino Figilo) vs CumnorChessClub (Kevin E.Plant)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21163-

This game followed a Catalan. Gino makes ambitious choice to go with 5.Nbd2! I gave this move a ! Not because of its theoretical standing. But because it will lead to a position were white will give up a whole pawn for rapid development. Never the less, black is equal to the task and managers to hold on to the pawn for most of the game and keep the game balanced. With my human eyes, I thought for sure white had an advantage! After move 20.Be4, It looks like white has 2 racking bishops. While black has one black locked in! But in depth analysis shows, that black can hold on. And shows great defensive technique. Down the stretch. Well played by Gino and Kevin. On of my favorite games to follow.

B3-Mark Eldridge vs David Evans
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21165-

David has gotten tested in both his black games in this tournament. And this game was no different. We had another B90 line in this game. And ...8.h5 was used. This is becoming a common line in this tournament. Mark's treatment on the white side was great! I think his future opponents will think twice before trying this line again. At move 22, the game reaches the sharpest point. After move 22.fxe5! I thought that Mark had a chance vs David. But David founds some good moves to exchanges pieces and hold for a draw. The best of which was the combo of ...33.Rf3 and ...36.Rxg3! This was a nice find by him. Great job to David and Mark! I look forward to seeing both these players again.

B4-Stephanie vs Fulcrum2000
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21166-

I would normally just post FICGS member games here. But this maybe one of the top 2 or 3 most important games of this round. In what turns out to be the most exciting game of the round IMO. White has shown that they are quite good in the opening phase. At move 18 they choose 18.b3 which was suggested as being the novelty move. White gets a very strong game and after a king tour to capture the pawn. It looked like a win for sure!, but it seems a mistake was made at move 38. Instead of 38.Qc1!? the move 38.Qe8! seems to be a near winner. I thoughts on why this move was missed is because, White was in time trouble in both games. I have to believe this was a favor. As we speak Stephanie is close to defeat in the other game that I will talk about shortly. I would watch her for the reminded of the tournament. I think they will learn form this experience and be even stronger going future. Well done by both players.

B5-NATIONAL12 vs Kamesh
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21167

Two of my good friends battling here. This was a B90 battle. The novelty move was the straight forward looking 27.h4, but after some exchanges. White has to settled for equality. A good match to follow, the one other note made was this was a line pioneered by Eros Riccio.

B7-Wayne Lowrance vs tomski1981
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21169-

Wayne plays a good line vs the french vs tomski. In fact by the database expert, it was in a 100% win line!! But after the queens come off the board. It burns out to a quiet draw. Wayne has had good opening results, but has yet to get in the winners column. I have faith that Wayne will win a game very soon. Good game to both in this one.

B8-Uly vs indrajit_sg
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21170-

This was a nice game to follow. A french defense was chosen. The point in which it gets interest is the choice to play 19.bxc3!? Which leads to 21.Nh6+!? I loves this sires of moves! 27.Rh3! was also a good move here. But its seems black has just enough resources to hold the balance. ..54.Bxg6! was a good finally touch. Well played by both players.

B9-Balabachi(William Fuller) vs Sebastian Boehme
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21171

What was talked about as a drawish Ruy position. I found to be quite a game with all the early fireworks. I also liked the material imbalance in this game. Sebi has a rep of being very difficult to beat with the black pieces. This helps when you have the Ruy and the Posion pawn line of the Sicilian. As two of your best weapons. ;)

B10-Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein) vs Weirwindle
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21172-

This was an interesting Richter-Rauzer game. 15.Qf4 was the novelty move, Form there it got crazy. 21.Nb3 seems to invite a pawn race. Which in the end white loses. This was a tough game for white. I think he should have been able to hold it. But it was still a good game to follow.

B11-donkasand vs Ruben Comes
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21173

This was a nice positional game by Mike (Donkasand), This was a 6.h3 Sicilian. And we get the usually good defense here. ..7.h5 White gets great positional pressure for the whole game and even gets a pawn, but Ruben wholes for a draw.

B12-natmaku vs ralunger (Ramil Germanes)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21174

This game was a Petroff with 5.Nc3. This kind of move gives white rapid development. Its seems black equalize pretty quickly. And on move 21 a draw was agreed on.

B13-Scott Nichols vs Omprakash
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21175

This was an interesting King's Gambit game. I think Scott didn't study his opponents rep. :) The King's Gambit is Om's specialty. So this was an easy draw for black.

B14-Keoki010 (George Clement) vs deka
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21176-

In this game black returns to his pet line of the Sicilian with 2.a6(Which he played in the last round) I believe this is called the O'Kelly variation. This time around he goes for ..7.Qb6 which looks a little better than ..7.Bb5!? A draw probably should have been possible, but George was able to grid out a win. Well played by both players.

B15-parmetd (Daniel Parmet)vs SpiderG (Peter Marriott)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21177

This was a King Indian by black. And white does a good job of out playing his opponent in this game. Unfortunately it seems Peter has gotten busy in his life. This game was decide by time.

B16-Banned for Life vs TheHug(Jimmy Huggins)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21178

I face off against Alan who has the white pieces. And is consider to be one of the best players when playing 1.b3. It was a difficult game for me as I decide before hand to play a dangerous line. Needless to say I lose this game after a few small mistakes on my part. I am founding that all the players in the WBCCC are good, I maybe better off being a commentator lol, but no one would have that.

This was the first set of games.

Here is the 2nd game of the 2nd round in the next post.

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-04-30 01:28:03)
Amateur player beats Rybka 4 !?

What do you think??

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2011/04/amateur-player-defeats-rybka-in-match.html

Last but not least: "He knows by heart 20,000 books and 30 million digits of the pi number."

April 28, is this april fool joke in another country?

Paul Valle    (2011-05-03 23:40:03)
Starting Rating

First of all: This is a great site, and love the fact that the Thib interacts with users to improve the site. Many decent chess sites out there, but this is rare.

When it comes to starting ratings, I would like to add some ideas for improvement:

The point of ratings is that they should reflect playing strength.
Likewise, the goal with starting ratings is that it should reflect actual playing strength.
Rules for both should be as equal and fair as possible.

Assumption:
I) the composition of «Active Players» and their ratings here on FICGS, are a valuable source in guesstimating a new players rating. Most players here play aided by an engine and the site is free, so players here should reflect what comes in the door.
(BTW My minimum definition of an «Active Player», is someone who has made at least one move in the period leading up to the official rating list.)
II) Lightning rating is a good estimate of Correspondence Rating.

I further believe that any choices or complications made to the FIDE rules of one starting rating fits all, should mostly be done to aid good Advanced Chess Players, and good OTB-players. Such complications might not be fair, but essential for FICGS to be relevant to the elite.

My proposal:

«Newly Regs» have a choice of THREE options upon starting to play correspondence CHESS on FICGS:

A) Start with a set rating. I would suggest this be set at the average or median off all Active players. Or a fixed numerical constant times this average. You could of course set up all kinds of formulas, but the main point in should reflect the current composition of FICGS members and not estimates based on unverifiable data given by the player.

Some players might feel that they are way better than this and might be discouraged to join and fight for a long time to reach the top tournaments they feel they are entitiled to play. The seccond option is created to encourage these players to join, and give them a choice to prove their skill relativly quickly and accurately.

B) Play 10 preliminary lightning games (starting with the same rating as in A), and then using the end lightning rating as the starting rating for normal tournaments. These players will get a much more accurate starting rating, and may be well motivated to put in the effort if they care. (If all the 10 games went close to 60 moves, and both players used all their time, the playing time would be around 16 hours)

Then there are the top international correspondence or Over-The-Board players. Why bother these with 10 lightning games?

C) Titled players can start in Master with a higher fixed rating (same as in option A, but multiplied with a higher constant), but must register by credit card to prove identity.

Possible drawbacks and problems
1) Assumption I and/or II is flawed
2) A poor player might be highly overrated choosing option A)
3) Players can dump lightning rating points to a friend
4) Implementation cost – development

-What ya think folks?
reg, Paul

Jai Prakash Singh    (2011-05-04 13:33:38)
Breaking Stereotypes

Well friends. Both the free video lessons "Breaking Stereotypes I & II" are really good. Please watch them at http://chessthinkingsystems.blogspot.com/ and do comment here.

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-05-10 12:09:36)
Big Chess championships 1 & 2

Hello all,

Finally the 2nd Big Chess championship started, with 3 players who should replace forfeiting players within 15 days. You still can enter the waiting list for replacements. Sorry for this month late :/

The final tournament of the 1st championship started as well... There was kind of a dilemma as I'm not comfortable with the idea of inviting myself to complete a tournament, but best was IMO to follow the current rules (tournaments of at least 7 players) so I had to invite 2 players. For the 2nd one, with 4 groups only I'll have to invite 3 players (most probably 2 players with 5 points out of 6 and the highest Big Chess rating when the tournament starts).

Wayne Lowrance    (2011-05-26 01:23:39)
I am exhausted

Thibault Eros & friends.
I am exhausted. At 81 years I cannot play chess to my standards. Recent events have drained me and I do not know what to do. I dearly love this site, it has been good to me, I met a lot of friends but I cannot any longer function at the level I expect of myself. Please forgive me. May I drop out of current WBCCC matches with Eros.
Thanks to all for being my friend
Wayne

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-05-26 02:45:13)
I am exhausted

Hi Wayne,

Surely we all can understand what you feel at different levels, personal life is a great part of correspondence chess games, and sometimes we lose because of such factors (it happened to me as well, but you didn't need it to beat me :))... Such a situation is always really hard to accept, particularly after having fought during months/years like a lion just like you did here, but IMHO time will remind you (in days or months) that all this is definitely only a game after all.

Fortunately good games always remain... and bad ones are not so important. I learnt that.

Just do what you have to do.

All the best,
Thib

Wayne Lowrance    (2011-05-26 17:32:15)
I am exhausted

Thank you Jimmy so much. Your prayers will be much appreciated. I decided I would share the full extent of my problem.
My body is ravaged with arthritis. Have had it for man years Its in lower back, right hip and knee...no cartilage, bone on bone. It has progressed in last year. I have to take Pain killer drugs (Vicodin). A Operation is not an option. Doctors told me year or more ago this day would come. The Vicodin helps relieve pain but only for 2-4 hours.My mind is affected from the drug, all in all I am exhausted with chess pressure, trying to play at a level I am accustomed too. Drugs or no drugs, I am still in pain, I am invalid now, cannot walk, sitting hurts my hip, bah...on and on.
I was not gonna share the details but I wanted it known complete reason for my leaving CC world of chess that I love so much.
Wayne

Garvin Gray    (2011-05-26 20:17:18)
I am exhausted

Wayne,

I am so sorry to hear this. I do hope to see you back soon if possible. Please do keep in touch.

Cheers,

Garvin

Wayne Lowrance    (2011-05-30 18:23:03)
I am exhausted

Howdy Kam. Gosh I did not know about your illness. So pleased your feeling much better. Thank you so much for your prayer, helps me to know it. My future does not look promising Kam. The Doctor has told me my arthritic conition is advanced, only offering me drugs, which help some. I am for sure thru with chess Kam, I just cannot any longer do it. I could always just make engine moves, but I would NEVER be able to enjoy that.... I am proud of your play in the Jimmy Tournament, attaway to go Kam
Well b4n
Wayne

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-06-13 18:44:21)
Unable to login for several days?

Hi all,

It looks like a few players are still unable to login (actually to access the whole website) during several days from time to time.

I thought I solved the problem a few months ago and I did not encounter this problem since that time, so I'm not sure about what happens for these players.

A trick may be to enter https://ficgs.com instead of http://www.ficgs.com in your navigator, it does not work every time but it may help sometimes.

If this issue happens to you, please describe what you can do and cannot do here... Let's try to figure it out.

Thanks for your help!

Jimmy Huggins    (2011-06-22 06:54:36)
The rise of freestyle chess again.

Hello to all my FICGS friends! I was wanting to post here to let people know about a live broadcast later today. Me and ICCF GM Arno Nickel will be having a match later to help promote freestyle chess. In truth this is another practice match to try and test a server for freestyle chess. He had own 1st match yesterday. And it was nice to see it being followed. I hope some of you come watch the event. Comments are welcome! :) The match will be at 6:30am Central Standard Time/7:30am Eastern Standard Time/12:30 GMT/ 11:30 Rybka Forum time. Look for a thread in the Rybka Forum/ Computer Chess subforum. The thread will be up several minutes before the match. The time control will be 60min+15sec, which is a common time control for freestyle chess.

For those of you who don't know ICCF GM Arno Nickel. He is in the top 10 in the ICCF and is one of the leading people to promote and bring freestyle chess to the fore front.

I hope to see you today and I'm sure there will be other matches to follow in the future. This will all lead up to a great tournament later on this year. :)

Lalit Kapoor    (2011-06-28 10:39:04)
When a player declared winner?

The following tournaments are finished with no unfinished games but site does not declared the winner so far:

1. FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_A__000093 (last game finished on June 16, 2011
2. FICGS__POKER_HOLDEM__TOURNAMENT_C__000049 (last game finished on May 24, 2011.)

Please let the players know about the rules upon this issue.

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-07-01 02:50:07)
When a player declared winner?

Hello Lalit,

Tournament winners/leaders are updated about once every month only.

It should be done today.

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-07-14 23:54:45)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament

Hello all,

I'd like your opinion on this special case in a WCH tournament (that did not happen yet, as far as I know). Currently rules do not allow to change anything there but I'm not even sure that something should be changed. Please note that I consider that correspondence chess is not all about chess, so resignations in equal positions are most often wins like other wins.

The case: Player A draws or wins a game in a round-robin WCH tournament, then resigns all his other games in equal positions.

Of course this is not good and maybe unfair for the player who offered/accepted the draw or lost the game against him. If player A resigned some other games in equal positions before, the rules allow the referee to adjudicate the game for the other player, but not here.

While I'm writing these lines, I feel and realize that the referee shouldn't be able to change such a result as the limit is unclear (what about 2 games, 3 games, 4 games or 5 games before those resignations in equal positions), but this may be worth to discuss anyway.

Garvin Gray    (2011-07-16 18:02:39)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament

Thibault- I think I can offer you a solution to this from the fide laws of chess, tournament rules section.

These types of situations are already covered: http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=20&view=category

11. Where not all games are played

(c) When a player withdraws or is expelled from a round-robin tournament, the effect shall be as follows:

(d) If a player has completed less than 50% of his games, his score remains in the tournament table (for rating and historical purposes), but the points scored by him or against him are not counted in the final standings. The unplayed games of the player and his opponents are indicated by (-) in the tournament table and those of his opponents by (+). If neither player is present this will be indicated by two (-).

(e) If a player has completed at least 50% of his games, his score shall remain in the tournament table and shall be counted in the final standings. The unplayed games of the player are shown as indicated as above.

(g) Articles 10(e) and (f) also apply to team events; both unplayed matches and unplayed games must be clearly indicated as such.

Garvin Gray    (2011-07-23 16:54:42)
E point encouragement

From the my messages page=

Until october 1st 2011, you'll be given 10% E-Points more when buying at least 20 Epoints, 25% E-Points more when buying at least 50 Epoints. It is also possible to win E-Points by becoming an affiliate.

So I understand this correctly. If I buy 50 epoints, I get an extra 12.5 epoints, is that correct?

Jimmy Huggins    (2011-08-10 03:42:40)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament

I have been pretty busy lately, and have been thinking about a lot of different things chess related. Some of you know that I have talked about and planed for a freestyle chess tournament in the near future. Here is a few notes for it and I would like to pass on some ideas and get some opinions. I can safely say that we can have a freestyle event between Nov-Dec and the 2nd part of it is that it won't be around Christmas. Oh ok here is what I would like to get an opinion on. 2 questions

1) What tournament timeline sounds better? (a) A Saturday-Sunday tournament or (b) Saturday-Next Saturday. I would say that 5 or 6 rounds is what we would go with. That should be plenty for a 20-30 person first tournament. That is what I'm predicting I don't know for sure.

2nd Question- What is a reason time control?

Oh ok the leading time control idea for me is 60min+30sec per move. Anyone see a problem with this one? I like this because its not a huge time spent and there is still room for the human element in the freestyle game.

All comments are welcome thanks for any input! :)

Jimmy

Wayne Lowrance    (2011-08-05 23:18:00)
Eros on his win in the 4th chess WCH

Howdy Eros, my congratulations. I want to get back so badly, but not ready, at least not yet. If and when I make a stab at it, I have a long way to go to get back to the level I am accustomed too,
bfn my friend
Wayne

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-08-19 11:43:45)
Rybka banned from ICGA

Clone or not clone, I'm not sure if this question is worth something in computer chess but ICGA did it: Rybka was banned and stripped of titles...

I just partly read RybkaInvestigation document, a few points are particularly ridiculous (like 2.2 "Sudden Strength Increase"), I have no idea on the other ones and I'm not sure if this is really important in the real world.

Finally, the punishment:

- to strip Rajlich of all ICGA Tournament Titles and,
- force the return of trophies and prize funds to the ICGA and,
- ban his programs from future competitions until he can satisfy the ICGA that they are no longer derivatives and that he has satisfied the conditions of any other penalties the ICGA imposes.
- encourage other tournaments (Leiden, Paderborn, CCT, TACCL, etc.) to disallow the entry of Rybka until it is proven “clean”.

ICGA Panel Members

The Secretariat members:
Robert Hyatt - (Crafty, Cray Blitz, World Computer Chess Champion in 1983 and 1986)
Mark Lefler (author of Now)
Harvey Williamson (part of Hiarcs Team)
Panel members:
Albert Silver (software designer for Chess Assistant (1999-2002); currently editor of
Chessbase News (2010-present))
Amir Ban (author of Junior: World Champion 2002, 2004, 2006, World microcomputer
Champion 1997, 2001)
Charles Roberson (author of NoonianChess)
Christophe Theron (author of Chess Tiger)
Dariusz Czechowski (author of Darmenios)
Don Dailey (author of Cilkchess, Star Socrates, Rex, Komodo)
Eric Hallsworth (part of Hiarcs Team, Publisher of Selective Search magazine)
Fabien Letousky (author of Fruit)
Frederic Friedel (Chessbase.com)
Gerd Isenberg (author of IsiChess)
Gyula Horvath (author of Pandix, Brainstorm)
Ingo Bauer (Shredder team)
Jan Krabbenbos (Tournament Director of Leiden tournaments)
Kai Himstedt (author of Gridchess and Cluster Toga)
Ken Thompson (creator of Belle Chess Machine, World Computer Chess Champion
1980, Turing Award winner 1983, creator of B and C programming languages,
Unix and Plan 9 developer).
Marcel van Kervinck (author of Rookie)
Maciej Szmit (assistant professor at Technical University of Lodz)
Mark Watkins (MAGMA Computer Algebra Group, School of Mathematics and
Statistics, University of Sydney)
Mark Uniacke (Hiarcs, World Microcomputer Champion 1993)
Mincho Georgiev (Pawny)
Olivier Deville (Tournament Director of ChessWars)
Omid David (author of Falcon)
Peter Skinner (Tournament Director of CCT--the major annual online computer chess
tournament)
Ralf Schäfer (author of Spike)
Richard Vida (author of Critter)
Richard Pijl (author of The Baron)
Stefan Meyer-Kahlen (author of Shredder, multiple world champions from 1996-2007)
Thomas Mayer (author of Quark)
Tord Romstad (author of Stockfish, Glaurung)
Tom Pronk (ProChess, Much)
Vladan Vuckovic (Axon, Achilles)
Wylie Garvin (game Programmer at Ubisoft Montreal)
Yngvi Björnsson (The Turk)
Zach Wegner (author of ZCT and Rondo, an upgraded version of Anthony Cozzie’s
Zappa program, which was world champion in 2005)
ICGA Board
President - David N.L. Levy
Vice-President: Yngvi Björnsson
Secretary-Treasurer: Hiroyuki Iida
Programmers Representative: Rémi Coulom
WCCC Tournament Director
Jaap van den Herik

http://www.chessvibes.com/plaatjes/rybkaevidence/RybkaInvestigation.pdf

http://www.chess.com/news/rybka-banned-and-stripped-of-titles-3798

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQshTNJ4pSM

Garvin Gray    (2012-10-02 08:50:00)
A radical idea?

Clearly too radical for comment :o :P

Scott Nichols    (2011-08-22 22:39:35)
Comments anyone?

Hi Thib, I was wondering two things about the comments. First, can you please refresh them with each page refresh? Unless we refresh manually, we can't see if someone wants our attention or a game. Second, can you make it so only you or the person who wrote a specific comment can erase them? There is someone who gets perverse enjoyment out of erasing comments here, sheesh, :)

Don Groves    (2011-08-24 09:48:22)
Comments anyone?

I don't understand the danger. Please explain, Thib.

Jimmy Huggins    (2011-09-07 00:44:59)
Freestyle Cup 1 update

Here is a couple of threads over at the Rybka forum one is about time control, one is an overall thread and the last is the start time.

Time Control- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=22927

Start Time- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=22926

Overall- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=22925
Please give input and vote. Please and thank you.

Jimmy Huggins    (2011-09-07 00:45:32)
Freestyle Cup 1 update

Please give input and vote please and thank you.

Jimmy

William Taylor    (2011-09-26 01:18:37)
Au revoir

When my current games are finished I'll be leaving FICGS for a while to focus on other things (mainly the last year of my degree and OTB chess). Thanks for all the games, and I'll be back for some more in the future. :)

Garvin Gray    (2011-09-29 03:38:37)
Next game feature

Hello Thib and all,

I have been using the next game feature for a while and I would like to see a change to it.

Would it be possible that this feature auto defaults to the game with the shortest amount of time remaining?

I am not sure what the current setting is, but it seems a bit random which game it moves to next.

I think changing this feature so that it moves to the game with the least amount of time remaining would be a helpful and useful change.

Cheers,

Garvin

Jimmy Huggins    (2011-10-05 19:44:45)
Official WBCCC freestyle cup 1 to begin

I'm ready to announce, that the first tournament for the freestyle cup will begin 10 days form today on Oct 15th. The first tournament will be 20m+30s. Since right now we have a large number of American players we will probably start in the early morning in the Americans. I figure this to be the best. So 5-7am Central standard time Or 6-8am Eastern Standard time. I would like to get in at least 3 rounds in on Saturday and see how everyone is. We may do one, but 3 is a safe bet. Then we will finish the tournament next Saturday at the same time. There will be some time between for a break probably 20 to 30 minutes. In the next post I will explain what you need to do to get the the free server and what to do once you get it. A lot of you have a user name and password already (WBCCC) but if you don't I will help you with that. One thing I will say is important is to make sure you leave open a chat window with me. In case you run into any problems. I can answer most problems, if not there will be someone there to help assist me. If I need it.

Guillaume Schub    (2011-10-10 16:30:38)
Change country settings

I created my account a while ago, when I was still leaving in the UK. Back then, I found it totally natural to set up my account as a british one.
I now moved back to France, and wanted to change my account accordingly. But I coundln't find any way to do it. Is there any reason for this (beside "didn't think it would be useful/needed") ?

Don Groves    (2011-10-12 11:41:02)
Go Komi 7.5, advantage for Black/White?

Why not leave the decision to the champion and let him/her choose? Then no one has to guess what their opinion might be. Seems a simple solution to me...

Jimmy Huggins    (2011-11-28 10:40:12)
WBCCC 2 sign up and WBCCC 1 review

I should also add to the people who haven't read some of my material in the past. The tournament as a 6 man tablebase rule. If a position is reach that is a in a 6 man tablebase. They can claim a draw or win to the TD. This was a great rule that only got used a few times. But is a good way to prevent people of trying to expand games that are clearly over.

Jimmy Huggins    (2011-11-28 10:57:39)
WBCCC 2 sign up and WBCCC 1 review

Another great piece in the article is that of Nelson Hernandez. Who probably not many of you know of. He has been part of a 2 man team that has been very success in freestyle chess. He won one of the major championships know as the PAL/CSS which was sponsored by playchess (chessbase). Anyway to those who know him. He has a vast book that he has been working on for years and is a very respectable member of the Rybka Forum.

The game insight he gave in the article. That of 2 long time members of FICGS Kevin Planet and Sebi Boehme was very well done to say the least.

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-11-28 15:10:21)
New feature to block messages

Hi all,

I just added a new feature that enables players to block/ignore all future messages from any other player.

Please note that there is NO WAY to take it back. (abuses would be easy otherwise)

The way to proceed: If a player sends abusing or provocative messages (according to the rules you have to avoid to reply it, the option appears at this condition only), just click the "report message" link THEN you'll see the "ignore future messages from this player" link. Just click it and you're done.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Jordi Domingo    (2011-12-03 09:51:42)
Latvian gambit World Champion chess

Next year, in January, it will start the e-mail 7th. Latvian gambit World Champion chess. If you want to play it or you need more information, please send an e-mail to Alejandro Melchor.
amelchormunoz@gmail.com.
Kind regards
Jordi

Garvin Gray    (2011-12-03 18:56:57)
4th FICGS freestyle cup

Thibault,

Can you please post provisional round four pairings when all the games are done from round three.

Jai Prakash Singh    (2011-12-04 05:32:15)
4th FICGS freestyle cup

I got bye in rd 1 and draw in rd 3. But my points being shown are 0.5 instead of 1.5. Please correct it.

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-05 17:28:11)
Timing

About the rules:

"All games are played in 30 minutes + 10 seconds / move. Komi is 7.5 points. The first three rounds will start at the date indicated as "deadline" at 13:00, 15:00 and 17:00 server time. The last three rounds will start at 13:00, 15:00 and 17:00 server time the next day. It is possible to enter the waiting list until the end of the tournament (please also warn the tournament director). Please do not try to create any game by yourself as all games will be created by the tournament director."

Server time is french time...

Garvin Gray    (2011-12-14 16:25:12)
5 player double round robins

Thib: Same for double roound robins, I like this format much but it would slow down even more the other tournaments...

Garvin: Can you please expand on this? I am not sure how it would slow down other tournaments.

Garvin Gray    (2011-12-15 11:50:39)
5 player double round robins

Thanks William, I was not sure how Thib's comment was to be interpreted. Either the way you have, or that players will take longer to sign up to the next round robin because they have more games to play in the current tournament ie DRR 8 games, SRR 7 players 6 games each.

The concept that I had envisaged is that for the higher rated divisions, at least, they would all change over to 5 players. I am not sure if there is a particular issue in the lower rating divisions, but if the same issue exists there, then they could change as well.

I was not considering in my original concept that only one, either standard or rapid, would stay at 7 players and the other as 5 players.

Peter W. Anderson    (2011-12-15 17:16:25)
Holiday

It seems to be within the rules for people to take lots of small holidays in quick succession. At the end of the year, this can be used as extra time on the clock - work out all your replies whilst you are on vacation, wait for your holiday to finish, play your moves, and put yourself on holiday for another day or two.... and just keep doing this over and over again and your clock will go up rather than down!

I would like to suggest a rule change for the Rapid games: every time you put yourself on vacation you lose a day on your clock for all your games. It does not completely solve the problem but it helps.

It has the downside of people who really are about to go on must make sure that they have at least a day on each clock. However, in my opinion the benefit outweighs the disadvantage.

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-16 21:53:37)
Holiday

I noticed that in case of an accident or illness, the player does/can not take days leave... :/ I did not find the perfect rule there yet...

Changing from 30 to 45 days of vacation was a significant step towards this direction.

Garvin Gray    (2011-12-17 13:17:47)
Holiday

Thib: I noticed that in case of an accident or illness, the player does/can not take days leave... :/ I did not find the perfect rule there yet...

Garvin: I am not sure part of the above was a quote from someone else, but anyways.

I think if a person has timed out some gaems through accident/illness and was unable to put themselves on vacation, then if they send a copy of their medical certificate to you (Thib), then that should be acceptable to get games re-instated, or time re-instated if the amount of time lost was substantial and in your opinion could cause some difficulties.

Garvin Gray    (2011-12-23 17:05:47)
5 player double round robins

To try and accommodate a few concerns of some, I think there are three possible options.

1) Change both standard and rapid divisions to 5DRR.

2) Change just one of standard or rapid to 5PDRR and leave the other as 7SRR.

3) Create an entire new division with 5DRR and leave the current standard and rapid as they are.

I think option 2 would be the most useful in providing information on whether the change is successful.

Option 1 is the most committal, as it is changing everything.

Option 3 is worth consideration, but it could lead to insufficient numbers across all three divisions. It could also 'suffer' and not provide useful feedback if the time control and rating bands chosen are not suitable.

If Option 3 was considered, it would need to be something between standard and rapid, perhaps 14 days initial plus 3 days increment.

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-28 14:30:49)
Achieving playing norms

3 ... and not the least : Eros Riccio, Michael Aigner & Peter Schuster !

You can find the full list of norms at :

http://www.ficgs.com/titles.html

There's a link (just fixed it) to :

http://www.ficgs.com/display_titles.php

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-28 21:45:00)
5 player double round robins

We agree on the idea, but do you think that it would at least partly solve the main problem of the discussion? I can prepare that within the next days.

Scott Nichols    (2011-12-28 22:48:20)
5 player double round robins

I do think it would, at least in part solve the main problem, nothing is 100% as we are finding out on that forum tournament. I think these days, seriously, if you put 10 Chessplayers in a room, you would have 9 different opinions. Maybe we could have a test to see if any of these ideas work. We need more input... If these ideas don't work, it's no big deal. This is still the best site out there IMHO, :)

Don Groves    (2012-01-02 00:45:12)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

That seems fairer than letting him continue to play in SM or M. The same problem occurs when a player leaves FICGS with games running and comes back a year or so later. Is there any good solution to this?

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...)

Garvin Gray    (2012-01-08 16:55:23)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

Looks like the player in question has been punted, or decided to leave ficgs as I can not find his name anymore and he longer appears in one of the waiting lists.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-10 11:28:44)
Ratings UpDates

Hello George,

That's a very good question... actually I have no clear answer on this (anyone?), but I did not invent this method used in all major correspondence chess organizations.

All I can say is that I "feel" that the results are quite good with this. The aim is to avoid rating peaks I guess. On the other hand ratings move a little faster (more points, not more often) at FICGS than in other organizations, I hope it balances.

Best is to learn to manage one's rating, sometimes best is to lose as fast as possible, sometimes not. Correspondence chess is matter of patience anyway...

Garvin Gray    (2012-01-16 14:52:58)
Time control for lightning games

The current freestyle time control is 30 mins plus 15 secs, btw.

I do not like the 20 mins + 30 secs, so do not play with that time control. I would prefer 60 mins plus 15 secs.

That being said, Thib, can you please confirm that the original suggestion was about the lightning time control and not the blitz time control.

Scott Nichols    (2012-01-18 20:57:37)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize

Hmmm, I must not be as strong as I thought, :) J/k, I know what you mean. BUT, the whole idea was to get a more variety here, all the free games haven't gone away, you just added something new, which IMO was sorely needed. If you look at the stats Thib, probably last year my games here dropped off, not because I wasn't entering, but because it was hard to find a game. Plus the WBCCC had an impact, at least IMO, I don't know the stats. I still play for the home team as always will as long as you are here Thib, but I also admit, I learned a lot at that forum.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-24 01:22:37)
Folding in Poker

Ok :) .. Any other opinion?

I just looked at a few ratings, in example mine went from 2003 to 2166 between february 2011 and february 2012... So it is still possible to climb the scale. But once more I'm not sure what is best, so please give your advice!

Don Groves    (2012-02-24 05:51:26)
Folding in Poker

Whatever is decided, please no more rules changes without discussion by members.

Scott Nichols    (2012-02-24 20:56:24)
Folding in Poker

I don't know what you did or why with the rating formula, and it doesn't matter anymore. I took some time off from poker, but now I resolve to be back on top by the end of the year, :) At least my peak of 2258 has never been approached.

Paul Campanella    (2012-02-26 19:44:53)
New Player Ratings

I started at a 1600 rating. Personally, I find it completely UNACCEPTABLE that new players start at 1800 because it is a misrepresentation of their poker skills.

I started playing poker approximately a year ago on this site and I had to work exceptionally hard to make it into the top 20. As a past low ranked 1600 player... it was not easy to advance my elo to 1800+. It took considerable time and dicipline to hone my skills and get to the B-Level Tournaments. Playing those lower ranked players developed my skill because it taught me to expect the unexpected and learn all about odds and player styles.

Allow me to present some examples of players in relation to starting point and current rating:

A) I started out as a 1600 player... there were many people that were low ranked. As of now, the only 2 players that I recall advancing from a low rank to the top 20 are Paul Campanella (#16) and Dmitriy Panov (#17).

B) Slobodan Ilic (#6) and Trond Amile (#11) are both high rated good players but the reality is that it is much easier for people like them who entered in as 1800 elo to advance to the top compared to people who entered in at 1600 elo.

Now it seems that all new players get a "free ride" to the B-Class Tournaments and 200 elo points for doing absolutely nothing!

Starting at 1600 elo and advancing through the ranks is the true definition of skill. In order for players' ratings to accurately represent their skills, EVERYONE should start at 1600 and WORK their way up!

Scott Nichols    (2012-02-27 16:39:04)
Folding in Poker

I think freestyle would be fun. I agree with you Thib that we shouldn't have real money poker, it could lead to all kinds of problems IMO.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-04 22:08:50)
FICGS poker ratings

Let's continue the debate that started in this discussion:

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=10306

I'm still not sure of what is best but our top ranked poker player for a while (Nelson Bernal Varela) obviously participated to the discussion his way by resigning all his poker games to show us how much time it will take to regain his points.

His rating was about 2200, now 1924 and the date is march 4th, 2012.

As we're playing single round-robin tournaments only, the rating list was not so distorted but this is not at the advantage of class B players. Of course I do not encourage this behaviour in any way!

However, following the current rules on general forfeits I think that Nelson should continue his experiment so that we can learn from all this. In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess.

This would actually justify - in my point of view (maybe Nelson's one too but I'm still not sure of what he's thinking about that) - the current poker rating system, so let's wait 1 month or 2 before to decide to make this change or not.

As a reminder, the initial proposal was: "should we change the poker rating rules so that we win or lose twice points after each game compared to now ?"

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-04 22:15:16)
Folding in Poker

@Scott : By the way Nelson's rating peak is at least 2293 (august 23, 2010)

This occured before the rating rules change.

Scott Nichols    (2012-03-04 22:48:24)
FICGS poker ratings

An interesting challenge. I held the #1 spot for a long time and in truth lost interest and let myself slip down, playing rarely and then stopping for over a year I'm pretty sure. So just recently I announced my intentions to reclaim the #1 spot and hold it before this year is over.

Then soon "after" I said this, Nelson resigned his games to start this "experiment". IMO this is how, in addition to playing good poker, he achieved being able to stay #1 for long periods of time. First, you have to play as many games as possible, over a hundred or more. This will allow you to implement the second phase. That is you get to pick and choose which games to play out immediately an which to stop playing to continue at a more opportune time. e.g. Only finish the "winning" games to get to the top. Then when you have a sufficient lead to where a loss or two won't hurt your position, THEN play out the losing ones.

Thib quote from above " In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess. " Well for him to do this, he will have to get by me, and others, this time. So consider the Gauntlet thrown down! Scott

Garvin Gray    (2012-03-04 23:47:06)
FICGS poker ratings

I am more alarmed than anything that a person's selfish actions, regardless of who they are, are not only tolerated, but are encouraged by statements like this:

However, following the current rules on general forfeits I think that Nelson should continue his experiment so that we can learn from all this. In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess.

His actions now affect many players, which includes denying a place to someone in a tournament that he otherwise should not be allowed to enter ie class B tournaments where by all reports he is too good for.

How about we all do this to see how the rating system goes? I find his actions appalling and he deserves to be banned.

If this was done in chess, would the response be the same? If so and someone did it and the same response was given, I would be looking for another site to play at.

I believe people who act like this deserve to have their rating re-set and then spend quite a lot of time on the sidelines. They should forfeit all their games, but not lose any rating points.

What does this site stand for, I think that is one of the main questions? I play poker on here for something to do in the middle of my chess games, even though I am not particularly interested.
My playing of poker will stop if it is treated with such contempt.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-05 00:22:47)
FICGS poker ratings

I knew that you would answer this way... And you are right on several points.

I read the rules before to write this, we could envisage to change the rules on the general forfeits issue but it wouldn't probably be so easy to "fix" it. Maybe another discussion is needed.

About chess, this has been done the same way several times for different reasons, see Wolfgang Utesch, Wayne Lowrance... The only difference is that Nelson gave a bad reason (with the excuse that he may have done this to help to find the best rating rules, which was not necessary). But he could have said something else. What would be the perfect rule? The current rule was probably discussed in the forum previously. Nothing better was found, that's all.

Anyway, this site stands for applying rules... and IMO I have the choice between doing nothing in this special case and preventing Nelson to enter a waiting list during 2 months. Nelson was totally wrong to do this... (also because of Paul's previous message that proves that it is possible to climb the scale quite quickly, which IMO goes in the way of not changing the rating rules) but now that it's done, I think that the best thing for the site is to let him continue, at least we'll learn something from this and it will improve the rating rules.

Paul Campanella    (2012-03-05 03:29:32)
FICGS poker ratings

Thank you for the compliment, Scott!

I consider you to be one of the top players and have great respect for you: as both top poker and as a person. You're also a very worthy adversary and our matches are almost always 3-2 (on either side)! :)

Thank you, Thibault, for recognizing my point that it is possible to climb the ladder quite quickly using the current rating system.

I would like to note that it is also possible to climb the ladder without using any strategy. Throughout all of my poker matches on FICGS, I always finished my games (both the winning games and the losing games). I could have easily waited a long time (like some players obviously do on this site) to finish my losing games, but I refuse to do that out of respect for my opponents.

Although poker is a game that requires a combination of luck and skill, I believe that respect belongs here as well. Out of my overall record of 202 completed games, I have won 120 and lost 80. During each game, I was always honorable. For instance, if it is my turn and I know that I am 4 chips away from losing a match 3-0, I will refuse to delay the game and deny my opponent his victory for the next two months even though I have 60 days left on the clock.

Besides, it is my philosophy that the best thing to do when opponent outplays me is to accept the loss, learn from it, and then try to win in a rematch! :)

Paul Campanella    (2012-03-06 17:06:47)
50+ Poker Games

Can we please add some kind of a time limit rule for poker games that we can all agree on?

Don Groves    (2012-03-07 05:51:00)
50+ Poker Games

That's a good rule but I'd rather see games over one year old adjudicated with the leader declared the winner. This applies also to Chess. It is incomprehensible to me why one game should take that long.

Another good rule would be to prohibit very slow players from entering more than a certain small number of tournaments.

George Clement    (2012-03-07 16:56:47)
50+ Poker Games

I also think that would be a good rule for chess, to adjudicate the games over 1 year old. Disagree about prohibits on the slow players though. That would lead to many problems.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-13 17:18:17)
Replaying games

That's really strange......

As for me I see something like that (with arrows replaced by < & >):

< Game 64299 > << move >> (poker_holdem)

If you don't see it, please send me a screen capture so that I can fix the problem, if you have some time of course... thanks anyway!

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-18 17:30:29)
Slow tournament entries

Rapid tournaments are fast enough... anyway I'm working on another solution, please be patient!

Scott Nichols    (2012-03-20 17:39:19)
Slow tournament entries

3 days increment! It would be more fun to watch paint dry or grass grow. Some players, and we all know there are plenty of them out there, could keep a totally lost endgame going for over a year, just out of spite.

Which brings up another subject that would help immensely to speed up games without hurting quality.Install the 6-man tablebases on here, or at least let a player claim a win, draw etc when 6-man is reached. In this age of computer chess, if you have the equipment to even sign on to ficgs, you have the ability to go to a tablebase site and see the result. Plus, even the oldest computers, (like mine, :), can find the mate in under a minute in 6-man positions. So for someone to be able to drag the game out just for spite, for me, is a reason not to sign up in the first place.

George Clement    (2012-03-21 00:48:39)
Slow tournament entries

I totally have to agree. When you have people that are dragging games out just becuase they have time left but it is a clear draw, win or loss; 6 man tb's should be able to handle it.

Garvin Gray    (2012-03-23 11:16:48)
Slow tournament entries

SN: Call the referee option is probably the best compromise, partly for the reasons Thib mentions.

SN: On the issue of 3 days per move increment, I think this is better than 10 moves in 40 days cause at least it keeps the games moving along.

I do think 10 moves in 40 days is wayyy too long a time control on here and as already mentioned 10 moves in 20 days might be better.

Is it possible to have a combined time control of say 10 moves in 30 days repeating, followed by 3 days per move from move 61 (or 41)?

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-15 13:53:20)
About Pinformant

Dear chessfriends,

Please receive my apologies for a stupid bug that happened yesterday (my entire fault). Some of you may have received an invitation twice for a new social network (pinformant.com) that is dedicated to help to promote FICGS on the internet [technically Pinformant is actually a part of FICGS]. That will not happen again!

A few words on this new website: Pinformant is a kind of "social browser" where it is possible to share and discuss full web pages (soon applications and games) displayed into a single page. It quite looks like a basic social network, but the display is quite new as far as I know - It is also a way to boost shared websites traffic instead of simply "stealing" their content.

Why this new website: I needed a website able to gather more people to have the means (thanks to advertisement) to make a better promotion for FICGS. So your help & participation is warmly welcomed anyway.

Any feedback is welcome as well! Thanks in advance.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-16 22:08:04)
About Pinformant

I agree that the site's purpose is not clear enough yet, I have much to do in this way... But one thing is clear, this website has nothing to do with chess but if you personaly use it this way (like I do)!

The interest is (IMHO) that if you like to share web stuff with friends but do not like the way of Facebook e.g. by using real name, things about private life & so on... This is one more alternative. The main difference with similar social networks is that you share full web pages instead of extracts (saves time, boost sites traffic).

To fully use it, like in every social network, you must have friends (so you probably need to invite friends, that can be done easily thanks to a really great script named Adiinviter - that will be used at FICGS very soon). That way the site may become viral - after some work, we'll see.

How it helps FICGS: This year I launched several websites in this aim and one thing is still missing: a massive source of visitors, in other words a big sponsor! Advertising is quite expensive and it will help this way. So you'll see changes here as fast as Pinformant's traffic will increase...

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-18 18:08:24)
Slow tournament entries

That's right. It is a fact that the current rules allow (in extreme cases) that all players in a waiting list be below the low rating range.

To partly avoid that, the tickets may be used to finish to fill a waiting list only (e.g. when 4 players at least entered it already)... It's just a trick of course.

But it would be unfair IMHO to retire players who lost elo points from waiting lists, so it does not completely solve the problem.

Don Groves    (2012-04-19 01:38:09)
Slow tournament entries

@ Michael: You got that right! Not only losing interest but also losing track of what your plan was after weeks of waiting for your opponent to move.

I agree with Garvin that our standard time controls are too long. Another problem is that some players have so many games running simultaneously that they can't keep up. I've noticed two different kinds of these players:

(1) Some players will ignore their new games until they've finished older ones. Thus they don't move at all in new games until they are forced to by the clock.

(2) Others will ignore their older games to play the new ones (openings are fun) and return to the older games only when their clock demands it.

In either case, this kind of behavior is what leads to games lasting 6 months to a year in some cases.

Niklas Hallqvist    (2012-04-19 11:53:19)
XFCC Play

I wish XFCC was considered, it would clearly ease the coupling between my local chess database and analysis environment and FICGS. Today I rely on copy/paste and it's really tedious, esp. when running many games.

Just my $.02

Garvin Gray    (2012-04-20 15:24:51)
Slow tournament entries

Thib: I do apologise in advance if this reply is regarded as too strong, it is not meant to offend, but could be taken by yourself or someone else as too strong.

In my opinion, creating ANOTHER division is possibly the worst decision that could be made. Leaving the time control as is would be a better decision.

We have three divisions classical rating sections, plus an advanced rating list and multiple thematic, unrated, epoint and other options.

I think adding another division would just spread things out wayyy too far.

It is not like we have an over abundance of players and need to offer more options to satisfy a wide market.

Garvin Gray    (2012-04-20 15:50:47)
XFCC Play

Damn, I am still getting that issue where i can not read ficgs links on here. Each time I click on a link, as per the above link, a new window opens and I get the please type in your username and password again message screen.

And then I am back to the home page, not the link.

I have just tried in firefox, chrome and ie.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-20 16:40:38)
XFCC Play

@Niklas : so we'll discuss it again, please be patient meanwhile, sorry for the delay :/

@Garvin : so you're forced to login again and again ?! maybe try to restart your browser... or your computer if it doesn't work. Sessions seem ok for everyone else so it must be related to your browser.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-21 01:30:16)
Slow tournament entries

Well, about the WCH that's quite hard to say, maybe the last rules changes (in this way but everyone may not agree) helped to have more participants but actually I'm not sure at all. But it is clear that those WCH games take a lot of time to all players, so less registrations for other tournaments...

But you're probably right about the time to fill waiting lists... so more players would help anyway. It is true also that many registered players do not actually play, any idea to motivate them is welcome :)

Thanks Ramil for sharing your views!

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-21 02:21:24)
Slow tournament entries

"Why only tournaments?" : Because rated 2 players matches may lead to easy cheating (silver/gold ones makes it possible). I'm not sure if unrated 2 players matches would be interesting...

About Daniel's main reason for not playing anymore at FICGS, I'm working on and I'll let everyone know when it's solved!

Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-21 16:48:24)
LSS is the worst Corr server

I previously erroneously had this as a sidebar chat.

I will post the story here.

I had 22 games running on LSS. All of a sudden a game disappeared. I checked and found the administrator had decided to resign for me in a game where I had a cleanly winning position and 43 days on my clock. I contacted the administrator politely to inquire why he had done this. He answered rudely explaining that he did not care about my problem. After his uncalled for rudeness, I explained to him I was no longer interested in playing further games on this "joke of a server" so please remove me from a tournament that was about to start. He responded with pure insults and a memberships suspension but *did not* remove me from that tournament. When the new tournament started, I explained to him again that he was supposed to have removed me. I was only interested in finishing my current games out of respect for my opponents. The administrator then went and forfeited all currently running 19 games and placed a ban on me playing there again until 2013. I told him that was disrespectful not just to me but to my opponents as well. He then deleted my account entirely (which doesn't bother me as I would have asked for this after my 19 games finished). There you have it... Ortwin Paetzold - the bat shit crazy administrator.

Garvin Gray    (2012-04-21 19:04:37)
Slow tournament entries

Thib: The FICGS WCH is held every 8 months, so about twice a year. I'm still not opposed at all to organize a "CUP" event but it would take many rounds as well and I'm afraid it kills regular tournaments, so we probably need more players for this.

Garvin: I understand what you are saying, but currently numbers for each of the divisions are small and taking a long time to fill, if at all.

The 'cup' could even attract a few new players, or at least drag a few inactive players out of the woodwork.

I understand your point about the number of rounds. I think this could be alleviated by having nine or eleven players per group.

One of the biggest issue, which feels like it is starting to plague the ficgs wch, is a draw rate of about 95 percent.

Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-22 06:47:38)
Slow tournament entries

yes the draw rate. Realize if I enter a section as you suggest. I played 5 1900s. And I must score 5 to maintain my rating and 5.5 or 6 to gain points. This is difficult to do against anyone... Such rating bands are preposterous and only lead to a constant shedding of points as often 4 is enough to win a tournament.

Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-22 06:50:06)
LSS is the worst Corr server

I was not discussing with my opponent. I feel like corr issues in general are something the corr community should be aware of so I do not share Garvin or Don's opinion. I obviously can't post this on lss forums as I have been banned there. Clearly, posting on forums of a site that is so wildly out of control is a waste of one's time and breath anyways.
Frankly, I am most ashamed of Scott's response above all else. His only problem with 20 games being forfeited is that it wasn't 21 so he could claim an illegitimate win as well - disgusting. Frankly the more I see of the correspondence chess world the more inclined I am to leave it permanently behind.

Peter W. Anderson    (2012-04-22 15:39:16)
Slow tournament entries

Let me start by saying that I really like this place. The software is reliable, the interface is clean and people are generally polite. Thank you Thibault.

I don't buy Daniel's argument about the bandings. It is quite possible to score 5 or 5.5 in a class A, and it is quite possible to move swiftly through class A.

I am trying to move through Class M. I may or may not suceed. If I don't, I won't be complaining about not being able to play stronger players, I will blame myself for not playing better.

My only concern is what happens if I do manage to reach 2300. The rapid time control suits me (I am retired) and I would not have the patience for the slower time control. As far as I can see no-one over 2300 enters rapids. So I might end up having nobody to play apart from in WCH.

There are two solutions that I can see. One is to adopt Garvin's mixed ability group suggestion; this could be in addition to the existing banded tournaments.

The other is simply to get more members, so that there are more people willing to play in a particular category. I for one will try to do my bit to recruit some people onto here.

George Clement    (2012-04-22 19:19:23)
LSS Move Rule

" 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."

I like the idea behind this rule on LSS, IMHO it would solve some of the slow entry problems by making players move faster, which is a big part of the entry problem. I think anyone can make a least 1 move in 10 days, using todays hardware/software and communications. What do you think fellow members? I have no problem with players using time off thier clock but why wait 30 days make 10 moves then wait another 30 days?

Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-22 19:59:50)
LSS is the worst Corr server

In general, I could make many points to Ortwin's diminutive response. However, his lying aside - he has admitted to his disgusting actions and given specious reasoning for it. At this point, I think its best to let the topic drop. Others know LSS is not a safe place to play now and that was my only point. It is clear there can never be any proper resolution in my case personally.

On to the topic of the 60 day rule which is the real reason for my response. I think many people are forgetting that not everyone is retired with little to do with their time but chess. Many of us work and/or go to school. And when you have a complicated position, it is very very unreasonable to expect a response in 10 days time out of someone that works 80 hour weeks. I recognize that most of my opponents these days respond within 24 hours or less no matter what the move or how complicated the position... but this is because I am playing in general a lower caliber of player that just blindly follows the computer. I have the privilege of knowing GM Tansel Turgut and he tells me he never plays more than 10 games at once and generally doesn't make a move before 25 days of thought. I would others to stop for a moment and consider that not *everyone* is like you. They have other demands on their time and other analysis methods.

Garvin Gray    (2012-04-24 15:01:32)
Ficgs World Cup

Following discussions about slow tournament entries, bracket and band rating issues and many other topics, a common item that came out of those discussions is that trying a modified version of the ficgs world championship is worth a trial.

So Ficgs World Cup sounds like a good name.

Format:

In the Ficgs world championship, there are many different qualifying stages, depending on your finishing position from the last cycle, your rating at the time of entry and the strength and total number of the other entrants.

While this format is very good for the concept envisaged when it was created, I think a ficgs world cup, with a format that will be explained below is required to cover a few gaps that are in the ficgs world championship.

The ficgs world cup will work as follows.

1) Everyone enters before a certain date, say June 1st 2012.
2) As soon as entries close, that is it. Entries are not taken after this date and there are NO replacements. The groups are meant to be of equal strength. Adding a new player can distort this.
3) Entrants are then divided into groups of roughly equal strength. Highest rated person is seed 1 in Group A, 2nd highest rated person is seed 1 in Group B. Serpentine pairings are used to allocate all players to each group.
4) How many players and how many groups is determined after the entries have closed. I would think that there will be probably 11 groups of 11 players (121 entries in total). It might be likely that we have to have three stages, depending on total number of entries.
5) 1 person from each group qualifies for the final stage. This is determined by total score, total wins and then TER. This does differ from the tie break formula of the FicgsWCH.

Pros:

1) Everyone gets a game against players of different ratings, no segregated groups or players
2) Everyone starts from stage one
3) The format is clear to understand

Cons:

1) May not be as tempting to the highest rated players (fear of loss of rating points)
2) Might take longer to finish

In my opinion, this is a format that deserves a couple of trial events to see if it is successful

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-24 16:32:49)
Do the cards really matter?

I agree with Garvin that it is harder to play well at correspondence poker... well it leaves some space to "rain man"-like guys :) It is possible to identify some repeating behaviours after a while though...

What do you mean exactly "four handed poker"?

@Scott: no-limit poker is not poker anymore... money is king and the richest will always win at the end if the stakes are too high. And the higher the stakes, the less it will take time.

Peter W. Anderson    (2012-04-24 22:58:29)
Ficgs World Cup

Sounds like a good idea to me. Big groups are a good idea - it gives more chance of getting a clear group winner without tie breaks.

Garvin Gray    (2012-04-25 01:52:44)
Ficgs World Cup

Seen a few ideas, some that I thought would not be popular are been suggested as to give it a go. Good:)

There is a simple solution to keeping it to 2 stages. Just announce there will be 11 groups and leave the number of players in each group till when you know the final numbers.

So 220 players would be 11 groups of 20 players. That might be too much for some people, but you get the general idea.

Perhaps with 20 player groups (hypothetical of course), a slightly longer time control would be a good idea, perhaps 30 days initial plus 3 day increment ;)

Thib: I was thinking about the issue of the number of groups and I think it has to be eleven groups in the first stage. Then each of the 1st place group winners go through to final stage.

I am against any concept of rating bands, or even the mention of the concept. That is totally against the principle, design and point of this format.

Garvin Gray    (2012-04-25 04:43:19)
Ficgs World Cup

I think everyone needs to be completely clear when they mention the term rating bands:

In the context used on ficgs, it means a minimum and maximum rating that players can play in. For example in the rapid waiting lists, there is a rating band of 1900-2100. Meaning only players between 1900 and 2100 can play in that group.

If you are talking about players being suspended, then please specify that and be clear that you are talking about suspensions.

I apologise if this reads as a cranky reply, but this whole concept is being devised to not have any kind of rating bands, or special exemptions for any player.

So I bristle quickly and strongly as the suggestion of rating bands or special exemptions, to the point that I will abandon this concept if rating bands or exemptions are going to be implemented.

Garvin Gray    (2012-04-27 04:16:52)
Ficgs World Cup

Please, no replacements. If people can not organise themselves to add themselves to the entry list before the close of entries, they do not deserve to enter.

I think it is fairer to have one or two players not participate in a group than it is to add players after the event has started.

Please do not use replacements. This concept is meant to be the opposite in almost every way to WCH, and the main idea is to keep it as simple as possible.

Having replacements add a complication that is not required. It will also distort the balance on ratings of each group where forfeited players occur.

How do you ensure that each group where a forfeited player occurs and get a replacement? Otherwise you have filled some groups and not others.

See the hornets nest that is created by using replacements. Please do not use replacements, just let the normal standard tournament factors decide the final placings and people in the final stage.

Don Groves    (2012-04-30 05:23:35)
Slow tournament entries

The only idea that seems to please everyone is penalizing slow players. But not everyone agrees on what "slow" means. The current rules say it is 60 days per move. But others think it should be 30 days or even less.

My own feeling is that having too many games causes most slow play, so slow players should not able to begin new games until all their games over a certain age are finished.

Perhaps a better method would be to put an upper limit on the average number of days between moves in a game.

Scott Nichols    (2012-04-30 23:03:10)
Slow tournament entries

Is it that you are not familiar with swiss system pairings Thib? Garvin and Daniel are TD's and I'm sure they would help. The wbccc is a swiss. At least it would eliminate a 2300 playing an 1100. Top half plays bottom half right? And winners play winners, I just don't see why it wouldn't work.

Don Groves    (2012-05-03 08:28:00)
Slow tournament entries

Here is another way to improve speed of games:

Look at Game 59984. My opponent in this game is a slow player and has the maximum of 50 games in progress. His next move is about as obvious as any move can be. He offered to trade queens and I accepted. His next move is clearly to recapture at b3. Any other move is suicide.

However, I made my last move on April 16th, a full two weeks ago and he has yet to respond even though his move is obvious!

I don't always make a move in every game every day, but at least I LOOK AT every game every day to see if any moves are obvious. If we all did this, the games would proceed at a better pace.

George Clement    (2012-05-03 17:21:48)
Slow tournament entries

Garvin, I'm for conditionals; but the slow players still wouldn't use them.

I still think that an increment of, let's say, 20days is better then the current of 40 for 10 moves. It would force the people that are gaming the system and waiting 25-30 days to move after getting the 40 days to at least make faster moves. They would still have plenty of calculation time. Now they make 10 moves in 10 days. Thus 40 days plus 20 days for 10 moves.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-05-03 22:57:23)
Slow tournament entries

Many interesting things have been said in this discussion, thanks to you guys for defending sometimes opposite views, that's constructive.

I'm still thinking about all this (not so easy!), I should make a clear proposal within days.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-05-09 01:46:02)
Xiao Tong on his win in 6th FICGS Go WCH

Xiao Tong, winner of the 6th FICGS Go championship, kindly accepted to answer a few questions, here is the first part:

FICGS - Hello Xiao, congratulations once again for winning this nice match. Svante Carl von Erichsen was FICGS champion from the start of the site, after winning 5 championships. What did you think about his play & yours in these games?

Xiao Tong - Mr. Svante Carl von Erichsen is the strongest player I have met on this site. The games are so tough. In the middle of this match I thought I would lose in at least two games. At last I am lucky to have a 4-1 winning.

FICGS - Would you like to tell us a few words about you (where you live, other games you play, Go servers you play on...) so that we know you better?

Xiao Tong - I live in China but when I started to play Go on this site I was visiting France. In China when we play Go face to face, generally it takes 2 or 3 hours. But when we play on the ineternet, we always choose 30sec/move. I always play on TYGEM site, which is a China/Korea cooperated site. Before playing we need to install a client software. You can visit this address http://www.tygembaduk.com

FICGS - Unfortunately you are one of the rare chinese players at FICGS, but obviously they do very well. We all know many chinese Go champions names, could you tell us your opinion on the state of Go in China and in the world nowadays?

Xiao Tong - The past 10 years can be called Korea decade. They won more world championships than Chinese players, because before 1990 few Chinese children studied Go. But when China won several matches between China and Japan in late 1980s, more and more children started to study and play go. And then these millions of Go children grew up. Now Chinese players can get more world champions than Korea. I think besides the several world champions there are 30 young players in China who may win world championships in the future. They aged from 16-25.

FICGS - The best Go engines would now reach a level of 4 or 5 dan, is computer Go something that helps in such a correspondence Go championship according to you (and without revealing your secrets of course)? Do you think it is becoming a danger as it is for chess?

Xiao Tong - I don’t think computer Go engines can do anything. They are too weak.

FICGS - Do you watch other games played by your opponents before starting your games? Do you think that preparation is really important like it is in Correspondence chess?

Xiao Tong - I don’t take much time to analyze my opponents. But I will watch their games to get a first evaluation. World champions need to prepare before the game, because preparation can save their time in game. For me, preparation mean nothing.

FICGS - This FICGS Go championship is still young, what did you think about it? Would you change something, any rule, to improve it?

Xiao Tong - 1, Encourage players to play live games. One game can be finished in 2 hours when they play at 30sec/move. The more they play, the higher the site level will be. 2, when the world champion match is live on net, encourage player watch the games through your site. Let the watcher can bet on the live games. It will be more funny.

Many thanks to Xiao for these instructive answers, to be continued...

Garvin Gray    (2012-05-12 17:26:45)
Playing poker for e-points

Paul,

In general parlance, poker is regarded as a gambling game and so the idea that poker is also played in classic tournament fashion, just like every other sport, has never really caught on in legal terms.

The general version is more of the casino style with players joining in whenever they want and leaving whenever they want (or have lost their cash), rather than tournaments where everyone pays an entry fee and there is a winner at the end.

Combined with that is that chess has never been associated as a 'gambling' game or sport.

Remember also that in quite a lot of countries chess is a full recognised sport, or at least mindsport. So in those countries if playing for money in chess was illegal, then so would playing for money in all sports.

Thib- I wonder if playing for epoints in classic tournament fashion is legal, just like in irl poker tournaments?

That could be one option.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-05-12 23:26:19)
Playing poker for e-points

Actually the problem really exists in the opposite way... You'd be surprised! French departments really tried to discourage me to organize chess tournaments with money prizes, by making comparisons to gambling games! (and actually I also think that the limit is not so clear) - The problem is that there is no clear law on that issue.

I also know that the previous french government (Sarkozy's one) was to try to make it even harder to do that because of the success of some sites that offer skill money games. So I try to follow all this...

Scott Nichols    (2012-05-18 16:44:21)
Private chat?

Maybe this has been discussed before, I don't know. Sometimes we just want to have a small chat with a particular person. Here there are three options, chat in public for all to see, go thru a series of e-mails (yuk), or leave the site to go somewhere this is possible. e.g. Thib, come to FB, Scott come to Playchess. Is it possible to do something like this?

Garvin Gray    (2012-05-18 20:53:52)
Private chat?

We have been begging for at least a decent private message system for ages.

At least that would be a half way start.

Garvin Gray    (2012-05-19 15:24:06)
Second match v Rybka Forum

Hello all,

I have been thinking about this for a while, but I was wondering how many ficgs players would be interested in participating in a match vs Rybka Forum.

We tried this concept once before with limited success from an organisational point of view. From a playing pov, ficgs had little success :o

I am thinking something like this for a format:

1) Time control 30 moves initial plus 1 day increment
2) All individual matches are two games
3) Players are to play in rating order. - RF now does have some kind of rating system, at least for WBCCC participants. I think more of their players have also come over to here, so have ratings here.
4) We possibly could use xfcc play, which would allow conditionals to be used, but might mean all the games are played and shown at RF. - Might be possible to have them shown here somehow 'live'.

So, time to get some interest. Who would be willing to participate?

I am going to post this over at RF as well.

Garvin Gray    (2012-05-30 09:36:40)
No access for me to Rybka Forum

Can you please contact Dadi Jonsson immediately at Rybka Forum?

I can not access the forum, nor see any of the posts and due to the server upgrade, a lot of the back ground links are broken.

I can not send him a private message, nor reset my password as those options are also link broken.

Unless Dadi, or someone from Rybka Forum can sort out this issue, I have no access to RF at all.

Garvin Gray    (2012-06-01 20:20:07)
Second match v Rybka Forum

I have been informed that the conditional move system of xfccplay can not be removed just for one tournament, so if we use xfccplay for at least half the games, conditionals will be in operation.

I still think we can go ahead with using xfccplay, just that the half of the games that are played using xfccplay will have conditionals, and the ones played here will not.

While it is an issue, it is not a big issue, or a showstopper.

Everyone will still be playing two games against the same opponent. One here and one with xfccplay at RF. I will give a couple of days for feedback. If there is no discussion, I will formalise details and then we will move on to official collection of entries, getting players familiar with xfccplay and then on to the games proper.

Garvin Gray    (2012-06-06 13:53:31)
Second match v Rybka Forum

Hello all,

Current discussion here: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=24942

Following discussions on RF and now what looks like a completely different format to what I was proposing and ideas I had in mind and seeing what looks like a no compromise situation from the RF side, it looks almost certain that I will not be having anything to do with organising this event, or participating for either side.

When I first came up with this idea of trying to get a second match going, one of the main ideas was to help promote both forums and playing clients to a wider audience, and especially to the better players for both sites.

Now that I see what RF seems to have in mind, or at least what they are willing to accept for playing conditions, I find them wholly unacceptable and contrary to the ideas and purposes originally intended.

The current proposed design really does have a pro RF feel about it, in that FICGS players will have to learn how to use xfccplay to play on here, plus possibly sign up an account, but RF players will not have to do the same at FICGS. I am also wondering, what happens if the high majority of players from both sites say they only want to play on their own forum. This whole competition falls over.

RF 'bosses' have been kind enough to allow xfccplay to be used for these games to make them a better product. I do not think it is unreasonable for RF players to play some of their games on FICGS.

Secondly, the current proposed design also goes competely against another original idea, which was to have the top player from RF competing against the top player from FICGS. And so on down the boards. This current design will most likely result in random board pairings and henceforth likely mis-matches, rather than having showpiece games and at the same time having the bottom players from both sides games counting as much as the top board. Potentially it could now be the top player from FICGS against the two bottom players from RF and vice versa. That is ridiculous.

So all in all, I have proposed a format originally on both sites. I do not see the current proposed format as achieving anything substantial and certainly not in the vein of the original ideas. Had I known the current structure was going to be proposed, I never would have bothered proposing this in the first place.

Unless the current structure changes, I hereby resign as overall organiser and go between for both forums and also as a participant in the second match.

Kind regards,

Garvin Gray

Garvin Gray    (2012-06-08 11:07:00)
Second match v Rybka Forum

Following on from my post above, we will now be going with the format originally posted, which is:

1) Time control 30 moves initial plus 1 day increment
2) All individual matches are two games
3) Players are to play in rating order. - RF now does have some kind of rating system, at least for WBCCC participants. I think more of their players have also come over to here, so have ratings here.
4) Xfccplay will be used for the games played at RF
5) Conditional move system will be used for the games played at RF. Games played here will be using the standard interface.

Both sides are going to have to make compromises. Ficgs players who are not already familiar with xfccplay are going to need to learn how to use it and will also need to join RF.

RF players, who are not members of here already, will need to sign up to here and learn how to use this interface.

I can not give a definite sign up by this date yet as some of the nuts and bolts are still being worked out.

Can everyone start saying if they are going to play? I hope this will be more than just the players who already play in WBCCC as I do hope it is the best players from both sites participating as well.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-07-28 00:10:50)
FICGS IS BACK !!!!!!!!!

First of all, I've added 15 days to all players in running games because of the delay and the fact that many of us may have no access to internet during the summer vacation (this time is added to the 46 days, 13 hours and 20 minutes since the crash for players expected to play), this issue was discussed at Rybkaforum, of course it may be unfair to few players in certain games where their opponent had few time but I did not find a better balanced solution, sorry about that :(

Among other consequences, the current championships cycle will last 10 months instead of 8, and july correspondence chess ratings will be updated very soon.

Well, how to start... fortunately such an event is rare but possible, and following the Murphy's law, it happened (first time for me), the server's hard disk crashed and the least I can say is I've not been lucky, even if I obviously did some things wrong.

Of course I had enough data at home to rebuild all games until a few hours before the crash but I thought it was worth it to pause the server during a few days/weeks to recover more moves, and if possible ALL moves. I really hoped that it would work and at the end it did, but not completely... for unknown reasons. I had also other data to recover from the server, including some FICGS data that were not backuped correctly (my bad), because I did not think far enough 6 years ago when I coded the first FICGS scripts... That will be fixed very soon.

So, because the DDrescue process did not work -unlucky- just after the crash, my server provider (OVH in France) had to send me the hard drive and it took sooooo much time already :/

Then I tried to recover some files and the databases by myself and I learnt much on how to save a hard drive but each process was really long, it took several days again...

Finally none process completely succeeded, few sectors of the hard drive remained unreadable and unfortunately the FICGS database is divided into very numerous parts written everywhere on the disk.

At the end, I brought the disk to the very best professionals able to save it... the process was quite long again and it did not completely worked as well, for an unknown reason the current database was still not readable but they did much better than me at the end.

Finally the whole process was worth it, but I did not expect it could take so much time.... 46 days, 13 hours, 20 minutes. And that's a shame :(

Of course, I could have used a RAID 10 server, I was not favourable to this choice because it is not 100% safe as well, I don't know it enough and it's much more expensive. I'll reconsider it though.

But the other things I did wrong are clear anyway, I lacked of experience in such a situation and most important, I'll do now better backups also on another server every hour. Next time (if any), we'll lose at most 1 hour of moves but the server will be able to restart within 1 day.

One thing is sure, internet was really empty for me without FICGS during this long month and a half and I missed our tournaments too much so that happen again! Have no doubt, FICGS would not have stopped in all cases but once again I'm really sorry about that and all consequences... I can only hope that you'll enjoy your games as before.

Thanks for your understanding.

Best regards,
Thibault

Don Groves    (2012-08-02 06:11:16)
Rating List

My feeling is that a player should not be in any FICGS rating list until they have completed at least one game at FICGS.

Garvin Gray    (2012-08-11 16:41:40)
Premium site?

Scott, I am a little bit unsure of your actual point.

Please clarify your exact point so I can respond :)

Juri Eintalu    (2022-07-13 09:45:36)
RUSSIA AND BELARUS NOT SUSPENDED?

The ICCF Statutes webpage provides a new Statute, valid from 9th May 2022.

www.iccf.com/message?message=449

Article 17 contains a new sentence now:

"The Executive Board is empowered by Congress to propose suspension or dismissal of member federations for non-financial reasons."

Thus, the ICCF has also made a decision to suspend Russia and Belarus.

Thus, it seems that the ICCF Congress has calculated as follows:

34/(34 + 13) = 34/47 = 0.72 = 72%

It means that the "abstained" 13 voters have not been taken into account.

But who voted how, who remained neutral, who was missing, etc.?

Article 12 says the following:

"Amendments to the statutes require a vote of the general assembly, called the Congress, and a majority of two thirds of the members present or represented."

However, that Extraordinary Congress was online.

Finally, the downloadable table has other pages providing more detailed information. Thus, there is information that Estonian representative JÃ¼ri Kuusik did not "attend" the online congress.

The meanings of the terms "present", "represented", "attended", and "abstained" have remained unclear, which makes the manipulations possible.

Clarity is missing around that issue and on the ICCF homepage.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-08-18 12:31:29)
This is Russia :(

It's challenging for the least, but not much satisfaction to get from this indeed...

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8416

Rolf Staggat    (2012-08-18 17:56:35)
This is Russia :(

No sad day for me.....

This man still thinks, he is the most important person in the world.

He only went to "Pussy Riot", because he wants to be seen on TV. He hates people like the Pussies, but he thinks it is good for HIM to provocate in front of the cameras of west-medias.

He does not know, what is reality. So now some policemen have to show him, what is real. No average intelligent person would try to find that out.

He never will be president of Russia, to be against Putin does not mean to be for Kasparov.

Kasparov only thinks in "white" or "black", but there are many more colours in real life.

By the way, the Pussies would never be known outside Russia with the noise that they call music. Now they have the time to learn.

2014 number 1 in all charts:
"Pussy Riot featuring Grandmaster Garry" the new super-group with their new song "Who is the greatest idiot"

I more prefer Grandmaster Flash.....He knows about real life.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-08-18 22:50:27)
This is Russia :(

I have no clear idea yet on Kasparov's way in politics & in Russia, but surely I agree with you Rolf on Grandmaster Flash vs. Pussy Riot feat. Grandmaster Gary !

Don Groves    (2012-08-19 09:37:20)
This is Russia :(

Dmitri and Rolf: I could easily write an article about "This is Amerika :-(" The US is now the world's leading fascist nation. For proof of this see: http://rense.com/general37/fascism.htm

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-08-19 14:07:45)
What happened to Boris Spassky?

After Kasparov vs. Putin, now Spassky vs. ??

A strange story... maybe we'll learn more soon on his last 2 years in french hospitals. Quite hard to conclude anything right now.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8417

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-08-21 16:23:20)
This is politics

I remember this interview of Kramnik with very good things said (I have no idea on the last part though, even if I have no doubt that things went in the right direction... fast enough or not. Quote: "nowadays eighty percent of the Russian population is not forced to fight for their existence, as they had to, some ten, fifteen years ago.")

But if things must not evolve too fast (as it probably happened in Russia 15-20 years ago), it is likely that both US (or European countries) & Russia don't even envisage to go the right way these times on political issues, mainly because the ones who control it don't want it. There are many more or less complex & historical reasons to this of course, completely logical, but anyway it could be better and even if Kasparov was paid by US or whoever, it looks quite logical & reasonable to ask for some deep changes in Russia too...

I try to keep a sociological view rather than an ideological one. I do not defend one existing system more than other ones, but unfortunately in most situations the power tends to protect itself too much "in order to" protect citizens, that is true in a good part but there also start many problems. It is still fine to me when citizens have choice and can leave easily but that's not so easy in our world.

Dmitri Mamrukov    (2012-08-22 17:48:55)
This is Russia :(

Russia like other countries has its Criminal Code that clearly and politically obliviously lists punishments for offenses. It existed before the trial. There is no point for liberals to further politicize this particular trial just because it got media attention.

Britain (that considers itself as a democracy model) is not above "disproportionate" sentences for political activity.

http://libcom.org/blog/pussy-riot-convicted-britain-rails-against-%E2%80%9Cdisproportionate%E2%80%9D-sentence-hypocritically-18082

http://azstarnet.com/news/world/places-where-trivial-acts-carry-harsh-penalties/article_da567f48-ce33-555e-8ff2-365ec6c38a28.html

Yoppy Paulus    (2012-08-23 17:44:11)
money prize tournaments

I want to join this tournament please

Don Groves    (2012-09-15 01:11:19)
From the quote file

"Beta. Software undergoes beta testing shortly before it's released. Beta is latin for still doesn't work. (Anonymous)"

This is funny but shouldn't it be "Beta is Greek for still doesn't work?"

Garvin Gray    (2012-09-19 16:58:59)
Limit number of poker games

Leave number of games at fifty and reduce the time control by a large amount.

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2012-09-19 17:29:38)
Limit number of poker games

Hello Thibault!

Please change the number of possible poker games to 100 (or make it unrestricted).

IMO it makes no difference if a player forfeits 50 or 100 games, even not for the ratings.

If you see a way to reduce the time control, then do it, but I think there is no way ...

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2012-09-20 18:32:53)
Limit number of poker games

We had this discussion several times, but it never leads to a change.

My problem is, that sometimes I cannot enter a waiting list because of too many running games. I accept, that the games can last very long - that's not nice but I can live with that. But it should not stop me to get some new games with fast players. That's the reason why I asked Thibault to increase the number of poker games. Is there a problem if the number is increased to 100?

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-09-25 23:27:53)
Limit number of poker games

@Garvin:

1) It would be quite long to explain the full calculation for different examples, maybe best is to have a deep look at rating rules then come back to the discussion, sorry if it is not clear enough after that but trust me, it would change everything on ratings.

2) Both, I guess... the problem is that blinds shouldn't change and there isn't time controls that solve the problem.

3) Those who will go all in early will probably not reach the top of the rating list... That's the point :)

Hands that involve just 1 and 2 chips are real poker! The technical one, not the chancy one.

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    (2012-10-06 17:21:33)
WCH Final match

After having read Eros Riccio's answers to the interview questions on his defending his title twice, I am proposing a few changes to the final match.

I wish to make it clear that this is not in any way an attack on any person. They can only play to the rules set and try to use those rules to their advantage.

My issue is with the rules themselves.

I would like to propose a new format for the final match, because I think it is ridiculous that any player can defend their title with short draws and make no real attempt to prove that they are superior than their opponent.

Of course if the challenger is happy to draw all eight or twelve games, then that is their 'fault' as well.

My proposal is the following:

After eight games, if neither player has won a game, then the match continues for another four games.

In the first eight games, if both sides have won at least one game each, then the result is a drawn match and the champion keeps their title.

In the tie breaking four games, as soon as one player wins a game, the match is over.

I think the current rules are weighted way too much in favour of the champion, which as we have seen from these two games, the champion does not even have to try to prove that he is better than the challenger, but can just draw all eight/twelve games and retain the title.

Thib, please change the rules for this upcoming cycle.

Garvin Gray    (2012-10-07 19:13:36)
WCH Final match

>A lost position may be continued to avoid the first loss.

I had carefully considered this possibility. I will take an example from transfer/bughouse. When one player is about to be mated, they will stop playing that game, allowing their time to run out, in the hope that their partner will be able to mate the opposition before their own time runs out.

If both games in transfer reach a mate in one position, the side with less time on their clock with their turn to move loses as they will run out of time first.

How does this apply to the WCH?

Well, yes a player could stall on a game they think is lost, but then they would also be required to win another game to make up for it.

This could be a bit silly, but better than other options.

At least there is a sufficient reward for trying to win a game, which is the main objective of all this, to try and get the players to try and win as many games as possible.

>Maybe the tiebreak games must be played in faster time controls, and so on, like tiebreaks in OTB chess.

Not realistic on here. The faster the game , the more it becomes like freestyle/advanced chess and less like correspondence. Also, as is shown in otb, some players would prefer to try and win in rapids, so the solution of having rapid games could in fact increase the short draw odds because the players think, I would rather play a few rapid games, rather than a years worth of long correspondence games.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-10-09 18:52:25)
WCH Final match

Of course this correspondence chess championship is very different from FIDE WCH, but it seems to me that 12 games is still enough (24 games would be quite inhuman by the way), the score in the latest final matches was not significant on the draws issue, particularly now that we all know how Eros deals with it (in a smart way that can be compared to Kramnik's strategy in his match vs. Kasparov: draw with Berlin's defence, fight with White if no risk). IMO the champion has nothing to prove as he made it in a whole cycle and by beating the previous one, while a challenger should at least be able to win one game out of 12.

Actually the real evolution should have been towards freestyle chess, but it has no success enough to organize a whole cycle and it looks like Eros is the king as well. Also I don't like the idea to melt different time controls like FIDE does. The whole challenge is about one thing, not 3 or 4 differents kinds of games.

I love the past tradition not because it is a tradition, but because I really think it is the best system so far! If a new system proves to be better to me (there will always be a question of taste though, of course) then we would have to discuss it here.

The only way to encourage players to try for wins is to go towards the ICCF format, that has other issues that I wanted to avoid at any price. And why to do the same?

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-10-09 19:16:42)
WCH Final match

No problem, I understand your concern... well I believe that these short draws are just a problem instead of another, at least we have a clear champion! What will happen when round-robin WCH tournaments (ICCF format) will be decided by Soderborn or whatever because of several winners with 6,5 or 7 out of 12 points, as it seems to happen in some tournaments... Though there is no better way to encourage players to win than RR tournaments.

Garvin Gray    (2012-10-13 12:44:33)
for 2013 poker tourneys

I do not understand this idea at all, please explain in simpler or more refined detail

Garvin Gray    (2012-10-13 12:49:22)
WCH Final match

Neel, I have no particular issue with draw odds. Being corro, it is not possible to organise anything that might be still decent corro, but is at a more rapid time control to get a tie break going.

My issue is that as Eros's comments have shown, he was not even slightly forced to try and win any of the games.

So I think the rules should be made more attractive to try and get players to win games (and yes put on a show too).

Another idea could be to start eight games, if the champion is ahead, the match is over and if still tied, start games 9 to 16.

If the challenger is ahead after game 8, games 9 to 16 are still played, and now the champion would have to go all out to win a game to at least draw level.

Garvin Gray    (2012-12-02 13:53:45)
Houdini 3.0

Thibault, I do not think you will any clear answer on this as there are so many factors, including how a person uses the engines, what interface and style they use the engine.

Also I am sure players will also tune their engine, or play around with the houdini settings to 'improve' their analysis.

The one thing I have noticed is that Houdini 3.0 is much faster at getting through the 20-29 plys, which I find very useful. Especially when using the back and forth method.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-12-05 14:20:36)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

Well, at the end I think that best is to do the same than in the previous editions. If I can build only one group then be it.

A few players will be picked up randomly to have a similar rating average. At least, as Garvin says, there will be a consequence for all players who entered the waiting list after the deadline, which seems fair.

The new group(s) will be created tomorrow.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-12-06 11:28:11)
The very unofficial World Championship

After 4 games Houdini 3 leads by 3.5-0.5

Rybka Cluster - Houdini 3 (Game 3 - 2012/12/04): 1/2-1/2 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. c4 d6 6. Be2 Nxd4 7. Qxd4 Nf6 8. Nc3 Bg7 9. Be3 O-O 10. Qd2 Qa5 11. f3 Be6 12. Rc1 Rfc8 13. b3 a6 14. Na4 Qxd2+ 15. Kxd2 Nd7 16. g4 Re8 17. h4 h6 18. Nc3 Nc5 19. b4 Nd7 20. Nd5 a5 21. b5 Rac8 22. f4 Bf6 23. b6 Bb2 24. Rc2 Bxd5 25. exd5 Ba3 26. h5 e5 27. hxg6 exf4 28. Bxf4 Re4 29. gxf7+ Kxf7 30. Bxh6 Nxb6 31. Kd3 Rexc4 32. Rxc4 Nxc4 33. Bf4 Kg7 34. Ke4 Re8+ 35. Kf3 Ne5+ 36. Kg3 Rc8 37. Rb1 Rc3+ 38. Kh4 Bb4 39. Rc1 Ng6+ 40. Kg5 Nxf4 41. Rxc3 Bxc3 42. Kxf4 a4 43. a3 Bb2 44. Kf5 Bxa3 45. Bb5 Bc1 46. Bxa4 Bd2 47. Be8 Bc3 48. g5 Bd4 49. Kg4 Be5 50. Bb5 Kg6 1/2-1/2.

Houdini 3 - Rybka Cluster (Game 4 - 2012/12/05): 1-0 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Nb5 d6 6. N1c3 Nf6 7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 Be6 9. Nc4 Rc8 10. Bxf6 Qxf6 11. Nb6 Rb8 12. Ncd5 Qg6 13. Qd3 Be7 14. Nc7+ Kd8 15. Ncd5 f5 16. Qc3 fxe4 17. O-O-O Bxd5 18. Nxd5 Rc8 19. Kb1 Rf8 20. Qb3 b5 21. Qa3 Qg4 22. f3 exf3 23. Nxe7 Kxe7 24. Qxd6+ Kf7 25. gxf3 Qf5 26. Qd5+ Kf6 27. Bd3 Qe6 28. Qe4 g6 29. h4 Rcd8 30. a3 Rd7 31. h5 g5 32. h6 Nd4 33. Rhg1 Rfd8 34. Qe3 Rg8 35. Rde1 Qd5 36. Rg4 Qc5 37. Rg2 Qd5 38. Qg1 Qf7 39. Qf2 Rd5 40. c3 Ne6 41. Bc2 Nf4 42. Rg3 Rd7 43. Qe3 Qd5 44. Ka1 Re8 45. Rg4 Ne6 46. Bb1 Rc7 47. Ba2 Qc5 48. Qe4 Qd6 49. Rg2 b4 50. axb4 Nf4 51. Bb1 Qd7 52. Rd2 Qa4+ 53. Ba2 Qc6 54. Qc2 Rd7 55. Rxd7 Qxd7 56. Rd1 Qc7 57. Bb1 e4 58. Qa4 Qb8 59. Qd7 Re7 60. Rd6+ Ne6 61. Qc6 Qb5 62. Qxe4 Qe5 63. Qd3 Ra7 64. Rc6 a5 65. b5 Re7 66. b6 a4 67. Qd8 Kf7 68. Qc8 1-0.

Garvin Gray    (2012-12-13 16:52:12)
WBCCC 2013

This information is in regards to the World Blitz Correspondence Chess Championship for the year 2013.

It is held on Rybka Forum www.rybkaforum.net.

There is a full sub forum located on that forum that explains a lot of the rules, current list of players and specifics of information.

For a general run down, read on:

My name is Garvin Gray and I am the organiser and arbiter for this event. This event attempts to bring as many strong correspondence and freestyle players together from all the different playing sites, such as iccf, ficgs, playchess, lss and many other sites.

As the title says, this is a blitz event, meaning the time controls are short compared to normal correspondence play. This requires players to devote a greater share of their focus to these games than would normal correspondence play.

This event has been held for two years now, with the 2012 version still in progress. Feel free to browse the 2012 sub forum to see the games and how the structure works.

In the two years of this event, I feel that many new discoveries have been made and advanced freestyle chess knowledge has certainly been increased, to the benefit of all. Those who have participated in both events have gained a lot from their participation and I want to see this continue.

To allow this event to start and finish in one calendar year, we start in mid January and for 2013, it will finish in mid December. The format requires that you will play one game as white and one game as black in each round. There are 10 games in total.

Each round is paired as an individual swiss using the dutch pairing rules, but accommodations are made because each person must have one white and one black game per round.

Kibitizing is allowed and encouraged, but discussions about future positions, game analysis or anything else that could affect the result of the game is not allowed. Feel free to read the thread on game commentary.

There will also be a thread for each round that allows discussion of events during the round, general discussion about games or other general chit chat.

We do seek to provide a friendly, but competitive environment for those who want to advance their freestyle skills, or test themselves against other players from the different sites. This event will take up quite a bit of your time as the time control is fast, the play is difficult and the enjoyment factor high.

This is not meant to be a deterrent, but I feel I should make it clear that you need to be dedicated and willing to play each and every game/round.

Withdrawing or timing out mid game is not acceptable and will see you removed from the event. If you think you can not complete a particular round, it is better to contact me and have you withdrawn from that round. You are free to rejoin the event in these circumstances, but will receive zero points for those two missed games.

I hope to see more entries and good freestyling to everyone.

Cheers,

Garvin Gray
WBCCC 2013 Organiser

Robert Knighton    (2012-12-15 15:15:05)
Houdini 3.0

Aquarium has a pretty steep learning curve but it is probably the best tool for correspondence chess once you learn how to use it.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-12-19 21:36:25)
The very unofficial World Championship

Last but not least!

Alvin Alcala    (2012-12-21 09:50:32)
Chess Server Team Tournament

Please count me in, I'm very much interested.

Garvin Gray    (2012-12-22 03:31:31)
Show opponents time

Hello Thibault,

I would like to see a display change.

Currently in my games, either in pending or running games setting, the amount of time I have remaining is showing. I would like to see a column which shows how much time my opponents have remaining.

I think this would be quite useful.

Please make this change :)

Cheers,

Garvin

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-12-24 21:15:31)
Mayan apocalypse is here !

I heard about another one in 2014 (related to "Kabbalah" if I remember well), obviously there is also one in 2013 and... many others in the future.

There would have been at least 181 ends of the world so far, so there is good hope for the future after all :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

The one in 2014 is not even mentioned there...

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-12-29 22:46:10)
Chess Server Team Tournament

Well, actually many answers are in the tournament regulations...

If I understand well, each player should play from 8 games (!) to 16 games according to the number of servers participating (from 4 to 8), which is a lot...

- Is this ICCF rated? It seems that it is.

- How many boards in the teams? I read 30, which is a lot! Maybe too much.

- Will the teams play in rating order? I have no idea.

If we have players enough to enter this tournament then we can vote for a captain if several players want to be. As for me, I won't be able to play it.

The real question is who will be able to play 8 to 16 games on the ICCF server... As far as I can remember, we never found 30 players for a team event so far, without counting the forfeits.

So far, it seems that 2 servers accepted to participate while Chess.com declined the invitation.

Regulations:

http://www.mocorrchess.narod.ru/wccstc/en/regen.html

5.1. No less than 4 and no more than 8 teams to play the event. The teams represent chess servers. No one server is allowed to enter the event with no more than 1 team. Teams play each other in an each-to-each round-robin tournament.

5.2. Each team plays each team in a team match on 30 boards. Each player of a team plays 2 games (one with White pieces, one with Black pieces) with one player of the other team. Reserve players are prohibited to begin the games.

5.3. The team consists of 30 players. No more than 5 reserve players may be added in a team squad.

5.4. The games are rated for ICCF rating.

5.5. Time control is 30 days for 10 moves (with duplication after 20 days is used for a single move).

5.6. 30 days of leave per year are available for each player.

5.7. The team mates and captain can see the games live. Live transmission for public is delayed by 5 moves.

5.8. ICCF Playing rules are applied for the event. The playing rules may be seen at special page

Bogoljub Teverovski    (2012-12-30 13:00:10)
Chess Server Team Tournament

Imho, if certain server cannot enter a team of just 30 players, it becomes clear this server has a very weak resource. Therefore FICGS should enter 30 players without hesitations.

Mark Josse    (2013-01-03 21:05:10)
winning on time

Hi All

I have won some games on time but they dont seem to show up in my future rating performance. Do you get rating points for time wins or do they become unrated games ?
Please Advise
Thanks
Mark

Valery Nemchenko    (2013-01-10 05:22:51)
Chess Server Team Tournament

Dear Thibault!
I am willing to participate in the team event of FICGS e server. My rating ICCF-2465. Please let me know who else from our server will be played on a board which I claim? Best regards, Valery

Maxim Genchev    (2013-01-10 11:42:45)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I agree to play, if the average reytig tournament chess server team tournament from ICCF will be at least 2300.

Mathaios Vardoulakis    (2013-01-10 13:18:55)
Chess Server Team Tournament

"I'm interested to play".Count me in please.

Happy new year to all!

Daniel Parmet    (2013-01-10 18:11:49)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I volunteer to be team captain. But we now have 31 players wanting to play. Also I would point out that we will probably get slaughtered on the lower boards as things stand right now. I saw at least one person wanting an ICCF team average of 2300. I would point out that I think a 2000 player here is 2300 over there but as things stand our FICGS rating average is 1964 based on the top 30 players ratings. For the 9 players that do have ICCF ratings our rating average is 2235.

Here is what information I could collect on our team so far:
Name FICGS Rating ICCF ID ICCF Rating TITLE Comment
1 Ostap Hladky 2527 941012 FIM
2 Valery Nemchenko 2521 940836 2465
3 Frits Bleker 2313 220159 2395
4 Garvin Gray 2281 30503 1993
5 Alvin Alcala 2237 896046
6 Wayne Lowrance 2194 FIM
7 Maxim Genchev 2187 940752 2309 Wants ICCF average of 2300
8 Arkadiusz Wosch 2169 89923 2307
9 Neel Basant 2138 280279
10 Daniel Parmet 2098 514938 2300
11 Om Prakash 2091 280243
12 Bogoljub Teverovski 2083 862003
13 Niklas Hallqvist 2082 451419
14 Kieran Moore 2042 260252
15 William Fuller 2033 514688 2350
16 Dmitry Tsimbalenko 1959 142268
17 Sergey Demchenko 1955 142224 2077
18 Nick Burrows 1944 212164
19 Rich Pinkall Pollei 1900 515095
20 Daniel Blike 1874 515250
21 Jose Moreira 1831 Are you the IM Jose Moreira id#399007, Rating 2390?
22 Thomas Hasyn 1808 865001 1922
23 Mathaios Vardoulakis 1800
24 Dinesh Bhandarkar 1707
25 Shih-Chu Liao 1660
26 Josef Zmolil 1632
27 Ray Downs 1536
28 John Worthington 1510 515287
29 Claudio Cabrera 1462
30 Arnab Sengupta 1340 280192
31 Jiri Mach 1010

Maxim Genchev    (2013-01-12 10:54:08)
Chess Server Team Tournament

Respected organization FICGS!
Please tell me, have you an official invitation to the participation in the team competition of the servers?
The fact is that until now, I was told, there is no agreement on this championship with IKCHF.V this case (if one has an official invitation and was later denied participation on the team FICGS) it is reasonable to make a complaint to the ICCF

Dmitriy Malish    (2013-01-12 16:17:34)
Progressive Chess

In progressive chess, every move is a series-move. White starts with a series of 1 move, black answers with a series of 2 moves, white answers with a series of 3 moves, etc.
White starts the game by playing one move, Black answers with two and so on, always increasing by one the length of the series. Check may only be given with the last move of a series and must be defended with the first one.
Example.
1. e4
2. e6 Bb4
Bb4 seems to be ineffective.
3. a3 axb4 Nh3
Nh3 protects f2.
4. b5 c5 d6 Kd7
At first sight Black's moves seem valid but
they leave too much room for White to operate.
5. d4 dxc5 Bg5 Bxd8 Qxd6+
White has a strong position. First, Black must move the
King, and then he needs a least three moves to eliminate
White's Queen.
6. Ke8 Nf6 Nxe4 Nxd6 Kxd8 Kc7
There were not too many possibilities left.
7. Ra6 Rxd6 Bxb5 Ba6 Na3 Nb5++
A nice mate.

What about making this game on site?

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-01-15 23:18:20)
Progressive Chess

Funny... at least games are short here :)

Horatiu Adrian Petrescu    (2013-01-16 00:23:43)
FICGS admin scam me

This admin is a big liar and scammer. I post here all story.
In 2010 I ask him how I cashout if I wish to.Bellow is our conversation :

"Re : cashoutMonday, January 4, 2010 3:25 PM
From: This sender is DomainKeys verified"Thibault de Vassal" - ficgs at yahoo . com - Add sender to Contacts
Hello,

There's no button, you just have to ask me :) How many Epoints do you want to convert in Euros ?

Please specify your email at Paypal or Moneybookers.

Best wishes,
Thibault

Hi!

I don't see the button for cashout! Where is it? "

He didn't tell me nothing about some condition.Why? Because that time
was not specified.

Bellow is our conversation in the present time :

"Hi, I wish to cashout my 7,14 Epoints, to my Paypal account.Thank you.Regards.

Hello ,

You have to win at least one silver/gold tournament to cash out Epoints, feel free to read the conditions here:
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#prize"

...and on chat:

petrescu horatiuadrian :
you are a charlatan
(2013-01-15 23:46:58)
petrescu horatiuadrian :
I lost more than 7 euros,My deposit was much more
(2013-01-15 23:32:03)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
I just ask my money only ,not a profit or an interest
(2013-01-15 23:31:13)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
not crook.
(2013-01-15 23:29:42)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
you think I care about 7 euros ,I have checked you if are or
petrescu horatiuadrian :
you are a bank,but for you only
(2013-01-15 23:26:30)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
you are just a liar
(2013-01-15 23:25:15)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
your rule
(2013-01-15 23:24:44)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
you told me about L511 ,I checked and write nothing about
devassal thibault :
This is a games server, conditions are clear on this...
(2013-01-15 23:17:12)

devassal thibault :
I would have told you to deposit? So, to be a bank for you?
(2013-01-15 23:16:07)

devassal thibault :
This is only a misunderstanding, obviously. sorry about that
(2013-01-15 23:15:09)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
You lied to me to make deposit here
(2013-01-15 23:14:01)

devassal thibault :
.. and let's see what others think...
(2013-01-15 23:13:59)

devassal thibault :
Just publish this email on the forum...
(2013-01-15 23:13:43)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
you think I am naive?then why you lied me then,in 2010?
(2013-01-15 23:12:10)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
ahaha,you are not lawer ,you are liar,liar, liar
(2013-01-15 23:09:24)

devassal thibault :
I'm not lawyer, but a lawyer told me what I can or cannot do

petrescu horatiuadrian :
from the law
(2013-01-15 22:39:35)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
ok ,tell me the article of legislation or give me the link
(2013-01-15 22:39:27)

devassal thibault :
french laws... but I guess that's the same in most countries
(2013-01-15 22:30:41)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
tell me which laws ,yours laws?or what
(2013-01-15 22:25:52)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
which laws?
(2013-01-15 22:24:57)

burrows nick :
ah!
(2013-01-15 22:02:52)

devassal thibault :
as money prize, by winning silver/gold tournaments
(2013-01-15 21:57:38)

burrows nick :
how is money recouped?
(2013-01-15 21:40:31)

devassal thibault :
FICGS cannot be a bank... that's you ask for
(2013-01-15 21:15:02)

devassal thibault :
In one word : because of laws...
(2013-01-15 21:13:32)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
or you don t want because the terms?
(2013-01-15 20:59:26)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
speak clear
(2013-01-15 20:58:33)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
I don t understand why u cannot,because the server?
(2013-01-15 20:58:24)

devassal thibault :
That's the point of this server after all
(2013-01-15 20:40:34)

devassal thibault :
Anyway, winning one silver game would solve the problem...
(2013-01-15 20:40:10)

devassal thibault :
.. but the fact is that I cannot do this & never could
(2013-01-15 20:39:11)

devassal thibault :
We can even discuss it in the forum if you want...
(2013-01-15 20:37:09)

devassal thibault :
That's specified in the conditions... just read it
(2013-01-15 20:36:18)

devassal thibault :
The number of Epoints had to be a multiple of tournament fee
(2013-01-15 20:35:59)

In my country exist many charlatans but I see in France too.France is beautiful country but "there are lees to every wine".

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-08-03 02:34:42)
Improving netiquette rules

Well, after a few days thinking about a complaint, I finally decided to open a topic about this public remark in game 86290 (no need to name the players again here in the forum, by the way best would probably be that they do not intervene in this discussion) :

"my engine has said ckmate in 19,but black player,maybe,prefers passing by 51 days to lose on time"

Context most probably hasn't to be known, rules have to say if it fits netiquette or not (is it insulting or not, is it subjective or not) and of course this is the question.

In other servers, this may lead to a suspension or it may not IMHO, so I'd like to gather opinions on this case, any suggestion to improve FICGS netiquette rules will be appreciated.

In my opinion, we'll have to determine if any PUBLIC remark on the use of the clock is acceptable or not and if not, what measurement to apply.

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-01-16 01:07:41)
FICGS admin scam me

Hello again Horatiu,

Sorry to see that you do not accept to realize that FICGS rules have always been clear on that point (it is specified that it is required for you to read and understand it before using this site), also that this site is not a bank, which is true for all similar websites - at least in France but most probably everywhere.

So here is the continuation of our conversation in the chat room (you have to read it from bottom to top). We can continue it here if you wish, this way we'll not bother everyone with this. By the way, maybe other players who experienced the epoints thing will be able to confirm all this.

Do not worry, I will not delete this discussion, at least this will be informative for everyone (I hope).

______________________

petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] of course ,I just open a topic to see everybody who are you
(2013-01-16 01:00:12)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] I have no problem with this.
(2013-01-16 00:58:59)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] anyway, we can continue this discussion in the forum...
(2013-01-16 00:58:49)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] insults are unnecessary...
(2013-01-16 00:58:28)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] and fraud
(2013-01-16 00:58:23)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] yes i lost 4 ,is not mistake ?you are a mistake
(2013-01-16 00:53:06)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] ... a bank just by saying it
(2013-01-16 00:51:34)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] because it explains that it's not possible to be...
(2013-01-16 00:51:20)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] no gipsy,but then why you told me about L511 code?
(2013-01-16 00:49:44)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] There's no mistake, obviously...
(2013-01-16 00:49:14)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] Then you won 1 & lost 4 silver games...
(2013-01-16 00:49:09)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] I know exactly how many epoints you bought/ when and how...
(2013-01-16 00:47:47)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] What do you expect? finding FICGS rules in french laws?
(2013-01-16 00:44:05)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] you are a charlatan
(2013-01-15 23:46:58)

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-01-16 02:14:49)
FICGS admin scam me

Continuation......

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] ..everyone cannot be a bank
(2013-01-16 02:10:12)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] ... already answered too... because it explains that...
(2013-01-16 02:08:54)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] Please do not delete chat messages everyone.. not now
(2013-01-16 02:08:12)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] You clearly misunderstood me and did not read rules
(2013-01-16 02:07:00)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] I answered that already in the forum...
(2013-01-16 02:06:47)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] There's no "if" there anymore... just ask
(2013-01-16 02:05:50)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] why you lied to me in 2010?
(2013-01-16 02:05:18)

Horatiu Adrian Petrescu    (2013-01-16 02:16:44)
FICGS admin scam me

petrescu horatiuadrian :
I didn't understand you???? is not even one word about your
(2013-01-16 02:14:41)

devassal thibault :
..everyone cannot be a bank
(2013-01-16 02:10:12)

devassal thibault :
... already answered too... because it explains that...
(2013-01-16 02:08:54)

devassal thibault :
Please do not delete chat messages everyone.. not now
(2013-01-16 02:08:12)

devassal thibault :
You clearly misunderstood me and did not read rules

Daniel Parmet    (2013-01-16 05:59:50)
FICGS admin scam me

Petrescu it sounds like you have a lack of understanding on what Terms and Conditions (or TOS as they are often called) mean... the ones on FICGS as pretty clear... so how do you manage with more complicated TOS such paypal's ?

Garvin Gray    (2013-01-16 07:28:11)
FICGS admin scam me

My head hurts. I was hoping that by starting a thread some clarity could be brought to the discussion, but all I really see is just an endless stream of back and forth chat bar claims and counter claims.

Horatiu Adrian Petrescu,

Would be nice in simple to understand, clean and precise language, what you are claiming to have occurred.

Others have experience with the e point system here.

I have asked you to detail your complaint here, hopefully without all the rhetoric. But if you start abusing me if I do not give you the answer you desire, then I will not reply and you get no resolution.

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-01-16 12:29:30)
FICGS admin scam me

Dear Horatiu,

Unfortunately for you, I also kept all emails that you sent to me and that I sent to you... Now here are the facts:

I sent 30 emails (!) to you to kindly answer again and again what is explained in terms & conditions and Help section. I explained to you how to use a captcha, how to use the site and so on..........

First of all, you forget one important thing: It is required that you ACCEPT and UNDERSTAND terms and conditions BEFORE you register.... Obviously you didn't understand it, I cannot do anything there.

Second of all, you are of bad faith and here is a clear proof:

Among the very first emails (before the one you mention), here is the answer I sent to you:

<<<<<<<<<<

December 14, 2009 - Monday, 21:22

Hello,

It is all explained at - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html & http://www.ficgs.com/help.html , when you have Epoints, you can play Silver & Gold games, winning Epoints or money according to the results & tournaments...

Best wishes,
Thibault

<<<<<<<<<<

I guess that you kept this one too but you "forgot" to mention it...

Now, I've said enough. I was patient, but now I'll apply FICGS rules (you should read it carefully) and french laws as soon as you act again against me.

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-01-16 14:11:49)
FICGS admin scam me

continuation of the chat... for archives :)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] I resend it... with another email...
(2013-01-16 14:04:13)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] term
(2013-01-16 14:03:20)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] yours are included in.... :)
(2013-01-16 14:03:12)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] I told you send that emails which you told me about your
(2013-01-16 14:03:10)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] hey admin are you really stupid??you sent all yours emails??
(2013-01-16 14:02:09)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] but I can publish all emails in the forum if you want
(2013-01-16 13:59:08)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] obviously Yahoo blocks when too many messages
(2013-01-16 13:58:38)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] now I have: Remote host said: 554 Message not allowed
(2013-01-16 13:49:41)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] did you receive the first ones?
(2013-01-16 13:49:28)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] terms I will shut up
(2013-01-16 13:44:44)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] if you realy found some email that you told me about your
(2013-01-16 13:44:23)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] no problem
(2013-01-16 13:41:18)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] yahoo email
(2013-01-16 13:39:38)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] what message you found in your arhive ,send it to me to my
(2013-01-16 13:39:29)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] Please use the forum if you have something to add...
(2013-01-16 13:12:13)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] game ,set and scam devassal
(2013-01-16 13:05:46)

burrows nick :
[Remove this comment] Game, Set & Match Devassal
(2013-01-16 12:57:23)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] before registering, maybe we can now end this discussion
(2013-01-16 12:51:03)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] added to the fact that you had to understand terms & cond
(2013-01-16 12:50:40)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] the clear conclusion is that I did not lie to you...
(2013-01-16 12:50:14)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] I found a very interesting email in my archives :)
(2013-01-16 12:30:28)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] You should read the last message in forum, Horatiu...
(2013-01-16 12:30:05)

Horatiu Adrian Petrescu    (2013-01-16 18:16:33)
FICGS admin scam me

Hey boy, ENGINES CHESS ARE ALLOWED WHEN YOU LEARN CHESS NOT WHEN YOU PLAY FOR MONEY.
Are you so stupid with your statements and next time I will not answer you because even God cannot fight with stupid and scam men.

Josef Riha    (2013-01-16 19:30:27)
FICGS admin scam me

@Petrescu: you childish Chess Troll, shutup and leave this site if you're too lazy to read the conditions. We can live very well without an unrespectful person like you.

Vadim Khachaturov    (2013-01-16 20:52:11)
FICGS admin scam me

Thibault, please, instead of sending heaps of messages to this noble man, just send a ten pills of Haldol to him. It will better help him and all of us.

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-01-23 19:30:49)
Show opponents time

Hi Garvin & George... feel free to tell me what you think of the current display.

Please report any bug if you notice ones :)

Garvin Gray    (2013-01-25 12:30:04)
Show opponents time

@Don: I did not say it was the first time.
@Thib: The last time a user generated forum idea was modifying the groups, which lead to the idea of the highly successful standard open format :o lol

George Clement    (2013-02-26 22:05:19)
Houdini 3.0

Probably better to wait for Critter 1.8;) Komodo MP is still in a learning curve. LOL

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-03-10 16:34:51)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

Hello all,

It seems that the current vacation system can be used in various ways to recover days at the clock while it is not particularly dedicated to.

We have 45 days of vacation per year, it is now possible to leave 45 times 1 day.

An idea could be to take a minimum of 3 days while there are more than 2 days remaining. Thus one could leave a maximum of 15 times.

Any opinion on this possible change?

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2013-03-10 18:41:09)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

It should not be the role of rules to regulate my use of the leave. If 45 days is too much, then reducing the number of days.

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-03-13 13:42:07)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

Not an easy topic after all... Well, right now I think that 1 day is more "natural" or "intuitive", at least an easier rule but it's true that vacation can be used to help in some games. Let's see if others have an opinion on that.

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-03-14 21:25:02)
How to delete my account?

You just have to ask... please use "My account" form. Well, you found it already :)

Best wishes,
Thibault

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?

Don Groves    (2013-03-19 16:09:03)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

There will always be a loophole for some to take advantage of. Leave the rules as they are.

Daniel Parmet    (2013-03-20 00:32:02)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

My opponent just went on leave with 11 minutes left on ICCF. I don't see a problem with it. Can someone please explain to me the problem here?

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-03-20 13:41:09)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

Well, at the end the only problem may be that vacation should be specified in time controls... eg. 30 days + 1 day/move + 45 days leave per year.

Right now, vacation is actually a part of the time control.

Still thinking about all this.

Kieran Moore    (2013-03-23 13:17:09)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

On another site vacation is divided into two blocks of 20 days.So in most games a player would only have 20 days leave. Its annoying if players use their vacation time to prevent Flag fall as Chess is about tactics and time management. Bad positions tend to cost time, so players shouldn't recover from bad positions by running their vacation days.

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-04-06 21:49:28)
FICGS__CHESS__FREESTYLE_CUP__000005

After round 3, Alvin is leader with 2.5 out of 3! Many good games already (not from me :o))...

See you tomorrow!

Alvin Alcala    (2013-04-08 00:28:18)
FICGS__CHESS__FREESTYLE_CUP__000005

Thanks for hosting this tour Thib. We all learn from this experience.

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-04-21 00:44:14)
Poker rating anomaly

Hello Attila,

This is not an anomaly... this is the 10 moves rule! At least 10 moves must have been played by both players so that the winner's rating increases. This rule prevents several things, e.g. effects of early forfeits, unnatural wins and obvious cheating. This is classified as an unnatural win. Sorry about that, but this rule is necessary.

Charlie Neil    (2013-04-21 19:54:30)
Thematic tournaments?

Yes, Gambits please. Benko, Budapest, Latvian and (my favourite) Evans as a suggestion for future unrated tournaments.

Scott Nichols    (2013-04-23 00:39:31)
!!! The Next world chess Champion !!!

Carlsen is in a class by himself, much the same as Fischer was in the late 60's and early 70's. Anand had a tremendous talent, but the years do take there toll. I predict not only a win by Carlsen, but a shattering of Anand's ego and will leave no doubt in the world of chess, finally the questions will be answered.

Alvin Alcala    (2013-05-07 18:10:04)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

More questions please :). Congratulations!

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-05-09 17:57:09)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

Eros just told me that he will try to answer all questions (by FICGS players) in this discussion... so if you have any idea to try to discover his secrets, please just ask! :)

Eros Riccio    (2013-05-10 16:29:52)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

Hi Alvin:

1) It depends on the position. Deciding a move may take from a few seconds to many days. My longest thought was 64 days for a move, in a decisive game of a past Italian Championship, the move was so hard for me that I also used the 30 days leave in order not to exceed the time limits for a single move. If someone is curious, it's move 40...Rh3 of the game Baiocchi - Riccio 0-1, 57 Italian Championship, played in 2007. Back then, after all my analysis with many different engines, I found out that Hiarcs was the engine that understood better than all the others that endgame, so I sticked to it mostly and its suggestions rewarded me with a win that allowed me to become Italian Champion.

2)The top 2 engines, which I usually use (and consider about equal) in infinite analysis at the same time with 3 cores each on my 6 cores computer are houdini 3 and deeprybka 4.1. Then come all the others, hard to pick a third place, probably critter or stockfish, depending on positions (stockfish is very strong in endgames, critter in tactical positions)

Attila Ba    (2013-05-15 17:41:52)
Deep analysis - can it be improved?

The idea behind deep analysis is to store engine evaluations of chess positions in a permanent way and build an analysis tree out of them. Deep analysis is an improvement over simple engine analysis in two ways:

1) Permanent storage of analysis results makes them reusable. You don't have to analyse the same position from scratch over and over again (which is a waste of valuable CPU resources) rather you can build and improve upon your earlier results.

2) The search is configurable. You have control over which positions are examined and in what way. This gives you freedom to tailor the analyis to your own needs not having to rely on the defaults provided by your engine.

This idea is presented in a revolutionary way in the Deep Rybka Aquarium GUI. However using this framework I have encountered some problems. The lesser one and non lethal one is that draws by repetition are not handled correctly. This is for a reason: moves in the transposition table should be valued in an absolute way (regardless of the line which lead to them) in order to preserve the integrity of the tree. Since Aquarium has no means to incorporate lines, it simply ignores them

My other problem is that though the search is configurable I'm not absolutely certain about what is going on. It is not entirely clear to me exactly which nodes are selected for analysis.

These problems made me to try to come up with a deep analyis program of my own. After several failed attempts finally I have on my hand a solution which is not only capable of performing deep analysis but overcomes some of the difficulties of Interactive Deep Analyis (IDeA) provided by the Aquarium framework.

First I introduced a mechanism that can handle repetitions. In order to achieve this I attribute not one but two scores to each move and re-define the concept of root position already present in IdeA. The first score which I call 'idea' score is the same as presented in IdeA. The second is what I call 'alpha' score is calculated by minimaxing the tree from the root position taking into account repetitions.

Consider the following game:

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng1 Nf8

The value of move 2. ... Nf8 at depth 18 by Houdini 3.0 is -19 centipawns. So the idea score of this move at depth 0 should be -19. Yet 2. ... Nf8 repeats the starting position. Therefore its alpha score with respect to a root equaling the starting position should be 0 centipawn which is exactly what my program calculates for it. ( For the sake of simplicity I don't require threefold repetition, since you would never allow your opponent to repeat a position if you have better ideas. )

So when my programs lists the tree it will present both scores for every move (which in most of the cases are equal of course - therefore this is mostly an aesthetic improvement rather than being a substantial one).

The improvement which I'm most interested in is that having full control of node selection now I have freedom to shape the tree search.

In order to keeps things simple I have only three parameters characterising the search:

1) engine depth
2) move distance (centipawns)
3) search depth

Engine depth means a fixed depth at which each move is analyzed. After long experimenting I have arrived at depth 18 as a good default for Houdini 3.0.

Move distance is a tolerance up to which moves are allowed into the analyis. For each position first the best move is determined. The search for alternative moves is continued until a move is found that has a valuation less than the valuation of the best move by 'move distance' centipawns (it is this 'distance' away from being the best move). The tree is then expanded for moves within 'move distance'.

To compensate for exponential growth of analyzed nodes I use a simple technique: at each ply after ply 1 the move distance is halved. So if the move distance at ply 0 and ply 1 is 20 centipawns, it will be 10 centipawns for ply 2, 5 centipawns for ply 3 and so on. This means that at greater depth less and less moves are allowed per position. So the analysis with greater depth slowly evolves into 'autoplay' rather than 'tree search'.

The other method to reduce exponential growth is the well known beta cut provided by alphabeta search. In order that all candidate moves in the root position and all candidate responses to them get proper values, I only allow beta cuts with ply 2 and deeper.

Once an alphabeta search of certain depth is carried out, the whole tree is mimimaxed out for the root. Now the initial evaluations of the root moves may change. This may make moves which initially fall out of the 'move distance' to become viable. So the search has to be repeated for those moves as well. This has to be done at every ply level.

My iterative search at a certain depth only ends when no new nodes are added by the alphabeta search (the tree is 'settled' for this depth). Only then the program is allowed to deepen the search (this I call 'refined' search).

With engine depth of 18 and move distance of 10 centipawns an average position can be analyzed to depth 10 within a matter of hours. This means a couple of hundred (possibly a couple of thousand) positions are analyzed to depth 18. Depth 10 deep analyis means an ultimate depth of 28 if you take into account that the engine depth is 18.

Whether this method has added ELO value over simple engine search is yet to be tested.

Garvin Gray    (2013-06-04 14:56:48)
Wch cycles possible changes?

With some discussion once occurring about the format of the Ficgs wch, time for a new thread with a different slant.

Some posters have given their opinions on pros/cons of the wch cycle and changes they would like to see happen.

Most though are not incorporated because Thibault is against them, or thinks they will not work.

So time for a new question so it might be possible to get some changes or refinements.

Thibault, on what items in regards to the wch would you be willing to see some changes, or at least incorporate well thought out proposals from the members?

This could at least lead the discussion on where to head for a discussion on these matters.

Because quite frankly if Thibault does not agree with your proposal, it will not happen.

If someone wants to know my opinion on this whole matter. Feel free to ask and I will post in a later post, or possibly a whole new thread as I do have quite a bit to say. Be warned, some may not like it ;)

Michael Aigner    (2013-06-06 11:45:47)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

Hello everybody,
I read the whole thread and in my opinion it is not clear what we are discussing about. The trigger for the discussion was some kind of abuse of the existing rules but I, and I guess some others too, got no idea what the problem is.

Could someone please describe how the existing rules can be used in an unfair way. Before that happened we will run in circels.

Robert Knighton    (2013-06-06 22:58:06)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

@Thibault: a 2 day minimum is bad because what if I only need 1 day this time? I must lose 2. Maybe I need 1 day only 5 seperate times and I need 40 days straight around christmas/new years.

this scenario my/Garvin's suggestion works (20 blocks split however) and yours leaves me with only 30 days for christmas/new years; just as an example.

I dont think this is complex at all.

You may take vacation up to 20 more times this year.
You have a total of 45 days of vacation you may use.

20/45
No more complex than a chess clock ;)

@Michael: I think the specific complaints were probably sent privately but I can use my imagination to come up with some possibility.

Lets say you're playing a difficult opponent in a close game in some major tournament maybe.

In order to get a time advantage your opponent goes into vacation mode immediately after you make your moves.

While in vacation mode he can still view and analyze the game without running down his clock which effectively gives him 45 extra days of clock time. This can be a significant advantage (more time = more analysis)

People can argue that it works both ways but what if the victim in this story has used his/her vacation for legitimate reasons?

Maybe the person exploiting this technique only plays a few tournaments a year to make sure he has that 45 extra days if he runs into a hard game?

As for how to solve this issue... well that is the topic of the discussion. How to prevent vacation abuse without hurting legitimate vacation needs.

Daniel Parmet    (2013-06-07 01:07:26)
Playing activity top 20 players

Thib, I already went from a 2100 rating to a 2372 rating (and my rating is still CLIMBING FAST) with to SIM norm events on ICCF in a mere 32 games. While I have played over 200 games on FICGS and have yet to have a SINGLE opportunity to play a strong tournament. My strength grows but my rating does not grow because this site has gone out of its way to establish rating barriers. Why should I push myself to unbelievable lengths to try to break this site's barriers when I have another site that will happily let me play players of my own strength or slightly stronger without any such herculean effort?

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-09 01:40:04)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

Well, I don't see the point anymore here... please let's talk about this (minor) point of the rules only, I wouldn't like to have to close this discussion.

As Daniel says, there is a question of definition of what vacation is or should be. And both opinions are ok for me, so there is no point to discuss it between the two sides, we can only wait for more opinions at the moment IMHO.

Daniel Parmet    (2013-06-09 01:53:58)
Playing activity top 20 players

Please Thib, I do not point out these problems to complain or make you feel bad. I just want you to know where you can improve. I also want you to know you've done an amazing job here and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. If you need volunteer time/help, I will be one of the first to come forward to aid you. None of these comments are made as an attack on you, I want you to know I appreciate what you have done.

Regarding rapid/classical time controls, I did not care which I played. The fact that I ended up playing more rapid than classical has to do with the fact I always chose the HARDER option available to me in terms of opponent strength. Since you alternate the rating bands via rapid vs classical - that usually meant only one time control was available to me.

Scott Nichols    (2013-06-18 20:44:03)
Playing activity top 20 players

I have a couple of thoughts. First is ICCF is not better for me than anywhere. The games just take too long. More to Daniels taste for sure. To help this site out, I will say it again, there needs to be at least one fast playing category. Like 10 days, with 1 day increment. This time control is very popular at other sites. Blitz CC is the wave of the future, even in OTB they don't play that slow chess anymore. Another idea is large cash prizes, :), to draw in the big guns. People are willing to pay more to get more. A couple of small things you could do Thib is offer a 2 e-point prize for most active player in a rating cycle and one for the player who improved the most in that same cycle for all 3 categories, chess, go and poker. Just some ideas...

John Dyson    (2013-07-07 14:37:07)
Download

Can anyone tell me how to download chess games from this site in words a 3yo can understand please? I have Chessbase if that's a help.

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-07-15 14:16:39)
Interview with new FICGS Go champion

Yen-Wei Huang, winner of the 8th FICGS Go championship, kindly accepted to answer a few questions for this very interesting interview!

_______________________

- Hello Yen-Wei and congratulations for winning the FICGS Go championship! Xiao Tong was obviously a tough opponent, yet you won 5-0, what happened during this match?

Hi Thib. Thanks again for your kind invitation. Xiao is definitely one of the strongest Go players on FICGS, and I was really, really lucky to have won all five games. In fact, I was behind in three of them until Xiao made some mistakes late in the games: in game 69092, I forced a tough ko fight which jeopardized my lower group. Xiao made a mistake at P2 as he missed my T3 could force another ko. Game 69093 was very close towards the end but I think the move at C13 caused him the game. Game 69096 was even closer that I won by half a point thanks to the big 7.5 komi. The other two games were not easy either and I am glad I could have hung on to the lead. Overall I really enjoyed our match and I would love to have a rematch with Xiao in the future.

- You're from Taiwan, could you tell us a bit more about you? At what age did you learn Go? Do you have any other ranks (e.g. at other sites)?

I learned Go when I was 5 and I have always enjoyed playing all my life. I used to play on servers like KGS and Tygem and I was around 6-7 dan on these sites. Recently I don't have that much time to play so that's why turned to turn-based server like FICGS.

- What do you think about the world of Go these days? Who is the very best player in the world according to you?

I think the past two years were the "warring period" in the world of Go. I would say Lee Sedol was the best player two years ago, but he seems to have lost his dominant position recently. There are many rising stars that are winning the world champions. I am especially keeping an eye on Yuta Iyama, who I think is No. 1 in Japan and has started to threaten the dominance of Chinese and Korean players.

- What about computer Go and its future? How many years do you give to the human before losing to the machine?

As a software engineer I foresee the computer Go beats the world's No. 1 player in two decades. Crazy Stone already beat Yoshio Ishida with four handicap stones earlier this year, and I believe it wouldn't take long for computers to beat pros in two handicap stones. The real challenge will come when computers need to go from handicap games to even games since they need to advance from defensive mode to attack mode. I am really excited to see how Artificial Intelligence can surprise us with its "creative" moves when the time comes.

- Do you use engines or databases? What advice would you give to beginners (and to your future challengers :))?

I know there are many useful Go engines and databases that are being developed these days, unfortunately I don't really know much about them. I do use http://ps.waltheri.net/ if I need to look something up, and I go to http://tom.com for commented games (they're in Chinese, nonetheless). Advice to beginners: just go to any search engine and you can easily find all the free resources you want. Advice to my future challengers: just try the new variations since I know none of them :)

- What new features would you like to see at FICGS?

Firstly I'd like to thank Thib for maintaining such a wonderful site. I enjoy playing Go and Poker here and maybe I'll start playing Chess sometime (I really suck so I'm not ready to embarrass myself yet). The ability to play different games is what makes FICGS unique. As Thib mentioned earlier, we need much more players, and I think FICGS simply needs to host much more tournaments, probably some with shorter time settings. With more games and more player engagement, more people will stick around. Another feature I'd really like to see is FICGS client for cellphones/tablets. The main advantage of turn-based servers is that it allows people to play wherever for whatever period of time: a 1-min ride in the elevator, a 10-min wait at the bus stop, or a couple of hours at home. If playing on FICGS is made easier, I know I will be more addicted to it :)

- Thank you very much and good luck in the next final match...

Thanks! And please go easy on our Poker match...

Attila Ba    (2013-07-18 10:12:31)
Looking for big chess partners

Looking for big chess partners

I like very much the idea presented by this site of chess played on a bigger than normal board. Since Chess960 destroys theory but does not destroy engines (playing Chess960 for an engine is easy as pie) the only anti-engine way is to go for bigger board sizes. In this way you can measure your true correspondence chess skills independent of engines (on one hand no professional would go and write an engine for a game that is played by very few, on the other hand the number of possibilities soon grow out of hand on bigger boards making the tree search very difficult).

Out of my 18 big chess games on this site I have won 17 and lost 1 making it my most succesful type of game here. But with low player turnouts I simply can't get a tournament running (for half a year or so).

In order to have the possibility to play I have created a site solely for the purpose of playing rated big chess games on a single game basis with wide choice of timers and board sizes.

If anyone is interested please come to baatti.com and let's play big chess.

Scott Nichols    (2013-08-02 20:54:08)
Next WCH Stage start

That's fine Thib, I entered late. Please take my name off the list so I don't have to worry about it.

On another subject, but still Wch. I saw in the round robin final that Kamesh was entered. I don't think he has played a game on here in about 2 years. He made it clear to all of us that he was quitting online chess because of his 2 new kids. My point is this, the final RR just takes too long to reach. My suggestion: Have a single qualifying swiss tournament. The top eight players then can have a final RR to determine the winner. Have an entry fee, this will eliminate Most of the looky-loos and forfeits. I think quality, not quantity is more important.

Peter Unger    (2013-08-12 18:49:37)
tournament finished but no leader

FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_03__000010 is finished but there is no leader. Why?
Will be a stage 3 tournament?

Rolf Staggat    (2013-08-13 15:11:11)
tournament finished but no leader

Thibault trägt die Sieger manuell ein. Er kann halt nicht ständig alle Gruppen im Blick haben.
Wait a minute !

Peter Unger    (2013-08-15 18:31:23)
tournament finished but no leader

thx! Rolf

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-09-02 00:33:42)
tournament finished but no leader

It should be ok now, sorry for the delay!

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-09-04 00:43:00)
New my games feature requested

Kind of vacation, sorry :)

Just read the whole discussion (at last)... Currently, the name of the tournament appears by leaving the mouse on a game in the list. I'm not sure which choice is best, as for me I prefer to have more games available on my screen but an option may be ok I guess.

Please be patient, I should be back to code in a few weeks.

Wayne Lowrance    (2013-09-25 07:18:15)
My tournament activity

PS please remove me from all aactivity. TKU Wayne

Alvin Alcala    (2013-09-25 12:40:11)
My tournament activity

Its ok Wayne, please keep in touch in any case :)

Scott Nichols    (2013-10-08 16:52:38)
Best Freestyle Site

This site is still IMHO the best site for Freestyle. The interface is easy to understand and everything is clear, that's important to any site.

That's why I don't understand why the traffic has dwindled so. I'm sure we could come up with something to increase the Freestyle on here.

I'll start with my idea, :) Have a monthly Freestyle OPEN tournament. The only requirent is a 2 E-point entry fee. The winner gets 90%, FICGS gets 10%. The time controls would have to be bullet, 5 min with 15 second increment. If 8 players or less, it could be a round robin. 9 players or more, even up to a hundred!, would play a swiss style. Make it unrated so anybody could join. Have it on the first Sat. of the month. It would have to start at least by 1800 server time to get all the rounds in in ONE DAY.

Peter W. Anderson    (2013-10-13 13:37:38)
Communism

And when the right leader dies or is plotted against?

The problem is that you are left with a structure that is horribly open to abuse and history has shown that the abuse happens, e.g. under Lenin is was about OK, under Stalin it was a nightmare.

The ideals behind communism are good and all the problems pointed out with capitalism in Das Kapital are fair and as valid today as when it was written. Its just that in practice communism hasn't worked and I doubt it ever will.

Nonethless, Das Kapital is an excellent read for anyone with an even vaguely open mind and does show that we need a diffrent direction than we have today in the west.

Jonathan Gresham    (2013-10-19 01:20:35)
Communism

I cannot go to North Korea because it is difficult to get inside. However, I might move to China or Cuba when I get the chance. I should make it a thing to learn Chinese as well. :) Have a nice day!

Garvin Gray    (2013-12-05 01:44:30)
WBCCC 2014 Entries Open

Entries for WBCCC 2014 are now open at www.rybkaforum.net.

For those not aware of our event, quite a few of the players here can speak about their experiences in the event, but as organiser I can say that many of the regular players have gotten a lot out of their participation, have improved their play and a lot has been learnt about freestyle correspondence chess in the three years that this event has been running.

Prize money is offered, but how much is determined by players and others willingness to sponsor.

Feel free to contact me by replying to this message, sending me a pm at rybka forum or private message here. A private message here is the least reliable.

Full tournament rules:

1) Tournament will be single round robin, meaning every person will play each other once.
2) A players seed position will be determined by their order of entry. The earlier you enter, the higher your number. The first person to enter will receive number 1. The seed position determines which number a player is in the round robin.
3) Entries open December 1 2013
4) Entries close January 6 2014
5) Play begins January 13 2014
6) Each round will be paired at the start of the event, with the pairings for the entire year published at the start.
7) Each round will have a maximum of four games, most likely two games (just like 2011, 2012 and 2013). The number of games will always be kept to a bare minimum
8) There will be a maximum of six paired rounds.
9) The minimum time control will be 30 days plus 1 hour per move. If the number of games per round needs to increase from 2 to 3 or 4, the time control will be lengthened. For instance, if we have 21 players, so needing 4 games per round to keep the number of games even and use five rounds, instead of the six rounds in 2013.
9) Pairings for future rounds are subject to change due to withdrawal of players and unforeseen circumstances.
10) If a player withdraws, or their games time out without an explanation that is accepted by the arbiter, all their games will be removed from the event. In effect they are no longer a participant in the event and no effect on the final placings.
11) There will be an official entry form that all players will be required to fill out before their entry will be accepted. This is so in case of emergency the organisers have a method of contact outside of Rybka Forum. It will include also include a person other than yourself to contact. Whilst I understand this might seem unnecessary to some, I do hope that events from 2013 (death of Salvador Signes and our inability to get in contact with the family) do show the need for better communication methods.

12) Xfccplay- Xfccplay is the official software provided for WBCCC 2014. Xfccplay is provided for the free use for participants whilst in the event. A user name and password will be provided once registered. Also download instructions will be provided by private message and these must be followed to install the program. The program is provided by chessok and is not to be passed on to anyone and is provided for the sole use of playing in WBCCC. All moves, draw offers etc in WBCCC 2014 must be played on this software.

13) New entrants will be required to play a couple of test games on xfccplay before entries close so that the arbiter is certain that all players are familiar with the software and its features. The organisers do not want to see players withdrawing after the event has begun because they find that they are unfamiliar with the software and get upset because their clock is running. Entries are open from December 1 to January 6. That is over a month to become familiar with the software. The organisers will not accept entries from players who have not tested the software.

Garvin Gray    (2013-12-14 00:00:49)
WBCCC 2014 Entries Open

Just wanted to make that clear, since the original posting did not generate a tsunami of interest, I thought a change of approach was required.

By the way Thib. Answer your emails will ya.

Garvin Gray    (2013-12-20 15:18:41)
WBCCC 2014 Entries Open

Entries are now at seventeen. More ficgs players wanted. If you know someone from another site who might be interested, please contact me.

1. Garvin GRAY GARVIN GRAY
2. Om PRAKASH MASTER OM
3. Scott NICHOLS SCOTT
4. George CLEMENT KEOKI010
5. Nikolaos SARAKENIDIS TRANDISM
6. Djordje KASABASIC ARMAGEDDON
7. Paul WATSON NATIONAL12
8. Matt O'BRIEN SCHACHMATT
9. Carlo ALTIERI ITACA2
10. Mark ELDRIDGE MARK ELDRIDGE
11. David EVANS DAVID EVANS
12. Neel BASANT NEELBASANT
13. Timothy COOKSON WEIRWINDLE
14. Ruben COMES RUBEN COMES
15. Erik VAREND DEKA
16. Jose SANZ PPIPPER
17. Michael GLATTHAAR DONKASAND

Garvin Gray    (2013-12-24 07:24:52)
Withdrawal from all standard time events

The issue is not with the amount of time taken when players use a few days per each move, say 3 days on one move, 4 days on the next, 2 days on another and so forth, throughout the 10 moves for 40 days and so arrive at the end of the 10 moves with about 5 days to spare (playing it safe). That is how the time control is 'meant' to work.

No, my issue is with players who completely waste my time with behaviour that shows that they are able to move faster and can do so, but believe that is ok not to do so.

Most of us know exactly who they are and would have no problem naming them. If I had the option not to play them again, I would be comfortable doing so.

This is how they 'game' the time control. At the start of the game, they will make their first few moves in the first few days, leaving 35 or so days for 5 moves, then you will not see them for another 30 days, then they come back and make another 5 moves in 5 days (making the time control).

Then you do not see them again for another 30 days, except for maybe one or two moves, then they make 10 moves in less than 10 days (making the time control again).

And they keep repeating this behaviour for the whole game. Time period after time period.

In my period, this wastes 30 days per cycle of my life and I do hold Thibault partly responsible for it. He designs a time control that allows it to happen.

At least with the rapid time control, players who do this eventually end up having to make one move per day for the rest of the game, so they run the risk of running out of time. They show poor time management and get punished for it.

There is a simple way to stop this behaviour, change the time control.

Garvin Gray    (2013-12-24 11:01:28)
Withdrawal from all standard time events

Josef: I would prefer not to talk much about unrated events. In terms of priorities for players, unrated events will always be last. So they will be shuffled to the end.

So time priorities for unrated games can always be excused as they are given the least amount of time after, in rough order of importance:

WCH games
Divisions where you have a chance of a norm
Divisions where you have a chance of winning, so win a prize
Division where you can gain points.
Games where you are doing well, which is a vague criteria.
And then everything after that.

As a key supporter and one of the original creator of the standard open events, I would like to see those change to rapid time control from now on. Most of the players in those divisions rarely would need all the time that is offered.

It would also mean more cycles could move quicker.

Peter W. Anderson    (2013-12-26 11:55:26)
FICGS World Chess Championship results

I thought it would be a good idea to have a record of the FICGS world chess championship results somewhere in an easily digested form. So I have compiled them and published them on a blog.

I have done this mainly for people who are already members here but also wrote an introduction to FICGS for those who may not be familiar with it. Who knows, it might leads to some new members :)

You can see the article here
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4640212584288527521#editor/target=post;postID=4543488454188377326;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=0;src=postname

The link to the championship results is at the bottom. I hope someone finds it interesting. I have beeen quite careful in compiling it but I expect there may be a few small errors in it. Please let me know if there are and I will make the necessary corrections.

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-12-29 18:12:25)
Ficgs World Championship 13

March 1st, 2014... 8 months after the previous one, as usual.

I understand that starting all new rounds at the same time is quite heavy but at least it is clear, including for me :)

Anyway, let's gather a few opinions on this to discuss it further.

Garvin Gray    (2013-12-29 23:37:42)
Ficgs World Championship 13

Just because it is clear, does not mean it is best. As you quite often have said. This event is meant to be about finding the best player, hence quite a few of the rules which I do not agree with, but that is your justification.

So if that is the justification, then starting so many games at the same time can not help the standard of play and then hence can not help in getting through as many of the best players as possible.

Garvin Gray    (2013-12-31 15:46:09)
Withdrawal from all standard time events

Coasantino: As I commented earlier, the rapids are not too bad. At least a player will eventually end up with 1 day per move only and so may time out. But then we get into the situation of them 'gaming' their vacation and the discussions once again around that.

It is solely to do with the standard time control.

I think the standard time control should be:

20 moves in 40 days, followed by 10 moves in 40 days, followed by 10 moves in 40 days and then 15 days plus 1 day per move from move 41.

Garvin Gray    (2014-02-03 02:10:36)
Standard time control abusers

Suffering again with two players abusing the time control.

Sick of this site with an administrator who will not doing anything about it when he has the ability to do so. I believe it is time to start naming and shaming these people and will start to do so in the next post after replies from others. I really do not care anymore, it is time this issue is exposed for the disgrace it is. Perhaps by exposing them, they will be gotten rid of. They hide under the cover of anonymity.

I am strongly considering resigning both games, telling Thibault what he can do with his site and leaving. I have had a F****** gutful of these actions and having months of my life wasted.

Mladen Jankovic    (2014-02-14 22:18:12)
Also, other problems

At least the link is back on wikipedia corresponcence chess article, for starters, it may have been impacted by a study on external links deletion.

Another problem is that ratings appear to be negative sum, and will tend to go down accross the site. For example, I recently beat an opponent that has a rating higher than mine by almost 200, and he resigned on the tenth move, and I get *no* rating change, while he takes a loss in rating.

Garvin Gray    (2014-02-15 08:59:20)
Standard time control abusers

Ok, I have long had enough of this and since Thib believes that everything is a ok, it is time to start naming the abusers and their actions. Perhaps that will force Thib to start taking action against these people, because I, for at least one player, have had a bloody gutful of this player wasting my life.

The player concerned is: Mariusz Maciej Broniek and the game in question is: https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=71232

He has repeatedly made all his moves in the last 5 days of the time control, then let his time run down to the 5 days and then made another 10 moves and rinse-repeat and will do it again.

Mariusz is clearly able to move faster, but is deciding to 'game' the time control in an attempt to either annoy the S*** out of me, or hope that I will resign.

The significance of this game is that whoever wins, wins the tourney and all the e points, totalling 48 e points. I am +10 ahead and it is time Thibault stepped in and put a stop to this behaviour.

Either Thibault applies the 'bringing the game into disrepute rule' against players like this, by firstly giving a warning and then declaring the game lost, or Thibault makes it clear he stands on the side of those who seek to abuse and 'game' the time control and does not give a stuff about the lives of the members who they continue to stuff over.

Garvin Gray    (2014-02-25 11:36:55)
Standard time control abusers

Broniek is now down to seven days in my game against him and has 9 moves to make. I have no doubt that he will make the time control, then will sit on the game for another 35 days.

Thanks Thibault for wasting my life like this.

You have a choice, you can either be on the side of the abusers or the victims. It is clear which side you are choosing. At the clear cost of the site.

I know why most people are not commenting and this because they are scared to offend you, even though they hate behaviour like this. Instead they just do not participate in the events.

I have noticed that no one is promoting ficgs anymore. Perhaps it is because the members have grown tired of seeing a site admin allowing members to act in manners like this and not being held to account for it.

Thibault de Vassal    (2014-02-26 15:17:40)
Standard time control abusers

Garvin, please tell me what do other sites like ICCF or any other in such cases?

Garvin Gray    (2014-02-28 17:15:22)
Standard time control abusers

ICCF code of conduct 2: Extremely slow play in a clearly lost position is not proper behaviour in CC play, and is subject to a warning from the TD, and will result in disciplinary action if it continuous or is repeated in other games

Playing Rules- Server

3) Failure to Reply- a. The ICCF Webserver system will automatically generate an Email reminder when a player has not
made a move for 14 days and another, after 28 generated after 35 days of silence by a player.
b. When a player is sent a final reminder after 35 days of response time, he/she must either move or report to the Tournament Director and to his/her opponent, the intention to continue the game, within 5 days of that
reminder. If a player does not move or otherwise report his/her intention to continue, during the 40 days of response
time for the same move, the game may be scored as lost by the Tournament Director.

My own words- The number of days set above are based on 10 moves in 50 days, so for our site we would use a much shorter time period.

I can not answer what happens in practice on iccf as I do not play there.

Thibault de Vassal    (2014-02-28 23:58:27)
Standard time control abusers

We also have here a rule for clearly lost positions but in all cases this is subjective, we should compare many judged positions. As for the Server rule, it is just similar to the 60 days move rule... Finally what ICCF TDs can do if a player makes one move every 25 days in a not "clearly lost" position until approching the time limit? Changing rules will not change anything IMO, there is no way to prevent someone to turn around clear rules to last a game.

Garvin Gray    (2014-03-01 03:29:31)
Standard time control abusers

And once again your response is to sit on your hands and do nothing. That is your clear response all the time to this major issue.

You ask for solutions, some of us attempt to offer solutions, you reject them. You ask for other sites rules, we offer them, you reject them saying they won't work. It is clear that you have no intention of doing anything about this and that you really believe that allowing my life to be wasted is acceptable, well I don't and I am sure the others who are trapped in this same situation do not.

I really do not understand how you can think it is acceptable to allow your members to have their lives wasted by players who are clearly just acting out of spite?

Your actions are really against the best interests of this site. I know as the site administrator that is a big call, but I really do feel it is the right call to make.

When you side with the abusers and not the victims, that is what happens.

Garvin Gray    (2014-03-01 03:30:21)
Standard time control abusers

You do have a simple solution, btw. Get rid of the standard time control events and just concentrate from now on with rapid time control.

At least events will get started.

Thibault de Vassal    (2014-03-01 23:51:05)
Standard time control abusers

Here is a proposal... I'll post a new topic asking who is favourable to close the class A, class M & class SM tournaments, promoting regularly this new topic in the chat bar.

Then let's wait 7 days exactly. If there are more players wanting to close (temporarily, at least) these waiting lists, then it will be done.

Does it sound acceptable to you?

Garvin Gray    (2014-03-02 04:03:47)
Standard time control abusers

I see the idea of a vote as ridiculous and a waste of time. What it could lead to is people voting to keep the class A, M and SM tournaments open because they do not want to deprive the opportunity of someone to play in them, but the status quo remains that no one is joining them.

And what happens if you only get a couple of responses, which is exactly what could happen because of general site apathy?

If you want knowledge of how people feel about these matters, but do not want to publicly speak about the matter because they are afraid to offend the site administrator because they are afraid.

I have given you the absolute 'rounds of the kitchen' repeatedly and often on this issue and have not let up over a number of weeks.

It is natural on the internet that when someone is pushing that hard against the efforts of a volunteer site admin that there will be blowback and the 'pusher (me)' will cop criticism in return.

So far there has been little to none. In fact some of the regulars have been stating that there is an issue as well.

Instead of calling for votes that could just leave all of us in the same ridiculous situation, take the feedback I have provided, and also the inactivity of the groups as the votes that really count ie the marketplace has decided that they do not want those groups, and close the class SM, class M and class A groups immediately.

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2014-03-03 18:14:56)
Standard time control abusers

Why do you think that a serious player would join FICGS if he cannot play serious correspondence games here? He hasn't done it during the last two years, so he will not do it after this restriction of tournament structure.

IMO time control 30/+1 is only suitable for correspondence cafe chess games. It's enough time for poker games, maybe even go games, but chess? That's enough in no case, if you have to work or want to play on others sides too.

I don't play normal chess on this side because the class tournaments are not attractive enough. At least I should climb the next class level if I win a tournament. With this ELO-driven classification that is not the case. And in the WCH there is not enough time to play a serious game. Furthermore, I don't like the preferential treatment (own groups) for the "better" players. I think that many players feel the same way.

By the way I think it's terrible that chess players are condemned here because they spent their time (or vacation) as they need it. According to the rules that is their right.

Thibault de Vassal    (2014-03-03 23:41:34)
Standard time control abusers

At least you join Garvin on the WCH groups point (and consequently the Cup idea)...

Anyway, as there are very few new strong chess players yet, this is a quite good time to try this change. Let's see in a few weeks/months if it has first effects.

Jing Huang    (2014-03-04 00:14:15)
Standard time control abusers

I agree with this - "I don't play normal chess on this side because the class tournaments are not attractive enough. At least I should climb the next class level if I win a tournament. With this ELO-driven classification that is not the case."

I also like the cup idea :)

Garvin Gray    (2014-03-04 01:15:06)
Standard time control abusers

FWIW, seems like at least one person thinks I 'got my way'. This is incorrect, I did not 'get my way'.

I wanted Thibault to take action against standard time control abusers, which he has not done.

Btw, in one of my games I am now on move 70 and have mate 13 and I think my opponent is going to make another move and then try and sit on the position for another 35 days.

Will Thibault step in then?

The closing of the three standard class divisions was a response to this issue and the fact that they have not started for a long time and that something needed to be done.

It is only after a decision had been made one way or another that some comments have started to come. I gave, some days, between replies, for others to comment, so others had an opportunity to cast their opinion, disagree, give alternative opinion and also to add new rules if they wish.

Then as nothing was happening with the discussions and my opponents were continuing with their actions, the need become more pressing. I have never said for a second that there is anything wrong at all with a person who moves at a rate of one move every five days.

It is with players who are so arrogant they believe it is their right to waste their opponents lives when they clearly can play at a faster rate. If they can not move at a faster rate, how come they can make 9 moves in 3 days, then not move for 35 days?

A person who is legitimately time poor will make one move every few days to make the time control.

Don Groves    (2014-03-09 22:31:46)
Standard time control abusers

Perhaps the best solution is to require every player to make at least one move in every game during a 10 day period. Unless on vacation, I cannot imagine a serious player could not do this. When I play, I never wait longer than about 3 days in any game.

Thibault de Vassal    (2014-03-12 13:44:36)
Standard time control abusers

Even a 10 days limit per move would not solve the DMD problem... And we had debates on the number of tournaments each player can enter, such a (big) change would not satisfy everyone (for the least, I think).

Thibault de Vassal    (2014-03-18 22:32:05)
Bug? Mate but game not finished

What game please?

Alvin Alcala    (2014-04-11 16:26:41)
Alvin Alcala in Freestyle Battle 2014

I had my chance on the penultimate (round 28). Anson was leading by 1/2 point, however, he managed to win his game while my game was a draw thus at the end of the tour he was 1 point ahead of me.

Timofey Denisov    (2014-04-21 18:36:30)
Standard time control abusers

Michael Sayers, if you can play so fast every move, I can't play so fast. So if will be only these time controls, I will leave from this server. I want play in correspondence chess, not blitz chess.

David Fierry Fraillon    (2014-04-23 09:09:36)
Standard time control abusers

Hi all,
I am suffering a player abusing of time control ... he has waiting for 29 days for playing one move and then alternating one move / one day of vacation.
I read all comments on this post and i do agree with both of you (Garvin and Thibault) on main points.
Basically thibault you're wright but maybe you will reconsider your position by looking at it with new eyes :
- In the current WCH at least 6 players are using this ''technic'' : the Pech family (Stepan, Matej, Jaroslav and Jarsolav senior), Pechova and Mach
- They all coming from Czech Republic

So what i think : it is only one player (and i am sure you can check that with IP connection). That player is not interrested in winning elo and is stupid by using the same country.
It is not a person interested by chess it is only someone who want bad on FICGS : and that the point you can use for banning him.

Obviously, I am not sure of what i wrote and in theory i do not agree with writing names of the guilty ... but in that case i think you should consider that guy like a hacker and not like a chess player using a stupid technic for winning elo.

Jing Huang    (2014-05-25 11:44:03)
Class A, class M & class SM closed

To attract the new players, I have some suggestions:
(1) A league format might be interesting. (e.g. littlegolem)
(2) The way of displaying the tournament results matters a lot. You can try something different and see the effects:)

Garvin Gray    (2014-06-01 14:57:20)
Class A, class M & class SM closed

I agree with both of these points.

Point number 1 has been thrashed around a lot.

Point number 2 needs to be embraced. Currently the site really does feel like just one game to the next. It is very difficult to work out how each game fits in to the grand scheme of things.

As Thib has just had to point out to Neel, next stage starts Nov 1. This should all be displayed clearly as part of the wch section on the left hand side.

Perhaps what is required is a full site overhaul to change the layout so the tournament results can be displayed more clearly.

Thibault de Vassal    (2014-07-11 01:06:42)
Call referee button, response time

30 days was chosen because it was the initial number of vacation days (as far as I remember). What if a player takes successive days of vacation? What if a player cannot play during this short period? We had many discussions that concluded into the idea that the human (referee) factor should be reduced at minimum. This clearly goes the other way.

Peter W. Anderson    (2014-07-13 10:54:56)
FICGS WCh results summary updated

I have given the question of the format of the WCh matches a lot of thought.

There is no doubt that having the advantage of the draw is a huge advantage at correspondence chess, much more so than at normal chess, simply because the draw rate is so high amongst strong correpondence players.

However, there are disadvantages to other formats. It is true that a tournament final gives a better chance of having a new champion. But the outcome is dependent upon the results of players who are not necesarrily fighting hard for the prize (perhaps they have an early loss, perhaps other parts of their lives become too busy). You might hope that in the final this would not happen, but if you look closely at the games in the round robin finals you will see some strange results, clearly drawn games being lost etc. If it can happen in the round robin final it could happen in a championship final.

Having more games in the final is a very logical option. However, as Thib has pointed out, this will create a big workload. It would make it almost impossible for a serious challenger to enter consecutive championships without having to withdraw from later ones if they reached the final (this is already very difficult witouht more games!).

Another option would be an advanced chess play-off. I would be concerned that this would be too dependant on who had the biggest hardware with less chance for human skill.

Finally, there is the chance to decide a tied match with a toss of a coin. Not a great way of picking a champion.

This problem is not so much an issue with the format as with the game itself - chess is almost certainly drawn with sensible play and as engines get stronger it is going to become harder and harder to win games.

All in all, I think the current format is very reasonable, perhaps the best.

One final observation re Neel's comment that a top player can draw a game if he wants. Perhaps, and if this is 100% true then the draw problem is realy severe. However, I am a little more hopeful. Eros Riccio sometimes beats even very strong players playing the same openings he plays - it is not as if the openings he plays are guaranteed draws in practice. He finds ways of putting them under pressure and sometimes they make a mistake. Perhaps eventually he will do so too (we may have to wait for him to get old!). Or to put another way, chess is almost certainly drawn but it is not an easy draw even at correspondence if white plays really well!

Garvin Gray    (2014-08-26 14:13:03)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

Nick: I have been reading the rules. Can you please point out the rule, as I have been reading the rules and I do not see where either version is mentioned?

Don Groves    (2014-08-27 13:18:01)
Standard time control abusers

This is true, Timofey. Thibault has no control over how many games are played on other servers, but he can control how many can be played on this server by known slow players. Reducing those games on this server may not eliminate the problem but it clearly could help.

Garvin Gray    (2014-08-28 12:50:46)
Standard time control abusers

Alexis Alban: I dont you have read the whole thread and the comments from other posters who have talked about the habits of other players.

There is even a term for this behaviour. It is called DMD- dead mans defense.

And it is described very well.

They sit on their games for 35 days, make no moves, then suddenly are able to make 9 moves in 5 days, then make no more moves for 35 days and then make another 9 moves in 35 days and then it is rinse and repeat, time control and time control.

Meanwhile this is being done in positions where they are in dead lost positions ie mate in 30. They idea is solely to just piss off their opponents, nothing more.

So please do not just try and make this about one player. Standard time control abusers are a cancer on this and other corro chess sites and they should be gotten rid of as fast as possible.

They spread misery and suffering everywhere they go and the only person that really suffers is the opponent, who has to wait and wait for the games to finish, whilst the site admin sits back, does nothing and is just as guilty and the person doing the action.

At the end of the day, the person in charge who sits back and does nothing when they know of poor conduct under their watch is taking place is just as guilty, if not more so, than the original offender. This is because they create the culture that says it is permissable and says to everyone else that this behaviour is tolerated and the site is not to be taken seriously.

Thibault de Vassal    (2014-08-30 22:44:50)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

I have to specify here that the rule mentioned is absolutely not about rating manipulation (by the way, there is already another rule for this), it is about money prize in 2 players matches only, maybe with 3+ players in unlikely cases! It was added when a player got a money prize after getting a few free Epoints and without playing any move... Of course, that was not acceptable (the prize was paid though, following the rules) as games recorded -especially silver/gold tournaments- should be worth to watch. So these are the reasons for this rule: To avoid empty games, to punish the player who didn't play (by taking Epoints, which is a obviously strong act in this particular case) and to redistribute Epoints to players who deserve it. Just like the rating rule, why a player should get a money prize by winning games without fighting?

I don't think that suspension or banning is necessary here (it would be really hard according to me, anyone can have good reasons for a long absence, but I'll consider this option if many players complains on this point).

To answer the last point, I don't and I cannot know if Nick entered this match believing that David would not play and I don't think that should be the point. As always, we need undisputable rules, as fair as possible, and I do think this one is a good one.

One important thing: The site does not make 53 Euro from this match, at most the site makes Epoints (on the other hand, most are offered by the site, by far). That makes a big difference!

Finally, if I understand Nick's point well, the way to understand "if a participant obviously lost quickly one or several games only to allow his opponent to get the money prize" may be ambiguous so it could be not possible to make the decision (who can know if David really wanted to play these games, wanted that Nick or anyone else get the prize?). So I probably should make it more clear to avoid such situation - even if I doubt that players realize about this rule before entering a silver tournament.

Garvin Gray    (2014-08-31 10:53:40)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

From what I have read here from your response Thibault- I see no grounds AT ALL to not pay the prize.

The rating rule is there for the best interest of the site, because ratings are meant to be the way we all judge what standard of play we are and what divisions we can enter.

So comparing a rating argument with this argument is drawing a rather long bow indeed.

Just like the rating rule, why a player should get a money prize by winning games without fighting?

Already answered about ratings. About winning games without fighting (or playing), Nick entered under the conditions believing the match would take place.

If he entered the match believing it to not take place and David did play, then Nick has taken a risk that has backfired.

The point is that it is not Nick's fault the match did not take place. From my reading of the rules, there is nothing clear that says you can not pay out the prize.

Remember, you are making an absolute ruling here that applies FOREVER. This means that in effect you have taken 100 epoints at least out of Nick's account, his original stake, for just entering a match.

I would ask as site admin. Why would ANY player on this site want to support paid matches after this event and circumstances?

When the site admin can in effect, I was not happy with your match conditions that it was played under, I don't really have anything to point towards, but I did keep your cash anyways.

I for one will not be supporting any matches or tournaments from now on whilst this practice remains in place. I do not want to enter a match, have it not take place and then the site admin say, tough luck, not your fault the match did not take place, but I am keeping your cash.

The more I look at this and type, I am finding it hard to not say that Nick Burrows has been robbed of his cash. These events are real.

Thibault de Vassal    (2014-08-31 13:13:23)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

Garvin, If I follow your thinking, there is no reason why Nick shouldn't get the rating points as well, for the exact same reasons.

Please note that I did not take Nick's original stake from his account, he keeps all his Epoints involved in the match, just like if the match did not happen. Maybe there was confusion there. Only David's Epoints are in question (as specified in the rule). I hope this answers the 2nd question and rest of the message.

Thibault de Vassal    (2014-08-31 20:50:58)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

That's wrong, it is specified in the My account page (within days):

"Please send us a message through the form below after any payment on FICGS account, mentioning your name, address, country, account (email) at Moneybookers, the number of tickets you bought and the amount transfered. Your account in E-Points at FICGS will be updated within days."

Anyway, definitely I do not have to know that you bought it for this specific match or to act according to this view.

On the casino-like point, I invite you to contact the french government like I did, they will explain you why it is either the same or different in so many ways that it is impossible to know for sure at the end. At least I'm sure that the part of random is not the same in poker than in chess and that I have no right to act like a casino: all prizes must be related to tournaments, there's no possible "cash out" there.

Thibault de Vassal    (2014-08-31 23:23:24)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

That's true, it doesn't mean it but please allow me to think it's fair enough though. At least, it seems to me that's very subjective.

Finally, I'm sorry for your disapointment but whatever the rules (that are now updated and I do think that the past & current version are fair), this is the only way to build something.

Dominique Geffroy    (2014-09-03 22:09:00)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

I will jump in, even though I have no affiliation with either party, and do not even know FICGS that well, having played only a handful of games here. But my background is finance, and I have decent training on fight against financial crime. What Thibault is trying to say, if I understand correctly, is that his business is running under some legal constraints, and in particular, I guess he has to prove to the regulator that in no way may his operation be used as a money laundering scheme by organized crime.

This is why the business would never be allowed to turn epoints into cash, except when there has been a real *unpredictable event*, i.e. a real game, a real tournament, which triggered such cash payment.

The reason behind this is that as soon as you have a failproof, 100% safe way of turning money into goods and back into money, there is room for money laundering activities on the back of such practice. The money becomes clean, because it acquires an identified source: FICGS in this instance. Even with a 25% cut, that is something very interesting for organised crime: cleaning the money has a price. By imposing that un *unpredictable event* happens, this opportunity taken away from would be abusers.

I understand your frustration, but once again, as an outsider with no stake whatsoever in this, I am pretty sure that if Thibault were allowed to do differently in this instance, he would.

Dominique Geffroy    (2014-09-04 21:58:31)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

1. I guess he obeys laws imposed on him without delving into the whys and hows of why they exist...

2. Well, the message I was trying to convey is that in the eye of the authorities and the regulator, a conversion of epoints to money triggered by a game which looks fixed is an open door to money laundering, and therefore ruled out. Regulator says: no risk, no money. If there was no move on the opponent's side, the regulator says there was no risk.

I nevertheless have to agree with you, as anyone with common sense would, that it is very convoluted and unfair, because you are obviously not a money launderer and you would deserve your reward. Such server rule therefore probably needs to be put forward much more clearly by the organisers, who have in my opinion absolutely no leeway in this respect (This forum post will probably useful for that).

So maybe there is greed, maybe you are right. I do not know this person and will neither launch an attack on his personal character, nor try a defense. But all I can say is that even if he was a benevolent benefactor of humanity, he would risk prison if he converted epoints to money following a not contested game.

Dura lex, sed lex.

Thibault de Vassal    (2014-10-02 23:01:55)
Eros Riccio makes a record at ICCF

GM Eros Riccio has now played 408 rated games at ICCF, since 2001. This is the highest number for the top 25 (at least) and this is a huge performance due to his rating and numerous games at other servers (including 212 games at FICGS). Just amazing!

https://www.iccf.com/RatingList.aspx

Thibault de Vassal    (2014-10-27 20:44:31)
Tournaments rating ranges

Hello all,

As you may know, certain top tournaments are really too long to start... After a long wait, I finally decided to test this new rule:

12. Tournament rules

(...) Please note that the referee may change the rating ranges if a tournament takes too much time to start (such cases are quite rare).

As an example, for the tournament chess class SM, I just changed the low rating limit to 2300 only to find the 7th player. The rating limit will return to 2400 after that. This is not a good thing according to me but it may be the "less worst"... To be continued.

Feel free to tell what you think about this.

Thibault de Vassal    (2014-11-05 23:00:39)
July 1 2014 Fide laws of chess

We already envisage this option, but a cycle would be too long and even worst it would delay next final by 6 months more at least (each round must be 8 months long) and it would be the same for each next final match.

Thibault de Vassal    (2014-12-01 01:20:17)
Magnus Carlsen beats V. Anand again

Any thoughts on the recent FIDE world championship final match?

Magnus Carlsen beats Viswanathan Anand with 2 points more before the last game, but a few games were not so clear...

Alex Getman    (2015-01-05 07:29:02)
Business Idea - Chess education

Let us introduce you our small idea of chess education web-site

Interactivity at this level is an untouched niche that will give you
the stable income
and the satisfaction of being relevant to somebody – “the live” work

Details of ideas on a page on LiveJournal >> http://greathumility.livejournal.com/910.html

will hear good criticism with pleasure

To moderator:
am not a spammer but a member of the team, working on the site (the mentioned email is my personal one)
We don’t place full text on your sites,
because it is constantly being improved
So, our request to you is to treat us with understanding, please

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-01-09 20:46:20)
Eros Riccio on his win in 9th chess WCH

Eros Riccio kindly accepted to answer a few questions after his win in the 9th FICGS correspondence chess championship. Once again, his answers are worth to read... including probably a few surprises and valuable informations for most of us!

_____________________________

- Hello again Eros. Congratulations for this new win! So you played Jeroen for the second time in a row, this time in the 12 games format. There were 12 draws but it does not mean a lot. How did things go?

--> Hi Thibault! Nice to answer your questions again :-) I managed to resist again Van Assche's assaults, this time he was well-determined to win, as he made me really suffer in a couple of games. The first game was a semislav, me as Black. He played a rare variation (starting with 14.Be2 followed by 15.Qd3) that was new to me. At first the engines were giving 0.00 evaluations, but after the move 22.Qg3 they started to realize that Black's position was difficult, and they kept increasing their evaluation in White's favor move after move. That was quite a scary thing to see, and I really thought that I could have lost the game. I had to use all the thinking time (leave included) to be able to resist. This new variation impressed me so much that I decided to use it as White myself as a surprise weapon, and in fact it allowed my engine on autoplay on my old I7 980x to win a lot of games as White and a 500 dollars prize getting first place in a strong tournament on Infinity Chess. The second game was a Spanish, me as White. After his 7...0-0 I decided to avoid the Marshall (that would have probably happened if I had played 8.c3) trying the AntiMarshall variation 8.d4. I am now convinced that this variation gives nothing good to White, but I didn't know that yet when I played it! Already after the rare strong move 11...c5! things were starting to get difficult for me. He simply continued with c4 and d5, getting space advantage with his Pawns on the Queenside, while I could find no attack at all on the Kingside. Again I had to be very careful to escape with a draw.

- What can you tell about your other results this year, particularly at ICCF where you're now ranked #9 with an outstanding rating of 2639 ?

--> My ICCF elo in the past few years has raised. Slowly, but it has raised. I had no defeats and a couple of wins in the Olympiads and European team tournaments started in 2012. I am satisfied of that, as winning nowadays in top correspondence tournaments is very difficult. Important is to remain undefeated.

- Last year, you said that you felt like your play was getting weaker each day because your machine was getting older, did you finally upgrade it? But maybe this is a secret...

--> No. As I wrote earlier, I haven't updated my machine. Fortunately cpu's general speed has kept increasing not as quickly as in the past, so my I7 980x can still compete.

- Did your vision of computer chess evolve after these last 18 months? What do you expect for the next years? Do you plan to become a chess cyborg? ^^

--> Fortunately for our hobby, computer chess isn't rushing towards the "all draws" situation that I talked about a couple of years ago. That's because, fortunately, increasing cpu's power and engine's strenght is getting more and more difficult. Yes, some main lines already lead to all draws often, but chess gives so many openings options that to avoid that, you can simply play subvariations. When played a lot, also subvariations will become main variations. Then again, when the draws rate gets too high, you just pick another less played opening. It will take many years to cover every opening to a high draws rate.

- Your next challenger is Peter W. Anderson, who made a convincingly path through the round-robin cycle before to defeat SM Igor Dolgov 5-3 in the 10th candidates final (by the way he's also playing the 11th candidates final). It seems that you never played him before. How do you feel this match? Do you have any words for your opponent before that the games start?

--> I am happy to play a new player! We have just started our match, again, all my first moves as White were 1.e4. What to say... it's up to him to avoid main lines as Black (he already did it answering with 1...g6 in three games) if he wants to try to win with the black pieces. But the real challenge for him of course will be to try to win with the White pieces. It will be interesting to see if he can find holes in my Black repertoire like Van Assche was able to do. Let's wait and see!

Garvin Gray    (2015-01-10 17:24:43)
Class GM 3 and Rapid SM 12 entry rules

Currently I believe there are two players who have been allowed to enter two divisions who under the current rules are actually ineligible and their entries should be withdrawn.

The current rules state:

Tickets for a higher class tournament : However, when you win a rated tournament (only after that you receive an email specifying it or when the tournaments list shows your name as winner or co-winner of the tournament) or if your rating is at most 50 points below the low rating limit of the next class tournament's waiting list, it is now possible to buy a ticket for the next class tournament's waiting list (for example if you win a chess class A tournament, you may ask for a ticket for the next class M tournament) for 10 Epoints if the following conditions are filled : 1) No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise. 2) The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the tournament's waiting list. 3) At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list. 4) Five players at least must have entered the tournament's waiting list already so that you can buy a ticket for this tournament. 5) The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 1 year after the end of the won tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament]. 6) As the price for any ticket is 10 Epoints, the player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.

The key regulation- and I recall this because I had it included for a specific reason- is: 4) Five players at least must have entered the tournament's waiting list already so that you can buy a ticket for this tournament.

The reason for this regulation is that the division is meant for the players of those ratings and it is clear that having to players with ratings significantly lower than the minimum rating will reduce the chances of them entering.

So those using tickets are entered last, in positions 6 and 7, only after it becomes clear that the division can not be filled without them.

So under the published regulations, both players should be removed and put in their correct divisions.

Wilhelm Schuett    (2015-04-13 01:24:39)
Thematic tournaments?

I prefer the triangle setup with the knight on c3: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 . It can lead to noteboom, but offers more choices.

Peter W. Anderson    (2015-06-14 17:52:04)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I recently played in an Infinity Chess freestyle event and was impressed by one of their tiebreak rules. If scores were tied a player got a bonus if he had stalemated an opponent.

I would like to suggest this is adopted in the matches (not tournaments) in the FICGS world championship and that is it the first tiebreak rule applied, i.e before ratings and whether wins or only draws have been played. I would also suggest it is adopted for the title matches too. Perhaps it could be introduced from the 15th cycle onwards or even in existing cycles (11 to 14) where a match has not begun.

This seems a very fair tiebreak rule to me, which would normally reflect who overall played better (came closer to winning) in a drawn match, especially where all games are drawn.

The only disadvantage I can see to this rule is that it would prolong games as some that would currently be agreed drawn would in future be played through to stalemate.

On the other hand it would get us thinking hard about which drawn endgames lead to stalemate and which don't and that in itself is quite interesting.

Peter W. Anderson    (2015-07-02 16:20:58)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Yes, this could be a small but deep change. Perhaps some drawing opening lines would be less attractive because they will lead to stalemate. I see that as a good thing as it will lead to more fighting chess.

As nobody has objected perhaps it should be implemented :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-07-05 14:49:03)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Also, Arno Nickel suggests:

"Therefore, I specifically suggest enhancing the score system to include a ¾ point for a performance with an added value as compared to a regular draw:

a) stalemating the opponent;
b) being a piece up against the naked king."

What about King vs King + 2 Knights?

I'm not sure if this b) point is really "natural" (and clear enough).

Jan Ohlin    (2015-07-05 21:14:44)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I think you overlooking a little that a good defense leading to stalemate means showing great skill. It´s not all about luck...

Peter W. Anderson    (2015-07-09 09:35:12)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I have avoided commenting further on this idea because I wanted to see what other people had to say. But now I will reply to the points made.
“Giving a bonus for stalemate is almost like playing for stalemating your opponent, which is not the aim of the game and this would change the game deeply.”
As I said I am against a points bonus, but am in favour of using stalemates for tie breaks. The real question is would someone start a game aiming for stalemate as opposed to start the game trying to win? I am not sure how you would do that – either way you have to try to build up an advantage and if it gets big enough it will lead to mate and if it is not quite big enough it might lead to stalemate. Anyone who gets the choice between a win and stalemate will presumably always take the win.
The one way I think this will really affect the game is by discouraging some very deeply analysed defences that are known to drawn or close to drawn but will almost certainly lead to stalemate. Personally I think this is a good thing, but I accept that the opposite view could be taken :)

“I think you overlooking a little that a good defense leading to stalemate means showing great skill. It´s not all about luck.”
Reaching stalemate as the defending side can be very simple (e.g. king and pawn vs king) or can indeed show great skill. It is almost never down to luck. In the case where great skill is shown that skill earns you half a point instead of no points. Nonetheless, the very fact that you needed great skill to save the game shows how close you came to losing, so I see no reason not to use this as a tiebreak rule.

“And stalemating gamepoints definitely will favour stupid engine playing and not human thinking with endgame skill”.
Like Pablo, I think quite the opposite is true. In fact one of my motivations for suggesting the change was to increase the human element in the game.

“According to me, stalemating an opponent (or having King + Bishop vs. King) reflects who played better ONLY IF rules say it before the game. In some cases, it actually reflects a better play, but in some others, it only shows that the stalemated player (or naked king) found a clever way to draw the game by giving the opponent the illusion of an advantage. Isn't it quite subjective after all?”
I have some sympathy for this viewpoint. If we could play perfect chess and at the start of the game someone decided to take the draw by allowing themselves to be stalemated then that would be a very good example supporting that view. However, I think the reality is different. In most cases when someone gets stalemated (or would be stalemated if the game was played through to its conclusion) it is because they have got a worse position and have little choice if they want to save the game.
If the defending side could achieve a draw by stalemate or by other means, then under today’s rules they could choose either way. Under my proposed rules they might be wise to choose the other method, unless of course they were confident of achieving more wins in the match.

“Maybe the games become more interesting if instead give small extra score for win with black!? Encourage black to play for a better score, just as UEFA do in football.”
This might be helpful for tournaments but I don’t think it helps at all for match play. In reality, if you can win just one game in a match you will most likely win the match. Therefore you don’t need a bonus to play for a win with black in a match situation.
However, I think this point indirectly touches on an issue with match play and how hard people try to win, and I do think the stalemate tiebreak rules would help a little with this.
The problem as it stands is that the higher rated player (or the champion in the case of the tile match) knows that if all games are drawn he will win the match. The higher rated player (or champion) can therefore take a low risk approach to the match, with both black and white (actually I think the low risk approach with white is just as much a problem).
If the higher rated player (or champion) was not certain that all draws would win them the match then they would probably try harder to win. This would give a better chance of decisive games in matches.
One way of a achieving this would be through a toss of a coin if the match is tied with all draws. Personally I would not find this satisfactory.
Whilst the likelihood of stalemate is quite low, it will nonetheless be there, so this rule might encourage the higher rated player or champion to try harder for a win.
I will speak from personal experience on this matter. In most of my recent matches I have been the higher rated player. I still play some relatively risky defences as black (e.g. the modern against 1.e4) and I always try to win with white. However, I have to be honest, if I am the higher rated player, I do not always play the very sharpest lines as white and I do not often play some of my riskier defences to 1.d4. If the stalemate tiebreak rule was in place, I would be taking more chances with both white and black.
So whilst I accept that it is not perfect, I still think the stalemate tie-break rule is a good idea. However, as nobody else has spoken out in favour of it I accept that it is very unlikely to be implemented and I won’t write any more on this matter unless someone asks me a direct question. It is time to concentrate on my matches under the existing rules! :)

Alvin Alcala    (2015-07-10 14:46:26)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Hi everyone. GM Arno wants to post in this thread as he has trouble logging in.
Introducing a 3/4-1/4 score for stalemate does not mean changing the whole game. Lasker and Réti, the fathers of this idea, knew quite well what they did, when they said, it's only a minor change (btw following the ancient chess, when mates were rare and a stalemated player had to pay half of his stake).
Some people on ChessBase argued and feared that the game might become bloodless as players would fear to sacrify material. But that's a wrong assessment.
Here is a "normal" classical GM game with a Morra Gambit, that could have happened the same way under the new rule:
E.Berg - S. Rocha (POR 2013)
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 a6 7.0–0 Nf6 8.Bf4 Bg4 9.h3 Bxf3 10.Qxf3 e6 11.Rfd1 Qc7 12.Rac1 Be7 13.Bb3 Rc8 14.Nd5 exd5 15.exd5 Ne5 16.Qe3 Qd7 17.Rxc8+ Qxc8 18.Bxe5 0–0 19.Bf4 Qd7 20.Rc1 Bd8 21.Qd4 Re8 22.Qb4 Be7 23.Ba4 b5 24.Bb3 Rc8 25.Rxc8+ Qxc8 26.a4 Qc5 27.Qe1 Kf8 28.Be3 Qc7 29.axb5 axb5 30.Qb4 Qb7 31.g4 h6 32.Qd4 Nd7 33.Qe4 Bf6 34.Qb4 Qa6 35.Bc2 Ne5 36.Kg2 Nc4 37.Bc1 g5 38.Bd3 Qa1 39.Bxc4 bxc4 40.Qxc4 Bxb2 41.Be3 Bf6 42.Qc8+ Kg7 43.Qf5 Qc3 44.Qe4 Qb2 45.Qf5 Qc3 46.Qe4 Qb2 47.h4 gxh4 48.Qf4 Qe5 49.Qxh6+ Kg8 50.Kg1 h3 51.Qxh3 ½–½
Follow the comments in the MegaBase.
White sacrifies a pawn at move 3. He regains it at move 18 by a typical piece sacrifice. Later White, who is pressing a lot, while Black defends quite well, could have won a pawn by 38.b3 (instead of 38.Bd3?): e.g. 38...Qa1 39.Bxg5 hxg5 40.bxc4 bxc4 41.Qxc4.
Berg argues he might have had practical winning chances. Either 1-0 or 1/2. So what is the big difference, if we would say: either 1-0, 3/4 or 1/2? It's just making the game more exciting, more fair and a bit less drawish, what is badly needed for correspondence chess. The basic wrong assessment is that it might be significantly easier to achieve a stalemate advantage. But it isn't (and that's why only a small percentage of games will end like that). Last but not least, players who achieve a clear endgame advantage deserve a 3/4 point instead of 1/2. K+P, K+B, K+N vs. K should be a difference to K vs. K." Thanks again, Arno

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-07-11 02:18:11)
E. Riccio on his win in the 10th CC WCH

Once again, Eros kindly answered a few questions after his win in the 10th FICGS correspondence chess championship. His answer on tie break rules meets the discussion in this thread:

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=11773

____________________________

- Hello Eros and congrats again for this new win in the FICGS correspondence chess championship! This time, your opponent was Peter W. Anderson and you're playing him once again in the next final match. Actually, all games finished in less than 3 months, which looks like superfast, how did it happen?

Hello once again Thibault! Yes, the match with Anderson was very quick. The reasons are that he moves very fast, and like me, I don't seem to remember that he took any day of leave.

Also, our games were not played until the very end; many draws were agreed with many pieces on the board, as soon as we thought that none of us had winning chances.

- For many players, it is quite impossible to beat you in such a 12 games match (probably because of the tie rule). After all these won matches do you start to think that the advantage is too big?

It's a fact that a very high percentage of correspondence games played at the top level ends up in a draw... (and that percentage is even higher in my case, as my strategy is to avoid taking risks) so yes, talking against my interests, I think that something in the rules should be changed.

- By the way, your opponent suggested an interesting tie rule in the forum ( Chess, Poker & Go forum - Topic 11773 ), in the context of more general new ideas for correspondence chess rules (e.g. article by GM Arno Nickel - Correspondence Chess – the draw problem ) in order to increase the interest of the game. Do you have any opinion on all this?

The idea GM Nickel launched could be interesting, even if before we can say for sure if it can be applied in serious tournaments, it needs to be tested.

If I understood correctly, having a piece more in a draw endgame, after the game is over, a little plus on the score would be given to the player who had the small advantage.

I always thought like: How unfair! That player had King and two Knights against a lone King of his opponent... still he only got a half point anyway! Or even worse, in theory, one player could have this position: King in e1, Bishop in h1 and 6 Pawns from h2 to h7. (Black King in h8) Counting the value of pieces that would be a a +9 advantage, like a Queen more, but still it would be a draw. Another crazy scenario, more common, are those blocked positions were 16 pawns block the center (or more simply any fortress position) and not rarely it happens that a color has a huge material advantage but can't break through in any way. In this last case the player with material disadvantage could have found a genial idea to reach that blocked position, should his opponent with extra pieces still be given an advantage after the game?

Another important consideration is that this rule could discourage attacking players to play gambits or make sacrifices, as if the attack fails, their efforts to try to win would be punished! This last case would even increase the draw rate.

Probably Nickel didn't talk about giving a plus after games finished with advantage but still many pieces on board, anyway those positions (except the 16 Pawns one) could very well be played on until only one piece would be left.

After these examples we can see that there are so many different ways that a position with material advantage can be reached... but it's not always fair that the player with the advantage should be given a plus after the game. As a paradox, an advantage should be given to the opponent if he smartly managed to sacrifice one or more pieces in order to reach a draw endgame which he would have lost if he didn't give away material.

- Of course, the level of chess programs is for much in it. Do you feel that high level correspondence chess and centaur chess evolved much this year, or did it reach a kind of peak?

The level of correspondence chess increases in a parallel way as computers, databases and chess programs improve. Slowly everything keeps improving. Of course, due to the more thinking time, correspondence chess will always have a higher draw percentage than blitz games played by computers.

- Finally, what can you tell us about your correspondence chess path this year, particularly at ICCF where you're currently ranked #13?

On ICCF I am fighting with the Italian Team (I am playing in second board behind the World Champion Finocchiaro) in the 9th European Team Championship.
---> https://www.iccf.com/event?id=44123

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-07-12 00:24:13)
Just curious, 2 questions

Hi Scott... Yes! And the "fold" button is whited in some cases but it works anyway (in theory at least).

Pablo Schmid    (2015-07-12 02:09:18)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Here is most examples of my ficgs practice (corr and Advanced chess). This represent a low percentage of my games. These games are food for thought from my own assisted experience against that rule that I call "+1 decisive advantage chess". I believe you could already burn a lot of chapters in ending's book. Most of my games show balanced games until the end, sometime, the "punished guy" could have played another drawing defense, sometimes not, unfairly to me. The game would be more safe, with less sacrifices of piece vs 2 or 3 pawns and things like that because of fearing an ending with king vs king + piece or king vs king + pawn even if the sacrifice was sound and well played. Game 22895 and 84758 I would probably have been punished by the rule in the ending of game 22895 (and my opponent in the other game), and that type of ending in general (piece + pawn up vs piece when the king cannot block the pawn). Game 37122 Shame on me, my advantage in that ending was not sufficient to force my opponent to sacrifice his bishop for my last pawn. This is why I only deserve 0,5!
Game 37920 That king of pawns vs piece + pawn would become lost for the player without the piece, what a way of punish some balanced sacrifices for pawns!
Game 54907 and 20704 That kind of opposite bishop ending would be "lost" for the guy pawnless even if the transition into an inferior but drawn ending was the intention of the "inferior guy".
Game 74870 The ending is perfectly balanced but my opponent couldn't finish the game the way he did because of the rule.
Game 74875 I would have been half-losing in the pawn ending after a nice defense in an interesting unbalanced material line.
Game 74880 the ending knight + h pawn would have been "half losing" for me even if we can't say that I was clearly worse overall.
Game 76734 and 76764 Technichally this game is not directly concerned by the rule but it is very close. I was on the verge of defeat but I have managed to defend stubornely. If he have played well to get a winning position and then the win disapear because of bad play but still finish with a draw, he would get a bonus because he played better overall? The way I managed to defend would not be rewarded?
Game 77809 In this game the whole deep opening line would probably be "half losing" for Black in the ending because of the new rule.
Game 80954 Suddenly it seems that I would have been punished for my defense in the final position.
Game 85106 I did not play specially badly but... I would have been punished for my way of finishing the game!

Bogoljub Teverovski    (2015-08-03 09:46:39)
Team tournment

Team tournament should be nice, say, 4 boards. Besides FICGS should sponsor it's own team for the next season of ICCF League.

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-08-05 14:49:46)
Improving netiquette rules

But how do you know if this player has no good reasons for not playing in this particular case? Obviously, there may be something like 20% chance, maybe more, anyway there is a chance... or (at a much lower level / without computer assistance) he may even not know that he's definitely losing... I saw such cases happening and I'm 99% sure that actually there were good reasons in half of these cases at least.

And after how many days one could say there is a netiquette abuse? This is a really tough path IMO.

Scott, what do you think about this public remark? Is this also a netiquette abuse according to you?

Alfonso Di Giandomenico    (2015-08-18 13:28:05)
Number of tournament won

in statistic (FICGS statistic are great!), I think, this item is not clear.
I think is an important element.

Garvin Gray    (2015-10-01 09:07:08)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Keeping the discussion solely to this issue of World Championship Tie break rule and draw odds, I have already made one proposal, which is that the final match be split into two parts. The first eight games be started, and then if tied, then the remaining four games are played.

A defensive strategy in the first eight games is not so well rewarded, because the champion has the knowledge that if the first eight games are drawn, then they have to play another four games.

Yes, after 12 games, I am still stating that the champion retains the title if the match is tied 6-6, unless someone can propose how to break the tie with more games, but at least this way, the two players have more to gain by trying to win a game, especially the champion and concluding the match in the first eight games.

Garvin Gray    (2015-10-09 16:57:51)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Thib: I have not replied to this topic since my last comment for two reasons. 1) Nothing new to add 2) I had seen Scott's comment and was rather upset by it as I saw the danger in it. This discussion, in my opinion, is about one topic only.

We have discussed the ficgs world cup and other formats before, and can again, but this discussion is for one item only, so I did not want to contribute in any way to derailing the discussion. So I decided to refrain from comment as I had nothing to add.

To respond to your comments Thib- timing of the championship cycles will always be an issue, no matter the format. Regardless if you use 12 straight games, my format, or Alvin's. Or any other version.

We already have different groups starting at different times, and the final starting at different times to the other groups. This is just how things happen. It is possible that the final could be over in 8 games and in a shorter time period and time gained.

I think this format is worth trying for at least one cycle. That is also what happens with the otb world championship. There are format changes from time to time. Some are successful, some are not. Matches used to be 24 games in length. Now they are 12 games. One was played as an 8 player double round robin.

Things change as the environment changes.

Garvin Gray    (2015-10-14 15:17:26)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Jan: Eros has clearly stated that he has used the advantage of draw odds by playing defensively and by playing for draws, knowing he only needs to draw all the games to retain the title.

So he knows he does not need to win the match to retain the title and has used the rules to their full effect. Of course this is his right and well done to him, but it is also the organisers and rule makers duty to change the rules when the circumstances are no longer in the interest of the event as a whole.

If all 12 games in each match had been blood and guts affairs, and a few games had been won, but the eventual score was 6-6, then this whole conversation would probably not be happening.

But when only ONE, I REPEAT ONE, game has been won in the last eight matches, and Eros has managed to retain the title each title, it is clear that the rules need to change.

I have made two clear proposals. As illustrated above, it is not a case in the previous matches that all the games were hard fought, so your argument that adding four extra games would be onerous in the final match.

Yes, it could produce an effect of more drawn games from short draws, but then if this the case, then all players should be warned the organisers will be forced to seriously consider introducing no draw agreements before move 30 without the agreement of the arbiter.

Again, this is what occurs when the players make it clear they are determined not to win their games.

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-10-16 01:12:10)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Hi all,

The recent discussions on FICGS chess wch tie break rules just gave me an idea...

Obviously, there are no satisfying solution (for everyone I mean) for a change in the wch rules. In my opinion, wch rules are great already, even if there are too many draws in matches.

The idea of a cup tournament is here for years but I didn't see any way to include it, in a several rounds version at least, in our calendar because of the wch cycle, the slowly decreasing number of active players, and so on...

But what do you think about this cup format:

An enormous round robin tournament with the 33 (1 player for each piece on the board, it's a symbol but the number is to be discussed) highest rated players who entered the waiting list. It is 32 games per player for 1 round only, duration of games could be the standard one (because there is one round only), longer but maybe fits more the number of games and additional games in other tournaments.

Looks like a great challenge and a real alternative, with very few risks of draw odds, cheating or whatever... It may be the biggest correspondence chess round robin tournament on the internet.

Any opinion? Would you play such tournament?

Garvin Gray    (2015-10-17 14:19:12)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

This is different to my Ficgs world cup proposal, which had clear goals in mind.

In my opinion, this just seems like one big round robin and once the games start, it will be rather difficult to feel like the games are anything special, unless the field is red hot.

And a big fat no to the standard time control. Lengthen the rapid type time control if you wish, but do not use the standard type time control.

30 days plus 3 days per move should be satisfactory.

Garvin Gray    (2015-10-23 13:11:56)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I think this whole discussion has missed the original point of why I made the original proposal for the ficgs world cup.

It was to give players who were in the 2100 to 2200 and below more opportunities against players rated 2300 and above, whilst still also giving the top players something to play for ie the tournament win.

So the original concept was that there was no knockout groups, or starting final match, but instead that all players started from round one, and then everyone had to qualify for round two from there, with only the winners to advance at each stage.

The format above could have even taken over from the waiting lists we currently have, which struggle to be filled, as they give more purpose.

Instead, what is being proposed now, is just one big round robin. As someone who has just organised a round robin event, I can assure you, soon after the games have started, the players will soon forget which games are for the world cup, and which are their World championship games, and which are their Rapid SM, or Rapid M games.

Next, the strength of the field. For this event to work with the monster round robin, it really does need most of the top players competing. How can this be ensured to make it a worthwhile event?

Related to this- the time control. Very few serious correspondence chess players are going to sign up to a time control of 10 days initial time when they potentially have 31 games.

Remember, this is meant to be one of FICGS main events on the calendar. That is at least how I view it.

The time control should be 30 days plus 3 days per move if the format is single round robin with 32 or so players.

I still believe the original proposal of mine is the one that should be adopted, not the single round robin that is being discussed now.

I will not be playing in the single round robin.

Thibault de Vassal    (2015-10-27 23:03:32)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Hi Garvin... Surely not!

Well, just read your cup idea again, here are my thoughts:

- In my opinion, in both ways, top players will probably ignore such a tournament. So, the challenge point may be most important.

- In my opinion, the 33 players round robin is even more simple (and avoiding complicate cases depending on the number of entries), more different from FICGS WCH, faster (no choice to make about playing 2 cycles at once) and with more chances of clear victory, but does it really bring something in both cases? Quite subjective at the end.

Ian Zimmerman    (2015-11-18 16:59:23)
Feature request

Something still missing on this site, is the ability to sort games by time of last move. This is very useful for players who keeps their own records of games offline, as almost all experienced correspondence players do. All of the following sites have the feature: ICCF, SchemingMind, ChessWorld.

Alternatively, if you want to be innovative, here is something that would do the same job even more efficiently: have an extra flag (call it ACK) stored with each game, and allow filtering by ACK. Display ACK next to each game as a checkbox. Set ACK automatically in one and exactly one situation: when the *opponent* moves.

This way, when I turn on the filter, I can see at a glance all the games where my opponent *just* moved, and I clear ACK by clicking on the checkbox as I update my offline database for each game.

Scott Nichols    (2015-12-08 01:22:21)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

The 32 players were fine. Time controls (a little long for my taste, but...) are even OK. I had 2 big beefs with the wch. 1. playing a 1400 that just bought a new comp that NOW plays 2000+. If I beat him--0 rating points, draw--I lose many points, etc. 2. The "seeding" of players is not fair IMO, everybody should start at the start line. then the winner can feel much more proud to repeat as champion. I actually may win an ICCF semi-final (#45349), one more game needs to finish. I was seeded 10th of 11 players when it started. I mention this because in far too many of the Wch games were drawn much too early IMO. In ICCF, at least my tour's, the games were fought much longer, down to less than 10 pieces quite often. I looked at this last one and they are calling it a draw in the middlegame. I ask WHY? Just because it's 0.00 for a while, so what? It's the WORLD CH.! How many chances will a player get the opportunity? Each game should be fought to the death. Eros is very busy and has to be getting on in years, make him WORK for it! Sorry to ramble, just a few thoughts...

Garvin Gray    (2015-12-16 11:39:44)
TER rating calculation

You have now changed the conversation.

Originally it was about ratings and how rating changes are made and why TER and current ratings are used, and I answered part of that conversation, which was not fully explored.

Now you have changed the topic to talking about matches and TER's. That is a different conversation altogether. And then you are debating the format of the ficgs world championship knockout system, which has been debated so often on here.

It is contained in about every tenth thread.

Please choose a topic to discuss. Which is it?

Garvin Gray    (2016-01-06 03:08:01)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I thought the only point of difference now was whether to have an entry fee or not?

I thought it was clearly decided that the stages and qualifying concept had been clearly decided in favour of.

Jan Ohlin    (2016-01-06 17:56:41)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Please calm down, Garvin. There is plenty of time to consider which will be the best decision.

Garvin Gray    (2016-01-17 15:44:55)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Alexis Alban: I apologise if my reply seems a little bit harsh, but are you entering the conversation half way through and have not read the entire thread and preceding discussions?

This thread deals solely with the FICGS World championship and its format, mainly in particular with what happens with drawn matches in the knockout stages.

No one has suggested AT ALL, that the champion has to start again from the beginning (from round one).

That format, what I really wish Thibault would get started on with starting, is from the FICGS world cup, which is a different tournament entirely. It is a completely different structure, with different aims. If you wish to debate that tournament, please move your discussion to that thread.

I am really am trying to work hard to try and prevent thread drift.

Thibault de Vassal    (2016-01-19 00:25:30)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Yes, correct. Thanks for this answer!

Isn't it a problem that in a few groups, half players take White one time more than Black? ... and some to have one game/opponent less than in other groups? (by the way, a bit harder to code/launch the games)

These points (equity) were always of first importance to me in all tournaments and I don't remember having seen this elsewhere (but I can be wrong, I'm not used to ICCF tournaments, for example). What do you think? Why is it such a problem for you to wait a few more days to "complete" a waiting list? Please note that I'm not really opposed to this idea, I just want to be sure that not all players disagree with this.

Thibault de Vassal    (2016-01-20 22:07:04)
Emails from FICGS

Please can anyone tell me here if he receives (or not) emails from FICGS since last week?

Thibault de Vassal    (2016-01-21 02:34:59)
Emails from FICGS

Okay, here it is:

2 players do not receive emails from FICGS for about 1 week... these 2 players have the same email provider, so obviously and for any reason (?) this provider banned emails either from ficgs.com or (more probably, as it happened already before) from the whole OVH system, which is maybe half the french internet...

I can see only two solutions for these players:

- You may contact your email provider and ask to solve this problem...

- You may use another email provider at least to receive emails from FICGS.

Very sorry, but I can't do anything here.

Roger Llull    (2016-01-28 10:11:23)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I would not like to see groups of fewer than 8 players to remove luck as a factor and to make ties less likely. I would not like to see groups of more than 12 players so they are not overloaded.
Also the tournament should always end in 2 stages so people know it won't be too long, and in case of a tie the winner should be the player with the most wins in the whole tournament.
And one more thing, please implement rules to reduce the number of non players and careless time losses. Like a minimum Elo, a minimum of finished games, and require 2 to 5 E-Points to enter.

Some of this would be valid for the WCH too. For example, stage 2 with only 5 players is ridiculous, because luck can play too big of a role.

Garvin Gray    (2016-01-28 23:12:19)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Hello Roger and thanks for your reply,

I would not like to see groups of fewer than 8 players to remove luck as a factor and to make ties less likely.

Garvin- Yes, this is something, at least from my point of view, is what I am trying to avoid. It also reduces the impact of any withdrawals in a group.

I would not like to see groups of more than 12 players so they are not overloaded.

Garvin- Unfortunately, Small number of groups, two stages, and if a large number of entries means something needs to give. So it could be the size of the groups. But hopefully they can be kept to a maximum of 11.

Also the tournament should always end in 2 stages so people know it won't be too long, and in case of a tie the winner should be the player with the most wins in the whole tournament.

Garvin- In my suggested version- I covered the two stage part. I take it your second comment refers to what happens if two or more players end up on the same score in the second stage?

Roger- And one more thing, please implement rules to reduce the number of non players and careless time losses. Like a minimum Elo, a minimum of finished games, and require 2 to 5 E-Points to enter.

Garvin- Quite a few of the withdrawals have come from top players in the past. The most important aspect to reduce the non players is to go from announcement, to closing date of entries, to start a quick and orderly process with no delays.

So after the rules have finally been worked out, have quite a period of time of publicity, then two weeks enter and then Thibault has to close entries straight away, get the draw done and games going.

The longer the lag period between announcement, entries opening, entries closing and games starting, the more chance of players 'going walkabout'.

Roger- Some of this would be valid for the WCH too. For example, stage 2 with only 5 players is ridiculous, because luck can play too big of a role.

Garvin- In the current WCH rules, it is already covered that Double round robin can be used if there are 5 players. I have complained previously to Thibault when he has not implemented this rule when put in a five player group.

In my reworded version for this competition, I asked, at what point should the second stage final for minimum qualifiers move from a double round robin to single round robin?
6 players, 7 players? It does seem like 6 players is the correct number. If only six players qualify from the first stage, then the second stage is DRR. If seven or more qualify, then it will be single round robin. Practically, this would most likely mean there were 6 groups, and each player won their group outright. Or 5 groups. And 4 groups were one outright, with the other group having 2 players finishing tied for first and both advancing to the second stage.

Garvin Gray    (2016-02-09 03:24:17)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

And then you will just have more complaints about the faster time control and the title being decided by speed of the computer, superior engine.

Also there will be issues of trying to find an acceptable time for all participants. How do you find an acceptable time if players live in USA, Europe, Middle East, Asia, and Oceania region.

If the games are all held at the same time for an accelerated time control, similar to the freestyle concept, then that is dramatically different to the original format.

Rapid playoffs are not ideal in OTB chess, but at least they are played at the same time of day as the original games, and some of the players are not forced to play at 3am, where others get to play at 3pm.

Also, all this requires extra organisation on Thibault's part, unless he writes into the original rules about when the finals will be, but still the playoffs will be still be unfair for the stated reasons.

A different idea could be to have a third round involving those who tied from the second stage. So if three players tied, they would play each other four times.

1 v 2
2 v 3
3 v 1

2 v 1
3 v 2
1 v 3

1 v 2
2 v 3
3 v 1

2 v 1
3 v 2
1 v 3

Garvin Gray    (2016-02-15 07:02:27)
Resign message

I think a shorter message could be: Please confirm your intention to resign. And then they have to click on yes/move etc.

Thibault de Vassal    (2016-05-11 19:53:28)
Server crash (april 2016)

Hi all, welcome back :)

First of all, my apologies for this new server crash, about 4 years after the previous one...

The Raid 1 technology has its advantages, the 2 hard drives are almost-exact copies from each other, but it also has its difficulties [e.g. the "almost" part] and I just had to learn much about it to try to restore the server as I encountered not 1, not 2 but 3 hardware failures at the same time, added to a 4th hardware failure at home on the FICGS development PC, and of course added my "famous" incredibly bad internet connection. Murphy's law ^^ ... So, both hard drives and a SATA cable have been replaced on the server. Finally, the system had to be reinstalled and I had to upgrade it, which caused many difficulties these last few days. At the end, it was not possible to restore the very last FICGS database, so we lost a few minutes or hours of moves (fortunately it happened early in the morning). But nothing essential was lost at the end.

I'm still not 100% sure (if it's ever possible) that everything will work fine with this upgraded version of PHP & MySQL, obviously there are some problems with accents for players names (will be fixed soon) but let's go for a try. I probably made mistakes during the whole process that finally took 20 days but the good thing is that I should be able to better prevent such failures in the future. Thanks again for your patience!

As I said in the login/messages page, an email has been sent to warn everyone. If you tried to register or to change your password during the last two weeks, it was not taken in account so you'll have to do it again. 20 days (it was not possible to move during this time) have been added to all players expected to move, and 7 more days have been added to all clocks (including players not expected to move, to avoid any surprise in case of real vacation or something).

One more thing: It may be not possible to connect through SSL with https:// anymore in the future, I still don't know how to configure it on this system.

Let's play! :)

Best wishes,
Thibault

Thibault de Vassal    (2016-05-25 22:04:14)
Issues with emails after server restart

It is possible that a few players did not receive the email about the announcement of the server restart, and maybe cannot receive any email from FICGS anymore after that the server restarted. That's why I added a few days more to clocks.

A possible issue in this case is that FICGS ip was blacklisted by your email provider because of the period when the server was sending emails not authentified. It seems to work fine with Gmail, Yahoo... but it may be the case with Microsoft emails and a few smaller providers.

In this case, please send an email to info (at) ficgs (dot) com , I'll see how to fix this.

Herbert Kruse    (2016-08-06 10:13:53)
Chess World CHAMPIONSHIP

if there is at least one loss and one win and 6-6, the challenger should be the winner, because all stages before have the simular rule

George Jempty    (2016-09-02 10:21:48)
Player of the Year

I've been thinking it would be interesting to have nominations for a "Player of the Year" that FICGS members could then vote on. Qualifications could be listed in a manner similar to the following:

1) 15 wins, 13 draws and 0 losses since Oct 2015
2) Rating increase of nearly 250 points (1904-2152) during same time period
3) As 1904 player finished tied for second with score of 4/6 in tournament where average rating was 2041
4) Won a standard B tournament with score of 5.5/6 and a performance rating of 2332
5) Guaranteed tie for first place in a standard A tournament (currently tied for first and is playing in the one remaining game in the tourney against someone one point behind)
6) Currently leading stage 1 group of 2016 World Championship with score of 5/5
7) Finished tied for first in Rapid M tournament for which it was necessary to buy a ticket because TER of 2077 being below normal minimum of 2100

Yes I'm bragging on myself more than a little bit, but still I think that the listed qualifications are pretty objective

Thibault de Vassal    (2016-09-12 18:36:27)
AlphaGo games commented

Interesting Go games to learn from...

https://deepmind.com/research/alphago/alphago-games-english/

Games played by AlphaGo (either versus itself or versus Lee Sedol)

Peter Brodie    (2016-09-17 01:34:00)
Missing chat

Thanks Thibault..I'm coming to the ccnclusion that your way was right, after all..Players do need to be able to delete any abusive chat as soon as it appears, whether themselves if they are abused directly and are there to see it at that moment or others deleting in their place simply because abuse of any kind is not tolerated..This procedure does lead to some simply deciding what is relevant and useful chat and what isn't and thereby often messing up a chat thread..so arbitrary deletions should be frowned on and anyone who keeps deleting any chat at their whim should, perhaps, be barred from chat for, say, a month, until they learn some manners and proper chat etiquette..also, anyone who engages in mass deleting because they like causing chaos should get two warnings, then be barred for good if they persist..They shoud also be named..anyone who engages in abusive chat should get also two warnings, then they will be barred from chat forever..How's this for a settlement of tbe situation?

George Jempty    (2016-09-20 09:25:24)
Missing chat

Thib could you at least acknowledge that on 9/13 the day in question I was *NOT* the one who deleted probably a dozen or more chat messages

Scott Nichols    (2016-11-11 14:01:20)
Do the cards matter?

Dear Yeturu Aahlad, I have thought long about your inquiry. This is the best scenario I can come up with.

You are at a 9 player real money game. You know all the players. You all have decided to see who is the best.

You have been playing for many, many hours. All that is left is you and Him. Lets call him Eros. Last hand.

You are dealt pocket Black Aces. Eros acts first and checks. You feel you can just take the ante's now and move on, but you decide to slow play them and just call. The flop is 3clubs, 6hearts and Qhearts. Again Eros checks and you decide to bet a little again and he calls.

Now through all the hours of playing, you have gotten to know each other well. He is the type who talks and laughs, makes fun of people, belittles them and acts in a generally arrogant manner. (We all know the type). The KEY is to study all of this and, this is maybe the most important, study his microexpressions. Some people call them tells. But most all pros know how not to give away tells. But I have learned that microexpressions are involuntary. Let's get back to the hand.

The "turn" is a Jspades. He decides to bet, a good bet and of course you call. (slow playing). Now comes the moment of truth, "the river". It is an Ace of hearts. You are thrilled, and your face gives the microexpression for a tenth of a second. You now have 3 Aces, but there is 3 hearts on the board.

All of the sudden, Eros goes all in and walks away from the table. In my experience, the odds of him having 2 hearts in the hole is 23/1. HERE is the point if the cards matter. You can beat anything except a Heart flush. And the odds of him having that are 23/1. This is a real money, no limit game. If you call and lose, you lose 90% of all you hold near and dear.

WHAT DO YOU DO?

Francois Caire    (2016-11-12 16:48:17)
Stockfish fixes memory leak in Syzygy

I tested it and after a 24 hour analysis in an endgame position, stockfish was using only 2.6 Gb of ram with 2Gb hash size.

http://abrok.eu/stockfish/

Author: Marco Costalba
Date: Sat Nov 5 07:55:08 2016 +0100
Timestamp: 1478328908

Rewrite syzygy in C++

Rewrite the code in SF style, simplify and
document it.

Code is now much clear and bug free (no mem-leaks and
other small issues) and is also smaller (more than
600 lines of code removed).

All the code has been rewritten but root_probe() and
root_probe_wdl() that are completely misplaced and should
be retired altogheter. For now just leave them in the
original version.

Code is fully and deeply tested for equivalency both in
functionality and in speed with hundreds of games and
test positions and is guaranteed to be 100% equivalent
to the original.

Tested with tb_dbg branch for functional equivalency on
more than 12M positions.

stockfish.exe bench 128 1 16 syzygy.epd

Position: 2016/2016
Total 12121156 Hits 0 hit rate (%) 0
Total time (ms) : 4417851
Nodes searched : 1100151204
Nodes/second : 249024

Tested with 5,000 games match against master, 1 Thread,
128 MB Hash each, tc 40+0.4, which is almost equivalent
to LTC in Fishtest on this machine. 3-, 4- and 5-men syzygy
bases on SSD, 12-moves opening book to emphasize mid- and endgame.

Score of SF-SyzygyC++ vs SF-Master: 633 - 617 - 3750 [0.502] 5000
ELO difference: 1

No functional change.

Garvin Gray    (2016-11-17 20:46:24)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Ok then. At least I have a starting date :)

Garvin Gray    (2016-11-30 08:33:54)
Future penalties for games lost on time

Herbert Kruse- Policies and procedures can be changed at any point in time as situations change, or as events occur.

Where in my post did I say that I was changing the rules after the beginning the game. In fact, I think you would find that the game had ended. That was the point.

The rule I was bringing up is what to do in the future for players who lose games on time. ICCF is generally seen as the standard practice for most rules and procedures, and their policies on this matter is very clear.

So if their policy was to be adopted here, it would start from (insert date), which would hopefully be January 1st 2017.

Garvin Gray    (2016-11-30 11:16:28)
Future penalties for games lost on time

Since I have referred to the ICCF policies on the matters of players losing on time, I should directly quote their policy:

It is under section 5 of Code of Conduct:

Types of disciplinary action available are as follows:
(i) Formal Written Warning â€“ for breaches in behaviour incompatible with ICCF statutes, principles, or rules. Continuing or repeated misbehaviour will result in (ii) being implemented
(ii) Disciplinary Action with Penalty/Sanctions â€“ for serious or recurring breaches in behaviour
incompatible with ICCF statutes, principles, and/or rules. Immediate penalties/sanctions should be imposed, the degree of which should be related to the severity of the misdemeanour.
The following scale of penalties/sanctions should be used:
(a) A serious behavioural issue, e.g. silent/unacceptable withdrawal from a tournament, unacceptable, or abusive behaviour to players/officials/ICCF as a first offence â€“ ban from all international CC tournaments and activities for a period of 2 years, from the date of decision.
(b) A repeated serious behavioural issue, e.g., repeated silent/ unacceptable withdrawal from a tournament, repeated abusive behaviour to players/officials/ICCF â€“ ban from all international CC tournaments and activities for a period of 5 years, from the date of the latest decision.
(c) Outrageous behaviour or further repeated behavioural issue, e.g., theft, belligerent action towards ICCF or any of its officials, assault, etc. â€“ ban from all international CC tournaments and activities for life duration. Appeal for remission of sentence is available after 10 years.
(d) Extremely slow play in a clearly lost position is not proper behaviour in CC play, and is subject to a warning from the TD, and will result in disciplinary action if it continues or is repeated in other games.
When dealing with disciplinary matters and considering penalties/sanctions, care should be taken to ensure consistency and those penalties are commensurate with the â€œcrimeâ€ committed.
In all cases of disciplinary action, an individual has a basic right to express his/her case, with reasoning, before a decision is taken by an official/tournament director or tournament office, etc.

Garvin Gray    (2016-11-30 14:04:30)
Future penalties for games lost on time

Ilmars, did you actually bother to read the ICCF sections I quoted? Or did you just say, I am against any penalties as a blanket statement and stuff the rest?

If you had read the ICCF rules, in all cases of disciplinary action, an individual has a basic right to express his/her case, with reasoning, before a decision is taken by an official/tournament director or tournament office, etc.

So any player in 'question' would be given the opportunity to answer why they lost their games on time and it would be up to the Tournament Committee, or Thibault alone to decide on what action to take.

And I do not believe it is appropriate to discuss individual players when discussing this rule. If we start mentioning individual players, then the potential for a lot of hurt feelings, defamation and arguments can ensue.

People will just start going through everyone's records who might be a 'suspect'. That serves no purpose except to upset everyone.

The topic is a simple one. At least it is to me.

Peter Anderson defined the issue well.

Thibault de Vassal    (2016-12-02 22:06:28)
Future penalties for games lost on time

Hi all,

On dead man defence, Herbert said it all and as far as I can see, this rule works (when used, of course)!

On losses on time, I'm still not sure of what rule is best but I'm quite sure that simple rules are often best. However, I guess that rules could be more incitative about finishing games even without sanctions ("threat is stronger than execution") I'm not sure how efficient it could be on a free website though, FICGS context is not ICCF context. So I'm open to any change but I'm still not favourable to any suspension or banishment (that could lead to even more games lost on time). Also, I do know that life events could lead to this, I do know that there are many good reasons to lose on time, unfortunately :/

David Fierry Fraillon    (2016-12-04 07:24:53)
Future penalties for games lost on time

Ok it can be very long then ...
I am not happy with banishment solution ... i guess the idea is to have a lot of players ... and more.
IF you look at some rating evolution you will see that some player just stop corresponding chess and are back few months later and sometimes more ...
I will do it myself as soon as i will finish my games because i have to prepare myself to normal chess ...
So i think it is normal for many reason to leave corresponding chess for a few months and be back ... i think also that it is normal to resign if you can ... but as Thibault wrote you can find many reason to not be able to do it .... By the way : Thibault, can you solve the trick of creating a new account when a player is banished ? I have only two solution in mind : reducing the maximal time allowed to one move to 30 (i do not like it because i use it sometimes when i am on the X9th move ... :-) ) and reducing time for adjudication ...

Thibault de Vassal    (2016-12-14 20:28:07)
Poker Poll

Rules are very clear about defending (e.g. responding to provocation) Please follow the rules so that we can keep peace here. That's essential...

Thibault de Vassal    (2017-01-11 15:28:01)
Adjudications & 7 pieces tablebases

Hi all,

Just a reminder about reasons why some games may be not adjudicated even when the result is announced thanks to 7 pieces (or 6 pieces, 5 pieces...) tablebases:

- FICGS chess rules are slightly different from FIDE rules (no 50 moves rule), so an announced draw may not be a draw here.
- According to the rules, any player (who may not use engines or tablebases) has the right to see the game going until a "quite" clear position.

But any player who estimates that the result of the game is known can call the referee to shorten the game.

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#adjudications

Thibault de Vassal    (2017-01-18 03:32:56)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

Finally, here is a new interview with FICGS correspondence chess champion GM Eros Riccio, who gives us his (surprising?) impressions on his latest win in the championship, his current match and correspondence chess nowadays... A good matter to think about!

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000012

____________

- Hi again Eros... Once more, congratulations for winning this final match in the 12th FICGS correspondence chess championship. This time, it seems that things went quite differently than in your previous matches (you scored 9 out of 12, which is a huge performance at this level), could you tell us what happened in these games?

--> Hi, yes, finally we have seen some wins after a very long series of draws. I was surprised too, I didn't risk to lose any game and I could even win one as Black... What to say, my opponent was simply not as challenging as the previous ones.

- It's a long time since you won the previous match, would you like to tell us about your other results this year, particularly at ICCF where you now rank #9 with an outstanding 2643 rating?

--> My latest final on FICGS were my only games of 2016. On ICCF I have taken some rest, the too high draw rate didn't incentive me to start new tournaments, also because drawing all games with a high rating means losing points.

- In the next final match (13th cycle), you play Peter W. Anderson for the 3rd time... so you probably know each other's opening book quite well. What do you expect for in this match?

--> Anderson is a very tough opponent, it's not a coincidence that he reached the final for the third time. I tried to win at least one game as White, but he's incredibly hard to beat. I experimented with almost anything possible against his modern defence, but I could never find a single weakness in his repertoire. I will see what to invent this time against his terrific 1...g6.

- As you probably know, another Go champion (Lee Sedol) lost a 5-games match to AlphaGo this year, while chess engines (now Stockfish 8, Houdini 5 Komodo 10...) slowly but surely continue to improve... Still waiting for the quantum computers. How do you feel things should go in the next years? Did your way of playing advanced chess or correspondence chess change these last years?

--> I have said a lot already about the very high draw rate of the recent years... I am surprised that some changes haven't been done already, like switching to chess 960, even modifying some chess rules, or at least giving 1,5 points for one win. Otherwise a lot of players will lose interest in seeing a series of all draws in the tournaments they play. I am one of those players who lost interest in correspondence chess, and even in blitz chess, engine vs engine, as we can see the extremely high draw rate situation there too.

- Finally, what can we wish for you for the next year? :)

--> Wish me to lose the match with Anderson :-) even I got bored of seeing myself there over and over in the final! That will bring some new air and that way I can take some total rest in corr. chess.

- Many thanks for your time, have a great match!

--> Welcome, and thanks.

Pablo Schmid    (2017-01-19 16:25:06)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

Many lines of the Kings gambit would be nice and fun and would be a modern contribution to unclear and unfashioned but very risky lines.

Thibault de Vassal    (2017-01-19 21:33:23)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

Hmm... I didn't think about a FULL THEMATIC CHAMPIONSHIP before, that's an interesting idea from Pablo IMO (that would invite us to play -still classical chess- romantic style chess).

And last but not least, it would be possible here (while solutions with fractions of points are much more complicated to code & organize).

Pablo Schmid    (2017-01-19 22:22:11)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

Not necessarily, as I said the thematic would be the final test to test that the best corr player is the most complete one, but the qualification would still be by free chess where you need to be at least 2300 level in this site.

Pablo Schmid    (2017-01-20 18:05:27)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

Why would a thematic disfavour Black? That's not logical, it just depends of the thematic! If we take the King's gambit accepred as example, Black is not worse and may be the opposite! Even if you lose as Black because of the thematuc, you have chance to win the game where you have White against it... At least the idea would be interesting to play very interesting lines and games that fear does not allow in normal time and to contribue to chess theory in wild opening.

Thibault de Vassal    (2017-01-24 02:39:37)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I started to change the waiting lists page... Most probably, the WCH will not change (for the moment at least), the CUP waiting list will be open next week (rules page should be visible tomorrow), and possibly a "KING supertournament" thematic event may happen from time to time (later) with rules still to be defined (later)... To be continued.

Thibault de Vassal    (2017-01-25 15:30:58)
Adjudications & 7 pieces tablebases

And if I remember well, we agreeded that a player can claim an adjudication in this case, but the adjudication will be effective 30 days after the 2nd claim if needed (at least because all players do not use engines or tablebases websites and can be interested in playing it). That's specified in the rules.

Herbert Kruse    (2017-05-01 01:24:25)
Ultimate Challenge Tour 2017, USD 20k

details please

Thibault de Vassal    (2017-07-08 19:26:50)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Rules asked by players do not converge all the time, that's the least to say. Many prefer that games lost on time be punished by massive losses of elo points to prevent games lost on time, while many prefer that ratings stay coherent, whatever the losses (mainly on time)... And of course, games played at FICGS are not as important as games played at ICCF for most strong players. Conclusion is easy. But maybe there should be a change in the rating calculation to create some inflation... This could be worth a discussion.

Sergey Zemlyanov    (2017-10-09 08:11:36)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

Hello, Thibault,

Well. I hear you. This is a real scam ("lohotron")! However, from a legal point of view, you are right. Because the text of the rules was written in a small font somewhere on the site. And still, such important moments should be in a visible place, so that beginners can immediately familiarize themselves with the site rules. From the point of view of morality it is a fraud. Similarly, I will give an example: often, when a person, which is a pensioner or disabled (by health), comes to the Bank, then the Bank offer to him to make a loan at high interest rates. Then the bank's employers give him a document in which you can see (only having good eyesight!) a rule written in a very small font and in future that document will eventually bankrupt this poor person! Very unpleasant incident, Thibault! 100 euros is a big money for me! I am disabled for health reasons and my pension is about 250 euros, most of this money goes to expensive medications. When I agreed to the match with Eros, I didnâ€™t know all the tricks and traps on you site.

Okay, I'm ready to agree with you if you spend my money on charity. There are so many unfortunate people in the world now!

Thibault de Vassal    (2017-10-09 21:29:57)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

Well, I understand and I'm very sorry about that... if it can avoid such problems, be sure that I'll copy this part of the terms in the page "My account" where it is specified:

"Before to buy any ticket for tournaments with entry fee and money prizes, please read the terms and conditions, and more particularly entry fees, money prizes and money transfer sections."

And as you may guess, FICGS is much much more a pleasure to run for me than a money thing... Actually, the money prize part represent about nothing here and has always been a problem more than a solution at the end.

Your proposal is very generous anyway, otherwise many Epoints are free prizes so it may help to add ones, but you may also play other nice games and why not get this money prize at the end.

Thibault de Vassal    (2017-10-09 22:08:13)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

I have added the following text on the "My account" page, let's hope it will avoid such problems in the future:

"First of all, please note that FICGS does not work like a bank or a casino, you have to win tournaments to get a money prize, otherwise it is not possible to "cashout" or convert Epoints into money. If you didn't do it yet, have a look at the rules (textlink) on this specific point."

Thibault de Vassal    (2017-10-19 20:14:23)
AlphaGo Zero

Must read... AlphaGo would have been able to re-learn from scratch & reach the level of the AlphaGo (2015) that beat Lee Sedol in... 3 days... only 3 days!

http://deepmind.com/blog/alphago-zero-learning-scratch/

Not so surprisingly, it took 21 days to reach the level of the version that beat Ke Jie this year. Now he would have reached a stellar rating (that does not mean much to us poor humans) of about 5000 (!) and he's able to win 100 games out of 100 to the AlphaGo "Lee".

Really stunning.

Garvin Gray    (2017-11-01 15:42:29)
Adjudications & 7 pieces tablebases

Since no one else has answered this. The reason why 7 piece tablebases are not yet used as declared results is two fold:

1) All positions have not yet been completely solved. This is my understanding at this point in time. Even if this point is now incorrect, please refer to point 2

2) The positions are not freely available and able to be reviewed to verify that a position is a draw or win for the claimant. At this point in time, this is possible for all 6 man positions, with sites like shredder tablebases site, for instance. Just copy your fen in as the arbiter and up come the result.

This type of resource does not yet exist for 7 man endings and until it does, 7 man adjudications will remain outside the rulings of official decisions.

Thibault de Vassal    (2017-11-25 21:05:20)
The older rating lists

At last, all correspondence chess rating lists (from the server start, march 2006) are available by clicking "Rating lists" and following "The older rating lists"... 1 year of ratings by page.

As it was asked by a few players for a long time, only players who were REALLY active (who finished at least one game at most 1 year before or 1 year after the period) are listed in.

Many informations and good memories :) The worst part is that I can see clearly the reality: About 50% players left in about 4 or 5 years. The peak was about 900 players, there are now only 261 active correspondence chess players. Time to find new ideas, definitely.

Thibault de Vassal    (2017-12-07 16:44:05)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

It looks like there's no more month without news from Google Deepmind... This time again, this is quite stunning!

AlphaZero would have been able to beat (crush) the most recent version of Stockfish, that is also the world champion program and of course the free engine well known by correspondence chess players.

But most important is that actually AlphaZero would have outperformed Stockfish after only 4 hours of training (if I understood well), while it took 8 hours to outperform AlphaGo Lee and only 120 minutes to outperform Elmo at Shogi! However it seems much much harder for the neural program to improve at chess after this stunningly fast auto-learning.

100 games played (25 wins & 25 draws with white! 3 wins with black... no loss, either with white or black, which is an incredible performance)

All details available (must read) here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01815.pdf

http://www.sciencealert.com/it-took-4-hours-google-s-ai-world-s-best-chess-player-deepmind-alphazero

A few games played by AlphaZero against Stockfish are included in the arxiv article.

Thibault de Vassal    (2017-12-08 03:47:56)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

According to Chessbase, there was 24 hours of self-learning before the match.

Also, "AlphaZero was calculating roughly 80 thousand positions per second, while Stockfish, running on a PC with [32-cores, was calculating] about 70 million positions per second.", about 900 times slower that is quite significant.

https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-future-is-here-alphazero-learns-chess

Arturas Drozdovas    (2017-12-08 21:16:36)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

Just look how alphazero plays, strategic moves that lead to a win. Its impossible for houdini, komodo or stockfish to find these moves with any of the hardware.

Ilmars Cirulis    (2017-12-08 21:23:22)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

There will be some more matches, I hope. I expect that at least some criticism about settings and machine of chess engine will be heard.

Also more serious paper about AlphaZero (chess/shogi/go) will be publised.

And then Deepmind are going to leave chess in the past, in the same way as it did with go. At the best, it will be used for testing some of next research ideas, and we will get few more games to look at.

And then it will make a superhuman Starcraft player, then maybe some AI that can do math research like the humans do (I would like to live so far :D), then maybe computer will learn languages properly... :)

Chess is just random checkpoint for Deepmind. We will have to make our own AlphaZero to play with, anyway. :)

Ilmars Cirulis    (2017-12-08 22:56:07)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

Here is also a Reddit thread with few comments/answers from Stockfish author Tord Romstad:
https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/7igro1/alphazero_reactions_from_top_gms_stockfish_author/

One quote from it.
<< But please note that I don't really blame Google. They didn't do anything wrong. They were running a scientific experiment, not a sporting event, and their experiment convincingly demonstrates what they set out to prove. >>

Garvin Gray    (2017-12-09 09:09:47)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

Just to be clear, or a clarification for those who need it. I never stated that anyone from AlphaZero cheated, or did anything of the kind.

All I stated was that because Stockfish is an open source program, they had the opportunity to study how the program works and tune AlphaZero to take advantage of that.

Any opponent should take advantage of any small advantage they can gain.

I also made clear mention of the processing speed differences. This presented AlphaZero a clear advantage. The issue of same hardware being used is not a new topic. It is brought up in almost every tournament when chess engine tournaments are being played. That for a fair and level competition, the engines need to compete on similar strong hardware.

Reading some of the other replies and thinking further about my first post, I wonder how AlphaZero would go if a four engine event was held, with one game per day between Houdini, Komodo, Stockfish and AlphaZero with equal hardware being used?

Little opportunity then to tune AlphaZero to one specific engine and it would be more a test of the overall strength of the engine in long time control play.

Garvin Gray    (2017-12-14 11:47:49)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

Even more I read about this result, the more I am inclined to put this result in the 'nice story' but the devil is in the detail.

The time control was 1 minute per move, no tablebases and limited hardware for Stockfish.

This is a major limiting factor for any of the major programs and not how they are designed to work.

Also reading the chessbase article, as I suspected, AlphaZero was able to play many, many games against the Stockfish program, but Stockfish had no such opportunity against AlphaZero.

And so with each game, AlphaZero and the programmers had the opportunity to learn about Stockfish's strengths and weaknesses. Stockfish had no such opportunity.

The only way to see if AlphaZero and its MonteCarlo system is any good is for it to enter the next Computer World Championship and play under equal equipment against all the best chess programs.

Same time control, same processing power , opening books tailored for each engine and tablebases available for each engine.

That is the only way to find out how good the next version of AlphaZero really is.

Ilmars Cirulis    (2017-12-14 12:09:18)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

Conspiracy theories and not understanding of Deepmind motivation.

They tested if the concept works. It was success. They are satisfied and start working on other interesting/useful stuff, as they mostly don't care about chess.

The only training of AlphaZero happened when it played against itself. Stockfish was just an opponent to play against - to check how strong has AlphaZero became.

AlphaZero too had no opening book or endgame tablebases, so that's not relevant. Etc. etc., basically too much conspiracy theories and too much caring about which is the most strongest engine (at least in comparison to Deepmind, as they are totally chill about it, imho :D). :)

Ilmars Cirulis    (2017-12-14 12:12:53)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

Sure, give each engine both CPUs and GPUs. :D

Also, look at suffering of Baduk/Go community and try to evaluate - what's the probability that Deepmind will release the trained Neural Network of chess playing AlphaZero. :) It's about zero.

They don't care about TCEC, they are in machine learning business, not chess business.

Ilmars Cirulis    (2017-12-14 12:20:51)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

The best we can hope is:
1) release of other 90 games against Stockfish
2) some self-play games of AlphaZero, when it's fully trained
3) *maybe* some additional games against more powerful Stockfish or some other engine

The best thing in all cases all - possibility to see more AlphaZero games. More very interesting, strategic games.
I can run Stockfish on my computer and only wait 20-50 times longer to get highest quality games of it (sorry, slow computer :D), but I can't do that with AlphaZero, until chess community hasn't made their own version.

Garvin Gray    (2017-12-23 00:53:39)
Monte Carlo Analysis

In the Fritz 16 gui, you choose Monte Carlo Analysis from the header options, just like you would if you were choosing infinite analysis or deep position analysis and the many other types of game styles.

Your main engine must be Fritz 16, which seems to be a pain. This is one of my questions about this analysis style. Will explain more below.

Then after choosing Monte Carlo Analysis, Fritz gui will change over to MCA and a new screen will appear with options:

Search depth: default is 5. The first is the search depth, with a default of "5". This controls how far ahead (in half-moves, or "plies") the engine will look before making a move. For example, if you leave this at "5", the engine will look 2.5 moves ahead before making a move. Remember, the engine is going to be playing a lot of games against itself and storing the moves in the form of a tree, so the search depth is important. You must realize, however, that there's something of a tradeoff here; the higher you set the search depth, the more time the engine will need to make each move -- so you're trading time for depth. On the other hand, setting a lower search depth means that many more games will be played in a given amount of time, but that the moves themselves are likely to be more superficial.

Keep in mind, too, that you should use only odd numbers for the search depth, because chess engines tend to develop a tactical "blind spot" when made to analyze at even ply depths. Rule of thumb: odd numbers good, even numbers bad.

The second setting is the "width" of the tree. This is similar in some ways to the "Branching factor" in Deep Position Analysis and is another "space for time" tradeoff. If you create a "Narrow" tree, you won't see many alternative moves displayed in your game tree but the overall process of playing games and generating the tree will be faster. "Broad" trees show more alternatives but take longer to generate (it requires more processor time and thus slows down the chess engine).

-------------------------------------

So in all from my reading- what I can seem to deduce is- MCA plays many games against itself starting from the set position. The longer you leave the analysis, the more 'reliable' the results.

The question, or issue I am having at the moment for testing is, in the Fritz gui, I am having to use Fritz 16 as the main engine but am not seeing the analysis change to any other engines, so am wondering how long before it does, or will it only analysis the position in Fritz 16?

Considering at the start when you were loading your setting, you were given the option of four engines, this seems confusing to me.

So I thought I would ask if someone else had more experience with MCA and how it works?

Also, what about Deep position analysis? We could start a thread about that one too.

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-11 03:13:36)
1st King Supertournament

Hi Christoph,

I agree that engines may be there anyway (I added a permanent warning in the "move_express" page), and also that King's Gambit needs to be analyzed again and again :)

There are several reasons for this choice for this particular tournament...

1. The tournament's format: The number of games may be huge and practically impossible to manage with databases & engines analysis. At least, it could be dissuasive! By the way, there are regularly King's gambit thematic in the Special Chess Tournaments category.

2. The "applications friendly" idea: Unlike most other tournaments, this one will be particulary playable just for fun from anywhere with a phone.

And before everything, this is just an experiment...

Let's try something new :)

Garvin Gray    (2018-01-16 00:52:53)
Conditional chess moves (again)

Ahh conditional moves again. Seems like once a year this topic comes up. Rinse and repeat.

For the record, yes I am in favour it. So please do not take my position as being against it.

This discussion has been held before a few times, but the site does change.

Thibault, what is this sites current capability to handle conditional moves? They would only just have to be just one line linear conditionals.

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-16 16:43:40)
Conditional chess moves (again)

Hi all,

Before everything, let's make it clear: Absolute priority (for years actually, but particularly since the launch of the Android apps) right now is to increase the popularity of the server, that slowly went down for more than 5 years. Now it's going better for the first time since, but I'm still working on and have much to do there.

Well, let's say this would be the right thing to do after all (which is another debate, with questions like what if a player does not want his opponent to use this option that by the way he cannot or does not want to use himself because it goes too fast and/or gains time on clock - case that I saw at another server).

Don't misunderstand me: I already used conditional moves at other servers and I liked it too, but I did not find it essential. Also, we all know that all opinions are in nature. And as a reminder, one goal of this server was to offer the simpliest & lightest (HTML or HTML & few javascript) interface.

Kim, one question to think about the work to do in your step 1:

How do you imagine the communication between a Javascript interface & php server? Well, I know how to implement Ajax (which I chose not to use at FICGS), this is not the point here. But it is not enough that moves are verified by javascript - that is a big work if you do it from zero - , it must be validated by the server itself, then confirmed or not to the player, meaning casually one more step. Means more php jobs from the server (which is not a big deal) so new codes that would be compatible between that Javascript UI (that must fit to site's design) & FICGS (that is not obvious if you know the small possible differences in terms of PGN format), a new field in database, the way to handle it after few conditional moves & so on.

Once more, it is feasible, of course. But there are obvious difficulties: it is not possible to add such code without being completely in FICGS codes, that are not object-oriented.

Anyway, if the number of active players grows again, I'm quite sure we'll have a good occasion to discuss it (with some more pressure ^^).

Kym Farnik    (2018-01-17 00:34:08)
Conditional chess moves (again)

Hi
First thanks for making your position clear.

Yes, JS talking Ajax to a PHP handler.
I have implemented this type of thing in the past.

Even if the main FICGS code is totally procedural, it is not uncommon to build a new feature using an OO module, and in time either run old and new code in parallel. Or... migrate all the code to a new OO framework over time.

The play move and add conditionals interface would need to be made JS and redesigned. The back end would I expect have a game/move/conditional validator function.
There are plenty of JS chess interfaces that could be used as design input.

I recognize this is a major project for a one man team. I'd say 4-6 weeks of full time effort, possibly longer if we have to design a OO framework for the back end. Hence my offer to help as I'm semi-retired and have time.

A good isolated dev and test environment is mandatory. This is not just a simple site hack.

I hope this helps!

Clodomiro Ortiz    (2018-01-17 11:59:10)
Spice up chess? More members

I like the idea of a SUPER RAPID TOUR..of course, it is lead to the segment of population with enough available time...remember that sometimes losing on time is a decision some people prefer as a tactic to delay defeat.Anyway, everyone should be responsible for the tour selected...

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-23 00:08:33)
Conditional chess moves (again)

The exact rule is "The 50 moves rule is not implemented, please call referee if an obvious draw is not accepted by your opponent. Please note that a forced checkmate in more than 50 moves won't be considered as a draw."

Consequently, if tablebases say there is a draw, it is not always a draw here, e.g. if this is a draw because of the 50/60 moves FIDE rule.

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-23 00:43:23)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments

... at least, for those who think by themselves (a vast majority, I guess), here's some help :)

http://image.farnik.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Think_In_Chess

Good advices here but it will not be enough to save some of my games ;)

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-25 01:53:48)
Conditional chess moves (again)

As you may have noticed, chess.js & chessboard.js are now integrated as an option in the viewer page...

But strangely, it seems there are some bugs in the PGN processing, or at least this 24.R2e1 in WCH game 98780 (Kruse-Riccio) should be ok with the "sloppy" option.

You can see the new feature here:

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=98780&auto=1

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-02-15 23:48:00)
Stockfish 9 released

It seems that Stockfish 9 is now available... Did anyone test it already?

http://stockfishchess.org/download/

Any improvement "noticed"? (seems hard to notice anything anymore :))

We'll see what rating it reaches on CEGT lists...

Garvin Gray    (2018-02-16 01:25:26)
Stockfish 9 released

Probably a bit early to ask if any genuine improvements are noticeable, since its just been released :)

One comment that I do remember from the recent Computer World Champs, where Houdini and Komodo made the finals, and Stockfish 8 missed out by a whisker, was that each of the programmers said that Stockfish did not convert some positions because it did not have as high a contempt factor as Houdini and Komodo.

So it is likely that for Stockfish 9, this is an area that the programmers have worked on.

Kym Farnik    (2018-02-16 09:21:20)
Stockfish 9 released

FYI Development builds now have dynamic contempt.

Author: Stefano Cardanobile
Date: Fri Feb 9 19:07:19 2018 +0100
Timestamp: 1518199639

Introduce dynamic contempt

Make contempt dependent on the current score of the root position.

The idea is that we now use a linear formula like the following to decide
on the contempt to use during a search :

contempt = x + y * eval

where x is the base contempt set by the user in the "Contempt" UCI option,
and y * eval is the dynamic part which adapts itself to the estimation of
the evaluation of the root position returned by the search. In this patch,
we use x = 18 centipawns by default, and the y * eval correction can go
from -20 centipawns if the root eval is less than -2.0 pawns, up to +20
centipawns when the root eval is more than 2.0 pawns.

To summarize, the new contempt goes from -0.02 to 0.38 pawns, depending if
Stockfish is losing or winning, with an average value of 0.18 pawns by default.

Garvin Gray    (2018-02-22 11:22:43)
Norm qualification criteria, incorrect?

In looking at the current group/event that I am playing in, which is Rapid SM 15, according to the current way FICGS sets the scores for norms, to get a FIM norm for that event, FEM is at 4 and FIM as at 4.5 for all players.

It has occurred to me that this is different to how fide works out norm opportunities in round robin and swiss events.

In those events, each players average rating of their opponents is worked out and then that is plugged into the system and then that expected score is used to work out what score they need to get a FEM or FIM norm or higher.

To explain further as that might be unclear.

In the group I am talking about, PoulErik Jorgensen has an equal chance of getting an FEM or FIM norm than someone who is rated lower than him, even though that other player is playing a field who is stronger.

So using the FIDE way and the percentages for FEM and FIM norm, I play and average rating field of 2337.8, round up to 2338. This means that in a category 4 event, I need to score 56 percent, or 3.5 for an FEM and 67 percent or 4 points, not 4.5 for a FIM norm.

Now also doing some further calculating, Alex Wosch is able to score a FSM norm as his average rating of opponents is 2,329 and would then need to score 4.5. Under the current arrangement, he is deprived of this opportunity.

Therefore, I could give a rundown of all players, but I am of the conclusion that the current method of calculating Norm qualifications is inadequate and needs to be refined.

My thoughts were triggered to this from the FICGS world cup when any player to reach a FEM norm needed to score 12/16, which was clearly an outlandish score given the field.

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-03-14 23:12:38)
A few questions to Nelson Bernal Varela

Nelson Bernal Varela is an early FICGS correspondence chess player, now rated 2277 but also rated 2359 at ICCF (Correspondence Chess Master - CCM).

Last but not least, and as all poker holdem players here probably noticed, he is also our ranked #1 for years, who just reached an outstanding poker rating of 2382, while number two is now rated "only" 2212. A good occasion to ask him a few questions, that he kindly accepted to answer.

-----------------------

- Hello Nelson! You are the 2nd most active player at FICGS for years now. Everyone here probably noticed your incredible results in poker tournaments. "Correspondence poker holdem" was probably a strange idea as it is very unusual and very different from "Internet poker". What's your opinion on this and on the presence of a card game (played without money) at FICGS?

NBV: There are more important things than money and one of those is HONOR; It is honorable to be a chess master, international master, grandmaster, world chess champion at ICCF and at FICGS and to be number one in the ranking. It is honorable to be a FICGS world champion at Go and to be first in the ranking, it is honorable to be poker world champion at FICGS poker and in my case, it is an honor to be number one at poker here at FICGS during the last years, understanding that our general level of play has improved remarkably. None of these activities produces money, but to achieve any of the mentioned titles, it is necessary to have extraordinary abilities.

When I was about 18 years old, I had the opportunity to meet a person with immense material wealth, we spent whole evenings playing chess and then I told him my perceptions about each movement of the game. He thanked me for my chess explanations and paid me with good money. That wealthy man in his turn told me about life and recommended that I should always be proud of the gifts I had, since he knew, with all the money he had and being able to hire the best grandmasters in the world, that it could hardly come at the level of chess master. That person told me that the intellect can be turned into money whenever you want.

Now, by playing poker without money at FICGS, I understood that it was my extraordinary and wonderful opportunity to study-learn-perfect and test my poker theories without costing me a single dollar. In FICGS there is no money, but thanks to the knowledge I gained playing poker in FICGS, today I can go after the money in online poker rooms and probably in OTB poker tournaments. I am studying the possibility of becoming a professional poker player.

- The understanding of your opponent's behaviour is usually quite important at Poker. Do you manage to establish some profiles while playing so many simultaneous hands & games? Did you build any method?

NBV: Today I am sure that the most important thing to raise, and keep raising my level in poker, has been to build a psychological profile of mine, to get to know Nelson Bernal Varela in depth and above all to understand me, accept me, love me and be work every day eliminating my technical errors, strategic, psychological that make me play badly. I am aware that in poker I can play perfectly and still lose, what I can not forgive me is playing badly, which is why I work hard correcting my wrong decisions.

Of course, there is a space in my brain where I have built a psychological profile of each contender, that profile I have been able to elaborate with all the information that is provided to me in each hand we play. The way each of us plays, gives reliable information about our personality.

About my method I can write the following: A few years ago, I created a table in excel, where I had all the games with each contender, I identified them with the FICGS numeration and each movement in each hand (preflop, flop, turn, river ) it I was writing and studying; I started to add technical-psychological variables that seemed important to me, resulting in 20 variables that I had to qualify in each movement. With the passage of time and my effort, I no longer needed the excel table and I did not use it again (it was exhausting and time consuming) because I was assimilating things faster and with greater depth. Today I can say that I evaluate these 20 variables in a natural way, as if I was breathing and that when I am at a poker table, online or real, after a few minutes I get the psychological profile of the table and each of my opponents. In the pocket of my shirt I keep a small paper with the list of variables, periodically reread it and I wonder if I should modify, remove or add something.

- You won 1007 poker games, and lost only 380, with a ratio usually going from 57% to 80% according to your best opponents. Undoubtly you know the mathematics hidden behind poker but that may not explain everything. How did you learn to play?

NBV: Mathematics is an ingredient in poker, in the same way that my psychological aspects and of my opponents (I recommend reading-studying about four times the book â€œThe Poker mindsetâ€ of Ian Taylor and Matthew Hilger), it is vital to understand the Law of Large Numbers. Next I make a list of topics that I consider important to raise the level of poker; compete with EV+ cards, you have to know the small ball theory of Negreanu (but not apply it, hahaha) you have to always look at the texture of the board, you have to evaluate your reality and your future, also that of your opponents (act and power), the position to talk is important, the stack, the personality of the table, know who has the panic button on. All these and other variables must be evaluated in the few seconds they have to make a move and the only important thing is to make the right decision according to the circumstances. There is a good list of poker books to read... it is mandatory to have read about 15 poker books.

- As for me, I may be wrong but I can't imagine that you reached such a rating without special techniques & maybe by optimizing it in some ways... Of course, "rating management" is not a problem, and it is only one thing with a limited impact, but maybe you have some other secrets? What about this "+1" technique that I noticed in many of our games, if this is not a secret? :)

NBV: In these years I have used different techniques that I had to read, study, learn, repeat, modify, invent and sometimes eliminate. Poker is a sport that seems easy, with time one manages to understand that it has an amazing complexity, today I consider poker to be as complex as chess and I study them in a "similar" way. As an example, I have tried to create "openings in poker"; based only on probabilities I invented something that I called mirror theory and another "opening" that I called opposite outs. I am fascinated by mathematics and from the mathematical perspective they are perfect "theories-openings", but I have lost tournaments and a lot of money for applying such theories in mistaken emotional moments. In poker it is important to never lose sight of the Law of Large Numbers and be aware that this LAW likes to make fun of each one of us... I am working on giving an emotional nuance to my theories "mirror" and "opposite outs". There are moments when perfect mathematics becomes an unforgivable psychological error...

For the last few months I have modified my way of playing and my results have improved; Today it must be much more difficult to win a game me, thanks to small and imperceptible adjustments that of course only I know, because I have followed my mistakes-successes-evolution in the game over several years.

- Isn't it too frustrating for you to play heads up only (here at least) ? Of course it is a way to improve this important technical case but we know that many complexities come with 3 to 8 players on the table, which is the most common case in professional poker tournaments.

NBV: Currently I spend little time every day playing heads-up in FICGS, thanks to the fact that I have the profile of each contender. The 4-5 hours that I study poker daily, include practice in micro limits in cash tables of 6 players and tournaments in tables of 8-9 players. I think I'm covering the whole range of possibilities, experiencing game situations between 1 and 8 contenders.

- What do you think about computer analysis in poker? Do you think it could make a difference here just like the way we play advanced chess?

NBV: I think the algorithms are ready to be written in machine language and the question is where are those algorithms? Well, in the brains of the best players in the world and in their games compiled in huge databases. But programming language can be accelerated with artificial intelligence brains, making A.I. studying databases of the best professionals, playing with itself millions of games and building an invincible TACTIC-STRATEGIC SYSTEM, similar to chess software and GO... I think preflop and flop play would be very similar between humans and artificial intelligence, but on the turn and on the river artificial intelligence would take considerable advantage, but in the short time the level of human poker would rise because artificial intelligence would teach us to play poker, this event that would diminish the profits of the professionals. It will always be said in favor of poker that because it is an incomplete game of information, to make computer algorithms are quite complicated, but despite that, I am sure that artificial intelligence will far surpass the best human poker player. It is possible that an artificial intelligence that plays a perfect poker already exists, but unlike GO and chess, poker does produce a lot of money. Due to the money factor, in today's world, it is very difficult that there is a Prometheus willing to steal fire from the gods and give it to mankind...

- How would you describe your relation to games in general?

NBV: I can summarize it in one of the first chess books I had the fortune to read, by the great Danish master Bent Larsen, "I play to win"

- When did you start to play chess & poker? Do you play other games?

NBV: My first contact with chess was at the age of nine, it was love at first sight and until death separates us; I must confess that for some years we have been separated, due to my stupidity and my erroneous decisions. I have always been self-taught in any subject, my method is to buy about 10 to 15 books of the subject that interests me and I read them thoroughly, sometimes 3 or 4 times; already with that information in my head and thanks to the constant practice, I build MY SYSTEM (Nimzowitch) according to my personality, my dreams, my desires, my anguish, my fears... I was youth champion of BogotÃ¡, for 4 years , my OTB level was strong, but I had to abandon chess because I had to work and survive; Being an athlete in Colombia is an absolutely difficult thing, but being a chess player is extremely complicated since there is no support or respect from society and you can not live by chess, because it does not produce money.

I met poker in 2009 in FICGS, at that time I was in a terrible emotional situation, trying to get away from a relationship with a woman that I should never approach and where I wasted valuable time and energy. In that context, looking for my thoughts to be occupied, I ended up playing the FICGS C-24 poker tournament and tied the first place with three more players; I kept playing, without understanding what was happening with the cards and obviously, losing, until in 2010 I won the FICGS D-21 tournament with perfect score, 6 out of 6. I had already bought-read my first beginner book: Poker for Dummies of Harroch and Krieger, but my poker was coarse, wild, street, intuitive, amateur, without dedication or study. In the background of this paragraph, the affection and gratitude that I have for FICGS is condensed, a place where I have been able to build-practice-study-test MY SYSTEM in poker.

I play Backgammon, I do not care that it may sound pretentious-petulant, but I have a very strong level and I have not read my first book yet. Hahaha. Any year I register as a participant in the world championship and I will cause disgust to more than one professional. Hahaha. Unlike chess and poker, backgammon does not cause me stress, on the contrary, I feel a lot of joy and pleasure when I play backgammon. I feel something similar with math, reading and music. It's true and I'm proud, I've always been a NERD.

- We all know how difficult it is to reach a number 1 rank but it is even more difficult to keep it during a long time. What is your motivation? Do you have more goals to achieve (chess & other games included) ?

NBV: My motivation in any activity I undertake in my life is to do it with absolute passion (passion is everything you would do to get a breath of air, in the second before dying by drowning or suffocation).

I have several goals to accomplish before December 2021; In the ICCF correspondence chess I must reach the 2400 elo and get the titles of International Master, SIM and Grand Master, also perform outstanding performances in world championships. In FICGS Chess I must complete my Master and International Master titles and overcome the 2450 elo, also snatch the title from our eternal champion Eros Riccio. You're warned Eros, hahaha. On the LSS site where I also play, www.chess-server.net I want to be a world champion.

In POKER I find myself playing micro limits bets in several online sites; in June 2018 I hope I have built some bankroll. In July of 2018 I must be evaluating my poker to know if my immediate goal is to become a professional poker player, that would completely change my chess goals and I would have to dedicate myself to OTB poker. At the moment I study and practice poker every day, about 4-5 hours a day. At this moment my poker is full of errors that I am eliminating one by one. MY SYSTEM needs to win and raise money in the micro limits, so that it can succeed in professional poker.
In chess OTB I should become a great master, but that topic should be left as a goal for after 2021. I could achieve the record of being the oldest human in getting the title of Grand Master OTB. Hahaha.

In backgammon I would like to play some important tournaments in USA and Europe and maybe to be OTB world champion, but at the moment I do not have clarity on how to do it. I must mature that idea.
I hope they invent immortality before I die and that I have enough money to buy it, because time is what I need to realize all these and other dreams...

- Finally, playing so many games on several websites (obviously with serious ambitions in each game & place) may look quite inhuman and exhausting, does your body or brain say "stop" sometimes? Do you train by melting sports and brain games just like Kasparov did in the past?

NBV: It's true, it takes willpower and a lot of resistance to sustain the pace that I carry. To take care of my body, I am doing daily exercise for 60 to 90 minutes, including routines of strength, elasticity, speed and endurance. I also practice table tennis to preserve the agility of my body. I'm also divorced and I do not have a girlfriend... Hahaha

- By curiosity, do you consider playing Go in the future, even after... 2021? (which would surely be an enormous charge more, but the game is really interesting)

I have a kind of commitment with the best Colombian GO player, exchange of classes, he makes me a competitive player of GO and I turn him into a competitive player of backgammon. But the truth is that I do not have time... it could be after 2021...

- Do you confirm that you are not (entirely or partly) AlphaZero or any kind of A.I. (yet) ? :-)

NBV: Hahaha, of course I would like to be a real centaur, human with machine power, I do not care what physical form I should adopt. I offer myself publicly as a guinea pig in projects of technological singularity. Hahaha

- Many thanks for your detailed and instructive (impressive as well) answers! My best wishes of luck in all your games and future tournaments.

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-03-26 01:38:20)
Translations needed, new FICGS homepages

Dear chessfriends, any help to improve translations of the new FICGS responsive homepages (https only) will be very appreciated :)

https://ficgs.com/ajedrez.html (es)
https://ficgs.com/xadrez.html (pt)
https://ficgs.com/schach.html (de)
https://ficgs.com/scacchi.html (it)
https://ficgs.com/catur.html (id)

... also russian, ukrainian, chinese, korean, japanese, hindi, vietnamese.

If you have any suggestions, please write to web [at] ficgs.com

Steven DuCharme    (2018-03-29 08:46:24)
Daily Chess World Championship

GM [moderated]. You are invited to join the Daily Chess World Championship. Decide asap. Thank you. Please answer here. If u decline the next poster will be entered.

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-04-01 03:36:37)
Vallejo Pons leaves European Chess Ch.

Sure... it will be a long hard way :(

Steven DuCharme    (2018-03-30 20:28:50)
Daily Chess World Champ.

Please don't make me rep this site. The hORROR!!!!!!!!

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-03-31 02:06:03)
Vallejo Pons leaves European Chess Ch.

Quite incredibly sad story for GM Francisco Vallejo Pons after having played poker for money under an old & strange spanish law...

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2018/03/chess-francisco-vallejo-pons-poker-tax-dispute-30327.htm

http://www.chess.com/news/view/hunted-by-spanish-tax-authority-vallejo-leaves-european-championship

http://www.change.org/p/spanish-tax-authority-my-aim-is-to-seek-as-many-signatures-as-possible-to-help-out-a-sportsman-in-distress

Herbert Kruse    (2018-03-31 13:15:07)
Vallejo Pons leaves European Chess Ch.

he has to go all the way (courts) to prevent this injustice

so states (spain) make honest people sick, i hate that

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-03-31 19:39:34)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Well, in all cases I think that it shouldn't be allowed to designate anyone publicly as a (possible/probable) cheater. This would certainly lead to a terrible climate of suspicion and unfriendship. So, this has been added to the FICGS rules (11.1):

"To maintain a friendly community, any cheating complaint should be addressed to the referee and should not be made publicly in games comments or in the forum, otherwise with the same consequences."

Some comments in this thread will now be moderated this way.

William Taylor    (2018-04-01 19:36:39)
Poll: renaming the Queen as Dragon

Black and White is at least the other way round in Go. Perhaps you should switch chess to Black moving first, and Go to White moving first, for the benefit of those of us who don't play both games.
The problem with cats, of course, is that we would be leaving out dogs.

Kym Farnik    (2018-04-06 00:52:07)
New style? Please revert

The new desktop style is not so usable. Please revert to previous style.

Thanks, Kym

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-04-06 16:15:50)
New style? Please revert

Ah... as there is no desktop style (as far as I know), I do not see what this is about?! Could you specify? Many thanks!

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-04-06 16:16:46)
New style? Please revert

If you mean "background color/image", either it is selected randomly each time you login, or you can choose it in Preferences.

Kym Farnik    (2018-04-06 16:36:42)
New style? Please revert

No. The old 'My Games' used to show both my time remaining and my opponents.
Now it looks like the App version.
My Tournaments has gone missing as well.

Kym Farnik    (2018-04-06 16:42:18)
New style? Please revert

Found the problem. I'm using Firefox 60beta.
Chrome works ok.
Somehow the device detection is not working with Firefox Beta.

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-04-06 17:03:20)
New style? Please revert

?? .. that seems very strange... if you could send me a screen capture, it could help much to prevent some strangeness. I'm always afraid of browsers updates :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-04-07 02:21:30)
New style? Please revert

Many thanks for the capture! This is exactly the mobile version, so either it was the url memorized somewhere in your browser, or you reached it via the new https homepage, but it was not "detected", you always can choose what interface you use.

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-05-01 23:43:20)
Ratings inflation period

Examples :

(1 game) 10 power 0.8 = 10^0.8 =~ 6.3 added to bonus
(10 games) 100 power 0.8 = 100^0.8 =~ 39.8 added to bonus
(30 games) 300 power 0.8 = 300^0.8 =~ 95.8 added to bonus

To see what "bonus" is, please read:

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating

William Taylor    (2018-05-01 23:52:16)
1st King Supertournament

One of the reasons I didn't enter this tournament is that it's not clear how to guarantee compliance with the 'no databases' requirement. What happens if I need to prepare for an OTB game against a King's Gambit player? Obviously I will consult my database and theoretical works, and cannot help but have my ongoing 'King Supertournament' games in my mind.

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-05-02 00:03:56)
1st King Supertournament

I think we all realize that this is not a "usual" FICGS tournament (also that this is just for fun)... and that most correspondence/advanced chess players will not enter it. But I think that FICGS needs such events from time to time, that can attract more "regular" chess players (at least by its announcements). At the end, it seems it makes the job :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-06-02 23:38:07)
Order games load in

Hi Will,

Actually, there is an option for that already, but it may be not clear enough (unless being curious by mouseovering all pics):

Did you try to click the pics just after "Your pending games." ?

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-06-30 20:22:16)
Interview with 15th chess WCH finalist

For once, as Eros & I couldn't find much more to say after all his consecutive wins, I asked Ramil Germanes these few questions around his match & correspondence chess (with what may look like a quite surprising conclusion).

_______________________

- Hello Ramil, many thanks for answering those few questions! This is a first time with the WCH finalist, as the winner (Eros again) agreeded this could be an interesting experiment for a change, so we'll probably have a quite different point of view this time! You just finished your games to score 6-6 (12 draws), Eros retaining the title again. I guess this was the first time you played such a correspondence chess match, what are your impressions on this knockout format?

Yes this is the first time I've played a world championship match although I played before in earlier editions of this world championship but not reaching the challenger level. My impression? Its great playing for the world championship but I know its nearly impossible to beat the world champion.

- Let's rewind a few months backward, would you make other choices, in openings or anything?

I don't know. Tbh, I'm not very good on chess theory and not very updated as well. So I'm just playing basic moves hoping for opportunities to come up.

- So, is Eros beatable in this final match according to you? (please give us some hope) ^^

With how quickly you can search information and the strength of chess engines nowadays, its almost impossible to beat him unless you have access to alpha zero (haha). Though maybe Herbert Kruse can pull it off.

- What can you tell us about yourself and your relation to chess & correspondence chess?

I'm just an ordinary guy from the Philipines who happens to love playing chess. But my love of computers is what brought me to correspondence chess and to ficgs.

- Do you play other games, e.g. Go, Shogi, cards games?

No I don't know how to play those games.

- Could you tell us how these 12 games went from your own point of view?

For me, the games went through their normal course. Both of us didn't made any major mistakes so all games were drawn. That's just how it went. Though there were new moves on some the games it doesn't really changes result of the older games played before.

- Would you share a few tips to play good correspondence chess in 2018, or at least to beat the best chess engines? :)

Sorry but i dont know. I will be the new world champion by now if i know, hehehe.

- You told me that your computer configuration was basically a quad-core i5 3570 / 4gb on Fritz GUI (about 10,500 kn/s) / Windows 10, and we know that many of us (Eros included) still use such configs or even dual-core, would an octa-core have brought a significant advantage to you to win this match according to you?

Oh I don't know they still have those configurations. But I've already encountered opponents in Infinity Chess with 18-22 cores configs. Anyways, an octa-core or faster cpu would definitely be going to speed up my analysis and will let me analyze more lines and variations which may improves my overall play.

Honestly, I don't have that much time these days for correspondence chess. In my match against Eros, I had only about 1 hour of analysis time before work and about another 1 hour after work. Since I already have a family and 2 kids, they have to be my priority first. And I think somebody also can relate to this. So a faster cpu would be very helpful in the match and maybe will give a better chance than a slower cpu.

- As far as I know, you love to build computers, did you use or think about using several ones at the same time for analysis?

No. I only used one computer in my match against Eros. I have 2 other computers but both are slower.

- How much time you've been playing correspondence chess & how do you feel the way the game changed over the years?

I've been playing correspondence chess since 2010 and I have observed that its easier to win games in the past when chess engines were still weaker. Because you notice some players depend only on engine moves and engines still commit mistakes and you can exploit those mistakes if you "investigate" further.

Unlike now, engines are very strong that even players who rely solely on engines moves will be very hard to beat. It lessens the gap of players that know how to "use" the engines and the ones who do not.

- Finally, what makes you love correspondence chess in 2018?

I will always love chess and correspondence chess but what makes it exciting now is the rise of the new kind of engines.

Engines like Leela chess zero that has a different approach in playing chess. Maybe more of these kind of chess engines will be seen in the future. Because of its use of monte carlo analysis and neural networks, we are starting to see moves that we have never seen before. Very aggressive attacks and moves defying opening principles can now be seen. Correspondence chess is getting exciting again!

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-07-27 01:50:24)
On (almost) global forfeits in WCH

Hi all,

I'd like to gather opinions on several cases that may happen or have happened in WCH tournaments.

1) Let's say that one player lost on time 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 games out of 7 (for any reason) in a WCH tournament, after having won one or several games.

2) Let's say that one player resigned 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 games out of 7 (for any reason) in a WCH tournament, after having won one or several games.

3) Let's say that one player lost on time or resigned 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 games out of 7 (for any reason)in a WCH tournament, after having won one or several games.

Obviously, there may be possible unfair situations for one or several players, but it is not so easy to find a fair global solution for all cases. Should those wins (by the player who lost on time and/or resigned several games) not be taken in account? Any suggestions for a simple/clear rule?

I must say that I'm not so favourable to add such a rule at a first sight, but let's see how this discussion may lead.

Many thanks in advance.

Herbert Kruse    (2018-07-27 08:23:52)
On (almost) global forfeits in WCH

in other sports, like german football leages all games of this team are lost

Christoph Schroeder    (2018-08-14 18:24:07)
poker reflection time

In chess, an increment of 1 day per move is sensible and leads to manageable game lengths.

But in poker?
A poker game (consisting of up to 5 rounds) can have thousands of moves (that is another dimension compared to ~50 in chess). Therefore, I consider the current increment (1 day per move) as much too high.

My proposal: the increment should be one day per hand.

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-09-07 16:57:06)
Netiquette reinforcement

Hi all,

Following a few problems of provocation and repeated draw offers, I propose to reinforce and specify the netiquette to help players finding the right things to do according to the situation...

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#general

Particularly this paragraph:

"It is possible to leave public comments for your games and to send private messages to other members. No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Also, no player will make draw offers repeatedly, particularly serveral times in a row. Doing so may lead to instantly lose the game, and/or being immediately and permanently banned.

If a player receives such a message, he may use the "report" link and accepts to use the "block" link that appears then (when playing a move) rather than replying to it. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and may lead to get a limited access to the server during a few weeks, at the moderator's discretion. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private.

To maintain a friendly community, any cheating complaint should be addressed to the referee and should not be made publicly in games comments or in the forum, otherwise with the same consequences. Please note that no time will be added to any clock in any case, the game will continue in all cases, in example arguing to wait for the referee's decision will not be accepted. Finally, you agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit.

Publication of a private message without the authors expressed permission is strictly forbidden."

A big difference (I hope) is in the small add "Doing so may lead to instantly lose the game (...)". Better or worst? Any opinions or ideas?

Rotom Monotua    (2018-09-07 20:20:02)
Netiquette reinforcement

Manners are important - therefore I would suggest "will lead to instantly lose the game" instead of may...

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-09-07 20:40:30)
Netiquette reinforcement

I agree, but it should be avoided that a few understand there that "any kind of message that seem provocative according to anyone will lead to instantly lose a game"... only a moderator/referee should decide it, probably.

Even if this remains quite fuzzy in all cases, the main idea is here: a threat is stronger than execution.

But... you may be right at the end, we'll see... I'll update it if this reveals to be not efficient enough.

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-09-08 04:05:12)
Netiquette reinforcement

Many thanks for sharing your views Garvin.

Well, this is very relevant OTB, I agree. I'm not sure of what happens if a player abuses of complaints (e.g. to gain some time), which is probably unlikely in all cases, but anyway I imagine that a correspondence chess game could continue before to decide any problem related to provocative messages or repeated draw offers at least. And, of course, it makes it much more simple (at a first sight).

Maybe let's give it a try unless you think about clear examples where it couldn't work already, then I'll make such a change if it doesn't prove to be efficient.

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-09-24 00:15:43)
Some questions to H. Kruse, WCH finalist

After that the last FICGS chess WCH final match finished, the choice was made again to ask a few questions to Eros Riccio's challenger: Herbert Kruse, for the 2nd time. He kindly accepted to answer it so let's learn a bit more on our top-ranked correspondence chess player.

______________________________

Hello Herbert, you're not really a player to introduce as you're very active here and at several chess websites for years, with outstanding ratings in each one (as far as I know), you're the 1st FICGS CUP winner & several times FICGS WCH challenger, each time facing "the wall" Eros Riccio, what could you tell us about yourself particularly as a chess & correspondence chess player?

- i began late with 16 to play my first tournament game, but with 18 i already was kicked out of a night club in company with tony miles ;) (dresscode) had vlastimil hort as trainer for a short time and played in teams with gutman, michalchisin, klovans, gipslis and some other GMs. corr chess i began, because i love to find the truth and because of freestyle, where i began to build very strong computers

What kind of computers do you build? Is it all dedicated to chess?

- i have several dual xeon e5 computers with 64gb ddr3 and 16 to 20 real cores and they all play chess ;)

Once again, GM Eros Riccio managed to draw the 12 games of the match. What are your feelings on these games? How did you estimate your chances to destabilize your opponent in the openings and to create complications enough with White (or Black)?

- this time my feelings were neutral. 1% chances to win, but i hoped he would lose his concentration if i began more games with him (we played 6 other games at the same time)

Doesn't "1% chances to win (the match)" mean about 0.17% to win only one game with White, even when losing one with Black? Isn't it a bit pessimistic after all, or is it the new so called Riccio-effect? :)

- if the strongest players face each other there is no win possible, except some has a mouse slep or forgot something during human interfacing

When did you start playing correspondence chess and what changed since that time? What attracted you most in the game?

- 2004 and evaluation of the position is the key point of improvement since then. attractive was to be better than actual world class players :)

Could you tell us anything on the way you work chess and play your correspondence games? Any tip or secret? (nothing to lose to ask :))

- with black i play for fastest way to 0.00 and with white i try every promising way to make a game for a longer time complicated

Do you use several ones at the same time when analyzing a game? (still grabbing some tips)

- i only use the newest stockfish versions of brainfish and corchess because the other engines are not so good. because i have many games i decide which one gets the most cores and time and let them run in infinity mode until i am happy that can be after 1 week or more sometimes.

You're not far to rank 2nd as a poker player at FICGS, you obviously started to take on Big Chess as well. What other games do you play? Did you consider to play Go already?

- i played go against the german champion and lost so i quit :)) played backgammon money game and internet (in fibs with kit woolsey i played over 100 matches) in bridge i was best bidder in germany 1994 to 1995, but dont play much nowadays

Do you have specific goals to achieve as a player?

- 2 goals, since a long time: be ficgs world champion and win one german bridge championship

How do you imagine correspondence chess evolution within a decade? What kind of engines/computers do you expect to use and what will look like centaur chess according to you? (in other words, what part will remain to the human player in the decision?)

- i think the engines today are already unbeatable, so in 20 years the would still not lose and chess is dead since about 4 years

What did you think about Google Deepmind's Alpha Zero performance vs. Stockfish?

- it was a joke because they let a bad version of stockfish play. i would not have lost one game against az0 and maybe won 2 til 5 out of 100

Conditions of this AlphaZero vs. Stockfish match were very specific (opening books, unbalanced hardware...) What weaknesses did you detect in AlphaZero play?

- it was the lack of precision, what would let it lose against stockfish in its tuned newest version but i look from a view of a player who is used to play with deep 60 :)

It seems that computers did not completely take on Bridge yet, what do you expect within a decade?

- i have not seen bridge programms, but the game is so easy that it must be already mastered by computers

Christoph Schroeder    (2018-10-22 18:18:29)
Resigning in poker

Resigning in poker is absolutely uncommon. I cannot imagine any situation in which resigning a match or a round would be a reasonable option. Even if a player is trailing 0-2, he still has chances to win the match. So why would anybody consider to resign?

Moreover, the "resign" button is irritating, because it is unclear if resigning means resigning the current round or the current match.

Therefore, I propose to remove the "resign"-button completely.

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-10-23 17:58:03)
Resigning in poker

Well, let's see how this discussion evolves (any other opinion?).

My first idea would be to let it like in other games for more coherence... but I'm not really opposed to remove it (maybe when there's no message from the opponent at least) if the most agrees with that.

Ilmars Cirulis    (2018-10-23 20:51:24)
Resigning in poker

Maybe take away the "resign" button but leave option to resign by text command? If one really wants to resign or leave the game, there should be some way. (Ofc, there's always option to just ignore the game and timeout.)

William Taylor    (2018-10-27 12:03:10)
World Championship Tie-breaks

For many years, the reigning classical world chess champion had draw odds. The chess world eventually realised this was both unfair to the challenger and uninteresting for the spectators, and introduced a rapid and blitz playoff match for use in the event that the players remained tied after the classical portion of the match. There have always been, and will continue to be grumbles about this system (mostly that the classical WC should be decided by classical games), but overall it is popular (as I imagine can be seen from online viewing figures from the Carlsen-Karjakin match, for example) and, to my mind at least, fairer than the alternative. I propose something similar for the FICGS WC match: an advanced chess tie-break match. Granted, there is the same objection as for the classical WC match - advanced chess is not the same as correspondence chess. However, the combatants will already have had ample opportunity (12 games) to decide matters in that format. An advanced chess tie-break would provide much more sporting interest, as the current system is becoming a bit predictable (this is not in any way a dig at the incumbent, Eros Riccio, who is just doing what he has to do, and doing it very well). I think the match would also be great for promoting FICGS - you could stream it live on Twitch, for example, perhaps with commentary. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-11-14 03:21:23)
Carlsen Caruana wch match

At least I saw one real fight! Still hard to predict what can happen then.

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-11-18 01:32:48)
Carlsen Caruana wch match

At least the openings are interesting... games 5 & 6 are good examples. This Petroff line could be a thematic tournament soon here.

Garvin Gray    (2018-11-19 02:36:26)
World Championship Groups

Ok, please clarify- your comment in the chat box is: A few more players for an additional chess WCH group?

The key word to me is 'additional' chess Wch group.

In your latest reply, you say accepting a few later runners to add as replacements into existing groups to substitute for those who have not started their games or forfeited out.

I have no real objection to the later, but I have a strong objection to creating a completely new group from those who did not enter on time and that new group could potentially not be as strong and evenly distributed for ratings from the original WCH groups.

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-11-19 21:48:45)
World Championship Tie-breaks

This discussion is clearly provocation... That's not the first time (this week). Please read the netiquette, rules may apply.

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#general

My role is not to delete such posts each time it appears, particularly several times in a week, so if one of the authors really wants me to do it, rules will apply instantly and he'll go to the silent mode.

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-11-19 22:03:09)
World Championship Tie-breaks

Obviously you did not read or understood the netiquette rules. Please retry before to add anything to this useless public discussion.

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-11-19 22:10:19)
World Championship Tie-breaks

I only support rules. Rules are quite clear in this case and my message was not intended to you especially.

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-11-19 22:25:20)
World Championship Tie-breaks

Please everyone let me finish this discussion with those who feel concerned. Private messages are welcome if necessary.

Paul, the "first" argument is not valid here, it just goes against the netiquette rules, if you read it again.

Thibault de Vassal    (2018-11-30 00:38:11)
AlphaZero 2.0

Looks like a new version of AlphaZero is to be "released"... don't know much about it, all links are welcome. It would reach about 3600 elo, to compare with its previous version and with the last Stockfish (I guess that we will never see a human/computer match again ^^).

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lczero/bRlSX5nYqv8

Jukka Joutsi    (2019-02-26 11:40:40)
delete my account

Please, delete my account - I can't find any information of how to do it. I will not continue my chess in FICGS so DELETE my account - "Jukka Joutsi".

Abdulsamad Sujas    (2019-03-02 17:54:14)
AlphaZero 2.0

What you posted is not Alpha zero. It is Leela zero, which is same as alpha zero in terms of using neural networks.
It learns by playing itself

Google Leela zero to get info. It is free engine, and need some software knowledge to install. There are YouTube videos and some sites. Find by yourself
. I was using it in my system but problem it is losing on time. Don't know why. But it is now rated no.2 in cc engine matches. Just neck to neck with stockfish.

Fred de la Foret    (2019-03-15 17:24:35)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?

I play correspondence chess with a strong chess engine to WIN, loathe drawn games and study the games that I lose to learn to play better.

Thibault de Vassal    (2019-04-01 16:19:38)
April fool jokes at FICGS

I announce here that there won't be april fool jokes anymore at FICGS. Sorry about that for those who liked it (sometimes at least), but it it definitely too confusing on sensible points and it is quite hard to find good ones.

Anyway, have a nice spring everyone!

Miroslav Gazi    (2019-05-16 10:04:05)
Chess DBs for learning and training

Chess DBs for learning and training

https://chesswind.eu/

Any comments or suggestions are welcome!

Leon Pereira    (2019-06-23 08:20:58)
Tournament

I did not receive any notification that the tournament was starting. Did not receive any notification when a games starts. WTF? Just keep getting emails that I have lost. Please drop me from the tournament. This is ridiculous.

Thibault de Vassal    (2019-06-25 12:09:38)
Android App not working

So far, another user encountered the same problem on a Samsung A7 2018 and Huawei 10 m5 lite.

"Unfortunately", it works fine here on all devices so I can't test it more. If anyone solves this problem, please just tell us what was the solution, it could help. Many thanks in advance!

John Hadden    (2019-06-25 13:44:49)
Android App not working

There is an app called 'lookout' and another called smart manager installed on the phone - but I've never noticed them do anything blocking websites or anything. I don't normally use the samsung browser - I use chrome instead - so not sure if there is anything antivirus in there - but I think the ficgs app uses it as the default browser (or at least it looks like it does).

Thibault de Vassal    (2019-06-25 15:23:47)
Android App not working

Well, maybe that changing the default browser solves the problem for FICGS apps, but that's not a clean solution...

https://www.google.com/search?q=android+change+default+browser

I'm inquiring on a better way.

Steven DuCharme    (2019-07-28 05:24:07)
CHESSHERE.COM

New owners took over not that long ago. Site redesigned early this year. Subscribers are getting their money back at least.

Thibault de Vassal    (2019-09-24 21:33:24)
World Championship Groups

This is specified in the WCH rules (2nd paragraph):

"The knockout tournament is played into 8 games matches. The special rule (avoiding short draws) is that in case of equality (4-4), the winner is the player with the strongest tournament entry rating if all games are draw, the player with the lowest tournament entry rating if not all games are draw. The winner is qualified for the next stage."

I hope it is clear enough, maybe I should rewrite it.

Thibault de Vassal    (2019-11-11 20:29:20)
Komodo 13

I guess that it is very hard to answer as many of us have very subjective preferences (like the old times with the quatuor Shredder, Hiarcs, Fritz & Junior, at least before Rybka took it all)... As for me, I can't even answer for now but I always used to consider CEGT rating lists to bias my opinion ^^

Thibault de Vassal    (2021-06-21 13:42:20)
Fat Fritz 2 vs. Stockfish 13

Chess engines still evolve, now we have Stock... err, Fat Fritz 2 (based on Stockfish 12) on Fritz 17 GUI, and the famous free chess engine Stockfish 13, both using neural networks on CPU and not GPU anymore (if I understood well).

Did anyone try both of them to compare it, or to compare to former versions like Stockfish 11 ? What learnings?

Thibault de Vassal    (2019-11-28 12:08:42)
Lee Sedol quits Go because of A.I.

Finally, is it time for Go players to play "advanced Go"? Would it make sense like it used to be at chess?

Meanwhile, Go champion Lee Sedol resigns (it seems for several reasons actually, now ranked #54 at GoRatings.org - by the way the full rating list is worth to watch until rank 800)

So, we human will not probably beat what will replace AlphaZero in the future, but as in chess we could learn a lot from it, if not build great centaur teams.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50573071

Daniel Parmet    (2020-04-28 22:59:06)
The State of correspondence chess

I have played correspondence chess now for 13 years. During that time, I have played 983 correspondence games. These days I mostly play at ICCF and some of these issues may be ICCF specific... but since ICCF has no forum and I want to get a sense of the health of correspondence chess in general... I posit my thoughts here.

First of all, I think the number of correspondence players and the number of correspondence games are decreasing across the board on all correspondence websites due to the things I want to talk about.

Second, I primarily shifted my playing to ICCF years ago for two reasons: 1) The higher level of competition available; 2) The norms available. Although I was concerned with their fees which are usually minor but, in many cases, certain organizers do construct outlandish tournaments that you need to be wary of (looking at you Venezuela).

On the first point, I think ICCF is a little more open to high caliber players competing up until a point (they really try to prevent you from playing a 2450+ player until you are 2450+ yourself). And the rating protections get tougher and tougher the further you go but they make it easy to play 2300 players. While most websites outside of ICCF, usually have one annual Cup / WCH or Thematics, these other websites usually make it impossible to play anyone more than a few hundred points above you no matter your rating outside of these few events.

On the second point, I think ICCF norms are somewhat of an illusion. Theyâ€™ve always been hard and much harder to achieve than OTB norms which received a watering down of requirements of decades ago. In fact, ICCF norms are so much harder than FIDE norms that one actually needs to achieve two norms to receive the prerequisite title in ICCF vs the standard three norms required by FIDE. In the US, for example, there are 116 ICCF Titled players in history (13 GMs, 25 SIM, 78 IMs) vs 828 FIDE Titled players in present (101 GMs 166 IM 561 FMs) [https://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml]. Now however, there is a proposal, for the ICCF GM Title only, proposed by Dennis Doren, ICCF Rules Commissioner who really does a lot for correspondence chess, and SIM Uwe Staroske, ICCF Qualifications and Ratings Commissioner, to remove the requirement to have to play GMs to get the GM Title [leaving IM and SIM untouched] [https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1280]. This proposal states, â€œA search of the ICCF data indicates that 21 players obtained at least 2 GM norms across 24 games but failed to get the GM title because of the requirement of "5 GM" opponents. (Only 5 of those players are currently active).â€ Leaving aside the fact that this proposal violates the very definition of the GM Title, one must beat the club in order to join it, the proposal further outlines the real problems without addressing them, â€œThe GM Title has already become far harder to earn than it used to be, due to the rating suppression caused by the increase in draws.â€ Wow, letâ€™s unpack that one line because it is a doozy!

Really, this one line, that is easily overlooked, is two huge problems that correspondence is facing: 1) death by one thousand draw paper cuts and 2) rating deflation. I will argue later that there is a third huge problem but letâ€™s start with the ones acknowledged by ICCF itself. Every correspondence player knows the draw rate is going up. As engines and hardware get stronger, players are able to save positions that in the past would have been lost and we are finding ever easier ways to head straight towards 0.00 as Black. I would love to see a detailed analysis that describes how much harder it has become to win as Black against a decent correspondence player (letâ€™s say someone 2300+). In the last five years, I have beaten three 2300+ players as Black without counting mouseslips (one in 2015, one in 2016 and one any day now in 2020) despite playing extremely aggressive openings like the KID (for the record thatâ€™s three Black wins out 103 Black draws or 2.91% Win rate). That may be part of the draw problem, but I have witnessed my own draw rate skyrocket 2014: 82.4% 2015: 86.7% 2016: 90.2% 2017: 90.6% 2018: 91% 2019 is still in progress. Often for these norms, you need to score +2, +3, +4 or +5 despite the fact that +1 usually wins the eventâ€¦ and with the draw rate North of 90% in a 12-13 game event that means you are likely to win 1 game on averageâ€¦ but in many events the entire cross table often sees one to three entire wins (look at a recently completed tournament here where I scored my first IM norm that required +0 and I scored +1). My win was one of five wins in the entire tournament 100/105 = 95.2% draw rate! [https://www.iccf.com/event?id=73482]. People love to tell me thatâ€™s fine because we are talking about such a weak event as Category 8 [2449 was the rating average]. Fine, I do not accept your argument but letâ€™s look at the World Championship then shall we? Letâ€™s look at the most recently concluded World Championship 30 which finished on 10/2/2019, Category 13 [2562 was the rating average]. This event was won by the new World Champion SIM Kochemasov, Andrey Leonidovich 2540 [https://www.iccf.com/event?id=66745]. Congrats to the new World Champion on his two wins! The event had 8 decisive games out 136 or a draw rate of 91.2% (not far off my own). But wait did I say SIM? I did. In fact, congratulations to the World Champion on scoring his final GM norm as well! This World Championship saw 5 SIMs compete in a field with 12 GMs. While 3 of the SIMs finished 1st 2nd and 3rd, only our new World Champion scored a GM norm. The problem is with all the draws that norms are not just becoming hard, but maintaining or increasing oneâ€™s rating is becoming hard. And oneâ€™s rating is how one receives any decent invites to have a chance at a norm in the first place.

The draws are a death by one thousand cuts as I recently played one of the ICCFâ€™s proposalâ€™s outlined â€œ21 players that could have obtained a GM norm.â€ My rating is 2389 and his rating is 2504 (although SIM, he is recognized by all his peers as a GM caliber player). As Black, I obtained an easy draw without ever being in any trouble at all. The player had a rather angry initial discussion with me post mortem about how he felt it was wrong that a 2504 should have to play a player as weak as 2389 where the draw would kill his rating. He felt that his rating was being destroyed by these draws with weaker players and that ICCF should protect him from us. He felt I have it easier as a lower rated player because I can gain rating from these draws. Letâ€™s look at his argument that one is causing the other and it is only happening to those 2500+. At the time that draw occurred, I gained exactly 1.17915 rating points from it (and he lost the same); however, this was the first draw in over 40 games in which I *gained* rating points (this statement is no longer true as a few higher rated players have since given me draws but at the time of the gameâ€™s conclusion this was the case). Yes, thatâ€™s right, ICCF already does such a good job of protecting higher rated players that it actively hands out advice to new players to be very particular about what invites and events they play because the draws could kill their initial rating. I too have experienced a net negative loss of rating points from draws and still seen my rating going up only due to the fact that wins are easier and ever so slightly more common to come by at my level. However, it means I am not exempt from the draw problem. It is patently false that this problem is limited to those 2500+ as in my last 43 draws, I lost rating in 42 of them and gained rating from 1 of them. Therefore, it appears draws are causing rating deflation and this is the real problem in both norms and correspondence in general. With the exception of matches, perhaps there is a way to have draws not count against oneâ€™s rating since there are so many of them? It kind of blends the Chess rating concept with that of Bridge where one cannot lose rating points once earned. What we can see is that the playerâ€™s argument that draws are causing rating deflation is probably true. One problem is at least partly causing the other one.

There is a third more devious problem worse than the two outlined above in my opinion. While rating deflation, draws, less players and norms are real issuesâ€¦ they are dwarfed by the change in behavior caused by these issues. I know it is a bit overdramatic to talk about such issues in a time of COVID, but there has been a great increase in the number of players playing Dead Man Defense (often shortened by correspondence players to DMD+ and DMD=). It is important to note that the death rate in COVID for those in the elderly category is markedly higher and the correspondence community in general is also markedly higher. I have heard estimates of the average age of correspondence player being 70-75 range though I havenâ€™t seen any data. Back to DMD, what is DMD and why is it such awful behavior? The players are hoping you die before you win so they can claim either a win on time or if it goes to adjudication then at least claim a draw. The other hope is that you might mouse slip by being forced to play more moves which while that would never happen over the board does surprisingly account for a large portion of wins in ICCF correspondence high-level play. One of the main problems this issue causes is that if someone takes an early draw against a player who then goes on to die, the entire rest of the field gets a free half point and you are punished for playing your game quicker than your peers. Often, players over the board resign once mate is unstoppable or a simple endgame is reached in which the result is known to players of all levels. In correspondence, often even sooner than these players will resign or offer draws, knowing that perpetual check is unavoidable should we play another 10 moves past the piece sac against a bare king? How about when the engine reads +25 +30 or +40? So, for the most, correspondence players draw or resign much earlier than one might over the board due to engine and tablebase assistance. On that note, depending on the tournament, players can outright claim wins and draws either on the 6-piece tablebase (always allowed) or the sometimes allowed on an event by event basis the 7-piece tablebase. It is considered out right rude to make a player play all the way to the 6-piece tablebase to claim. I recently claimed one win in a six piece tablebase up an entire piece where my jolly opponent wanted to discuss the game in a post mortem (rarely done in correspondence in general anyways). I declined to even respond to him even though I was already having a very lively and fun post mortem with a Venezuelan on our extremely interesting draw. A worse example is the 92 move game I played with opposite colored bishops where I had two extra pawns. I offered a draw as white and the higher rated player to my lower rated opponent who declined it, forcing me to play to a 7-piece tablebase claim to end the game. This kind of behavior used to be quite rare. In the past, I would say it happened in 1 out of every 100 gamesâ€¦ these days it seems to happen in every other game (1/2!). I have seven different opponents right now that are DMD+ against me where the engine reads +148 (or in some cases even sees mate! The 2504 player that complained about my rating earlier also complained someone was DMD+ himâ€¦ I remarked that I have no less than 7 players DMD+ me and if they would resign? My rating would be about 2450 right which sort of eliminates his claim about our â€œgiantâ€ rating difference). The issue is that due to rating deflation these players need to artificially keep their rating high as long as they can because thatâ€™s how they will get their next invite. With the new terrible time control that is not yet Official (although there is a proposal to make it Official: https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1282), players only need to make a move once every 50 days to pointlessly extend the game. I have a DMD= draw currently going on 16 months now where the player is just moving Kg1 Kf1 Kg1 every 50 days. This time control exasperates the DMD problem. When I contacted ICCF Officials to point out the severity of this problem, I was told that I should report it to the TD on a case by case basis only if it is DMD+ as they will not look at DMD= at all. However, it is usually the TDs that are the biggest offenders (6 of the 7 players described above were TDs). In fact, it is usually the same general casts of characters which allows for an easy black list to be created that bars these players from play until they can fix their atrocious behavior. This behavior needs to be punished. These players need to be reprimanded. In the end, lack of norms, rating deflation and the draw death will not make me quit correspondence chess. It is DMD+/DMD= that will make me quit. This experience is my personal experience with high level correspondence over thirteen years and I would love to hear from other correspondence players concerning these problems.

Steven DuCharme    (2020-05-09 05:06:08)
CC Server World Championship Tournament

I am giving it another go. please can one and only one of you register at chesstempo.com...then add your name and site to the related forum topic there (under general discussion) tyvm

Thibault de Vassal    (2020-05-22 23:26:59)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?

Hello Tim,

From FICGS start, I always had the same politics for "no engines" tournaments:

- It is possible to punish obvious cheating, but it will not be possible to prevent intelligent cheating... There's always a way to round the system.

- There are no prizes or "titles" in these tournaments, only the dishonor that other players think that one can play with engines.

Knowing that, I think that honest players can play for fun anyway, I tried it and enjoyed to lose :)

As a conclusion and to make it clearer, no action is taken in any case of using an engine in no engines tournaments. Allowing obvious cheating will help players to make their opinion on their opponents.

Thibault de Vassal    (2020-05-28 11:11:26)
Cancel joining a tournament?

Hello,

Please send me a private message or email (see About page) specifying the waiting list you would like to retire from.

Roberto Battaglia    (2020-06-04 09:55:29)
chess archives in pgn

A few days ago, in the chat, I put some questions regarding the existence or not of archives of chess games and their organization. The chat doesn't allow many words so I take advantage of the forum for explaining the matter.
For example on the ICCF website I find for each player a file with all his chess games, I also find archives of all the games played year by year. This allows me to create excellent databases, using for example SCID.
I also would like to add the games played on FICS but, perhaps for my limit, I was able to find only one way to access the pgn. that is: I type the name of a player in the search box and press go. If, for example, I write Fric (Fric Lubos is a friend of mine who attends both ICCF and FICGS) I find all his PNGs but there are mixed games of poker and chess and this creates a problem because I have to separate them by looking at them one by one.
I hope I was clear. Obviously it is possible that I have not seen some functions of the site that allow to access to archives where could be stored games divided by year, by player and by type of game. I thank all those who want to answer me and wish everyone good and winning games.
Roberto

Thibault de Vassal    (2020-06-04 13:04:11)
chess archives in pgn

Hello Roberto,

Thanks for detailing your question here.

Yes, the "Go" function below the menu is very general and does not help much for what you would like to do.

The "Search games" option in the menu (below "Waiting lists" and "Tournaments") brings more specific ways:

Years ago, I considered that the complete PGN database was enough to build easily specific databases (player or any criteria, combinations of it, etc.) by using a database software.

Then I added a few search options, per player & per game (chess or Go), per opening, per rating (black or white) and per material for endgames... Of course, this will not replace a serious database like Chessbase.

I hope I was clear too... Does this help?

Steven DuCharme    (2020-06-05 02:51:26)
ATTENTION USA PLAYERS

Please join/renew the United States Chess Federation asap...tyvm

Thibault de Vassal    (2020-07-29 11:48:26)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?

Hah, good idea... I should find the longest by time as well (at least 3 years I think), but there are vacations.

Garvin Gray    (2020-09-18 07:07:35)
bullet corrospondence

Whilst 'correspondence' might be confusing, in the section for Advanced chess, where this time control and games are located, 'correspondence' is not used.

It is clearly marked 'Advanced' and then the time control and stake options are listed.

If someone was looking for a description, or term, Centaur, would be more accurate.

Steven DuCharme    (2020-10-08 23:12:04)
please join...

the English Chess Federation asap tyvm

Daniel Parmet    (2020-10-09 06:02:54)
please join...

Can we delete crap like this?

Thibault de Vassal    (2020-10-09 21:55:45)
please join...

Steven, would you explain what this is about exactly? Is there any problem with the English Chess Federation?

Steven DuCharme    (2020-10-11 00:29:04)
please join...

Their membership is down due to Covid 19 restrictions

Thibault de Vassal    (2020-10-19 01:01:54)
Duda Demolishes Carlsen!

This one I guess?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzoUVQh-l2g

Tough endgame, quite original one at least...

Steven DuCharme    (2020-11-23 18:42:54)
On Another Site...

the system there said my position was lost...I disagreed...I said I didn't like the system...(I have since learned I was wrong)...I have been suspended there until March 18

Daniel Parmet    (2020-12-04 01:39:36)
What happened to all the players?

Thibault,

You maybe misunderstand me or perhaps I am not being clear by conflating so many issues at once.

1) 1st issue, I did not mention Queens Gambit at all as this show has done very little for chess. The numbers were already skyrocketing on lichess, chess.com and other places due to lockdowns, lack of socialization and spending more times indoors. If anything, it is the SHOW that piggy backed on THIS trend in order to achieve its own popularity (not the other way around).

2) I mean to refer to the fact that many more players used to play here that no longer do which were very strong SIMs and GMs in 09-12 but they're gone now. Why?

3) The growth. Yes, I currently have two otb IMs I am playing against their first games on ICCF and I have already played against 3 GMs whose first games it was on ICCF. Look at the recently started USA/A It has 3 otb GMs that have no corr games. Or how about GM Sam Sevian? https://www.iccf.com/event?id=80817 GM Elshan Moriadiabadi https://www.iccf.com/player?id=517491 And on and on I could go.

4) Separate entirely is how hard it has become to find players of your own level to play, maintain one's rating and the DMD issues which caused LSS to announce their own special DMD rules.

Garvin Gray    (2020-12-06 13:57:56)
Repeated draw offers

I have noted over quite a period of time where players complain that their opponents keep offering draw after draw after draw.

At this point in time, the only avenue to try and get this stopped is to press 'call referee' and complain to Thibault.

ICCF has a different solution to this matter and I believe it should be incorporated here:

If a player offers a draw in a single game, and that draw offer is declined by the opponent, the server will incapacitate the player's ability to make a second draw offer until at least 10 more moves have been made, with one exception.

If the opponent offers a draw during a player's 10-move count (that is, within 10 moves subsequent to the player's having made a draw offer), then the player's 10-move count is terminated at that time such that the player can again offer a draw with any move. This "10-move" rule does not include claims of a draw related to 3-position repetition, 7-piece tablebase claims, 50-move rule claims, or adjudication-related claims.

Thibault de Vassal    (2020-12-08 15:33:13)
What happened to all the players?

Thanks for the enlightments!

1) Interesting idea, I did not think it this way but that sounds credible.

2) Too many possible reasons IMHO, first could be the lower rate benefits/investment, added to the constantly growing place of chess engines (particularly since the Rybka era) in the game and the way our lives changed all over the years (real life, social networks, Netflix & so on).

3) That's quite surprising to me but well, at least chess found a way :)

4) I did not hear about that rule yet, what's the idea?

Garvin Gray    (2020-12-12 05:04:25)
Repeated draw offers

I do not see any ethical questions here.

The issue is rather simple. Are repeated draw offers a nuisance? The clear answer would be yes to this.

And so, what is a solution?

Currently, if a player is being annoyed/distracted by the repeated draw offers, they have to click 'call referee' and then formally complain about the draw offers.

Most people are not aware of this option, or do not complain. This does not mean that they are off put by it, but instead either just put up with it, which then advantages the draw offerer, or they walk away from the site and play elsewhere.

The solution I have offered allows the draw offer, but stops repeated draw offers.

I would say in all the games that have been played on this site, that out of all those games, the percentage of games that have ended in a draw after a player has offered two or more draws in a row to be so small as to not be measurable.

As a side note - As this is an ICCF rule, this means that the majority of ICCF National Federations voted to implement this rule.

Clearly, those NF's thought the issue was serious enough to implement this rule years ago, with refinements along the way to the current rule quoted here.

Since the rule has been in place and not overturned, I think the fact that many National Federations and players want this rule should be a clear clue that the issue is serious and counter measures should be put in place, as suggested with my rule offer.

Ewald Gossmann    (2020-12-23 12:59:51)
FAIR PLAY

Please, have a look on game 123915. Is something like that FAIR PLAY?

Wilhelm Schuett    (2021-01-05 11:52:51)
K+B vs. K

ficgs.com as a learning platform for absolute beginners? :-)

Ilmars Cirulis    (2021-03-19 19:33:03)
Berlin Defense

Well, at least I don't remember any loss in long time control games. Maybe I should search my games to be 100% sure about it.

Herbert Kruse    (2021-03-28 15:10:13)
Poker Rating

This rule has good reasons to be maintained, whatever the game played : at least 10 moves must have been played so that it be rated...

Best regards,
Thibault

and i:

so if my opp goes all in and i have 2 aces i have to fold to get a rating win?

how can this be my fault?

Herbert Kruse    (2021-03-28 15:42:14)
Poker Rating

i looked into the rules and didnt found any part, where at least 10 moves had to be played

and this rule would only make sence for chess and not poker

Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-06 01:15:09)
Poker Rating

In my opinion it would be more like saying: "If a football team shows probable non-sportsmanship by playing without any effort...", in many competitions the result is impacted by such behaviour, in some cases the game is adjudicated.

Why move 10 ? Only because we need a clear rule. It is a choice and just like most rules, once we know it, we have to accept it to continue the game (and casually adapt our way to play). Anyway this rule was very efficient as for rapid forfeits, it is really useful.

Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-07 01:18:50)
Poker Rating

No, it wasn't non-sportsmanlike for sure, good example... but should this game really be rated? (rated for the winner I mean, you lost some points in this case)

The other problem is that players trying to manipulate ratings could do the same and reality is that they do not (or very rarely) when there are 10 moves at least to play, so this rule is efficient to prevent this. And as we all know, no rule is perfect for everyone.

You are right, lasting a won game to move 10 would be strange but it is a choice and a price to pay... the main thing is that it should be rare.

Yeturu Aahlad    (2021-04-12 19:10:42)
Poker Rating

At big chess, it is fairly common for one side - typically Black - to be down a pawn early in the game. I have had at least one opponent immediately resign. At Go, a player may blunder in a corner and immediately resign.

On the other hand, I have won many games on time and in many of those cases, the opponent didn't make any moves at all.

Perhaps a subjective challenge deserves a subjective response - I am seeing sound arguments on both sides. Suggestion - if a game concludes under 10 moves, and the winner thinks she has a genuine grievance, she can appeal for the ELO grant and a referee will adjudicate. Herbert's case is very strong. If the losing side didn't make any moves, adjudication need not be allowed, or may be automatically denied. Too many frivolous appeals from a player can lead to disciplinary action including a loss of this privilege. (I don't expect that to happen in this community)

Daniel Parmet    (2021-04-15 22:41:32)
Poker Rating

Half rating games seems like a potential equitable solution where you at least gain 1 rating point / an idea anyways. It's merits TBD.

Garvin Gray    (2021-04-18 17:28:11)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended

I do not disagree with your general sentiment, but as someone who has been on this site a long time, I have experienced a lot of negotiations and discussions like this, where the discussions end up going nowhere, or some kind of 'change' is promised , and then after a while, those format changes are walked back.

Therefore, I have become rather jaded by this entire process and I am now of the opinion that Thibault just offers these discussions in an attempt to make it look like he is entertaining differing opinions, when really he TRULY can not bring himself to make the changes that some of these discussions are asking for as he already believes that the site is perfect as it is.

So, you are then treating the forum posters like mugs if you are saying, lets discuss the topic and come up with new ideas, if you have no genuine intention of embracing any of the ideas proposed.

I have now said my last post on this matter for quite a while.

I have made it clear what I think of these forum discussions and their purpose, so there is now no further requirement for me to reply.

Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-18 22:39:47)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended

With all my respect Garvin, you couldn't be more wrong on that one... To me, FICGS is everything but perfect. Actually it is so heavy (mainly because it was coded very very fast - way too fast - with the [bad] idea to make it simple and to save as much processor & memory as possible) that some changes are very difficult to make. In this way, some good ideas could be very hard to bring to life.

But these 2 changes asked in the 2 running threads would be very easy to make! So it is only a question of time (it is most often bad to make a change fastly). For now, I have no clear opinion in this discussion and we could easily add a rule that states that any stage could start as fast as possible. And in the other discussion, the 10 moves rule could disappear even if I think it wouldn't be a good idea. Or it could evolve as it has been mentioned.

Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-26 23:50:30)
Poker Rating

Don, I can't say...

Herbert, yes I always do something different ^^ you may be right but at least one player asked for that fold-after-check option in this forum (AFAIR) and well, why not.

Garvin Gray    (2021-05-04 12:14:16)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended

I decided to leave this discussion for a while for two reasons. 1) I genuinely believed that whatever would be agreed to in this discussions would be unwound at a later date and

2) That my involvement in the discussions was not a helpful factor for others to become involved in the discussions

I will now explain what issues made me go public with my frustrations with this site and with the site owner in particular.

Over a long period of time, I had a to beg, plead and convince that the FICGS World Cup was an event that would be supported, despite Thibault's regular protests to the contrary.

Once the event and the format was finally decided to 'give it a go', the numbers was huge for this site and the general format had two primary goals:

1) No preferential treatment for high rated players. Everyone started from round one and the groups for round one would be divided up to make sure that each group would be of roughly equal strength

2) In previous discussions with the WCH, I had regularly protested that when there were groups of 5, that these groups should be double round robin, ensuring that all players got eight games and that colour allocation for the top two seeds would not play a role in the final results.

Then the latest groupings for the World Cup were released and everything that had been previously agreed had been violated:

1) Groups of 5 were used and all groups were only single round robin (breaking of a previous agreement)
2) The entire purpose of the World Cup was to have large first round groups and a small number of groups, ensuring that only about 9 or so players made it through to the final round. As it stands now, about 19 players will make it to the final round. The entire format has been advertised as a two round event. Therefore, there can not be a third stage. This is a clear condition of entry and it can not be violated. (breaking of another previous agreement).

I can go on and on, but I think this is sufficient as to highlight why I come to the conclusion that the site owner has no issue at all with breaking previous agreements.

I busted my ass for a number of years to convince everyone that the World Cup was a good event worth supporting. And when it was first run, it was well supported.

To now see it so corrupted makes me just think, why bother. Another deal broken. Time to move on from this site.

Garvin Gray    (2021-05-10 11:44:13)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended

Groups with less than 7 players: https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=13002

FICGS__CHESS__CUP_CHAMPIONSHIP__000004

FICGS chess cup championship is a 2 stages round-robin tournament.

My wording: The two stage tournament is the basic design of the event and is hard wired into the event. The whole event was designed to be a two stage event, with large groups in the first stage, to ensure that the first round groups are competitive and also that no players received byes through to a second round based on rating.

I had to plead for years for this format and garner support from other players before you would agree to even run it as a trial in it's first year. And then in its first year, it received over 100 entries, a lot of top players entered and was a complete success.

So, I believe I have every right to be pissed off at you directly that it really does seem like you are attempting to unwind the format of this event.

The format is clearly described in the published rules, so for the site owner to so flagrantly ignore them can only be described as one of two actions:

1) Negligent
2) Deliberant

Steven DuCharme    (2021-05-21 00:09:08)
World Bee Day....

please help crank up their quantity asap...thanx

Thibault de Vassal    (2021-07-08 18:10:09)
Big Chess theory?

IMHO the queen is more worthy than 2 rooks... at least for human players ^^

Thibault de Vassal    (2021-07-11 12:58:27)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

Sure, result decides first, but when it cannot, then ratings have a role to play, finally there must be a clear algorithm to decide in all cases.

Garvin Gray    (2021-09-11 11:56:08)
VENEZUELA HAS BEEN DISMISSED FROM ICCF

Juri - Quite a few of your questions contain quite a lot of accusations, or at least a tone of accusations, or that those who took actions in dismissing Venezuela has some kind of hidden motives.

The decision to dismiss Venezuela was made by the National Delegates of each Federation of ICCF, after considering all the evidence before them.

This included unpaid prize money, where entry fees were charged, over at least two years, unpaid affiliated fees to the ICCF (same time period) and the National Delegate of Venezuela was offered many opportunities to pay back the money.

The National Delegate ran the tournaments, handled the money through paypal and in the end was in debt to the ICCF and the players of their tournament to the tune of roughly 7 to 10 thousand euros.

So, yes, ICCF has provided plenty of evidence that the 'organiser' took off with the entry fees of the players and did not pay out the advertised prize monies.

Multiple attempts were made by the ICCF Executive Board to reach a satisfactory compromise with the National Delegate, but in the end the National Delegate cut off all communications and went completely silent to everyone.

All Federations pay an affiliation fee to be part of ICCF. This amount is levied in part based on the number of members a Federation has, and also that countries economic position (GDP).

After reading all this, what other option was there for the other National Delegates to vote for?

In another proposal, which you have not referenced, the ICCF Executive board has promised that the prize money that was not paid out by the Venezuelan National Delegate would be covered by the ICCF, which will cost roughly 10,000 euro and will be paid out to the players.

So, to answer your questions after all this information:

1) No. This issue and your question are not related at all. It is not even certain if the Venezuelan National Delegate lived in Venezuela.

2) Yes, plenty of evidence was provided. Players had also reported that they had not received their prize money. I can report this as fact as I got burnt as a player in one of their events. So I know first hand that this occurred.

3) This has nothing to do with 'sports'.

This is a common misunderstanding about how ICCF works. ICCF is an association of Federations ie ICCF only recognises Federations. Therefore, officially ICCF can only take action formally against Federations and only works with the National Delegate from that Federation.

How the Federation conducts their business 'behind the scenes' is up to them and is none of the business of ICCF. It would be highly improper for ICCF to have a say in how any individual Federation ran their Federation.

What now occurs is that the remaining Venezuelan players are treated as isolated players. They can not represent Venezuela in team events, by they are free to play in any individual events.

Some of these players might be picked up by other Federations, if another Federation wants them.

4) Money transfers - As I already alluded to, it is not clear if the Venezuelan ND was even in Venezuela, but anyways, he had no trouble receive the entry fees, so money transfers by paypal were no issue.

If there was an issue, then they should not have run prize money tournaments

5) No political motives - This was a straight up case of whether the Venezuelan ND had taken off with the entry fees of the players and failed to pay out the prize money from many tournaments, as well as the Federation failing to pay their affiliation fees, as well as being in debt for other fees as well.

These are basic responsibilities for all Federations. Even if you want to lay all the blame of the Venezuelan ND, a case can be made as to ask what happened to any oversight from anyone else?

Or was the Venezuelan ND just a rogue operator?

This experience has left a sour taste in everyone's mouth and remedy steps have been taken to try and avoid this occurring again.

See other proposals.

Garvin Gray
Australia ICCF National Delegate

Thibault de Vassal    (2021-10-21 00:25:35)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

Yes, I follow this game. Well, it had to happen :) But don't forget that there is no 50 moves rule at FICGS, the game can continue some longer... if there is a forced mate in (e.g.) 157 moves at some point, then it can go on. If the defender has a clear plan to ask for a draw, then he can call the referee to explain it. To be continued.

Juri Eintalu    (2021-10-21 16:36:16)
After 23.75 years...

Apronus:

"This website is in financial crisis. Please consider donating regularly to keep it functional."

https://www.apronus.com/chess/

Apronus is excellent for creating chess tactics problems and sharing them on the blog.

Thibault de Vassal    (2021-11-29 02:09:11)
Repeated draw offers

After a case a repeated draw offers, I thought that the rule should evolve from:

"Also, no player will make draw offers repeatedly, particularly serveral times in a row. Doing so may lead to instantly lose the game, and/or being immediately and permanently banned."

... to ...

"Also, no player will make draw offers repeatedly, particularly serveral times in a row. Doing so may lead to get a limited access to the server (until to get a response if necessary) then to lose the game, finally to get permanently banned if this behaviour does not stop."

Reason is that it seems not so obvious for certain players to remember all draw offers while playing quite slowly many many games. Also, they may not receive some warning messages.

Garvin Gray    (2021-11-29 09:20:46)
Repeated draw offers

My first post on this matter already contained a very good solution for this issue that would never result in any bans:

ICCF has a different solution to this matter and I believe it should be incorporated here:

If a player offers a draw in a single game, and that draw offer is declined by the opponent, the server will incapacitate the player's ability to make a second draw offer until at least 10 more moves have been made, with one exception.

If the opponent offers a draw during a player's 10-move count (that is, within 10 moves subsequent to the player's having made a draw offer), then the player's 10-move count is terminated at that time such that the player can again offer a draw with any move. This "10-move" rule does not include claims of a draw related to 3-position repetition, 7-piece tablebase claims, 50-move rule claims, or adjudication-related claims.

Juri Eintalu    (2021-11-29 11:09:53)
Unvaccinated correspondence chessplayers

During the epidemics, restrictions and quarantine are traditional and usual measures. If the restrictions are applied, it is natural that the OTB (over-the-board) chess tournaments are cancelled, and the coaches cannot give indoor lessons. However, such restrictions should not be applied to online chess or coaching as there is no such thing as "online coronavirus".

Suppose that wearing the masks reduces the probability of being infected and also the probability of spreading the virus. Then, it seems natural to demand that the OTB chess players should wear masks. Moreover, chess is not wrestling.

One can also plausibly argue that in the case of contacts with other people outside the home, at least one of the measures should be applied: masks, distance, negative result of the test recently made, or vaccination.

The question of vaccines involves scientific, moral, and political aspects. The scientific issues involve the effectiveness of the vaccine and its side effects. How probably the vaccine reduces the rate of infections, and how probably it reduces the rate of deaths among those infected. How severe is the virus, and how often and how serious are the vaccine's adverse effects. Some religious moral systems, in turn, reject vaccines produced in some specific way. International law rejects uninformed non-voluntary human experiments, etc.

Suppose that the aim is to reduce the rate of infections, and the vaccine is highly effective and without serious side effects. Suppose also that we are utilitarians and aim to maximize the wellbeing of society as a whole.

In the case of such presumptions, it seems natural to demand that the chess coaches giving indoor lessons be vaccinated or show the test results, etc. However, it still does not follow that the unvaccinated chess player cannot play online chess or give online lessons â€” because there is no such thing as "online coronavirus".

Thibault de Vassal: "Fortunately, the context of correspondence chess is not the same as parliaments."

â€” Yes, but this is precisely the question: what's the difference? Note that one might also argue that unvaccinated chess players should not play online chess, but the unvaccinated selected deputies should have the possibility to give speeches â€” because they are political representatives of the people.

Thibault de Vassal    (2021-11-29 18:03:06)
Repeated draw offers

Juri, it seems it's not obvious for several players at least. Garvin's proposition is probably best, avoiding any human intervention, I agree with that. Maybe I can do something according to player's taste, just like for private messages in games.

Thibault de Vassal    (2021-12-01 02:12:36)
Repeated draw offers

I just updated the process and rules... let's give a try to this new version (without any human intervention on the result of the game):

"Also, no player will make draw offers repeatedly, particularly several times in a row. Doing so may lead to get blocked by your opponents, finally to get a limited access to the server (until to solve the problem)."

It is now possible to report then block draw offers (at least the main message & popup) just like it is possible with private messages in games. Then it shouldn't be annoying anymore.

Thibault de Vassal    (2022-01-19 11:13:44)
Chess engines in thematic tournaments

Theorically at least, it is encouraged :) I hope it is welcome in practice...

Ilmars Cirulis    (2022-02-27 14:03:18)
FICGS support to Ukraine

I'm for supporting Ukraine with some message or at least a flag.

Anything else/more is for anyone to choose personally, but a support message is a must, imho.

Bahadir Ozen    (2022-02-27 16:34:37)
FICGS support to Ukraine

-1 Messages of love, hope and light can be shared for people in Ukraine. Although the situation seems political, what is happening is happening to humanity...

-2 During this period, the "Special Leave" feature can be given to Ukrainian - resident players.

-3 During this process, the Russian flag may be suspended. (Of course, it is not the fault of the Russian players, but the flag does not comply with the rules of "Gens una Sumus", as it is to represent.

-4 A special tournament can be organized on behalf of Ukraine.

We are going through difficult times. No to war for humanity.

Best regards,
Bahadir

Thibault de Vassal    (2022-02-28 21:22:28)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

Let's do this.

Ukrainian players in activity are now in vacation for 45 days. Of course they still have 45 days of vacation remaining. Even if the war ends shortly, I think this is the least time to recover from such dramatic events. If war should last, then this special vacation could be renewed.

Consequently this topic is closed.

Garvin Gray    (2022-03-02 08:18:43)
Russian flag replaced

The situation between ficgs and National sports is very different.

With National Sports, they receive funding and are playing under the name Russia. Therefore, when that team wins, the Russian Government receives a benefit.

On here, whilst players are from Russia, we are all playing as individuals.

And as been clearly noted in a lot of news articles, most Russian people do not support the actions of the Russian Government.

I think this is case in ficgs where if a Russian player wanted to change their flag to a neutral flag, they should be given that opportunity, but it should not be forced on them.

Thibault de Vassal    (2022-03-06 00:46:16)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

Clodomiro, you qualified from SM group stage 1. Only one player from this group does not qualify for stage 2 (or stage 3)... Please read chess WCH rules for full explanation.

Steven DuCharme    (2022-03-13 23:11:52)
FICGS support to Ukraine

please join the peace open at iccf.com asap tyvm

Thibault de Vassal    (2022-04-27 00:24:31)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

Actually I'm so ashamed to have made such a mistake... at least I can fix it :) ... and fortunately, this game was the only one that Alexey lost on time.

Juri Eintalu    (2022-07-10 19:05:13)
RUSSIA AND BELARUS NOT SUSPENDED?

It seems that Russia and Belarus have not been suspended from the international chess federation ICCF.

The ICCF Extraordinary Congress tried to suspend Russian and Belarus federations.

Online voting was carried on 27 April - 09 May 2022.

https://www.iccf.com/congresses

ICCF homepage does not provide a clear result. I do not see it. The link to THAT Congress disappeared today.

The downloadable table of the voting results does not show in detail, what country made what decision.

An excerpt from the results:

***

EC 2022-003 Suspend the Russian Federation - Void if EC 2022-001 is Defeated

For 33, Against 10, Abstain 14
(I calculate that FOR: 58%)

Amendment of ICCF Statute Article 17, EC 2022-01 required 2/3 votes. The result was:

For 34, Against 10, Abstain 13.
I calculate that FOR: 60% which is less than the required 2/3 or 67%.

***

It seems that the ICCF did not succeed to change its Statute so as to allow the suspension of Russia and Belarus based on majority voting.

Unfortunately, in my homeland, there is no information available on how our representative voted (if he voted) and based on what considerations. The national federation also has not responded to my question sent officially through the ICCF server. I also do not see any relevant news on the national federation's website.

Thibault de Vassal    (2022-07-17 02:22:23)
Unvaccinated correspondence chessplayers

Sorry, I forgot to answer your question:

""Thibault de Vassal: "Fortunately, the context of correspondence chess is not the same as parliaments."

â€” Yes, but this is precisely the question: what's the difference?""

IMO, difference is firstly motivation (particularly on this topic)... People are not the same in parliaments and in correspondence chess organizations. Usually, they don't want/have to force this or that to other people, in their real life at least... That's what I meant.

Yeturu Aahlad    (2022-08-16 21:32:54)
respectful legacy

Today, an esteemed opponent, Aleksey Payzansky, a Ukrainian player, resigned all his Poker games against me. I've been wanting to start a discussion here on a FICGS policy of respectful legacy for some time now. What follows is a straw-man to start the discussion.
1. It is reasonable to require a minimum degree of prior participation before this policy applies.
2. Under appropriate circumstances, this policy may be applied retroactively.
3. If we know that a participant has died, it will trigger this policy.
4. If a participant announces that they will no longer participate or suspend their participation for an unknown length of time, it will trigger this policy. (Controversial - this is regardless of their reasons for doing so.)
5. If a participant stops participating for a prescribed length of time without any announcement, it will trigger this policy retroactively from the time the participation stopped. (Controversial - the intent is to give the participant the benefit of doubt.)

When the policy applies,
1. All of the participant's pending games (retroactively if applicable) will be adjudged. A player with a clear lead will be declared the winner. Games which are too close will be either declared a tie or removed from the record with no adjustment of ELO. (Controversial - time on the clock will not be a consideration in the adjudication.)
2. Returning participants will be welcomed. They will retain their ELO, and their degree of prior participation will be reset to zero.

I would be happy to see this policy applied retroactively to Aleksey if that is appropriate.

Thibault de Vassal    (2022-08-19 02:51:26)
respectful legacy

Hello Yeturu,

Indeed, Aleksey is the last ukrainian player I didn't succeed to get news from yet (or who did not continue his games since the war started), after several attempts :/ I hope he's ok... The only Aleksey Payzansky on Facebook seems to be ok as of may, 2022 (no update since that time). As rules already specify, if I learn (soon or late) that he died during his games, his rating will be retroactively restored. But games have to end at one time, I guess.

About games where there is a clear lead, I don't think it can be a sufficient reason for adjudications, at least in poker games.

Thibault de Vassal    (2022-08-20 18:35:27)
poker reflection time

Well, after some thinking and the help of another player who told me about that discussion, I have to add or specify several points:

- There is a "max time per move" rule (60 days)
- There is a "max accumulated time" rule (100 days: chess, 60 days: poker)

- The "max time per move" shouldn't be less than 45 days, because of the 45 days of vacation (or we should lower this number of days too).

- The "max accumulated time" can be 30 days while we have 45 days of vacation, there is no problem with that.

Nevertheless, it can be observed that players like me, who play about 1 move per day in each game, never reach the max accumulated time and keep the same rhythm all time long, so I'm afraid it will not change the game duration (sometimes about 1000 days) for us at least. And unfortunately, tournaments follow the rhythm of the slowest players.

Anyway, I'm ok to test that change and we'll look at the result after 1 year or so...

Misha Allport    (2022-08-26 18:06:00)
2022 Chess Cup-Group Leader(s)

In the current 2022 CC, one group has finished 12 games. No leader(s) are shown. Why?

Thibault de Vassal    (2022-08-27 02:10:07)
2022 Chess Cup-Group Leader(s)

Hello Misha. The algorithm shows "No leader" when there are at least 3 leaders (if I remember well)... This is just a way not to display too many names when it is the case.

Thibault de Vassal    (2022-08-29 00:48:35)
2022 Chess Cup-Group Leader(s)

Oh... also, group leaders are updated about every 2 months (next update around September 1st)

Garvin Gray    (2022-09-08 13:06:21)
2022 Chess Cup-Group Leader(s)

Would it be possible to have the group leaders setting updated every week or so? I think that setting would be more beneficial.

Thibault de Vassal    (2022-09-10 15:03:42)
2022 Chess Cup-Group Leader(s)

Indeed, that would be more real time, but I always prefered to start the process by myself to make sure that everything goes ok & to see if there is any anomaly in the results.

Anyway, I could start it more often at least.

Thibault de Vassal    (2022-09-26 14:24:10)
Magnus Carlsen vs. Hans Niemann

I guess that everyone here is aware about the Carlsen-Niemann drama... Of course, it is still difficult to make a clear idea, so what do you think about this video (in french but you can get subtitles)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PqORG75Cr4

If you know a video in english that say about the same (in brief, Niemann would have a 100% correlation with Stockfish 15 in several recent games, even more than in the cheating case in Paris few years ago, which is very very unlikely), thanks for sharing some more links...

Patrycja Zerowska    (2022-10-06 09:54:59)
Threefold repetition

It seems that there is no way to claim a draw by threefold repetition on this site. In the game 136386, where I have Black, the position that occurred after my 50th move, is the same as that after my 58th move, and will be the same after my intended 60th move, namely 60... Bf7. I therefore claim a draw in this game.

Since apparently there is no "automatic arbiter" to process the claim, I called the "referee" on 1 October 2022 (5 days ago), explaining that I made a draw claim as described above (and mentioning my intended move), but I haven't received a reaction yet.

This particular game has been a dead draw at least since move 35. I offered a draw after my 35th move and on my 59th move. Both offers were declined.

1. Why is there no automatic arbiter which processes draw claims? If I am not mistaken, this site exists more than 15 years already, and yet the Laws of Chess are not yet fully implemented.

2. Why can't I stop my clock when I make such a claim? See art. 9.5 of FIDE's Laws of Chess.

3. Why doesn't the arbiter or the referee stop my clock? Without this, a player making a claim can timeout, or, when she is short on time, may be reluctant to make a draw claim.

4. Why doesn't the referee take action? Is there a referee at all?

In the rules section of this site I read: "Also, there is no way to stop the clocks, players cannot claim that they stopped to play after they called the referee for any reason..." This is a violation of the rules of chess; it implies that on this site it is not chess that is being played, but a weird chess variant. Of course I disagree with this corruption of the playing rules, and so should everyone who call themselves chess players!

Your strange rules also state that the referee will "act as soon as possible", but so far, after five days, no referee has shown up. So you are not even acting in agreement to your own rules.

Finally, I find in your rules the following statement: "All games are played until a player resign, accept draw, or lose on time." This is the most ridiculous "rule" I have ever encountered. Not only renders this farcical rule a win by checkmate illegitimate, it is a blatant ignoring of the Laws of Chess, which allow games to be ended by accepted draw claims, or for any other reason at the discretion of an arbiter.

Patrycja Zerowska    (2022-10-08 00:56:47)
Threefold repetition

Mr. Thbault de Vassal, you say that this case is treated the same way on most chess websites. This is not true. At the ICCF website, which is the standard for correspondence chess, the draw must be claimed (this in agreement with the Laws of Chess):

" ICCF:
9.2.1 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
9.2.1.1 is about to appear, declares to the tournament director (or the server) the intention to make this move, or
9.2.1.2 has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

At other websites, the rule is also correctly applied:

chess-mail.com
"8. To check the draw ( threefold repetition ; the fifty-move rule ) : Click on "Send and offer the draw". "

Gameknot:
"To declare the draw in a game due to the threefold repetition rule, please use "Declare draw" link located directly below the game board."

None of these sites violates the correct rule.

The FICGS way of handling this case involves several violations of the rules. First of all, the draw must be claimed. This rule exists for more than 100 years, and the advent of server chess hasn't changed it. Secondly, you require me to make a move, thereby taking back my claim and my intended move. Every beginner is told that it is forbidden to take back a move, a draw claim or a draw offer. Thirdly, you refuse to stop the clocks, allowing a player to lose on time by your inaction. This "inaction" constitutes interference in the course of the game by a third party, which is forbidden. Fourthly, your bot wants to automatically end the game when there is threefold repetition (or 50-move rule). Again this is forbidden by the rules! A bot can only act upon a claim, and never when there is no claim. With all these violations, we are no longer talking about chess, but about an undesirable chess variant.

It would be so easy to add a button under the chess board, where a player can make a draw claim. Why isn't this done?

You or your referee still hasn't taken action, and a whole week has passed since my claim.

I have always - since 1972 - played according to the rules and I refuse to violate the rules here and now. Therefore I won't make a move; it is forbidden.

Patrycja Zerowska    (2022-10-13 08:16:44)
Threefold repetition

"... or you can lose on time or resign &/or cancel your membership, of course."

Of course... And then you ask yourself why so many strong players have left your site in the past. The answer should be very clear, not only from this incident, but also from the archived forum posts, which yield plenty of indications.

Scott Ligon    (2022-11-22 14:53:59)
I did not win a game since 3 years

As for ways to address this, if engines are allowed you could have tournaments from a starting position where the game theoretic value isn't clear. Where maybe it's a win for one side or the other, or maybe it's a draw, but it's right on the border and it's not obvious which side we're on. Then you play two games from that position against each opponent, once as white and once as black.

Scott Ligon    (2022-11-23 21:22:50)
I did not win a game since 3 years

Surely there are some positions where it's difficult to determine, even with engine assistance, whether the position is a game theoretic win or a draw. And then playing that position out would be interesting. That's all my proposed variant would depend on. The first player looks for a position that would be interesting to play, and if they've done their job well, the second player has a difficult task in deciding whether they want to play the side with advantage for a win or the other side for a draw. I think this would work up until the point that chess is actually solved.

The starting position could be as simple as 1. g4 (a terrible first move of course). Maybe black has a forced win and maybe with careful play white can hold the draw. If I did a lot of Stockfish analysis the answer might become clear but with a quick analysis I'm not sure. But if I knew the answer either way for 1. g4, I could always look at other positions. At least this would be a game where the outcome isn't immediately obvious.

A. T. S. Broekhuizen    (2022-11-25 16:48:19)
I did not win a game since 3 years

In case of the openings I mentioned earlier, I think there is a possibility for white to hold on to an advantage. The problem is that with the superhuman playing strength of engines nowadays, one will have to study harder than before to keep up with the engine. But now, after I studied these variations in detail, it has become clear. In practice one nowadays will have to have the right approach before the game to the played opening, otherwise I think it is not doable anymore to find the way to any white advantage during the game. This can be frustrating, but also in OTB chess more and more engine designed defences are played, so it is prudent to study these "unbeatable" defences.

Scott Ligon    (2022-11-26 14:55:46)
I did not win a game since 3 years

I couldn't use the link but I found game number 137701. You won against the King's Gambit but your opponent played 3 d4. Which is actually the kind of position I'm talking about. Right on the edge of outright losing and I'm not sure if white is already over the edge. Anyway I haven't been brave enough to try that one. 3 Bc4 is as far as I go, at least for now.

Thibault de Vassal    (2022-11-30 00:59:29)
I did not win a game since 3 years

Did anyone "calculate" what opening leads to the lowest rate of draws in engines tournaments? (or Stockfish vs. Stockfish)

Stanislas Gounant    (2022-11-30 23:08:17)
I did not win a game since 3 years

I think the meanning of this topic is now to find some positions where theory is unclear I think it's the case of the bishop's gambit, and for the traxler, i think there is not a lot of games because it is refuted

Ilmars Cirulis    (2022-12-03 21:58:05)
I did not win a game since 3 years

Maybe someone wants to play Bishop gambit thematic games/matches? I'm interested.

But not the fast time control... instead at least +1 day/move, if possible. To ensure greater quality of the games. :)

Right now I have almost no e-points, though. If that matters.

Juri Eintalu    (2023-03-30 11:51:52)
RUSSIA AND BELARUS NOT SUSPENDED?

I wrote an open letter to the Estonian Correspondence Chess Federation that I am leaving this organization.

https://eintalu.medium.com/an-open-letter-to-the-estonian-correspondence-chess-federation-4d7edcb8fe5c

Thibault de Vassal    (2023-03-31 16:56:17)
RUSSIA AND BELARUS NOT SUSPENDED?

Hello Juri,

Thanks for taking time to develop...

I agree that justification is the (never easy) key.

After thinking about it, I may also agree that it is possible in a certain measure to compare russians ignorance during Ukraine's war to americans ignorance during Iraq's war. A difference is that Russia's government acts like a dictator (russians are condemned as soon as they show against this war)

I do agree that US should probably be punished for some wars (at least for the the announced reasons and what actually happened - number of civil deaths, etc.), by an International Court of Justice.

On this topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

I quite agree that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were aggressions 'stricto sensu', but...

- I cannot agree that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were similar to what happens in Ukraine. The aim was probably partly oil-related but AFAIK it was not to introduce separatism, it was not to annex territories, it was not to spread a dictatorship, it was not to force people to change their culture & national identity (but yes, this may happen in Ukraine just like it happens in Russia, for the same reasons)...

- Saddam Hussein was a true & violent dictator who was probably a reason enough to move his regime, just like it is the case with talibans, IMHO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

It seems to me that it is very possible to justify to fight &/or to remove some dictatorships.

Russia should obviously be punished for many reasons:

- Annexion of territories (that has no nothing to do with their nazis justifications... their argument is mainly "history").
- Numerous crimes of war (that will be documented)

Finally, there are nazis quite everywhere, even in France. The question is "how many" and what do they do? The Russia's argument does not try to be subtle or precise on this matter, it just looks like "europeans turned nazi cause Europe helps Ukraine", right?

Thibault de Vassal    (2023-05-27 03:36:48)
Problem players.

Hello Pavel, please send a private message to me mentioning the tournaments you think about... I'll have a look at it. Many thanks in advance.

Thibault de Vassal    (2023-08-10 00:10:24)
FIDE BANS KARJAKIN

Unfortunately, and I find it quite sad myself, everything is politics (at some point at least).

In my opinion, deciding to attack a country, collaterally killing thousands of russian & ukrainian people (to "save" how many? [if it was really the purpose]), while hoping there will not be any other collateral consequences by arguing that sport, trading, culture & so on should not be politicized is surely not realistic. Of course this war was about culture, trading & even sport long time before to bring russian tanks in Ukraine.

The fact that Karjakin is supporting this russian invasion (consequently banning himself) seems very secondary here...

Farewell (or not).

Herbert Kruse    (2023-11-14 07:36:04)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations

jews fear for their lifes in germany now, i hoped that shouldnt happen again after our history
if children learn hate, nothing good comes frm it

Herbert Kruse    (2023-11-14 15:56:31)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations

She advocated for Palestinian children and a two-state solution. It is now clear: The 74-year-old activist Vivian Silver was murdered in the Hamas terrorist attack.

Thibault de Vassal    (2023-11-17 20:03:54)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations

Then, it would be difficult not to make differences between Ukraine/Russia and Israel/Hamas... the war between Israel & Hamas is very old, very complex & obviously has no reason to end, while the war between Ukraine & Russia is more recent and there is still some hope that it may come to an end (IMHO).

Several things are quite sure to me:

- Israel made bad things for a while in this region. Hamas is an islamist movement that made bad things as well. Most civilians are probably victims of these systems. Recently, Hamas chose to attack civilians instead of Israel (this is a war crime, no ambiguity there), Israel now does everything to destroy Hamas, making many victims among civilians. But this may not be war crimes according to definition. Nothing obvious there, we'll see.

- Ukraine is attacked mainly because Poutine (at least) argues it historically belongs to Russia with no consideration of its recent history & international treaties (and among other reasons because he obviously sees nazis in every people open on what a man/woman/family could look like, meaning many europeans & americans). There are few doubts that war crimes have been committed there.

No, definitely the comparison seems not valid and I see no reason why it should lead FIDE, ICCF or any chess/sport organization to consider it.

Vadrya Pokshtya    (2023-11-17 20:38:28)
Battle of Kings

Thanks, but you are wrong about the engine being able to crush this chess variant ;)
Knowledgeable people, programmers with whom I had the opportunity to talk about this chess variant, argued that not a single engine would be able to adequately evaluate positions in the Battle of Kings due to the colossal combinatorial complexity of the game.
Please note that the server bot plays very, very weakly. The program does not understand the concept of the game and makes a superficial assessment of the position based on material balance.
Playing against a bot is very different from playing against a human.
At the moment you can play by correspondence against other players here https://www.schemingmind.com/default.aspx
or here
https://games.dtco.ru/

Thank you again for your positive feedback!

Juri Eintalu    (2023-11-18 03:24:26)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations

to Thibault de Vassal:

It is beside the point whether the Russell Tribunal on Palestine was biased or not.

What is essential is that you have said nothing about the facts and statistic presented by that tribunal.

You are talking about the apartheid. But you ignore the context in which I mentioned the Russell Tribunal on Palestine. I was talking about that tribunal because it presented facts, that already in 2014, Israel's actions concerning the Gaza Strip were very close to genocide.

Thus, your remarks concerning the Russell Tribunal on Palestine are beside the point and avoiding the theme.

Moreover, independently of any Russel tribunals, it is evident and clear that there is an apartheid regime in Israel and occupied Palestine territories.

First of all, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are surrounded by a high wall with barbered wire.

Juri Eintalu    (2023-11-18 03:57:22)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations

to Thibault de Vassal:

"Recently, Hamas chose to attack civilians instead of Israel (this is a war crime, no ambiguity there), Israel now does everything to destroy Hamas, making many victims among civilians. But this may not be war crimes according to definition. Nothing obvious there, we'll see."

The 07 October attack is quite recent, and I would not say that all the circumstances are clear. For example, I am not sure that Hamas "chose" to kill civilians.

The only thing that is sure is that some number of civilians were killed by Hamas. It is sure, because Israel accuses Hamas of killing the civilians, and one of Hamas leaders has publicly admitted, that during that attack, Hamas killed some civilians "accidentally".

Killing civilians may make it a war crime. Intentionally killing civilians may make it an act of terrorism.

After the 07 October attack, Israel has killed awfully many civilians in the Gaza Strip. I totally agree with those experts who say that such a bombing of the sieged territory is not self-defence and it is a war crime - at the very least.

Note that during the 07 October attack, approximately 1200 people were killed, some of them were soldiers, and the others were civilians, many of them unarmed civilians.

Under Israel's bombs, in the Gaza Strip, during one month, more than 10,000 unarmed civilians were killed. Most of them were women and children. And it has not yet ended.

As of now, no one of the participants in the present discussion has said anything at all about the content of my Public Appeal. It seems that no one has even read it, despite I inserted the link into my initial post. I did not try to present the text directly here, on the Forum, as it was perhaps too lengthy for the Forum.

I shall provide the link to my Public Appeal again:

https://medium.com/@eintalu/a-public-appeal-to-chess-organisations-on-the-bombing-of-the-gaza-strip-be56afd3f5ca

Concerning civilian causalities of the Gaza bombing, and the comparison of the Ukraine war and the Israel war, I provided the following information in my Public Appeal:

<International organisations confirm that Israel has managed to kill more children in the Gaza Strip in one month in 2023 than were killed in all the war zones on the planet in the whole of 2022. In fact, significantly more children have been killed by Israeli bombs in one month than in two years of war in Ukraine. See also, e.g.:

â€œGAZA: 3,195 CHILDREN KILLED IN THREE WEEKS SURPASSES ANNUAL NUMBER OF CHILDREN KILLED IN CONFLICT ZONES SINCE 2019â€
Save the Children, 29 October 2023

https://www.savethechildren.net/news/gaza-3195-children-killed-three-weeks-surpasses-annual-number-children-killed-conflict-zones# >

Now, while talking about the attacks on civilians, you (as other participants of the discussion) simply ignore my Public Appeal.

Concerning your political views about the real intentions of Russia when starting a war against Ukraine, what you present dogmatically and without evidence - the only sober reply is that dogmatically and without evidence, one could as well assert whatever about the Israeli real intentions concerning the Gaza war.

However, we have direct evidence from the public speeches of Israel's leadership, that the intentions of the Gaza war are genocidal.

I conclude that you are trying to whitewash Israeli large-scale war crimes and crimes against humanity while ignoring the text of my Public Appeal.

Thibault de Vassal    (2023-11-18 19:42:16)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations

Juri, when you say << For example, I am not sure that Hamas "chose" to kill civilians. >>, I'm not sure if your topic is determinism or something else but obviously you cannot be sure of anything. Did you watch the videos? Anyway, any army killing or kidnapping civilians is a war crime for sure and that's most probably terrorism in this case.

On Israel response, many experts say different things, so it remains unclear yet to me. (it is important not to listen what one want to hear only)

About your text, you seem to neglict all contextual elements to compare Russia, ThaÃ¯land, Congo, North Korea, China or whatever situation in any country... No chess organization reacted much when Peng Shuai (chinese tennis star) disappeared, but tennis world reacted! For Rohingya, Karabakh or about war in Irak or Afghanisatan. How many chess players in these countries? That is not the same. Russia & Ukraine are among the most influential chess nations in the world. Russia is the biggest country, has the most nuclear weapons. That's why it seems pertinent that chess players and organizations take position towards not just peace (undermeaning "do what Russia wants"), but a fair and right peace.

You say : "Concerning your political views about the real intentions of Russia when starting a war against Ukraine, what you present dogmatically and without evidence"

The evidence is in Putin's speeches, "Russia defends its interests", obviously Ukraine (another country for a while) should not be free of his choices, in example to join an alliance to protect itself just like Finland or other countries... Obviously Ukraine is Russia's interest and should not join OTAN. Did ever OTAN attack Russia?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Dgy4vYTp_Jo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxS9YIBeJbY

Watching full speeches is even more instructive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akzr0K0CE0M

Putin's rhetoric remains both crude and manipulative, appealing to people's conservative reflexes. And it works on most people who get outraged at the slightest conspiracy theory, it's no coincidence.

Finally, the argument saying that there shouldn't be politics in chess or sports has no foundations other than a subjective point of view.

You say that these bans by FIDE were out of international laws and that the same restrictions should apply to israeli playesrs... well, so just prove it and make appeal I guess. Karjakin probably thought about that already!?

Meanwhile, these discussions are only point of views.

Juri Eintalu    (2023-11-19 00:58:48)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations

ARGUMENTS CONCERNING THE RUSSIA/UKRAINE WAR

None of the commentators explained why it was necessary and reasonable to politicise sports and to impose sanctions on Russia and Belarus. No one answered my corresponding arguments from my Public Appeal. No one explained why the sanctions were imposed on Russia for the invasion of Ukraine, while no sanctions were imposed on the US for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

HERBERT KRUSE PRESENTED THE FOLLOWING "ARGUMENT":

"like Ukraine Israel had its "Butcha" at the music festival, so who attacked?

and there were constant rockets on Israel from Gaza, should they just allow it?

and the hostiges should just given up?

if my state can not defend me, maybe u can help?!"

This emotional and psychological manipulation completely ignored all my relevant arguments and explanations.

Now, let us take only the first phrase of this mumbo-jumbo:

"like Ukraine Israel had its 'Butcha' at the music festival, so who attacked?"

My Public Appeal was about chess sanctions. Now, the data are as follows:

2022, February 24:
Russia started its invasion of Ukraine

2022, February 27:
An extraordinary meeting of the FIDE Council was held on the current situation and the urgent measures to be taken after the military action launched by Russia in Ukraine.
https://fide.com/news/1603

Thus, it seems that they waited for the beginning of the Russian invasion and had a plan for how to react, as they responded only a few days later.

Israel had occupied Palestinian territories for 55 years, but the chess federation FIDE had never reacted.

2022, March 16:
Russia and Belarus teams suspended from FIDE competitions.
https://fide.com/news/1638

2022, March 30:
Russian troops leave Bucha (near Kyiv).

2022, April 01:
The corpses in Bucha were discovered.

Now, the first obvious problem with Herbert Kruse's "argument" is that the timeline proves that the chess sanctions on Russia were imposed BEFORE the corpses in Bucha were discovered.

The second problem is that he does not know or pretends not to know the definitions of such terms as "war crime".

The third problem is that, as a matter of fact, we do NOT know WHEN these people were executed, and we do NOT know WHO executed them.

It is so because there were actually TWO massacres in Bucha.
The shelling killed some people, "The Guardian" reported. These people were lying on the streets. The satellite images proved that they were killed before the Russian Army left the town.
However, some people were executed in the cellars. Unfortunately, the satellite images cannot prove the time of the executions in the cellars.
There is one additional problem. Ukraine has not made public the names and personal data of the victims. Therefore, we do not even know what percentage of the victims were Ukrainians and what percentage were Russians.

THIBAULT THE VASSAL PRESENTED THE FOLLOWING SEQUENCE OF ARGUMENTS:

"Ukraine is attacked mainly because Poutine (at least) argues it historically belongs to Russia with no consideration of its recent history & international treaties (and among other reasons because he obviously sees nazis in every people open on what a man/woman/family could look like, meaning many europeans & americans)."

Thibault has no evidence whatsoever for one's claim that Putin "obviously sees nazis in every people open on what a man/woman/family could look like, meaning many europeans & americans)." There is even no evidence to the claim that the Russian administration thinks that the majority of Ukrainians were Nazis. The evidence might be the public speeches of Russian leaders. But I have seen no such speech with such theses. Indeed, Putin has said something else.

I believe that Thibault presents one's prejudices as "obvious facts".

Besides, it has nothing to do with the arguments of my Public Appeal.

"There are few doubts that war crimes have been committed there."

In the Ukraine/Russia war, BOTH sides have committed a lot of war crimes, and it is well documented and proven.

However, the chess sanctions on Russia were not imposed because of the war crimes, as can be seen from the schedule above. The motivation to impose those sanctions was, initially, merely the fact that Russia started a war (not a war crime but a crime against peace).

Moreover, in the Ukraine/Donbas domestic war too, both sides committed war crimes. Ukraine committed crimes against humanity, and there were clear genocidal elements of the behaviour towards the Russian-speaking minority of Ukraine. It is also well-documented and proven. At the beginning of my Public Appeal, I mentioned that Karyakin argued from the premise that Ukrainian ultra-nationalists murdered a lot of Russians in Ukraine.

However, I see that the responses to my Public Appeal have altogether ignored all my arguments, and everyone has preferred to talk about something else.

Juri Eintalu    (2023-11-19 01:13:45)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations

Me:

"I am not sure that Hamas 'chose' to kill civilians."

Herbert Kruse:

"for that u dont need empathy, u need to be in prison!"

My answer:

Please arrest this man with the name "Herbert Kruse". He is obviously a fascist.

Juri Eintalu    (2023-11-19 01:39:29)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations

Thibault the Vassal:

"Juri, when you say << For example, I am not sure that Hamas "chose" to kill civilians. >>, I'm not sure if your topic is determinism or something else but obviously you cannot be sure of anything. Did you watch the videos? Anyway, any army killing or kidnapping civilians is a war crime for sure and that's most probably terrorism in this case."

I do not understand what you are talking about?

I cannot be sure about the videos because I know that Israel is a liar.

I cannot be sure that it was Hamas as and organization who (intentionally) killed the civilians. Perhaps some members of Hamas enjoyed killing civilians despite the commands of their chiefs.

I cannot be sure that these were members of Hamas who murdered the civilians. Perhaps Israel knew about the attack and these civilians were killed during the attack by, say, the Israeli secret service. Perhaps Netanyahu wanted it to happen to get an excuse to start the carpet bombing of the Gaza Strip.

I cannot be sure that all the civilians killed were killed by Hamas. It is plausible to guess that some civilians were killed by Israeli forces.

After all, I know that earlier, Israel had intentionally killed its own soldiers and its own civilians.

There are or have been such dubious doctrines in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF):

HANNIBAL DIRECTIVE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive

DAHYIA DOCTRINE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine

I also know that reportedly here have been some witnesses in Israel, Jews, who have claimed in Israel TV and radio, that they saw that Israeli forces killed civilian hostages and random civilians nearby.

Therefore, I am not in a hurry decide, what actually happened on 07 October 2023.

What I reported above was that I regard it as proven beyond reasonable doubt that Hamas killed some unknown number of civilians.

Finally, Thibault the Vassal, I do not accept your attitude, and particularly I completely condemn the attitude of Herbert Kruse.

Are you both some kind of communists or Stalinists?

It is not a crime not to believe such assertions that have not been sufficiently proven.

If you demand that one must blindly believe whatever propaganda the government or the mainstream media produces, then you are a totalitarianist.

I do not want to talk to such people.

However, now, at least, I know how such people are thinking, who defend absolutely illogical and inconsistent policies.

Garvin Gray    (2023-12-02 11:01:06)
Referee Adjudication

And this is a rule that really does need changing. As soon as the 7 man tablebase position has arisen, the player should be able to claim for win or draw and as soon as the result is verified, the game is over.

Allowing the other player to continue playing when the result is clear from the tablebase position is just pointlessly delaying of the game and can lead to claims of dead man defense.

I really do not understand why Thibault sticks with this outdated policy when as soon as the 7 man position arises, the result is clear and the position should be declared as such.

Scott Ligon    (2024-01-16 20:31:54)
Fried Liver analysis on rybkaforum.net?

The Fried Liver just seems like a bad choice for black when the main line (5... Na5) equalizes, and if you want something different there's 5... b5 where white gets some advantage with 6. Bf1 but more frequently plays 6. Bxb5 where black is again equal and can expect to be more familiar with the position. I had a look at your lichess study. Are you mainly just taking notes on the computer evaluations of various lines as a general reference, or is this something you actually intend to learn in detail so you can play it?

Ilmars Cirulis    (2024-01-17 13:47:31)
Fried Liver analysis on rybkaforum.net?

Lichess study is for reference, yes. Also it's nice to have everything in one place, where it can be browsed through (and can be downloaded as PGN file, if necessary).

Yes, I agree that Fried Liver is bad choice for black. Not going to learn it for OTB, definitely.

Herbert Kruse    (2024-04-22 12:49:02)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

but the last game in 17 doesnt matter, first place in that is also clear

Vjacheslav Perevozchikov    (2024-08-29 20:44:24)
Russian flag replaced

By the way, please replace my flag with the Russian flag or whatever you put in place of it? I am no longer a Ukrainian, but a Russian - and I am proud of it!

A. T. S. Broekhuizen    (2024-09-10 14:05:28)
Group winners first stage of Ficgs WCH

For group 1 t/m 5 it is already clear as crystal who's going to win and for the last groups as well, but those are shared group wins. Sadly many players prolong their game. And for group 6 and 7 I can understand, since the rules are such that in case of a tie the group win goes to the highest TER and after that to the highest rating holder.
But wouldn't it be best to just start a second round ASAP with two groups of five players? Or will it really come down to TER's and most recent ratings?

I included an oversight of the group winners:

Group 1
Kireev, Sergey

Group 2
Hallqvist, Niklas

Group 3
Knittel, Martin

Group 4
Swiatek, Janusz

Group 5
LaDuke, Matt

Group 6
Gounant, Stanislas
Pech, Stepan

Group 7
DeBonis, Patrick
Broekhuizen, A. T. S.
Ward, David

Thibault de Vassal    (2024-10-24 00:03:34)
Conditional Moves Method

Hello Bahadir,

No, sorry, at least not before years... As I explained in previous forum posts, it won't be feasible without making very big changes that I can't do for now (many things to do for FICGS before this).

All the best, Thibault

A. T. S. Broekhuizen    (2024-11-15 09:37:54)
stage 2 WCH 000028

I made some earlier post about this WCH. Now I was wondering when stage 2 of WCH 000028 would start (and if I would be in it ;)). I looked up the first stage tournaments of this WCH and I noticed that there seems to be a bug. For my group it says that there's only a leader and no definitive winner. Only by now all games have been completed. So it seems this is a bug, which potentially is the cause of the hold-up.

Thibault de Vassal    (2024-11-16 03:42:12)
stage 2 WCH 000028

Hello! It will start soon... There is no hold up, "leaders" or "winners" are players who got the most points, but it does not mean that these players (or others who got less points) go to next stage.

Garvin Gray    (2024-12-07 04:02:25)
New Tie Break System

Currently Ficgs uses TER as its first tie break if two or more players are tied for first in a round robin group.

I have thought for a long time this is rather unfair and gives way too much advantage to the player with the highest rating in the group.

The practical effect of this rule can be thus:

7 players in a group:

The difference in ratings between the players can be less than 100 points and seeds 1 and 2 can be as little as 2 or 2 rating points.

But with using TER as the first tie break, the top seed only needs to have score the same as everyone else to advance, which with engines nowadays, can quite often mean that all games in a group are drawn.

What I propose is to change the tie break system to the following:

1) Number of wins
2) Sonnebornâ€“Berger
3) Direct Encounter
4) TER

A second option is to stop using such small groups where possible. This would then at least increase the likelihood of a positive result in the groups as more games are played.

Scott Ligon    (2025-01-17 14:44:57)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?

To be clear, I still don't know if it can be beaten at 10 million nodes. Someone might eventually find a line with white that beats Stockfish 17 at these settings. But the longer the experiment goes without anyone finding such a line, the more confident I will be that it can't be beaten.

Here is a line that beats Stockfish 17 at 5 million nodes.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Nd5 Nxd5 8. exd5 Nb8 9. a4 Be7 10. Bd2 O-O 11. a5 f5 12. Be2 Bd7 13. O-O Be8 14. Ra2 h6 15. Kh1 Bg5 16. Be1 a6 17. Na3 Nd7 18. Nc4 Qc7 19. Bb4 Nc5 20. Ra3 Bb5 21. Nb6 Rad8 22. c4 Be8 23. Be1 Nd7 24. Nxd7 Qxd7 25. b4 Rc8 26. f3 Bh5 27. Bf2 e4 28. c5 dxc5 29. Bxc5 Rfe8 30. d6 Kh8 31. f4 Bxe2 32. Qxe2 Bf6 33. Qh5 Rf8 34. Rd1 Kh7 35. Rg3 Bd8 36. Rd5 Rf6 37. Qd1 Rf7 38. Re3 g5 39. Qh5 gxf4 40. Re1 e3 41. Rf1 Rf8 42. Rd4 Bf6 43. Rdxf4 Bg5 44. R4f3 Qf7 45. Qxf7+ Rxf7 46. Bxe3 Bxe3 47. Rxe3 Kg7 48. g3 Rc4 49. Rf4 Rc1+ 50. Kg2 Rd1 51. Re7 Rd2+ 52. Rf2 Rxd6 53. Rxf7+ Kxf7 54. Rxf5+ Kg6 55. Rc5 Rd2+ 56. Kf3 Rb2 57. Rc4

Scott Ligon    (2025-02-09 21:47:17)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?

My remaining games where I'm using the 10 million node strategy as black have gone past the point where they could transpose into white's winning lines against the 10 million node strategy (at least the two winning lines that I managed to find), so I will post them now. I found both lines while analyzing games that have now finished.

Game 147097: Kruse vs Ligon
https://ficgs.com/game_147097.html

Due to a repetition, the position after black's move 22 in the game was the same as the position after black's move 20 in the following line where white wins.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. Re1 e5 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. a4 Nh6 8. d3 O-O 9. Be3 Qd6 10. Na3 f6 11. Nc4 Qe7 12. a5 Ng4 13. Bd2 Nh6 14. Qe2 Be6 15. h4 Ng4 16. Ra4 Rf7 17. Rb1 Bf8 18. h5 Qd7 19. b3 Re8 20. Re1 Rg7 21. Rb1 g5 22. Ne1 Nh6 23. Ne3 Qc8 24. g3 Bd6 25. N1g2 Bf8 26. f3 Qb8 27. Rba1 Nf7 28. Ng4 Qd8 29. Qf2 Nd6 30. Be3 b5 31. axb6 axb6 32. b4 Bxg4 33. fxg4 cxb4 34. Rxb4 b5 35. Rbb1 Qd7 36. Qf3 Rf7 37. Kh2 Rb8 38. Ba7 Rc8 39. Bf2 b4 40. Be1 c5 41. Ne3 Nb5 42. Nd5 Qc6 43. Bd2 Nc7 44. Ra7 c4 45. Rba1 Bc5 46. Nxb4 Bxb4 47. Bxb4 cxd3 48. cxd3 Rb8 49. Be1 Rb2+ 50. Bf2 Ne6 51. Ra8+ Rf8 52. Rxf8+ Nxf8 53. h6 Kf7 54. Kh3 Rb3 55. Ra2 Ke8 56. Ra7

Game 147106: Pineda vs Ligon
https://ficgs.com/game_147106.html

First 36 moves are the same as the following line where white wins. Black got the win only because white made a mistake in entering the final move, otherwise we were headed for a draw.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6. d3 a5 7. h3 b6 8. a3 Nf6 9. Qe2 O-O 10. Nc3 Ne8 11. e5 Nc7 12. Qe4 Ne6 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Qh4 f6 15. Be3 h6 16. Qg3 g5 17. h4 Qd8 18. Bd2 b5 19. b3 Kh7 20. Rac1 Kg8 21. Rcd1 Ra7 22. Rb1 Ra8 23. Rbc1 Ra7 24. Rcd1 Rb7 25. Bc1 Ra7 26. a4 b4 27. Ne2 Qe8 28. Bb2 Qf7 29. Nd2 Qh5 30. hxg5 fxg5 31. Qe3 Rd7 32. Nc4 Rdd8 33. Ng3 Qg6 34. Nxa5 h5 35. Qe4 Qe8 36. Ne2 h4 37. f3 Nd4 38. Rf1 Bf5 39. Qe3 Ne6 40. Bc1 Qg6 41. Nxc6 Rd7 42. Na5 Rf7 43. Rde1 Rd8 44. Nc4 Rdf8 45. Nb6 h3 46. Rf2 hxg2 47. Rxg2 Qh5 48. Rh2 Bh3 49. f4 g4 50. Qg3 Ng5 51. Rf1 Bxe5 52. Nd7 Bc7 53. Nxf8 Kxf8 54. Kh1 Qh6 55. Rff2

Scott Ligon    (2025-02-15 15:43:10)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?

The position after 56 Ra7 is clearly winning if you run an analysis with Stockfish. I'm not saying it's obvious from a human perspective but if both players are using engines, black should resign at that point (and probably a few moves earler).

The move numbers don't line up with your game because I removed a repetition, but from your game if you go to the position after 22. Re1 Rg7, it's the same position as the line shown in this thread after 20. Re1 Rg7 and you can follow the line from there.

Scott Ligon    (2025-03-04 16:30:48)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?

So the current state of the experiment is that white can defeat the 10 million node strategy, and so far I haven't seen a way for white to win against the 15 million node strategy. Somebody might find a win for white, it just hasn't happened yet.

I already mentioned that if this strategy leads me to a losing position and I notice this in time, I will intervene and stop playing the strategy to try to avoid losing. I will add another exception. If I reach a position that is winning or close to it, I will intervene to try to play for the win, because of course these fixed node strategies don't always find the best move. This has already happened in at least one of my games but I wanted to make my policy clear. I'm using a deterministic strategy as a sort of autopilot mode, but if I get close to winning or losing, I'll turn off the autopilot. This is rare though. Most of the time neither side gets a decisive advantage and I'll stay on autopilot and the game will end in a draw.

Stefan Haack    (2025-03-22 15:20:44)
Fried Liver analysis on rybkaforum.net?

I DONT FOUND THIS on lichess a link please

Ulises Pineda    (2025-03-29 17:10:11)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?

What I don't get is, what are your other opponents doing? I mean, it took some time, but at all points I had a line that I knew would beat the 10 million strategy if they were followed through, this is an opportunity to always get ponder hits because one always knows what move will be played in all positions.

Are those people aware that the fixed node strategy will lead to a draw, and they play it anyway? That's too weird to me.

I'm confident in a future game against the 15 million node strategy I would find another such line and play it out, just to retire it, but I wouldn't make any moves in the game until I had it, I don't know what those players that know all moves played would lead to a draw are doing.

Scott Ligon    (2025-03-29 18:03:58)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?

I think there's a decent chance that the 15 million node strategy is unbeatable, but I can't say what that chance is. Maybe I overestimate it. I have spent considerable time looking for a winning line for white and I haven't been able to find one. But, I had that same opinion about the 10 million node strategy before I found evidence in my games that it loses. Specifically games in the Sicilian. I haven't found any other winning lines for white.

As for my opponents, I think mostly they enter tournaments and play their usual game. I'm just another opponent. My focus is on the experiment I'm running, but I wouldn't assume everyone else is focused on it. But if anyone cares to prove that the 15 million node strategy is beatable, exploitive play is clearly the way to go about it. This most recent game shows that even a move that fails to give white an objective advantage could still merit consideration as a possible exploit against the fixed node strategy.

Ulises Pineda    (2025-04-23 14:49:42)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?

I'll request that if you ever play against me, jump at least to Stockfish 17.1 @ 20 million nodes, because a doubling of nodes is some 50 elo boost to the model, so a lot of games can be saved by increasing the nodes, as finding a winning line against such a thing isn't more difficult in reality, it just takes more time, so I guess those people don't think winning a game is worth the extra time used, or maybe they really don't know how, but if someone offered a million dollars for the line I'm sure they'd sit down and find it.
It's a matter of strength, someone with Stockfish 20 could find the line with a relative ease, and I don't think it'll play a perfect game already either, the blind spots just switch places.

Thibault de Vassal    (2025-05-18 01:26:50)
Changing in Poker game.

Hi Stanislas, could you send a screen capture to my email please? Many thanks!

Scott Ligon    (2025-06-14 02:43:46)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?

While analyzing the game I'm currently playing as black against Pineda, I found a winning line for white against Stockfish 17.1 @ 20 million nodes. It follows the first 41 moves of that game, and white made a different 42nd move. Which may also lead to a winning line for all I know, but I will just post the one I found. At the end of this line Stockfish found mate in 23.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. c3 d6 6. O-O a6 7. a4 O-O 8. b4 Ba7 9. Re1 Ne7 10. Nbd2 Be6 11. Bxe6 fxe6 12. Nf1 Ng6 13. h3 h6 14. N1h2 Qe8 15. Ra2 a5 16. b5 Bc5 17. Bd2 Rd8 18. Qb3 Qf7 19. g3 d5 20. Kg2 b6 21. Bc1 Bd6 22. Rae2 Bc5 23. Rc2 Rde8 24. Ra2 Bd6 25. Ba3 Rc8 26. c4 Kh7 27. Raa1 Kg8 28. Bb2 c6 29. Rac1 Bb4 30. Re2 d4 31. h4 Qc7 32. bxc6 Bc5 33. Rg1 Rf7 34. Qd1 Qxc6 35. Bc1 Rcf8 36. Rf1 Qd6 37. Rd2 Qc7 38. Ra2 Bb4 39. Rc2 Qb7 40. Rb2 Qd7 41. Bd2 Bc5 42. Qe2 Qc6 43. Rbb1 Nd7 44. h5 Nh8 45. Rb5 Bd6 46. Qd1 Qc7 47. Nh4 Nc5 48. Ng6 Nxg6 49. hxg6 Rf6 50. Qh5 Nxd3 51. Ng4 Qc6 52. Kg1 Qxe4 53. Nxf6+ Rxf6 54. Rxb6 Bf8 55. f3 Qe2 56. Qh2 Qxh2+ 57. Kxh2 e4 58. Bxa5 e3 59. Kg2 Ne5 60. c5 Rxg6 61. c6 Bd6 62. Bb4 Bc7 63. f4 e2 64. Rb1 Bxb6 65. fxe5 d3 66. a5 Rg4 67. Be1 Bxa5 68. Bxa5 Rc4 69. Rb6 Rc5 70. Bb4 Rc4 71. Kf2 Kf7 72. Rb7+ Ke8 73. Re7+ Kd8 74. c7+ Rxc7 75. Rxc7 Kxc7 76. Ke3 Kc6 77. Kxd3 e1=Q 78. Bxe1 Kd5 79. Bc3 Kc5 80. Ke4

Therefore I will be retiring the Stockfish 17.1 @ 20 million nodes strategy. For future games I will be using Stockfish 17.1 @ 50 million nodes.

A. T. S. Broekhuizen    (2025-07-05 09:48:01)
50 moves rule

''please call referee if an obvious draw is not accepted by your opponent.'' - would such a position at some point count as an ''obvious draw''?

Thibault de Vassal    (2025-07-06 14:02:48)
50 moves rule

Please just send me the game number... I'll have a look.

Thibault de Vassal    (2025-07-20 00:02:38)
Ð˜Ð·Ð¼ÐµÐ½ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ðµ ÑƒÑ‡ÐµÑ‚Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ Ð·Ð°Ð¿Ð¸ÑÐ¸

Please send an email to info at ficgs dot com.

Sergei Orlov    (2025-08-07 17:21:03)
Ð˜Ð·Ð¼ÐµÐ½ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ðµ ÑƒÑ‡ÐµÑ‚Ð½Ð¾Ð¹ Ð·Ð°Ð¿Ð¸ÑÐ¸

I sent an email on 08/25/2018 to info@ficgs.com There is no reaction yet. Here is the text of the letter - Good afternoon! Please change the account name - Sergey Orlov to Vladimir Orlov. Sincerely, Vladimir
P.S. I registered my son, but he has never played on the site.

George Jempty    (2025-10-05 14:58:16)
Cheating / Forfeiting

@Unlise Pineda, I do not think those situations are random. Because last one month, at least once, I had 3 or 4 games by "different" players, that have been doing so (letting their time run down to around one day or less) when I got all of their moves within 5 or 10 minutes of one another, very strange.

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.

Yeturu Aahlad    (2025-10-22 18:54:42)
DNS failure last week

Thibault, I was fearing the worst. Although I'm an atheist, I was praying for your safety. To help me avoid future trips to the temple, may I ask for a favor? Please keep a mailing list you can use even if your service provider is unavailable. Now, if I see 3 days of outage and receive no email notification,I will return to the temple.

Thibault de Vassal    (2025-10-27 18:42:15)
Banning players who forfeit too much

Hello George... I didn't see that, please send me details by email (I have many emails late, sorry).

George Jempty    (2025-11-04 14:06:45)
a 2300-player tried the Budapest

Yes, Dutch is OK, but 2.Nh3!? is a challenge, and I've won at least one game on this server with that. But the Benoni and Budapest are significantly worse IMO. Like I say a 2300-player tried the Budapest against me and I have something like a +2.5 advantage (according to SF17) at move 23. Yes, he was not at all careful and definitely made a couple of very bad decisions. Interestingly, I see the average ELO he face is 1900, so I think his rating is really inflated and he doesn't do so well against stronger players, whereas I'm currently at 2175, and the average ELO I face is 2100. I try to "play up" for the strongest competition, rather than "play down" to pump up my rating.

George Jempty    (2025-11-04 14:25:26)
Russian flag replaced

It's not a matter of being a "political expert". It's just a matter of knowing your history. "Between May 3 and 12, 1916, the British military executed 15 leaders of the Easter Rising for their roles in the rebellion" .... "The swift and public executions, conducted during the First World War, generated significant public outrage and sympathy for the rebel cause in Ireland. What was initially a mixed public reaction to the Rising turned into widespread support". And that was for killing 15 people, so my educated guess is there will eventually be retribution for Israel indisputably (again, not an opinion, or me being a "political expert") KILLING TENS OF THOUSAND OF PALESTINIAN CIVILIANS.

George Jempty    (2025-11-08 12:11:03)
Clarification of Rating Groups

Hello Garvin Gray, there is a similar rule if you are within 50 points of the floor of the next higher group, and "the field has gotten to the last two entries", and you pay 10 e-points.

I think this policy helps fill up hard to fill groups, like standard-M. Nobody has joined the new/empty rating list for that group in the meantime.

On a personal note, my future rating just since the last update earlier this week, has even gone up over 20 points and now stands at 2199, AND I have a clearly winning position (+3.0 per SF 17) against a 2300.

IMO I am clearly worthy of standard-M, and am not making a mockery of anything.

Garvin Gray    (2025-11-10 05:48:20)
Clarification of Rating Groups

George:

As I stated in my original post:

The policy as I have known it has been that a player must win a lower division, and then can only enter the higher division when the field has gotten to the last two entries.

Has this policy changed?

Your reply would fit if the player had won the lower division and was then trying to enter the higher division.

This is the rule I was quoting.

Your justifications about where your rating sits, or where your rating maybe in the future does not matter. Many players can show this pattern.

I certain have and have been stuck just below a rating cut off and when I have attempted to enter a higher division when there are two spots left open, I have been told no as I not won a lower division.

Therefore, this is why I am seeking a clarification from Thibault.

And it is only Thibault that I want a public answer from.

Either the rule has changed and it should be told to everyone, or an exception has been made for you, which is then clearly wrong as that is favouritism.

I have been told no in the past.

So, which is it Thibault?

Ulises Pineda    (2025-11-10 17:16:18)
Russian flag replaced

It's very interesting that the only message here from people actually involved is from an Ukranian that was happy becoming Russian. There's always two sides of the story, it's unfortunate almost nobody speaks Russian and we only get to hear the "English speaking world" narrative of the events where the side to take is clear, and you never get to know about the critical events happening there because they are only shown in a language nobody reads.

Clodomiro Ortiz    (2025-11-13 14:14:35)
retire from waiting list tournament

waiting list tournament chess rapid GM 00022...please Thibault,, i had an accident recenty and i need on account of a medical condition to retire from any physical and mental stress for at least 3 months ahead,,,please if possible and retire from this event

George Jempty    (2025-11-17 23:47:07)
Clarification of Rating Groups

There is no favoritism in my case, the rule ALSO states if your rating is within 50 points of the higher group, that waiting list has at least 5 entries already, and you pay 10 epoints, you can enter. Perhaps those last qualifications have been amended since last time knew of the rule? I've just brought up my ratings to defend against that I'm making a mockery of this rule. So no favoritism, no mockery, and I'm done with this discussion altogether,

Garvin Gray    (2025-11-18 02:55:42)
Clarification of Rating Groups

It is really annoying when the site owner does not bother to clarify this issue and instead leaves it to the players to have to dig through the rules themselves to sort out this issue.

Tickets for a higher class tournament :

However, when you win a rated tournament (only after that you receive an email specifying it or when the tournaments list shows your name as winner or co-winner of the tournament) or if your rating is at most 50 points below the low rating limit of the next class tournament's waiting list, it is now possible to buy a ticket for the next class tournament's waiting list (for example if you win a chess class A tournament, you may ask for a ticket for the next class M tournament) for 10 Epoints if the following conditions are filled : 1) No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise. 2) The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the tournament's waiting list. 3) At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list. 4) Five players at least must have entered the tournament's waiting list already so that you can buy a ticket for this tournament. 5) The possibility to buy a ticket is valid after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament]. 6) As the price for any ticket is 10 Epoints, the player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.

Ulises Pineda    (2025-11-19 06:45:16)
Clarification of Rating Groups

I'm contributing with my moves and participation in the platform, I also don't ask for money to the site owner to see my moves or to start new games, because it goes both ways, without players like me participating, the site would die, if someone gets a very sour taste in their mouth that they stop participating, it's the beginning of the end.
The players are needed, is the site needed? We're already playing a game in another place, Ozen, I see you making conditional moves over there that you can't send here, so what's the advantage of playing over here instead of playing over there?
At the end of the day, I come here because of the players I can face here, that only play at FICGS, so it's the only way. If they happen to leave because of some circumstances, then the site becomes pointless.
FICGS is its players.
FICGS needs the players more than the players need FICGS.
Gratitude goes both ways, I don't feel appreciated because the site's owner hasn't even replied here, because I'm just another useless player and if I left someone else would come to replace me, perhaps someone that buys tickets.
If I'm not valuable, if my games and move contributions are meaningless perhaps I should stop creating new games around here, there's other places that are completely free, have more features, and don't let players pay to get in higher rated tiers.

Bahadir Ozen    (2025-11-19 08:46:16)
Clarification of Rating Groups

Mr. Ulises Pineda,

Of course, you're valuable. The time you spend, your actions, and your interaction enrich both me, the players, and the site. Thank you for your efforts.

It's clear that each site has its own infrastructure and process. Yes, we play on a different site, and there can be conditional moves there. But FICGS's games also go to the Corr Database, and they're respected. We can say it's a proven platform.

You're right about the ticket issue being annoying. In that case, the paying player has a slightly greater advantage.

I agree with you in the long run, but the person who keeps the site "usable" also puts in the effort. Perhaps a different update on this rule will be forthcoming.

Thibault de Vassal    (2025-11-22 00:12:16)
Next thematic tournament

Done, Clodomiro... best wishes to you. (please just send me an email for such inquiries)

George Jempty    (2025-12-10 00:40:04)
Too many groups for tourneys

So from the sidebar there are only 30 active players rated 2306 and above. Something clearly needs to be done. My idea of one group 2300+ might work as might additonally allow 2250+ players in under certain conditions. Maybe there could also be a 2400+ for those elite players who would prefer to play other such elite plaers.

Garvin Gray    (2026-02-13 02:36:18)
Is rating just a number on this site?

I am taking this comment from the chat to this forum for further discussion.

In my opinion, this statement is false. On this site, your rating is not just a number. Your rating dictates which tournaments you can enter and most importantly, when you enter a class/rapid group tournament, or a wch tournament, your rating dictates your chances of success.

Example: If you have made it through to the round robin final and you are the seventh seed, this means generally there is about 50 rating points between the top seed and the bottom seed.

But with TER being used as the first tie break, if you are the bottom seed, you have to win the group outright. Any ties and you are done. And so forth if you are the sixth player by rating for anyone higher.

The top seed in that group, who could only be the top seed by 1 or 2 points, in effect gets draw odds against the field. That is such an enormous advantage that it can not be understated how much of an advantage it is.

I think it is now so clear that your rating on this site is not just a number. It dictates everything about your playing experience. From which tournaments you can enter, to how you progress in the wch cycle and if you can get tickets to higher level tournaments.

Garvin Gray    (2026-02-22 07:45:14)
Is rating just a number on this site?

There are two types of tickets.

The first kind is when you win a lower class/rapid event and that qualifies you to enter the next higher rated event, but you have to wait until five players above the rating cut off have already entered.

This system was introduced to get tournaments started as each tournament would sit for months waiting for seven players who had ratings above the rating cut off to enter.

And then Thibault has extended the system to pay to enter, where you need to be 50 points lower than the rating cut off.

As has been said previously, one of the biggest issues is not either of these concepts, it is the difference in the rating bands for entering a tournament.

When a tournament is 2200 to 2600, no one who is rated 2500 is going to enter that event when 4 players who are rated between 2200 and 2300 have already entered.

I have already proposed a solution to this, but once again Thibault will not embrace change and we are stuck with what we have.

And I am going to say this directly. Those who are playing on here are growing increasing frustrated and how it is being run.

From TER, to rating bands, to tickets and many other issues, nothing changes.

And I think quite a few of us are reaching the point of walking away. I certainly am.

There is no point continuing on when the site owner will not change anything anymore. The only option left is to leave.

Scott Ligon    (2026-03-01 19:25:51)
Next thematic tournament

It does look like black is skating on thin ice in this line. These are exactly the kind of lines that might still be interesting to play in the Stockfish era, where solid openings are trivially drawn. One side or the other needs to have misplayed the opening enough to be almost losing, or possibly losing already, but in a position where this isn't clear.

Thibault de Vassal    (2026-03-13 23:17:02)
Post-tickets FICGS

The long answer:

FICGS story is a quite simple & classic one, the reasons why it's declining are quite obvious, and unfortunately the solutions aren't. A bit of story:

1. Luckily, FICGS.com was created when there were a demand, just after IECG stopped... It grew very quickly, and I was in a rush to code it (FICGS was the very first dynamic website I ran from A to Z), there were ideas from everywhere. FICGS.com was the shortest domain name available, but not a so good one. Quite hard to remember, hard to tell, not clear for search engines (unlike chess.com which is a perfect one). Maybe it was a mistake to choose it, I can't tell. Either it meant "Free Internet Chess Games Server" or "Free Internet Correspondence Games Server", so I added another game, Go (Weiqi), to FICGS, which is a quite heavy decision: After that, FICGS is not only a chess server anymore.

2. A few years after, there are several thousands players (a few hundreds active). The number of new players slowly decreases month after month but a few sponsors come. Obviously, the way I coded FICGS made it more and more difficult to fully update from a PHP version to another one, or to change it in deep. Even now, I'm not sure to regret it though cause I couldn't have done it differently, so it is what it is. At this time, chess.com was less interesting than FICGS (my taste), but success is already here thanks to a perfect marketing formula: best domain name & pay for options. On the contrary, I chose to keep FICGS completely free.

3. Chess engines explode, correspondence chess continues its evolution (human's thinking decreases in moves decision), finally I add another game that is in a hype: poker texas holdem. New sponsors come, I still play correspondence chess myself but now I play another game even more: Google. FICGS also extends this way and it works in some ways. At its peak, FICGS is about the 32,000th most visited website worldwide. But the number of players continues to decrease, Android & phones started to change the landscape already. Chess.com released its app and added probably its best feature: a quick Stockfish analysis with evaluation & explanation for each move (which is excellent for blitz games but quite a non-sense for a correspondence chess website).

4. The number of players suddenly declines very quickly, I react by creating FICGS apps for Android, a dozen apps... On some apps, you can play against the machine, virtual opponents, chess 960, blindfold & so on. But the way to maintain it is not easy at all for many reasons, but the main one is that Google (Playstore) constantly change technical things & rules. After a few years, I even have to completely remake it, losing what was acquired. And some apps still fail to re-appear at Playstore, that's why I just made the APK files available to direct download. But these applications confirm something clear: blitz is more fun and attracts much more players. Changing rating ranges for correspondence chess tournaments or championships formats won't be a solution for this.

5. FICGS is now 20 years old! Internet completely changed over the years but it survived longer than Messenger, Skype & many other great services. If you look at many websites, new versions of their modern interfaces are often worst (bugs or options) than previous ones. FICGS was never perfect, maybe even clear, but at least it remained coherent. Now Google (just like all major services) is mainly governed by AI, sponsors left - that does not change anything, FICGS will continue to run. I created other websites, but none so far successfully helped in a way or another to solve the problem we encounter here: how to increase the number of correspondence chess, Go or poker players again? If FICGS becomes a pure correspondence chess site again with a brand new interface, I'm quite sure that wouldn't change anything or almost. I might be wrong of course, but according to me, this is a deep problem, connected to society evolutions, computers, phones, our attention, time, even health & so on... In my personal case, I wish to play correspondence chess again, but still cannot find the time to do it. Finally I have no idea what internet will look like within 5 years, but FICGS will be there. Maybe an AI will find a solution soon ^^ Meanwhile, I received many ideas to improve FICGS and I have to thank you very much for this. Few ideas were released for reasons I explained here (but new ones are always wecome), I hope you'll better understand it by reading this.

Have good games & take care!

Alan Ludgate    (2026-04-01 05:26:40)
Post-tickets FICGS

Thanks for this post. Here are my ideas.
The problem for the 2400+ rated players is:-
most have left or stopped playing (not sure why) - so those who want to play have to reduce their activity or (probably) lose rating points. This is leading to a downward spiral.
To get more games played, how about:-
1. Award rating points as prizes.
And/or 2. Allow players to buy rating points, say 30 per year, provided they play at least say 10 games that year.
And/or 3. Players who play no games in a year to lose say 30 rating points. Players who play say 10 or more games in a year to get 30 rating points reward.
Adjust the numbers after a trial period.

George Jempty    (2026-04-15 13:53:53)
Is rating just a number on this site?

Hello, I'd not responded earlier because I'd taken 45 days leave to begin the year, largely because of frustration around these very sorts of things. Even the 2300+ players do not enter 2200+ tournaments. It's not even because I want to keep drawing 2300+ players to inch my rating up, it's because I want the competition, to enrich my opening repertoire. Enriching my repertoire is the only reason I'm around here anymore, but not for long, not now that I've settled on 1.d4 and 2.g3

George Jempty    (2026-04-15 14:15:22)
Too many groups for tourneys

PLEASE. CHANGE. THE. RATING. BANDS.

Paul Guralivu    (2026-04-16 10:51:02)
Cheating / Forfeiting

Pretty SUSPECT that 4 players, atleast 1 not part of the family,

take vacation AT 4 AM (in the MORNING!)... minutes or seconds from one-an-other!

Thibault de Vassal    (2026-05-11 23:36:59)
Call referee about game ...

Hello Herbert, I don't remember if you sent me an email about that game... please just do it if necessary. Thanks!

Garvin Gray    (2026-05-20 05:01:42)
Call referee about game ...

Well. In the two cases mentioned above, it seems that both Herbert and I believe that there was at least a need to reply and a decision to be made.

And in our opinion, the worst decision was to 'go silent'.

If we take a similar situation in otb chess, and I imagine the same would be for go as well.

In an otb chess tournament, a player has an issue in their game, stops the clock and either raises their hand or comes over to the arbiters table to get their attention.

The arbiter would then come to the board and issue a ruling. Yes, sometimes their ruling would be to take no action, but at least the player knows that the arbiter has heard their asking for a ruling and the game proceeds.

In the two cases shown above, it seems that Herbert and I believe that we has occurred is that you have not even bothered to attend to our issue at all.

And that has left us dis-satisfied to the point where we are now having to raise it as a forum topic for everyone else to see.

Thibault de Vassal    (2026-05-25 14:21:01)
Call referee about game ...

Rule 11.5 says: "Finally, if players do not agree the result, please let the clock run out of time, a referee will confirm or correct the result later."

So yes, I can set the clocks fairly to fix a situation... It happened in some cases and it will happen again.

Maybe I should add such an example in the rules to reassure.

There are 352 results for lea in wikichess.

Thibault de Vassal    (2522)
e4 c5

The Sicilian Defence is a chess opening which begins with 1.e4 c5

This is the most popular response to 1.e4 at the master level. Black immediately fights for the centre, but by attacking from the c-file (instead of mirroring White's move) he creates an asymmetrical position that leads to complicated situations. Typically, White has the initiative on the kingside while Black obtains counterplay on the queenside, particularly on the c-file after the exchange of Black's c-pawn for White's d-pawn.

According to Chessbase, black chances are about 43%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 c5 Nf3

The main line, which leads to all popular variants such as Najdorf, Dragon, Sveshnikov, Scheveningen, Richter-Rauzer... The aim is to support d4 pawn advance as a third move. After 3. ... cxd4 white could play 4.Nxd4, giving a good square to the knight and avoiding to the queen to be exposed too early at the center of the board.

According to Chessbase, 2.Nf3 is played at nearly 85% cases, giving 57% white chances.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 c5 Nc3

Closed sicilian is a strategical opening that often leads to a slow white kingside attack. Black usually fights for counterplay on the queenside. Much less played than the main line 2.Nf3, this opening is a good alternative against sicilian experts.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 53%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 Bc4

The Bishop's Opening is one of the oldest openings to be analyzed; it was studied by Lucena and Ruy Lopez. Later it was played by Philidor. Larsen was one of the few grandmasters to play it often, after first using it at the 1964 Interzonal Tournament. Although the Bishop's Opening is uncommon today, it has been used occasionally as a surprise by players such as Kasparov and Nunn.

White attacks Black's f7-square and prevents Black from advancing his d-pawn to d5. By ignoring the beginner's rule, "develop knights before bishops", White leaves his f-pawn unblocked allowing the possibility of playing f4. This gives the Bishop's Opening an affinity to the King's Gambit and the Vienna Game, two openings that share this characteristic. In fact, the Bishop's Opening can transpose into the King's Gambit or the Vienna Game, and transpositions into Giuoco Piano and Two Knights Defense and other openings are also possible. In particular, White should remain alert for any chance to transpose into a favorable variation of the King's Gambit, but with careful play Black can avoid this danger.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 55%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6

Indian defences are characterized by the opening moves 1. d4 Nf6, although they can be reached by other move orders. These defences have a vast body of theory and have been employed by nearly all masters since the early twentieth century. They are all to varying degrees hypermodern defences, where Black invites White to establish an imposing presence in the centre with the plan of drawing it out, undermining it, and destroying it.

The Indian defences are considered more ambitious and double-edged than the symmetrical reply 1 ... d5. In the Queen's Gambit Declined, Black accepts a cramped, passive position with the plan of gradually equalizing and obtaining counterplay. In contrast, breaking symmetry on move one leads to rapid combat in the centre, where Black can obtain counterplay without necessarily equalizing first.

According to Chessbase, black chances are about 43%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 d5

Queen's pawn opening is the symmetrical response to 1.d4, leading to a more passive play than 1. ... Nf6, particularly after second white move 2.c4 named as Queen's gambit.

According to Chessbase, black chances are about 42%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Sebastien Marez    (2377)
d4 d5 c4 c6

The Slav is one of the primary defenses to the Queen's Gambit. Although it was analyzed as early as 1590, it wasn't until the 1920s that it started to be explored extensively. Many masters of Slavic descent helped develop the theory of this opening, including Alapin, Alekhine, Bogoljubov, and Vidmar.

The Slav received an exhaustive test during the two Alekhine–Euwe World Championship matches in 1935 and 1937. Played by 11 of the first 13 world champions, this defense was particularly favored by Euwe, Botvinnik, and Smyslov. More recently the Slav has been adopted by Anand, Ivanchuk, Lautier, Short, and other top grandmasters. Today the theory of the Slav is very extensive and well developed.

Black faces three major problems in many variations of the Queen's Gambit Declined (QGD).

- Development of the Black queen bishop is difficult, as it is often blocked by ...e6.

- The pawn structure offers White targets, especially the possibility of a minority attack on the queenside in the Exchange variation of the QGD.

- White often plays Bg5 to pin the black king knight on f6 against the black queen, and unpinning it is awkward for Black.

The Slav addresses all of these problems. Black's queen bishop is unblocked, the pawn structure remains balanced, and the move Bg5 is not yet threatening as the unmoved black pawn on e7 prevents the pin. Also, if Black later takes the gambit pawn with ...dxc4, the support provided by the pawn on c6 allows ...b5 which may threaten to keep the gambit pawn or to drive away a white piece that has captured it, gaining Black a tempo for queenside expansion.

On the other side, Black usually won't be able to develop the queen bishop without first giving up the center with ...dxc4, and moving this bishop may leave the Black queenside weak. White will try to dominate the center with e2-e4.

According to Chessbase, Black chances are about 43%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Sebastien Marez

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6

The most common position, leading to popular variations like the Dragon and the Najdorf.

============

Contributors : Julien Coll, Thibault de Vassal

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
c4

The English Opening is the fourth most popular opening move in chess. White begins the fight for the center by staking a claim to the d5 square. Common responses are 1...e5 (which can lead to positions similar to the Sicilian Defence but with opposite colors), 1...c5 (the Symmetrical Variation), and 1...Nf6. Also perfectly playable are 1...e6 (often leading to a Queen's Gambit Declined after 2.d4 d5) and 1...c6 (often leading to a Slav Defence after 2.d4 d5, a Caro-Kann Defence after 2.e4 d5, or a Reti Opening after 2.Nf3 d5 3.b3).

The English is a very flexible opening. Although many lines of the English have a distinct character, it often transposes into other openings. If White plays an early d4, the game will usually transpose into either the Queen's Gambit or an Indian defence.

The English derives its name from the English (unofficial) world champion, Howard Staunton, who played it during his 1843 match with Amant. It fell out of favor (the opening was notably disdained by Morphy), but is now recognized as a solid opening that may be used to reach both classical and hypermodern positions. Botvinnik, Karpov, and Kasparov all employed it during their world championship matches. Bobby Fischer created a stir when he switched to it from the King's Pawn against Boris Spassky in 1972.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Daniel Barrish    (2000)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6

Here we've reached the initial position of the famous Sicilian Dragon. For those who are interested in astronomy, its name refers to the black pawn structure d6-e7-f7-g6-h7, which has resemblance with the Dragon Constellation.
Usually White has (generally speaking, of course) two ways at his disposal:
-quiet positional play by castling short, in order to put some positional pressure thanks to his slight space advantage.
-sharp play by castling long, and simultaneous king's attack for both sides, which often leads to real bloodbaths.
============
There are 2 main ways for white to play here: The "passive" classical and minor variations and the aggresive yugoslav attack. the yugoslav has been proven much better
Contributors : Julien Coll, Daniel Barrish

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 Nc3

The Vienna Game. White's second move is in contrast to the more usual 2.Nf3, which can lead to the Ruy Lopez, Giuoco Piano, Scotch Game and other openings. The original idea behind 2.Nc3 was to play a kind of delayed King's Gambit with an eventual f4, but in modern play White often takes much quieter paths.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 56%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6

This move is played in about half games, leading to the famous Nimzo-Indian and Bogo-Indian defenses. It allows the black-squares bishop to enter in action quickly (castling usually follows) and to control the d5 center square.

According to Chessbase, black chances are about 43%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3

When learning chess, I often heard that e3 was the best and more logical move. These considerations probably points out more philosophy than chess, but this move has been played in about half games so far.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 57%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3

This move has been played in more than half games recorded in Chessbase. I consider it less strong than Nc3 but GMs clearly prefer this move, probably offering good chances in a quieter game, avoiding the Nimzo-Indian defense.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 57%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4

The Scotch Game received its name from a correspondence match in 1824 between Edinburgh and London. Popular in the 19th century, by 1900 the Scotch had lost favor among top players because it was thought to release the central tension too early and allow Black to equalize without difficulty. More recently the Scotch has regained some popularity and it has been used by grandmasters Kasparov and Timman as a surprise weapon to avoid the well-analyzed Ruy Lopez.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 57%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 d3

The Giuoco Pianissimo (Italian: "quietest game"). White aims for a slow buildup deferring d4 until it can be prepared. By avoiding an immediate confrontation in the center White prevents the early release of tension through exchanges and enters a positional maneuvering game.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Julien Coll    (1400)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 Qd2 Ng4

Black threatens to exchange the dark-squared white bishop, and to leave White with tactical weaknesses in the dark squares (ex. b2, d4, a7-g1, etc.). he has a comfortable game.

============

Contributors : Julien Coll

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d6

The extremely popular Fischer Defense (planning h6 and g5 but only rarely Bg4, a natural-looking but often weak move that beginners play too early) is complicated and subtle. After Bobby Fischer lost a 1959 game at Mar del Plata to Boris Spassky, in which the Kieseritsky Gambit was played, he left in tears and promptly went to work at devising a new King's Gambit defense. In a 1962 article titled "A Bust to the King's Gambit" he put forth this idea and claimed that it refuted the King's Gambit, which was clearly not the case. The article concluded with the famously arrogant line, "Of course white can always play differently in which case he merely loses differently." Nonetheless, the article was possibly the most influential ever written about an opening, and ever since the King's Gambit has been rare in Grandmaster play, though a few players such as Joseph Gallagher still use it.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 c5 c3

After this "slow" move, leading to Alapin's variation, White will try to get a strong center and a good positional play.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 52%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 c5 d4

This move usually leads to the Smith-Morra Gambit (or simply Morra Gambit). After 2. ... cxd4, White can develop his pieces quickly, but have to choose between giving a pawn more (3.c3) for activity, or taking back with the queen (3.Qxd4), exposing early the queen at the center of the board.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3

The Morra Gambit is an interesting opening against the Sicilian Defence. It is not common in Grandmaster games or correspondence chess, but at club level chess it is an excellent weapon.

White sacrifices a pawn to develop quickly and create attacking chances. In exchange for the gambit pawn, White has a piece developed and a pawn in the center, while Black has nothing but an empty space on c7.

If black wants to refuse the gambit, he can do so with 3... d5 or 3... Nf6, both of which transpose to the Alapin variation of the Sicilian (usually introduced by the move order 1.e4 c5 2.c3). Alternatively, 3... d6 is the Smith-Morra declined proper, and leads to unique lines.

Some interesting games played on FICGS by David Angeli : Game 563, Game 565 (accepted gambit) or Game 555 (declined, with 3. ... d5).

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5

The Grünfeld Defence is named after Ernst Grünfeld, the player who first employed the defence in the 1920s. The defence was later adopted by a number of prominent players, including Vasily Smyslov, Viktor Korchnoi and Bobby Fischer. Garry Kasparov has often used the defence, including in his World Championship matches against Anatoly Karpov in 1986, 1987 and 1990, and Vladimir Kramnik in 2000. In more recent years it has been regularly employed by Loek Van Wely, Peter Svidler and Luke McShane among others.

The opening relies on one of the main principles of the hypermodern school, which was coming to the fore in the 1920s - that a large pawn centre could be a liability rather than an asset. This idea is seen most clearly in the Exchange Variation of the defence: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4. Now White has an imposing looking centre - and the main continuation 5...Nxc3 bxc3 strengthens it still further. Black generally attack's White's centre with ...c5 and ...Bg7, often followed by moves like ...cxd4, ...Bg4, and ...Nc6. White often uses his big centre to launch an attack against Black's king, which generally ends up on g8 after Black castles king-side.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 f3

The Sämisch variation often leads to very sharp play with the players castling on opposite wings and attacking each other's kings.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 60%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 c5 b4

Wing Gambit is the name given to the branches of several openings in which one player gambits a wing pawn, usually the b pawn).

Most common is the Wing Gambit in the Sicilian Defence. After Black takes with 2...cxb4, the usual continuation is 3.a3 bxa3 (3...d5 is also possible). It is also possible to decline (or at least delay acceptance of) the gambit with 2...d5.

For his pawn, White gets quicker development and a central advantage, but it is not generally considered one of White's better choices against the Sicilian, and is virtually never seen at the professional level (amongst amateurs it is more common, though still not so popular as other systems).

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

David Grosdemange    (1912)
e4 Nf6 e5 Nd5 d4 d6 Nf3 dxe5 Nxe5 Nd7 Nxf7

with this move , white has at least the drawn game .
============

Contributors : David Grosdemange

Pablo Schmid    (1700)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 c3

The Giuco Piano. An old and classical line. It prepares d4 but often leads to a gambit.

============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid

Bradley Gooding    (1700)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6

The "Two Knights Defense", an aggressive alternative to Bc5 which leads to dynamic play for both sides.

============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid, Bradley Gooding

Thibault de Vassal    (2425)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6

The Berlin Defence is logical and solid, although it can be hard for Black to generate winning chances. Arthur Bisguier played this line for decades, and it was later taken up by Alexei Shirov and other young grandmasters. Vladimir Kramnik used the Berlin Defence as a drawing variation against Garry Kasparov in their 2000 World Championship match.

After 4.0-0, Black can play either the solid 4...Nxe4 or the more combative 4...Bc5. After 4...Nxe4 5.d4 (5.Re1 Nd6 6.Nxe5 is also reasonable) Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ (8.Qe2?! Nd4! 9.Nxd4 Qxd4 favors Black. After 10.Rd1, Bg4!? 11.Rxd4 Bxe2 gives Black a pleasant endgame.) Kxd8 White is usually considered to have a small advantage in light of his somewhat better pawn structure and Black's awkwardly placed king, but Black, with a solid position and the bishop pair, has excellent drawing chances.

============

Contributors : Julien Baudement, Tim Bredernitz, Thibault de Vassal

Premraj Natarajan    (1800)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Qd2 Qxb2

When black captures b2 pawn with the queen its called the poisoned pawn and hence white is supposed to win because of this early sacrifice.
This stage its still I believe is unclear.

============

Contributors : Rémi Marois, Premraj Natarajan

David Grosdemange    (1912)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6

There is a question as to which pawn you should take the bishop with. Let me clear this up. White will now take the e pawn.

* white won't take the e-pawn (because of Qd4!-/+) , but white has a majority on the king-site (4 against 3) , when black's majority on queen-side isn't really effective , because of the doubled pawns .

============

Contributors : Tim Bredernitz, David Grosdemange

Adrian Tan    (1700)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 Nxe5 Qd4

White is now forced to return the pawn.

After Nf3 Qxe4+ Qe2 Qxe2+ Kxe2, White has no compensation for the bishop pair. Black is at least equal or better.

There are more promising lines for White.

============

Contributors : Tim Bredernitz, Adrian Tan

Sandor Porkolab    (2269)
e4 d5

One of the oldest recorded openings, first recorded as being played between Francesco di Castellvi and Narciso Vinyoles in Valencia in 1475, and being mentioned by Lucena in 1497. It and the French Defense are the oldest asymmetric defenses to 1.e4.

It is a playable, underrated defence that can lead to equality for black. White almost always takes the pawn. Other alternatives are 2. Nc3!?, leading to the Dunst opening, 2. d4!?, leading to the Blackmar-Deimer gambit, and 2. e5?!, leading to unique positions where black can easily equalise. After 2. exd5, there are two very different ways of playing the defence, 2...Nf6 and 2...Qxd5.

1.e4 d5 2.e5!? is also an option - going to French/CaroCann Lines - preventing the skandinawian...
============

Contributors : Adam Domurad, Sandor Porkolab

Paul Brand Lyard    (1596)
e4 d5 exd5

The most challenging move to the center counter, most others lead to inferior positions for white.
============

Contributors : Adam Domurad, Max Rau-Chaplin, Paul Brand Lyard

Max Rau-Chaplin    (1600)
e4 d5 exd5 Nf6

The idea behind Nf6 is that black can take back the pawn the next turn with the knight and not lose tempo by having his queen attacked. If white tries to hold onto the pawn with 3. c4, black has 3...c6! offering a pawn for a significant lead in development (Panov-Botvinnik atack). Best for white is to decline the pawn and transpose to the Caro-Kann defence with 4.d4.

============

Contributors : Adam Domurad, Max Rau-Chaplin

Adam Domurad    (1700)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5

Temporarily, it seems as if black has a lead in development, and an open file for his queen. But white has Nc3 where the queen most move again while white has developed a piece.

============

Contributors : Adam Domurad

Roger Weber    (1200)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e5

A good counter move, forcing the other player to retire his knight, leaving you with an advantage at the middle. Basically the hunter is now the one being hunted, as you now have the innitiative.

============

Contributors : Roger Weber

Amir Bagheri    (2513)
e4 d6 d4 f5

The move has great surprise value! One has to hunt hard in opening books to even find the Balogh Counter Gambit (BCG) mentioned. With a little investigating you will find the BCG is covered under the Dutch Defense, The move order there is 1.d4 f5 2.e4, the Staunton Gambit, then 2…d6 transposes to the BCG.

I first saw the BCG mentioned in Richard Wincor’s book “Baroque Chess Openings”. A whimsical book on less traveled opening lines with the idea of engaging battle on one’s own terms. The book does make an interesting point. One can play less forceful openings that offer soundness and surprise value in return for more frequently getting known lines/positions.

If you are lucky enough to find a BCG referenced in an opening book the analysis line usually runs 1.d4 f5 2.e4 d6 3.exf5 Bxf5 4.Qf3 Qc8 5.Bd3 Bxd3 (5…Bg4 is better) 6.Qxd3 with a clear plus for White.

============

Contributors : Amir Bagheri

Bradley Gooding    (1700)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 d5

This is the most common response. Bc5!? leads to the Wilkes-Barre Variation, also known as the Traxler Counter-Attack, which can lead to hair-splitting complications.
============

Contributors : Adrian Tan, Bradley Gooding

Ilmars Cirulis    (1786)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2

============

Contributors : Adrian Tan, Roger Whitman

6. Kxf2 leads to no better than a draw.

Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5

The Latvian Gambit is an aggressive but dubious chess opening, which often leads to wild complications. This opening is almost never seen at the top levels, but some correspondence chess players are devoted to it.

It was formerly known as the Greco Counter Gambit. The name is a tribute to the Latvian players, notably Karlis Betins, who analyzed it in the early part of the 20th century.

It looks like a King's Gambit with the colours reversed.

============

Contributors : Benjamin Aldag, Thibault de Vassal

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

Thibault de Vassal    (2424)
e4 c5 f4 d5 Nf3 dxe4 Ng5 Nf6 Bc4 Bg4

Until White plays Be2 (which is not very coherent), Black takes the queen and leaves a bishop, a knight and an awful structure. A very interesting unsymmetrical position to come. However I think it's equal.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Thibault de Vassal    (2424)
e4 c5 f4 d5 Nf3 dxe4 Ng5 Nf6 Bc4 Bg4 Bxf7+ Kd7 Qxg4+ Nxg4 Be6+

Now Black has three choices : Kc6, Kc7 .. and Ke8 which leads to an immediate draw by repetition.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Thibault de Vassal    (2424)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Bc4

The Scotch Gambit.

Instead of 4.Nxd4, White has two ways to offer a gambit. The Scotch Gambit starts with 4.Bc4

Black can transpose into the Two Knights Defense with 4...Nf6 or he can continue the Scotch with 4...Bc5 5.c3 and now 5...Nf6 will transpose into a safe variation of the Giuoco Piano. Black can instead accept the gambit with 5...dxc3 but this is riskier because White will gain a lead in development. A possible continuation is 6.Nxc3 (Grandmaster Sveshnikov has played 6.Bxf7+!? Kxf7 7.Qd5+ followed by 8.Qxc5) 6...d6 7.Qb3 Qd7 8.Nd5 Nge7 9.Qc3 0-0.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Marc Lacrosse    (2233)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Bc5

The Basman-Sale sicilian.
If white plays Nb3, Black intends to go for some original play with Bb6, Ne7 and often f5.
If Be3, than Qb6 with pressure along the a7-g1 diagonal. Some lines lead to extremely confuse highly tactical positions.
Originally played by british IM Michael Basman in the seventies and eighties. More recently IM Srdjan Sale has been the main exponent of the variation with some fair results including a win against the then young Peter Leko.

============

Contributors : Marc Lacrosse

Adam Goodwin    (1365)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O

The move that leads to the Marshall Attack.
============

Contributors : Benjamin Aldag, Adam Goodwin

Adam Goodwin    (1365)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O c3 d5

Frank Marshall analyzed this move for at least 9 years before he played it against Capablanca in 1918.

============

Contributors : Marshall Gambit
chess thematic tournament, Adam Goodwin

Benjamin Aldag    (1822)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4 fxe4 Nc3 Qf7 Ne3 c6 d3 exd3 Bxd3 d5 O-O

0-0:

After this move, the white position is clear better, than the blacks !

1.White has the better development !
2.White has the open e-file

The only problem of white could be, that he has at the moment no basepoints in the center. But this is, for the moment, no real problem.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Benjamin Aldag

Terry Godat    (2155)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Bb4 e5 h6 Bd2 Nfd7 Qg4

============

Contributors : Terry Godat

This is very unpleasant for Black.

Tim Hansell    (0932)
h4 e5 Rh3

============

Contributors : Terry Godat

White's first two moves are usually played only by beginners and those who are too drunk to move a center pawn without knocking all the pieces over. Black already has a clear advantage

Kjetil Prestesaeter    (1600)
g4 d5 Bg2 Bxg4 c4 dxc4

Fritz gambit accepted.

A double edged move, but by no means a bad one. Once white takes the rook, black will have good positional options that is at least equality.

============

Contributors : Ron Keyston, Kieran Child, Kjetil Prestesaeter

Ron Keyston    (1522)
d4 d5 c4 e5 dxe5 d4 e3

A bad move that often leads to the "Lasker Trap" - 4...Bb4+ 5.Bd2 dxe3 6.Bxb4?? exf2+ 7.Ke2 fxg1=N+!

============

Contributors : Ron Keyston

Ilmars Cirulis    (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kf1 Qe7 Nxh8 d5 exd5 Nd4 d6 cxd6 c3 Bg4 Qa4+ Nd7

I'm sorry - it's mistake! I 'switched in mind' two variations. Please delete this stupid move.
============

Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis

Ilmars Cirulis    (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kf1 Qe7 Nxh8 d5 exd5 Nd4 d6 cxd6 c3 Bg4 Qa4+ Kf8 cxd4 exd4 Qa3

It's again that stupid mistake. Please delete that move too. It will not repeat, i promise.
============

Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis

Ilmars Cirulis    (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kxf2 Nxe4 Kg1

Leads to draw.
============

Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis

Thibault de Vassal    (2425)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nxc6 bxc6 e5 Qe7 Qe2 Nd5 c4 Ba6 b3 O-O-O g3 g5 Bb2 Bg7 Nd2 Nb4 Nf3 Rhe8 Bh3

!? -/=
leads in a small black advantage (s.a. Gonzales - Utesch 2006 corr. FICGS)
============

Contributors : Wolfgang Utesch, Thibault de Vassal

Thibault de Vassal    (2425)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nxc6 bxc6 e5 Qe7 Qe2 Nd5 c4 Ba6 b3 O-O-O g3 g5 Bb2 Bg7 Nd2 Nb4 Nf3 Rhe8 Bh3 h5

!? New
leads in a small black advantage (see Gonzales - Utesch 2006 corr. FICGS)
============

Contributors : Wolfgang Utesch, Thibault de Vassal

Wolfgang Utesch    (2461)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Bc5 c3 O-O d4 Bb6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 d6 Qd3 Bd7 Nbd2 a6 Bxc6 Bxc6 Rfe1 Re8 a4 Ba7 b4 b5 axb5 axb5 Ra5 exd4 cxd4 Bb6 Rxa8 Bxa8 Bxf6 Qxf6 Qxb5 Re7 Qd3 Bb7 Re3 Qf4 Qb5 Qg4 h3 Qf4 g3 Qf6 Kg2 Re6 d5 Re7 Re2 Qa1 Qc4 Ba6 b5 Bb7 Qd3 Qd1 Re1 Qa4 Rb1 Qa7 Nh4 Bc8 f4 Bd7 Nhf3 Re8 g4 Qa4 Kg3 f6 f5 Rb8 Qc3 Kf8 h4 Re8 Kf4 Re7 Nc4 Qa2 Nfd2 Qa7 Nxb6 Qxb6 Qe3 Qa5 b6 cxb6 Rxb6 Be8 Nf3 Qa7 g5 fxg5+ hxg5 hxg5+ Nxg5 Qa2 Nf3 g5+ fxg6 Bxg6 Kg3 Qa7 Qh6+ Kg8 Qxg6+ Rg7

...and I cannot see any clear win further on! W.Utesch
============

Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis, Wolfgang Utesch

Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nc3

Good move, but not the best, as White may want to place pressure on Black's d5-pawn (yes, it will get there!), via c4 and then Nc3 and then Qb3. This formation is particularly powerful for White if Black castles kingside and leaves his King on g8.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar, Gavin Wilson

Telmo Escobar    (2107)
e4 e5 Bb5 c6 Ba4 Nf6 Nc3 d5 exd5 b5 Bb3 b4 Na4 cxd5 d4 e4 Ne2

Play is unclear here.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar

Mark Hailes    (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6

The fight in the Nimzo often revolves around controlling the square e4. If white manages to force through e3-e4 unhindered, the b1 bishop will be released and white will have a dominating position in the centre, often with the threat of playing e5 gaining space and a kingside initiative. So Black plans Bb7 controlling the long diagonal and in particular the square e4.

============

Contributors : Wladyslaw Makosiej, Mark Hailes

Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 Nc3 d5 exd5

Probably best for White. exf5 leads to the same position.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

Kieran Child    (1600)
g4 d5 Bg2 Bxg4 c4 dxc4 Bxb7 Nd7 Bxa8 Qxa8 f3

The best move, though the often perceived attack on the black bishop is clearly non-existant. This move also weakens the kingside further, allowing bishop or queen checks later. Black will aim to exploit this. White will aim to defend any attacks and hold on to the exchange.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child

Kieran Child    (1600)
Nf3 d5 e4 d4

Zucketort gambit declined - advance variation

The least favourable way to decline the gambit. Black aims primarily to get an advanced centre, and limit queenside development, but white can often penetrate through this.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child

Kieran Child    (1600)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Nc6 Qh5+ g6 Nxg6 Nf6 Qh4 Rg8 e5

A beautiful move that white will often not see. This leads to a tighter game, probably with a swap off in the near future, that will benefit white.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child

Kieran Child    (1600)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Nc6 Qh5+ g6 Nxg6 Nf6 Qh3 fxe4

The most common move, and a double edged one. Black aims to gain a huge lead in development, the initiative and a better position with d5. White can take the rook, technically safely, but will need to defend against a big attack in order to win the endgame.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child

Kieran Child    (1600)
g4 d5 Bg2 Bxg4 c4 Nf6 Qb3

The move which keeps white momentum, looking at d5 and b7. They cannot both be defended and so black will need to concede a pawn, leading to equal material, but black has a very slight edge on position.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child

Kieran Child    (1600)
e4 e5 f4 Qf6

Norwald variation

An uncommon response as it brings out the queen (much too early) and blocks the g8 knight, but it does put black clear material up and with no obvious tactical flaws.

Chessbase considers this a 38% win for black, but it should be noted that it mostly just gets played experimentally by players expecting a loss.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child

Kieran Child    (1600)
e4 e5 f4 Qf6 Nf3

The typical, and arguably best way to counter the Norwalds gain in material is to seek a lead in development. Nf3 does just that, it brings the knight to a comfortable square and challenges e5, forcing black to move the queen again.

Chessbase considers this a 52% win for white.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child

Kieran Child    (1600)
e4 e5 f4 Qf6 d4

Norwald variation - Electric eel attack

Possibly the least played opening to still have a name. On bigbase9, only 4 games played d4 in response to the Norwald and thus it is hard to analyse. Black doesn't have any immediete wins though, and after the pawn takes on d or e, white will play e5 and Nf3 for an OK game.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child

Kieran Child    (1600)
h4 e5 Rh3 d5 Re3 Nc6 d4 e4 c4 Nf6 cxd5 Qxd5 Nc3

This does genuinely threaten e4, as after the queen takes d4, it can be swapped off, leaving the knight on f6 the only defender.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child

Kieran Child    (1600)
h4 d5 h5 e5 h6 gxh6 d4 exd4 Qxd4 f6 Nc3

And white will get a good game through Bf4, e4 and castling queenside. It is unclear why, being a pawn up, black is so often loses these games.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child

Kieran Child    (1600)
Na3 d5 g4

Henders gambit

A move with no instantly recognisable merit. If someone understands it please tell me. It just looks like someone who's looked at the grob then managed to make it worse.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child

Thibault de Vassal    (2514)
Na3 d5 g4 Bxg4

Now the question : Did Black win the game already ? :) .. Such strange openings have at least the merit to create real challenges IMO.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 Be3 cxd4 Bxd4 N8c6 c3 Nd5

Clearing a path for the Bishop on f8. Is ..Ng6 also possible?

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 Be3 cxd4 Bxd4 N8c6 c3 Nd5 Bc4 Nxd4 cxd4 Qa5+ Qd2 Bb4

White may as well resign. He's down at least a piece.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nf3 Be7 c4 c6

Makes it clear how Black intends to defend. Queenside castling looks unlikely now.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Bc4

It's not clear what Bc4 achieves, besides prepare for a possible d5.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Bc4 c5 dxc5 Ng6 Nf3 Bxc5 O-O Nc6 Bg5 Qc7 Re1 Ngxe5 Nxe5 Nxe5 Bf4

The natural step in his plan, but sadly it does not work. The position is now -+. Black is at least a pawn ahead.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 c4 c5 Be3 cxd4 Bxd4 Nbc6 Nf3 Ng6 a3 Qc7 Nc3 Ngxe5 Nxe5 Nxe5 Nb5 Qb8 Qh5+ g6 Qe2 Bg7 f4 a6 Nc3 Nf3+ Qxf3 Bxd4

Black is now clearly ahead.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

Thibault de Vassal    (2514)
e4 e6 d4 f5 c4

Another variation, leads to an interesting gambit.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal

Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nf3 Be7 c4 Nf6 Ne5 d6 Nf3 O-O Nc3 Nc6 Bd3 Nb4 Bb1

Unusual. How will White release the R on a1?

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nf3 Be7 c4 Nf6 Ne5 d6 Nf3 O-O Nc3 Nc6 Bd3 Nb4 Bb1 c6 a3 Na6 O-O d5 Ne5 Nc7 c5 Ne4

It's not completely clear what Black's plan is now.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 c3 Nbc6 Bc4 cxd4 cxd4 Ng6 O-O a6

Preparing to release the light-squared bishop on b7.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bc4 Nf6 Nf3 d5 Bb3

It's not clear that this is best. Bd3 looks more natural.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bc4 Nf6 Nf3 d5 Bb3 Qe7+ Ne5 Nc6 Bf4 Be6 O-O Nxe5 Bxe5 O-O-O Re1 Qf7

Getting off the open e-file and clearing a path for the dark-squared bichop.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bd3 Nc6 Ne2 d5 c4 Nb4 O-O Nf6 Bg5 Nxd3 Qxd3 h6

..c6 looks naturally better, and less loosening, but Fritz rates the resulting position as +0.91, whereas ..h6 leads to +0.41.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

Telmo Escobar    (2048)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O c3 d5 exd5 Nxd5 Nxe5 Nxe5 Rxe5 c6 d4 Bd6 Re1 Qh4 g3 Qh3 Be3 Re8 Bxd5 cxd5 Qf3 Bf5 Nd2 Be4 Nxe4 dxe4 Qg2 Qh5 a4

White is clearly better.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar

Telmo Escobar    (2048)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O c3 d5 exd5 Nxd5 Nxe5 Nxe5 Rxe5 c6 d4 Bd6 Re1 Qh4 g3 Qh3 Be3 Re8 Bxd5 cxd5 Qf3 Ra7 Nd2 Rae7 Nf1 h5 Bd2 h4 Rxe7 Rxe7 Ne3 Bb7 a4

and White has a clear advantage.
============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar

Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nf3 Be7 Bd3 d5 Ne5 Nf6 Bg5 O-O c4 c6 Bxf6 Bxf6 O-O Qb6 Qb3 Qxd4

White's attack has no merit. Black is clearly ahead -- Fritz rates this about -2.00. End of analysis.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5

============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5

============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5

============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+

============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8

Both of White's options are played. Black can choose an active or passive defense versus Bc4, while after Bg5 Black must wait for some time for activity.
============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bg5

In this line, Black allows his pawn structure to be damaged, and cannot retain his two bishop advantage, but the resulting position is very solid and Black gets counterplay in the center.
============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bg5 Be6

============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bg5 Be6 O-O-O+

============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bg5 Be6 O-O-O+ Nbd7

============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bg5 Be6 O-O-O+ Nbd7 Nf3

============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bg5 Be6 O-O-O+ Nbd7 Nf3 Bd6

============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bg5 Be6 O-O-O+ Nbd7 Nf3 Bd6 Nb5

============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bg5 Be6 O-O-O+ Nbd7 Nf3 Bd6 Nb5 Ke7

This position is +/=. In many lines, computers suggest Bxa2, winning three pawns for the bishop, with an unclear postion, but Black needs exceptional care to see those lines through. Working on the center typically leads to equality.

============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bc4

============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bc4 Ke8

This somewhat passive line leaves Black defending for a long time, although according to IM practice, it seems Black can retain the balance.
============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bc4 Ke8 Nb5

============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bc4 Ke8 Nb5 Na6

+/=
============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bc4 Ke8 Nb5 Bd6

This is an interesting try. Black gives up the two bishops, but speeds his development and creates a nice hole on e7 for his king. The position is +/=.
============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bc4 Be6

This leads to a very passive endgame for Black, where it seems White needs great patience to accomplish anything against the weak Black pawn structure.

============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bc4 Be6 Bxe6

============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bc4 Be6 Bxe6 fxe6

The position is +/=, almost +/-.

============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bc4 Bb4

Black plays for counterchances, and gets enough activity for equality.

============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bc4 Bb4 Bxf7

Black coordinates play against e4 and f2 and is better than white. =/+.
============

Contributors : Collin Bleak

Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nc3 a6 Nf3 c5 Bg5 cxd4

Releasing some of the tension.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Bg5 c5 dxc5 Qa5+ c3 Qxc5 Nf3 Nbc6

A very natural move, but it does leave the black queen ahead of her troops, and potentially blocked from retreating.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Bg5 c5 dxc5 Qa5+ c3 Qxc5 Nf3 Nbc6 Be3 Qa5 Ng5 Nxe5 Bd2 N7c6

Releasing the bishop on f8. Fritz says we're on -0.69 now.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Bg5 c5 dxc5 Qa5+ c3 Qxc5 Nf3 Nbc6 Be3 Qa5 Ng5 Nxe5 Bd2 N7c6 c4

Well, it clears c3 for the knight, I suppose, but White is now clutching at straws.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

Telmo Escobar    (2048)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Bxf7 Ke7 Bb3 Qe8 O-O Rf8 Nc3 d6 Nd5+ Kd8 c3 h6 d4 exd4 Nxf6 Rxf6 e5 Rf5 Nf3 Nxe5

14...dxe5? 15.cxd4 would be quite unsavory for Black. But also after the textmove White has clearly a huge positional advantage, mainly due to the ridiculous position of the Black king.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar

Telmo Escobar    (2048)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Bxf7 Ke7 Bb3 Qe8 O-O Rf8 Nc3 d6 Nd5+ Kd8 c3 h6 d4 exd4 Nxf6 Rxf6 e5 Rf5 Nf3 Nxe5 Nxd4 Rf6 Be3 Ng4 Re1 Qe5 g3 Qh5

Unclear: Black has still his king misplaced, but his pieces are exceedingly aggressive and White is now forced to play h2-h4.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar

Telmo Escobar    (2048)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Bxf7 Ke7 Bb3 Qe8 O-O Rf8 Nc3 d6 Nd5+ Kd8 c3 h6 d4 exd4 Nxf6 Rxf6 e5 Rf5 Nf3 Nxe5 Nxd4 Rf6 f4 Bg4 Qd2 Nc6 Re1 Qh5 Kh1

White has a clear advantage

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar

Telmo Escobar    (2043)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 O-O

The move that leads to the Marshall Attack.

============

Contributors : Adam Goodwin, Telmo Escobar

Adam Goodwin    (1365)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O h3

An Anti-Marshall move that can lead to other Ruy Lopez Defenses such as the Zaitsev, Chigorin, or Bryer Defenses. This move also has its own theory behind it.

============

Contributors : Adam Goodwin

Sebastiano Paulesu    (1969)
e4 d5 exd5 Nf6 c4 e6 dxe6 Nc6 exf7+ Kxf7

Black position seem very unhappy: the king exposed, two pawns less, but the lead in developement can give some important chances to attack...

============

Contributors : Sebastiano Paulesu

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

Normajean Yates    (1946)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 c5

============

Contributors : Simon Lemay

lead to a more agressive defense for the black

mène a une defense plus agressive pour le noirs, Normajean Yates

Telmo Escobar    (2076)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Ndb5 d6 Bg5 a6 Na3 b5 Bxf6 gxf6 Nd5 f5 Bd3 Be6 Qh5 Rg8 g3 Nd4 c3 fxe4 Bxe4 Bg4 Qxh7 Rg7 Qh6

17.Qh8 Nf3+ 18.Ke2 Ng5+ 19.f3 Nxe4 20.fxg4 is unclear, but hard to play for White.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar

Lauri Lahnasalo    (1600)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 b5 Nf3 b4

Black releases the tension against b5 pawn.

============

Contributors : Lauri Lahnasalo

Lauri Lahnasalo    (1600)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 b5 Nf3 bxc4

This leads to a line continuing 5.Nc3 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Bxc4 where white has a lead in development and a sizable advantage. +/-

============

Contributors : Lauri Lahnasalo

Telmo Escobar    (2076)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 dxc4 e4 g5 Bg3 b5 Ne5 h5 h4 g4 Be2 Bb7 O-O Nbd7 Qc2 Nxe5 Bxe5 Bg7 Bg3 Qxd4 Rad1 Qb6 b3 cxb3 axb3 a6 Rd2 c5 Rd6 Qa5 e5 Nd7 Ne4 Nxe5 Bxe5 Bxe5 Qxc5

With a clear advantage. Analysis by Shipov.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar

Julien Coll    (1672)
c4 e5 Nc3 Nf6 Nf3 Nc6 g3 Bb4

A popular move, and not only an inversed Sicilian Rossolimo. Because of the reversed colours and the tempo up for White, it leads to particular and typical positions of the English Opening, some of its most important tabyias.
To permit Bxc3 or not to permit Bxc3, that is the big question for White here.
============

Contributors : Julien Coll

Telmo Escobar    (2076)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 dxc4 e4 g5 Bg3 b5 Be2 Bb7 O-O Nbd7 Ne5 Bg7 Nxf7 Kxf7 e5 Nd5 Ne4

As played in Topalov-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2008. White probably has a reasonable compensation for the sacrifice- and indeed Topalov won that game. Yet the definitive evaluation of this idea is still unclear. Notice that White is threatening 15.Nd6+ winning the bishop, otherwise Black would advantageously play c6-c5.
============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar

Yugi Inving    (0914)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 b3 Qe5+ Ne2 Qxa1 Nec3 Be6 d4 Nf6 Bd3 Nbd7 Qe2 c6 Bd2 O-O-O

Qb2 while only force white to play Bc1, and replay it many times, leading to a draw is not an option.
============

Contributors : Yugi Inving

Telmo Escobar    (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 f3

A move that usually means a transposition to lines arising from 6.Be3. Yet it is critical if you want to play the Dragon for two reasons:

i) many weak players are prone to play it because they -mistakenly- fear to play 6.Be3 because the apparent possibility of 6...Ng4. So you have to be ready to face this move;

ii) some strong players could play 6.f3 because they're setting a trap, as we will see. A grandmaster will easily see the point over the board. You, that presumably are not a grandmaster, should study the trap in order to not fall in it.

May I add that are two reasons because of a chess move is *critical*:

a) because it is presumably best, or at least it is good enough to atract many strong players, so the move must be studied because -due to its popularity- people will play it often;

b) because it is far from best, but you -that are not a grandmaster- could easily go astray when facing it over the board without knowing about it in advance. So, if you want to play the Dragon -in this case- you *must* to be knowledgeable about the move.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar

Telmo Escobar    (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Ng4 Bb5 Nc6 Nxc6 bxc6 Bxc6+ Bd7 Bxa8 Nxe3 fxe3 Qxa8 Qd4

It's only now that I'm ready to concede that White is better, much better in fact! Black has to choose between three terrible moves, as e7-e5 or f7-f6 spoil the -formerly bright- future of his dark colored bishop, while Rh8-g8 leaves his king in the centre forever.

(not that 12.Qd4! is the only move, 12.Nd5 Qb8 13.Qd4! is strong as well. In any case, the verdict is always the same: as horrible a blunder as 6...Ng4? looks, White gets a clear advantage *just because one tempo*, so sharp chess often is).

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar

Telmo Escobar    (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 Bc4 Ng4 Bb5+ Kf8 O-O Nxe3 fxe3 Nd7 Ne6+

And, naturally, Black resigns. This was Giorgi-Escobar, Buenos Aires (Club tournament) 1976. Please not make it into a "famous game"! It was the only game I lost at that tournament- and the only game my adversary won! In fact I finished 1st, my adversary finished last :)

It's true that i was playing the game after a (memorable) night without sleeping, so I was not precisely awake while playing. But the position is not as easy to play with Black, otherwise I would be able to outplay my adversary anyway. I'm sure that this blunder 10...Nd7?? has been played by other people as well- alas even now I find difficult to renounce to such a natural move...

As you see, both moves I suggest in this position
(10...Nc6!? that sacrifices a pawn, 10...e6!? that sacrifices the square d6) are not trivial.
============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar

Yugi Inving    (1280)
e4 f5 exf5 Kf7 Qh5+ g6 fxg6+ Kg7

Kf6 is not playable for the same reaon as before and hxg6 leave the way for a queen to take a rook freely. thus this move is played.

============

Contributors : Yugi Inving

Terry Godat    (2088)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 Nf6 Bc4 d5 exd5 Bd6 d4 Nh5 O-O O-O Rxf4

============

Contributors : Terry Godat
I'm involved in a thematic King's Gambit tournament and came across this game (Boehme-Whitman) during my research. I'm astonished that no one ever considered this move before. Rybka considers this move to be at least as good as 10.Nxg4, which is known to be good for Black after 10...Qxh4 11.Nh2 Ng3!

Sophie Leclerc    (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 f6 Nxe5 Ne7 Qh5+ g6 Bc4 Bg7

The best move, is very easy to miss, but the best choice for black. here, the knight is lost for a poor pawn, we should at least take a pawn. But by doing so, we give compension for black, while we should be the ones to have the compensation, ours attacks is note finished, but we must move our queen. Or we could be even more mean, for a poor player.

============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc

Sophie Leclerc    (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 f6 Nxe5 Ne7 Qh5+ g6 Bc4 Bg7 Bf7+ Kf8 Qf3 d6

The great counter attack, Shall the knight leave, Black king take the bishop then the would move the rook on the open file, secure his king, push the a f pawn, develop queen side then bring the a rook on e8, so he take advantage of the tow open files, the f files is bond to open, White as no more light square bishop. From a passive and poor defense, Black would gain a very offensive play.

Bb3 is the best variation.
Leaving white whit a little attack, but after black take the knight with the d pawn, black should stand well.
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc

Normajean Yates    (1946)
e4 e5 Nf3 f6 Nxe5 Qe7

The best under the circumstances, but not good enough... :-(

Still, at least it regains the pawn.

+=.

============

Contributors : Normajean Yates

Sophie Leclerc    (1242)
e4 e5 f4 f6 fxe5 Nc6 exf6 Nxf6

Black has now the lead in developpement.

We need to see if he has enough compensation for the pawn he gave up.

============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc

Sophie Leclerc    (1242)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 g4 g6 g5 Ne4 d3 Nd6 fxg6 hxg6 Bg2 Nc6 Nc3 Nf5 Nf3 d6 Bd2

This cleary reveal that white wants to castle queen side since the h-file is half-open.
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc

Normajean Yates    (1975)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Na6 e3 Bg4 Bxc4 e6 h3 Bh5 O-O Nb4 Qe2 Be7 Rd1 O-O g4 Bg6 e4 Nd7

Black is at least equal, and white's c1-Bishop is still hemmed in. All because of the weak 6.e3 in this line.
============

Contributors : Normajean Yates

Telmo Escobar    (1929)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Qd2 Qxb2 Rb1 Qa3 f5 Nc6 fxe6 fxe6 Nxc6 bxc6 e5 dxe5 Bxf6 gxf6 Ne4 Qxa2 Rd1 Be7 Be2 O-O O-O Ra7 Rf3 Rd7 Bd3 f5 Qh6 Kh8 Ng5 Bc5+ Kh1 Qa5 Rh3 Qc7 Nxe6 Qd6 Nxf8 Qxf8 Rf1 Rf7 Qh5 Qe7 Rhf3 f4 Be4 Rg7 Rb3 Ba7 Rd3 Bg4 Qh6

Incredibly White saves the skin, as after 33...Be2 34.Rc1! Bxd3 35.cxd3 White regains at least a pawn and his King is absolutely safe thanks to his unassailable control of light squares.
This game was decisive for the result of the tournament, as should Anand win it, Vassily Ivanchuk would be the winner of the contest. After this lucky escape -take into account that White had to make several difficult moves in one minute- Grischuk shared first position as was even declared the winner because of an absurd rule.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar

Normajean Yates    (1967)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 a3 Qxb2

Black carelessly takes the bait. Specially the 'book rote-learner' black.

============

Contributors : Ray Downs, Normajean Yates

Sophie Leclerc    (1573)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 Be7 Bc4 Bh4+ g3

This usally lead to the three pawns gambit.
============

Contributors : Normajean Yates, Sophie Leclerc

Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 b6 g3 Bb7 bxc5 bxc5 Bg2 Nc6

The continuation of my game versus my friend, rated at least 1500, he is weaker then me, for now. Stronger then the anonymous expert move, who is Qf6.
============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc

Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 b6 g3 Bb7 bxc5 bxc5 Bg2 Nc6 O-O e6 Na3 a6 Qa4 Qa5 Qxa5 Nxa5 d3 Nf6 Bd2 Nc6 Ne5 Rc8 Rab1 Ba8 Nxc6 Bxc6 Bxc6+ Rxc6 Rb8+ Kd7 Rfb1 Rg8 Ba5 Bd6 R1b7+ Bc7 Rxg8

An unpleasant exchange, but is the move to do, to keep the game .

============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc

Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 b6 g3 Bb7 bxc5 bxc5 Bg2 e6 Na3

In case an unpleasant Qf6, white allow himself to have the move Rb1.
============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc

Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 Nf6 bxc5 e6 Ba3 Nc6 g3 Qa5 Qb3 Bxc5 Qb5 Qxb5

Clearly, Bxa3 lose a piece..... Because, of Qxa5 and after, Nxa3....
This is another move...

============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc

Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 d5 exd5 Nxd5 Nxf7 Kxf7 Qf3 Ke6 Nc3 Ncb4 a3

the best move. leading to a draw, I believe.

============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc

Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 Nf6 e3 Bg4 h3

Lead to white advantage, witjh the idea of an early g4.

============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc

Gregory Kohut    (1574)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e6

This inaugurates the Taimanov/Paulsen lines of the Sicilian Defense. Black's main idea is to play Qc7 and a6 in some order (although the "pure" Taimanov, with ...a6 and Nge7, is also possible), controlling the dark squares with pieces and the light squares with pawns. The d5 and e6 points are generally less vulnerable than in many variations, leaving white with fewer obvious attacking possibilities. The game therefore can take on an oddly positional character for the Open Sicilian, with White seeking to prove dark squared weaknesses or obtain favorable piece exchanges.

============

Contributors : Graham Cridland

William Taylor    (2110)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O b5 Bb3 Bb7 d3

The line which is currently causing Arkhangelsk practitioners some problems. Black can quickly run into trouble after Bc5, so he usually plays Be7 instead, leading to less active positions. d3 also strongpoints e4, making black's bishop on b7 look less than optimally placed. The d3 line is a good way of avoiding the sharper variations which arise after Re1 or c3.

============

Contributors : William Taylor

William Taylor    (2110)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O b5 Bb3 Bb7 c3

If there is a way to refute the Arkhangelsk Variation by force, it will probably start with c3. The move can lead to wild complications, but black currently seems to be holding his own in them. The point is to accelerate the plan of d4 without bothering to defend e4, arguing that capturing on e4 will be dangerous for black as his king is still in the centre.
============

Contributors : William Taylor

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 e6

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 d6 dxe5

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 e6 Nf3 Ne7

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 d6 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 e6 Nf3 Ne7 Bg5 Qb6

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 d6 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Bc4

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 e6 Nf3 Ne7 Bg5 Qb6 b3 Ng6

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 e6 Nf3 Ne7 Bg5 Qb6 b3 Ng6 Nc3 Bb4

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 d6 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Bc4 f6 O-O

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 d6 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Bc4 f6 O-O Bc5 Rd1

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 e6 Nf3 Ne7 Bg5 Qb6 b3 Ng6 Nc3 Bb4 Qd2 Qa5

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 d6 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Bc4 f6 O-O Bc5 Rd1 Ke8 Nc3

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 e6 Nf3 Ne7 Bg5 Qb6 b3 Ng6 Nc3 Bb4 Qd2 Qa5 O-O-O Bxc3

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nxd4 Qxd4

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nxd4 Qxd4 c5 Qe5

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nxd4 Qxd4 c5 Qe5 Qe7 Qxe7

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nxd4 Qxd4 c5 Qe5 Qe7 Qxe7 Bxe7 Nc3

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Bg7 O-O Nc6

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nxd4 Qxd4 c5 Qe5 Qe7 Qxe7 Bxe7 Nc3 d6 Bf4

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Nc6

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Nc6 d4 d6

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Nc6 d4 d6 Nc3 f5

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Nc6 d4 d6 Nc3 f5 e5 dxe5

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Nc6 d4 d6 Nc3 f5 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd1

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Nc6 d4 d6 Nc3 f5 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd1 Kxd1 b6

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Bg7 O-O Nc6 d4 d6

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Bg7 O-O Nc6 d4 d6 c3 Qe7

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Bg7 O-O Nc6 d4 d6 c3 Qe7 Qb3 h6

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Ronald Learoyd    (1515)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Bg7 O-O Nc6 d4 d6 c3 Qe7 Qb3 h6 Re1 Nf6

============

Contributors : Ronald Learoyd

Patrick Satonnet    (1833)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 exf5 e4 Ne5 Nf6 Be2 d6

============

Contributors : Davide Nudo, Patrick Satonnet

In this line with very sharp and complicated variation, d6 seems a mistake, at least imprecision.

Now, after Bh5+, the king have to go to e7 and his beshop is a prisonner, decisive in this kind of position where each tempo, piece and activity is precious.

If 5..Be7, (not 5..d6) , after Bh5+, the king go on f8, and the bishop is ok on e7 and position is unclar.

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 d3 Nc6 Nc3 Bb4

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 d3 Nc6 Nc3 Bb4 Bd2 Nf6

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 d3 Nc6 Nc3 Bb4 Bd2 Nf6 a3 Bxc3

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 d3 Nc6 Nc3 Bb4 Bd2 Nf6 a3 Bxc3 Bxc3 d6

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 d3 Nc6 Nc3 Bb4 Bd2 Nf6 a3 Bxc3 Bxc3 d6 Be2 fxe4

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 d3 Nc6 Nc3 Bb4 Bd2 Nf6 a3 Bxc3 Bxc3 d6 Be2 fxe4 dxe4 Nxe4

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O d6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Bd7 Nc3 Be7 Re1 Ne5 Nf5

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
d4 Nf6 f4 e6 e3

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
d4 Nf6 Nf3 d5 e3 c5 Be2 Nc6

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
b4 d5 Bb2 Bf5 e3

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
b4 d5 Bb2 Bf5 e3 e6 Nf3

Transpose to wikichess #68031#

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e5 Nb5 d6 Be3 Nf6

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e5 Nb5 d6 Be3 Nf6 f3 Be7

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e5 Nb5 d6 Be3 Nf6 f3 Be7 Bc4 O-O

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e5 Nb5 d6 Be3 Nf6 f3 Be7 Bc4 O-O N1c3 a6

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 d6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Bd7 Nxc6

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
d4 Nf6 f4 e6 e3 Nc6 c3

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 e3 Bg7 cxd5 Nxd5

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
d4 Nf6 Nf3 d5 e3 c5 Be2 Nc6 h3 Bf5

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 d6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Bd7 Nxc6 bxc6 Bc4

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
d4 Nf6 f4 e6 e3 Nc6 c3 Ne4 Nf3

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 e3 Bg7 cxd5 Nxd5 Nf3 O-O

Transpose to wikichess #59923#

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qd6 Nf3 a6

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
d4 Nf6 f4 e6 e3 Nc6 c3 Ne4 Nf3 a6 Bd3

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
d4 Nf6 f4 e6 e3 Nc6 c3 Ne4 Nf3 a6 Bd3 Nf6 e4

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 d6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Bd7 Nxc6 bxc6 Bc4 Nf6 Nc3

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 e5 d4 exd4 c3 dxc3 Bc4 cxb2 Bxb2 Bb4 Kf1 Qg5 Nf3

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 e5 d4 exd4 c3 dxc3 Bc4 cxb2 Bxb2 Bb4 Kf1 Qg5 Nf3 Qg4 Bxf7

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 e5 d4 exd4 c3 dxc3 Bc4 cxb2 Bxb2 Bb4 Kf1 Qg5 Nf3 Qg4 Bxf7 Kxf7 Ne5

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
d4 Nf6 f4 e6 e3 Nc6 c3 Ne4 Nf3 a6 Bd3 Nf6 e4 d5 e5

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
d4 Nf6 f4 e6 e3 Nc6 c3 Ne4 Nf3 a6 Bd3 Nf6 e4 d5 e5 Ng8 O-O

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 c5 Nf3 f5 exf5 Nc6 d4 d5 Be2 Bxf5

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 c5 Nf3 f5 exf5 Nc6 d4 d5 Be2 Bxf5 O-O Nf6

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 c5 Nf3 f5 exf5 Nc6 d4 d5 Be2 Bxf5 O-O Nf6 c3 e6

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 f3 Bc5 Be3 Nxd4

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 f3 Bc5 Be3 Nxd4 Bxd4 Nxe4

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 f3 Bc5 Be3 Nxd4 Bxd4 Nxe4 fxe4 Qh4

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Zatiek    (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 f3 Bc5 Be3 Nxd4 Bxd4 Nxe4 fxe4 Qh4 g3 Qxe4

============

Contributors : Leandro Zatiek

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1278)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 d6 O-O Bd7 d4 h6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1278)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 d6 O-O Bd7 d4 h6 c4 a6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1278)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 d6 O-O Bd7 d4 h6 c4 a6 Ba4 Nf6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1278)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3 dxc3 Nxc3 e6 Nf3 d6 Bb5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1278)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 d6 O-O Bd7 d4 h6 c4 a6 Ba4 Nf6 Re1 Be7

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1278)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3 dxc3 Nxc3 e6 Nf3 d6 Bb5 Bd7 Bxd7

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1278)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 d6 O-O Bd7 d4 h6 c4 a6 Ba4 Nf6 Re1 Be7 Nc3 O-O

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1278)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3 dxc3 Nxc3 e6 Nf3 d6 Bb5 Bd7 Bxd7 Nxd7 O-O

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1278)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3 dxc3 Nxc3 e6 Nf3 d6 Bb5 Bd7 Bxd7 Nxd7 O-O Be7 a3

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 d6 d4 Bd7 d5 Nce7 Bxd7 Qxd7 c4 c5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 d6 d4 Bd7 d5 Nce7 Bxd7 Qxd7 c4 c5 O-O Nf6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 d6 d4 Bd7 d5 Nce7 Bxd7 Qxd7 c4 c5 O-O Nf6 Nc3 a6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3 dxc3 Nxc3 d6 Nf3 Nf6 Bb5 Nc6 Bxc6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3 dxc3 Nxc3 d6 Nf3 Nf6 Bb5 Nc6 Bxc6 bxc6 O-O

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3 dxc3 Nxc3 d6 Nf3 Nf6 Bb5 Nc6 Bxc6 bxc6 O-O Bg4 h3

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 e6 d4 d5 e5 c5 c3 Nc6 Bb5 Bd7 Ne2 Nxe5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
b3 e5 Bb2 Nc6 e3 Nf6 a3

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
b3 e5 Bb2 Nc6 e3 Nf6 a3 Be7 Be2

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 Nc6 d4 e5 dxe5 Nxe5 Nf3 Ng6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 Nc6 d4 e5 dxe5 Nxe5 Nf3 Ng6 Bc4 Be7

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 e6 d4 d5 e5 c5 c3 Nc6 Bb5 Bd7 Ne2 Nxe5 dxe5 Bxb5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 Nc6 d4 e5 dxe5 Nxe5 Nf3 Ng6 Bc4 Be7 O-O d6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 e6 d4 d5 e5 c5 c3 Nc6 Bb5 Bd7 Ne2 Nxe5 dxe5 Bxb5 O-O Ne7

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 e6 d4 d5 e5 c5 c3 Nc6 Bb5 Bd7 Ne2 Nxe5 dxe5 Bxb5 O-O Ne7 Be3 Nf5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e5 Nf5 h6 Bxf6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
b3 e5 Bb2 Nc6 e3 Nf6 a3 Be7 Be2 O-O Nh3

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 Nc6 d4 e5 dxe5 Nxe5 Nf3 Ng6 Bc4 Be7 O-O d6 Nc3 Bg4

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e5 Nf5 h6 Bxf6 Qxf6 Qd3

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
b3 e5 Bb2 Nc6 e3 Nf6 a3 Be7 Be2 O-O Nh3 d6 O-O

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 Nc6 d4 e5 dxe5 Nxe5 Nf3 Ng6 Bc4 Be7 O-O d6 Nc3 Bg4 h3 Bxf3

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 Nc6 d4 e5 dxe5 Nxe5 Nf3 Ng6 Bc4 Be7 O-O d6 Nc3 Bg4 h3 Bxf3 Qxf3 Ne5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
b3 e5 Bb2 Nc6 e3 Nf6 a3 Be7 Be2 O-O Nh3 d6 O-O Bxh3 gxh3

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
b3 e5 Bb2 Nc6 e3 Nf6 a3 Be7 Be2 O-O Nh3 d6 O-O Bxh3 gxh3 d5 Kh1

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 d6 d4 Bd7 dxe5 dxe5 Bxc6 Bxc6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 d6 d4 Bd7 dxe5 dxe5 Bxc6 Bxc6 Qxd8 Rxd8

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 d6 d4 Bd7 dxe5 dxe5 Bxc6 Bxc6 Qxd8 Rxd8 Bg5 f6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 d6 d4 Bd7 dxe5 dxe5 Bxc6 Bxc6 Qxd8 Rxd8 Bg5 f6 Be3 b6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e3 e5 Qf3 Nf6 Nc3 Be7 Bc4

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e3 e5 Qf3 Nf6 Nc3 Be7 Bc4 O-O e4

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e3 e5 Qf3 Nf6 Nc3 Be7 Bc4 O-O e4 Nc6 Nd5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e3 e5 Qf3 Nf6 Nc3 Be7 Bc4 O-O e4 Nc6 Nd5 Nxd5 Bxd5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e3 e5 Qf3 Nf6 Nc3 Be7 Bc4 O-O e4 Nc6 Nd5 Nxd5 Bxd5 Nd4 Qc3

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Bb4 exd5 exd5 Nf3 Nf6

Transpose to wikichess #68762#

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
Nf3 d5 e3 Nf6 Bb5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 Nf6 e5 Ne4

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 b5 Bb3 Nf6 d4 exd4 e5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 b5 Bb3 Nf6 d4 exd4 e5 Ne4 Bd5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 b5 Bb3 Nf6 d4 exd4 e5 Ne4 Bd5 Nc5 Nxd4

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 g6 Be2 Bg7 Be3 Nf6 Nc3 O-O O-O d5 exd5 Nxd5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 e3 Be7 Bd3

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1268)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 e3 Be7 Bd3 O-O O-O

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1392)
e4 e5 f4 d6 d3 Nf6 Nf3

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1392)
e4 e5 f4 d6 d3 Nf6 Nf3 Be7 fxe5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1392)
e4 e5 f4 d6 d3 Nf6 Nf3 Be7 fxe5 dxe5 Nxe5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1392)
e4 e5 f4 d6 d3 Nf6 Nf3 Be7 fxe5 dxe5 Nxe5 O-O Be2

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1392)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h3 h6 Be2 Nf6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1392)
e4 e5 f4 d6 d3 Nf6 Nf3 Be7 fxe5 dxe5 Nxe5 O-O Be2 Be6 Bf4

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1392)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h3 h6 Be2 Nf6 Nc3 Nh5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1392)
e4 e5 f4 d6 d3 Nf6 Nf3 Be7 fxe5 dxe5 Nxe5 O-O Be2 Be6 Bf4 Nbd7 O-O

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1392)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h3 h6 Be2 Nf6 Nc3 Nh5 O-O Ng3

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1392)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h3 h6 Be2 Nf6 Nc3 Nh5 O-O Ng3 Re1 Nc6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1392)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h3 h6 Be2 Nf6 Nc3 Nh5 O-O Ng3 Re1 Nc6 d4 Bg7

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1485)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 d6 Bb5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1485)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 Re1 Nd6 Bxc6 bxc6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1485)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 Re1 Nd6 Bxc6 bxc6 d4 e4

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1485)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 Re1 Nd6 Bxc6 bxc6 d4 e4 Nc3 Be7

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1485)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 Re1 Nd6 Bxc6 bxc6 d4 e4 Nc3 Be7 Nxe4 Nxe4

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1485)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Bg4 h3

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1485)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Bg4 h3 Bh5 e3

Transpose to wikichess #97480#

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1485)
e4 c5 a3 Nc6 b4 e6 Nf3 d5 exd5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1485)
e4 c5 a3 Nc6 b4 e6 Nf3 d5 exd5 exd5 Bb5

Transpose to wikichess #109386#

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1485)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 d6

Transpose to wikichess #119634#

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1485)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 Nc3 Bd6 d3

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1485)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 Nc3 Bd6 d3 Nf6 Bg5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1485)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 Nc3 Bd6 d3 Nf6 Bg5 h6 Bh4

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1485)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 Nc3 Bd6 d3 Nf6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 O-O O-O

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1552)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Qxf3 Qf6 c3 Nc6 d4 d6 Bxf4

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 d6 Nxg4 Bxg4 Qxg4

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 d6 Nxg4 Bxg4 Qxg4 Nf6 Qxf4

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 b5 Bb3 Be7 d4 exd4 c3 dxc3 Qd5 d6 Qxf7

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 d6 Nxg4 Bxg4 Qxg4 Nf6 Qxf4 Nbd7 Be2

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e6 d4 d5 exd5 exd5 Nf3 Nf6 Be2 Bd6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e6 d4 d5 exd5 exd5 Nf3 Nf6 Be2 Bd6 O-O O-O

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 Be7

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e6 d4 d5 exd5 exd5 Nf3 Nf6 Be2 Bd6 O-O O-O Bg5 h6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e6 d4 d5 exd5 exd5 Nf3 Nf6 Be2 Bd6 O-O O-O Bg5 h6 Bh4 c6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e6 d4 d5 exd5 exd5 Nf3 Nf6 Be2 Bd6 O-O O-O Bg5 h6 Bh4 c6 Nbd2 Re8

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 d6 Nf3 Bg4 Be2 Nf6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 d6 Nf3 Bg4 Be2 Nf6 Nc3 Nc6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 f6 Nf3 d6

Transpose to wikichess #66174#

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Bg7 O-O d5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Bg7 O-O d5 Bxd5 c6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 g3

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 d4 g4 Ne5 Qh4 Ke2 d6 Nd3

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Bg7 O-O d5 Bxd5 c6 Bxf7 Kxf7

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d6 Bc4 Nc6 O-O Nf6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Bg7 O-O d5 Bxd5 c6 Bxf7 Kxf7 d4 Nd7

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Qxf3 Nc6 c3

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 d4 g4 Ne5 Qh4 Ke2 d6 Nd3 g3 Qe1

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Bg7 O-O d5 Bxd5 c6 Bxf7 Kxf7 d4 Nd7 c4 h6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Qxf3 Nc6 c3 d6 Qh5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d6 Bc4 Nc6 O-O Nf6 Nc3 Bg4

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 d4 g4 Ne5 Qh4 Ke2 d6 Nd3 g3 Qe1 Bg4 Kd2

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 d6 Nxg4 Nf6 Nxf6 Qxf6 Nc3 Be6 Qe2

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 g3 fxg3 hxg3

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Bg7 O-O d6 Nc3 g4

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Qxf3 Nc6 c3 d6 Qh5 Ne5 Bb3

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 g3 fxg3 hxg3 Nc6 d4

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Bg7 O-O d6 Nc3 g4 Ne1 Nf6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 g3 fxg3 hxg3 Nc6 d4 d6 Nxg5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 g3 fxg3 hxg3 Nc6 d4 d6 Nxg5 Bd7 Bc4

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Bg7 O-O d6 Nc3 g4 Ne1 Nf6 d4 Nxe4

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d6 Bc4 Nc6 O-O Nf6 Nc3 Bg4 h3 Bxf3

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Bg7 O-O d6 Nc3 g4 Ne1 Nf6 d4 Nxe4 Nxe4 d5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 g3 fxg3 hxg3 Nc6 d4 d6 Nxg5 Bd7 Bc4 Be6 Bxe6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d6 Bc4 Nc6 O-O Nf6 Nc3 Bg4 h3 Bxf3 Qxf3 Nd4

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d6 Bc4 Nc6 O-O Nf6 Nc3 Bg4 h3 Bxf3 Qxf3 Nd4 Qd1 Be7

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 d6 Nxg4 Nf6 Nxf6 Qxf6 Nc3 Bd7 Nd5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Bxf7

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Bxf7 Kxf7 Qxf3

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Bxf7 Kxf7 Qxf3 Bc5 Kh1

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1524)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Bxf7 Kxf7 Qxf3 Bc5 Kh1 Qf6 Qh5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1511)
e4 d6 d4 e6 Nf3 Nd7

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1511)
e4 d6 d4 e6 Nf3 Nd7 Bb5 c6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1511)
e4 d6 d4 e6 Nf3 Nd7 Bb5 c6 Ba4 Ne7

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1511)
e4 d6 d4 e6 Nf3 Nd7 Bb5 c6 Ba4 Ne7 O-O g6

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1511)
e4 d6 d4 e6 Nf3 Nd7 Bb5 c6 Ba4 Ne7 O-O g6 c3 Bg7

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1511)
e4 d6 d4 e6 Nf3 Nd7 Bb5 c6 Ba4 Ne7 O-O g6 c3 Bg7 Be3 b5

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

Leandro Damian Coggiola    (1511)
e4 d6 d4 e6 Nf3 Nd7 Bb5 c6 Ba4 Ne7 O-O g6 c3 Bg7 Be3 b5 Bb3 O-O

============

Contributors : Leandro Damian Coggiola

FICGS : lea , Wikipedia : lea , Dmoz : lea , Google : lea , Yahoo : lea

The sign of a great Master is his ability to win a won game quickly and painlessly. (Irving Chernev)

When you absolutely don't know what to do anymore, it is time to panic. (John van der Wiel)

Via the squares on the chessboard, the Indians explain the movement of time and the age, the higher influences which control the world and the ties which link Chess with the human soul. (Al-Masudi)

Back to FICGS , Wikichess

[Chess forum] [Rating lists] [Countries] [Chess openings] [Legal informations] [Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]