move



FICGS - Search results for move





There are 2018 results for move in the forum.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-08 13:10:47)
Things to be implemented...

Hello to all... and thank you for your confidence in this very new server (when no game started yet ! maybe today...)

I expected a high average rating, but not so much :)

The last update provoked the first bug -> in this forum. Sorry to all who tried to post here. It should work now.

Here are things to be implemented in the future :

- Vacations (until, time limit by move is 2 months)
- Conditional moves
- A better interface for the forum...

Don't hesitate if you have ideas to improve the website !


Best wishes.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-08 13:45:15)
Inaugural match : Big chess

Hello to all.

The inaugural Big chess game (on the 16x16 board) restarts. As it was a bit hard to organize such a game between 2 GM, the two players finally are myself and... you :)

This is is 'priority game', just for fun. If you want to play a move just connect with the guest/guest account, if it is 'guest' turn, you can play...

http://www.ficgs.com/game_1.html

Have a good big chess game :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-08 17:51:15)
Drag & drop...

... isn't implemented yet ! The interface to play is a click & click one.

Go to "My messages", choose a game (click Game # or the rook)... the board appears.. click on the piece to move, wait the page loading, click the destination square, then submit.

Feel free to give me your impressions about the interface. Thank you in advance.

Thibault


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-08 19:59:22)
Hannes

CFC rapid tournaments didn't allow vacation (and start clock was 10 days, not 30). Anyway, you have 2 months to play a single move (if your clock is over 2 months, of course)


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!


Marc Lacrosse    (2006-04-09 09:01:47)
delay before moves publishing?

Hi Thibault If I do understand all moves of all games are visible as soon as they have been played. Isn't it better to delay public publishing a little bit (by 3 moves or so). Most other servers have such a policy so as to avoid game duplication tricks. congrats for the already very good work ! Marc


Sebastien Marez    (2006-04-10 07:52:51)
BUG

On two of my games in progress, one posts illegaux moves. Whereas they are valid. Best Regards Sebastien MAREZ


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.


Hannes Rada    (2006-04-11 10:25:04)
Software ?

Unfortunately there is no download possibility. Which software are you using ? In case of Chessbase the following trick should work: Mark all moves of the game - rightclick and "say" "copy". In ChessBase "say" "paste" and the game should appear at your virtual board. hannes


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-11 18:33:13)
Bug fixed...

Many improvements in the send move process... It should not be possible anymore to make a wrong move. Stalemate detection is implemented. In checkmate case, nothing else should be possible than resigning. Thanks for your feedback.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-12 09:14:24)
Tournament formulas

Hello to all.

What do you think about the idea to create a SLOW tournament category ? Clocks could be 60 days + 10 days / move or 100 days + 100 days / 10 moves (very slow) ?

Any idea or opinion ?


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-04-12 09:42:18)
Tournament formulas

I personally think such tournaments are too slow..... a real drag. 10 moves per 40 days seems exactly right for standard tournaments. Kind regards, Dinesh.


Patrice Verdier    (2006-04-12 09:47:09)
Tournaments formulas

I am agree with De Silva. I think that already tournaments are slow. 10 moves for 40 days or 30 days is a good formula. Perhaps it will be interesting to create blitz tournament for players who like this (example : 1 move by day) Also it will be interesting to create tournament with Cup System.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-12 09:53:48)
Rapid tournaments

Formula for rapid tournaments is 30 days (because players could be in vacation while the tournament starts) + 1 day / move


Paul-Iosif Guralivu    (2006-04-13 15:52:18)
New Titles

I agree it's a bit confusion, but there are a lot of players wich never achieves a title..so that will be atractive. About the fact that the title to be removed it's a bit unfair, because it's hard to be achieved... ----- My humble opinion


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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-14 17:08:26)
Answers...

Hello Hĺkon. Some answers :

1. Maybe try : Preferences -> Notification checkbox
2. Right, other players already asked for this. Now you have 2 months to play a single move, so few chances to be late. The council will discuss about vacation option before to be implemented.
3. Some players asked these informations not to appear in the list to reduce it in size, so you can check this just by clicking on the games. ("when last move was done" : right !)
4. For website design reasons, I can't display many informations on the same page. I don't think flags are essential, but it will probably be implemented anyway !


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....


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-15 03:16:38)
English PGN notation

Writing the move may be a bit faster than clicks. (2 steps instead of 3)

About the last move, you're right Walter. Maybe it should be only an option, I'm not sure all players would appreciate a special color for the last piece moved. (?)


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. (!?)


Hannes Rada    (2006-04-16 09:52:16)
time and vacation

>There's objectively no difference >between "vacation" & time for move... >Rules on other servers There is a difference. If the player does not have the time on the clock, because he is involved in many tournaments .... I think we should start a poll about this issue.


Hakon Anda    (2006-04-16 12:14:19)
Re: Some wishes

Hello Thibault. You wrote: "1. Maybe try : Preferences -> Notification checkbox". The problem is that when uncheck this box, one loose also opponents moves with e-mail notification. I wish to get e-mail notification with oppononets moves, but not my own moves.


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

Hĺkon, 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.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-04-16 15:54:24)
No need to receive his own moves?

Dear Thibault, sorry but I would like to receive my move as mail, especially if I add a message to my move. And in the case of a server-crash it could be helpful to have the total protocol of my games on my computer. Don't you think so?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-16 17:12:22)
Email notification

Feel free to uncheck the "own moves" checkbox in Preferences if you don't want to receive notification for the moves you just played.

Thank you for feedback.


Glen D. Shields    (2006-04-16 18:57:19)
60/10 Too Slow for Me

I'm in the group that thinks 60/10 is too slow. Like Mr. LaCrosse, I like fewer games at a faster pace. Only way 60/10 might work is to set a REASONABLE limit on days per move. ICCF's 40 days is too long and some TD's are much too lenient about extending it. I hope this doesn't hijack your thread Thibault, but The opposite question I'd like to ask is how many server players find the opening game too fast and like a blur? I make a move and there's a reply waiting 5 minutes later. It won't be long before someone writes a script and connects it to ChessBase to cut the time down to seconds :)


Glen D. Shields    (2006-04-17 19:01:10)
Thanks for the Comments Guys

Dinesh - since computer use is allowed I have no problem if someone uses a "script" to automate moves. I don't think that would be fradulent. Actually I think it would be clever :) The point I was trying to ask is anyone concerned (besides me) that we created a chess medium (server chess) where it's so easy to make moves that the games move too fast? I dread the start of a new section, particularly large sections with 10+ players. It's impossible to keep one's inbox empty for even a minute. I know I should show more discipline and walk away, but it's almost like an illness "just one more move then I'll stop" and I don't! One practice I've been using lately is to make a move in a notebook and sit on the move for a day or two before sending it. That helps slow things down. I wonder if a delay send option on the server would make any sense? One could make a move and then click a delay send button for 24 or 48 hours. One would be charged time during the delay, but it would automate the slow down and make tournament startups a little less hectic. Maybe I'm the only one who sees this as an issue> If so, then label this just one crazy man's thoughts :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-17 19:25:06)
New features...

Coordinates & last move have been implemented... Now the "live games" concept of the site extends to the home page :)

Also, player informations are 5 successive pages (informations, elo history, title norms, tournaments, games), reachable just by clicking on "ELO" (to improve yet) after clicking the magnifying glass.


Paul-Iosif Guralivu    (2006-04-18 12:43:47)
Deadline ?

When is the deadline for a player which didn't moved ? In IECG is 10 days... Is in FICGS some limite ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-18 13:25:56)
Time limit per move

If a player has 60 days and more on his clock, the deadline for one move is 60 days ! This is a provisional (quite good, I think) solution before question of vacation be answered. Many players can't play every day and correspondence chess games usually last several months, often more than 1 year.

It seems server games go much faster than email games, but rules 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves are the same.

Time limit per move in IECG is 30 days. Here, a 60 days limit (a rating period) don't seem too much to me. Players won't feel oppressed (Glen, turn email notification off :)) and I think they won't use it often.

RAPID TOURNAMENTS are an alternative solution.

Thibault


Glen D. Shields    (2006-04-18 21:39:57)
A Suggestion

Thibault my e-mail notification will be turned off :)

I'd encourage you to re-consider your 60 day ruling. I can foresee individuals getting late in a game and accumulating hundreds of reflection days. Not many, but a few players could go 59 days per move 2 or 3 times in a row just to irritate their opponent. Not everyone is a "good sport" unfortunately :(

IECG does it right by limiting time to 30 days max per move. You violate the limit once, game is over no questions asked. ICCF does it half right and half wrong. They set the limit at 40 days, but then make the person waiting beg the TD to do something. If the TD refuses to enforce the rule, the violating player can stall as long as he wants :(

This is your chance to pick and chose from the best things done in other organizations. Either set a limit on the number of accumulated days so it doesn't go into the hundreds or set a reasonable limit on the number of days per move. Just don't let both become large. Also don't be wishy washy on the limit. Set a limit and enforce it, no questions asked. No hard reasonable limit and too many accumulated days is an infrequent, but irritating problem in the making. There won't be many, but sadly there will be those few "bad losers" who think it's "cute" to string their opponents along. Don't let that happen at FICGS!

Just my two cents :)


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 !


Glen D. Shields    (2006-04-20 01:47:29)
Congratulations!

Thibault - I don't know if FICGS is the first server to do so, but it's the first server I play on that has made the intelligent decision to limit accumulated time. Hopefully you will set a trend that other servers will follow :)

60 days max for one move may be too much, but with a 100 day limit, abuse will be minimal.
Good job :)



Marc Lacrosse    (2006-04-20 21:57:33)
unknown openings

There were already a few 1.Nc3 games but they were classified as 1.f4 (through transposition I suppose)...
... But now that I have begun to play you _must_ add 1.Nc3 to the list of played opening moves in the statistics page.
... nothing but normal : 1.Nc3 rules!
:-)))
Marc


Graham Cridland    (2006-04-21 16:55:55)
Waiting lists

An option to remove oneself from the waiting list for a tournament might be useful. No immediate need on my part at present, but people's schedules change, etc.


Marc Lacrosse    (2006-04-22 15:39:05)
Conditional moves ?

I cannot figure how to propose conditional moves. Is this feature implemented yet?

Maybe I did not read the rules accurately...
Marc


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)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-23 06:01:44)
explanation

Hello Elmer.

It's possible the player entered an ambiguous move in plain text format. The program may have interpreted this move as the first one possible. Anyway he probably did not verify his move before confirmed (inquiring), I can't correct that. I'll fix that as soon as the next update of the site is done. Thank you.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-23 06:12:25)
Not yet

Conditional moves will be probably implemented, but not this week... Many things to do before.

I think it's generally an appreciated feature. Some players don't like to receive "automatic" moves just after they played, but it seems to be a "must" have for CC servers.


Elmer Valderrama    (2006-04-23 11:56:55)
not PGN

Maybe bringing the text-entry move facility closer to the board might be a quick fix (for the player checking the validity of intended move).

Regarding the format of the on-going games, it appears the player's move is copied "as is" directly to the game score (I have just entered "e7-e5", accepted by the interface as "e5", but it was copied as "1...e7-e5" into the PGN score of the on-going game), regards


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-23 12:33:40)
Checkmate / Stalemate

Note : Checkmate and stalemate are not automatically converted as a win or draw, your opponent has to resign or accept draw before.. I thought it was a more friendy way, and you have the possibility to send a last message with your move.


Stefano Ghisi    (2006-04-23 16:36:50)
conditional moves?

I think it's a feature important. Then, if you want to use it, you use...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-24 07:33:39)
Referee

You can call referee after a while. Anyway your opponent will loose on time before the one move time limit.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-24 11:00:22)
Forfeit , 2006 April 24

Paul-Iosif forfeited all his running games. Only games 87, 149 and 150 will be unrated. (too few moves played)

Sorry about that.


Stefano Ghisi    (2006-04-24 16:05:41)
Time pro move

Is it possible to have the "time pro move" or the time used by each player to make his move?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-24 16:18:23)
Time pro move

The date of the last move played is displayed. I prefer not to store time for all moves on the server to minimize the size of the database. But they are stored on my computer. If there's a problem, I can find the time for any move.


Stefano Ghisi    (2006-04-24 16:19:52)
time pro move

Ok, thanks


Graham Wyborn    (2006-04-25 13:13:52)
Condition Moves?

I have played on another site which uses conditional moves. The Conditional Move is only operated after you opponent moves, therefore you are unaware of your opponents offer. Also players can turn the feature on or off. So if one player has it turned off, the opponent cannot use it. Conditional moves are good time savers. especially when making a capture and the opponent has only one good reply. It saves time. Hope Conditional Moves are coming to this site too!


Graham Cridland    (2006-04-25 16:02:04)
Weird

I'd suggest allowing one player to use them even if the opponent has them turned off, as otherwise it could get confusing... people might not ralize their move hadn't been executed.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-25 16:09:45)
So, no need to turn it off... !?

That's not obvious... Conditional moves may save time, may irritate too... Is it really "fair" ? His existence is arguable, in my opinion.


Graham Cridland    (2006-04-25 16:31:57)
?

You can't do anything with conditional moves you can't do just making the moves yourself. It isn't like it makes imitation harder to spot. It just saves time.


Glen D. Shields    (2006-04-25 16:48:28)
Another Opinion

I have mixed feelings on 'conditional" moves. I agree they save time, but they also can be irritating. Depends how they're sent and who sends them.

We all have those opponents who play whatever Fritz plays. When one gets in a rather simple series of moves, those opponents like to run out a string of 3 or 4 conditionals in a row. Opponents like that are like leeches. You can't get them off your skin without yanking them off and eradicating them :)

Time saving versus irritation. Considering the options, I vote for time saving. The faster I can get rid of Fritz opponents, the happier I am.

Just another opinion :)


Graham Cridland    (2006-04-25 17:22:16)
Hmm.

Well, I see your point (I have an opponent like that) but what you're really objecting to is their failure to use their time, not conditional moves (or even fritz). And I can't imagine that forcing people to use their time will be popular. Just have to NOT send the move back right away, sit down at the board, and figure out where Fritz goes wrong. Our German friend isn't all knowing (especially at the 14-16 ply people only give him much of the time). So you should generally win those games.


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


Glen D. Shields    (2006-04-25 20:39:39)
Hmmm ... yup

Graham - I think you summed it perfectly. I have no objection to conditionals nor do I care how much time folks use. What I find "irritating" (the word used in this thread) are those situations where you move and ten minutes later you're back on the clock again. Overused conditionals contribute to the "irritation," but hardly are the root cause.


Stefano Ghisi    (2006-05-01 11:41:45)
Possible bug?

In the game 58 my last move was Rad1. I typed only Rd1 (with no specification of what Rook was to move) and the program has accepted my move as Rfd1. Be aware! Every move typed and no moved on the board must me verifyed...


Graham Cridland    (2006-05-01 16:32:05)
Hmmm..

All my moves created via the graphical generator have been coming up "incorrect move" today. Had to type them in.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-01 17:09:08)
Okay.

It should work now. I have an update more to do for ambiguous moves. Thanks for feedback.


Nicolas Fillion    (2006-05-02 20:06:09)
Printable game list

Hi, I'd like to know if there's an option to have a printable list of the moves of the games we're playing. I don't see any option... If not, I'd like to suggest to add such an option to the webmaster! The site is undoubtly great, but this kind of option would surely make it even greater! Thanks


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-03 07:10:37)
"My games"

Now you can try the print icon in "My games"... It will display all your moves in a white page. (printers don't like backgrounds) Then click the icon again.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-03 14:15:54)
Chess 4000 ?

About Fischer Random Chess / Chess 960, the king' start position must be between the rooks to allow this strange castling. Why ?! Wasn't it ok to forbid this unusual (non-sense) move in these other cases... The number of positions should increase a lot. Does anyone knows the number of positions resulting ?


Jose Carrillo    (2006-05-05 00:32:18)
Chess 4000 ?

Forbid what unusual (non-sense) move? Castling? Chess960 was meant to be the bigger picture, where regular chess is just one of the openings. Regular chess has castling and so does Chess960. About Chess 4000, without King placement restrictions, and without castling... Sure... I'm sure there are players that will play it. There are hundreds of chess variants. Some more popular than others... In FRCEC we only play Chess960, the bigger chess picture!


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


Jose Carrillo    (2006-05-05 18:51:43)
Tournament reccomendation

Try a round robin + Page system playoffs.

Round 1:
Round Robin (as many players as you want)

Final Round:
Page System Playoffs:

Top 4 players in the Round Robin qualify for the quaterfinals:

1st place vs 2nd place
3rd place vs 4th place

Winner of 1st-2nd gets bye in semi-finals, and moves on to the finals.

Loser of 1st-2nd plays in semi-final round

Winner of 3rd-4th playes in semi-final

Loser of 3rd-4th gets eliminated.

Winner of semi-final plays in the final.



Graham Wyborn    (2006-05-06 13:13:35)
Move the 'Send' button!

Is it possible to move the send button, so that it appears next to the board. I'm just too lazy to scrol down!!


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-06 15:00:48)
Indeed...

Maybe it's no use to display the PGN score in the 'confirm move' window... !?

I'll consider that.


Stefano Ghisi    (2006-05-09 15:24:48)
wrong move

I made a wrong move in game 49. Now I can't make the right move (to me) that is c2-c3 How can I make?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-09 15:59:09)
... old bug

Hello Stefano. The 'wrong move' was caused by the update that fixed the ambiguous moves bug... I corrected your move that was 6.Ncb5

Sorry again.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-12 07:39:04)
Re: Qualifying + Banned players

Hello Jose. You said : "There is still the possibility of the 1st and 2nd place in the round robin to play in the final match."

Actually this is the case, 1st and 2nd qualify for the next stage. How your system works for a 3 stages round-robin tournament cycle ? We can't add 2 extra-stages to designate who qualify from each round-robin tournament...


Hello Trent. There are 3 players who unregistered (not banned), they still appear in the WCH waiting list but they will be automatically removed when building groups.


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    (2006-05-14 16:07:16)
"Blitz" cup...

Thank you Heinz Georg, for the files you sent to me.

Now I understand better the work and ideas of Reimund Lutzenberger in Chessfriend.com, a great experimentation field for sure...

I first concluded some things not to do in FICGS WCH. In example, a player rated 2500 (even provisional rating from fide) shouldn't have to play in the first stage against a low-rated player in a world championship [but that could be possible in a cup tournament cycle]. So I'll add special rules for high rated players (who are not qualified for the WCH knockout tournament) to begin directly in a 2nd stage tournament...

I agree with Dinesh, the aim is not to use the same formulas, even good ones. Anyway I think we can find new interesting (better :)) ones. But as the WCH is already a rapid tournament cycle, the CUP could be an unrated "blitz" (30 days per game with no increment, or even 10 days + 1 hour / move) knockout (2 games / match + playoffs) !! Something quite "brutal" and unfair between correspondence chess & classical rythms. What do you think ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-15 11:05:57)
Blitz cup

Yes, time is the main problem. Correspondence chess don't give a large choice, it's difficult to vary rhythms.

10 days + 1 day per 4 moves (6 extra hours / move) could be more fair and we can avoid playoffs with the sudden death (similar to WCH knockout tournament). I like the idea of a violent, rapid and quite unfair (unrated) tournament. It could be quite popular. An advantage in a knockout (with 2 rounds) is that a few games will have to be played : 7 rounds means at most 14 games... If the number of players doesn't fit, the highest rated players could enter at stage 2. The winner could be qualified for the third stage of the WCH round-robin cycle.

But there are potential problems. I don't find a good & fair algorithm to distribute players in a big knockout (chance is not a good idea, I think), and it could be a big work to organize such a tournament (& start games regularly) with 256 players or more...


Juri Eintalu    (2021-09-27 22:56:01)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess

Interesting. I had to make a move AND accept the draw. Then, the system recognized the draw. But the last move I made was not counted. It was also fun that when I tried to ACCEPT a draw, the system warned that several draw offers are punishable. I started to fear whether I have ACCEPTED that draw more than 3 times...


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.


Glen D. Shields    (2006-05-18 00:53:27)
Mate Problem Should be Fixed

Thibault - Since I am never at a loss to voice an opinion , I'll go ahead and voice one here :)


I don't know how much work it is for you to fix the mate problem, but I think it should be fixed. I admit in the 1000+ correspondence games I've played through the years very few games actually get to the checkmate move. When they do, the game should be over. There is no reason one should have to beg his opponent to resign or beg the referee to do something. That doesn't make any sense. Is it a HUGE problem to fix this? I'm perplexed.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-18 03:18:57)
Let's see...

Hello Glen.

This is quite unusual and it may look strange at the first sight, but I still think that this rule is positive and is not a nonsense !

That's true I prefer the server working this way, and it saves time process, but I keep in mind : First, this is friendly... 2nd, if a player want to last a game, he will do it before being checkmated. 3rd, I didn't adjudicate Wayne's game, and his opponent just resigned only 2 days after his move. Let's give a chance to this rule, I'm convinced time will show that it is not a nonsense ;)


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-05-19 00:50:31)
It is not nonsense

He resigned i believe cause of opinion of those here. It is not nonsence. The fact that this site is correspondence has nothing to do with it. absolutley nothing ! You go to any club tournament and you will not be welcome back with such over the board conduct. It is rude, spitefull and counter productive to good chess and fair play. You will change this rule my friend. There is NO justification for a player to drag out a forced mate loss if he sees it. and believe me in the case of my game 205 you must admit it is obvious. In fact he should have resigned many moves earlier, I would have 4 sure. do not like your weak argument justifying the mate implementation.... Here is to a nice cite for corresponse chess. Respexctfully Wayne


Glen D. Shields    (2006-05-19 03:43:15)
Oops ... sorry!

Oops .. this belongs in the discussion on "the overall evaluation of this site." My apology. Perhaps Thibault could kindly move the above post to the proper place and delete this apology? I'd be very appreciative. Thanks!


Trent Parker    (2006-05-19 08:04:48)
My Overall evaluation of this new site

I really like this site. I like the format of the tournaments, I like the fact that the number of games one can play are not limited.

I like the idea of the best game function, however i do not think it is properly utilised (I have aired my ideas on this elsewhere....)

I personally think the resign for checkmate rule is ok, although none of my games have gotten that far yet. After all a) this does not limit the amount of games that you can play on this site and b) your opponent will run out of time anyhow. So what is the difference? You are going to get the point anyhow.
I have the following criticisms:
I am on Dial up. This site is very slow to play on, very time consuming with the amount of games that i am up to. would it be possible to... I dunno... make it like a javascript or something, just to speed it up a bit. Or perhaps even make the submit button further up the page a bit? Often i have gone out of a game thinking that i have made the move when i have forgotten to click the submit button. (By the way this site would be excellent if i had broadband but i don't.)

I may have some more comments later on but at the moment i've said enough.

Thanks for this site Thibault!

Trent Parker


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-05-19 08:05:25)
suggestion

I see your points. I play at another corresponce sight, Pacific-mall.com/chess. They have solved the problem there and incidentally it will satisfy those who have mentioned the desirability to chat with your opponent during the game. At pac-mall you can chat about the game or any subject, others can view the game and drop by to say hello, or what ever. Outsiders do not suggest moves but are allowed to talk about a particuliar line after the fact, but in ten years there I have not seen this done only in rare circumstances. In the talk window you can politely tell your oppent "it is mate come up. giving the forced line" or you can just say "Dan the game is lost for you, give your reason. All accept this decorum there. and it is the friendliest cite on the web. The players there range from novices to close to 2300 which I am. By the way, my name there is globalpac, look me up on the ladders (2). Do me a favor and check it out. Tell me what you think. Thank you With respect.... Wayne


David Grosdemange    (2006-05-26 19:16:37)
transpositions ...

i think manual modifications aren't really efficient to correct the bug of transpositions .... and for instance , in the transposition f4 e5 e4 to e4 e5 f4 , the move 2)e4 can't be annoted , and will receive the annotation of 2)f4 . and another problem , when i search games on a position , for instance on e4 c5 d4 , i can't find my game who begins with d4 c5 e4 ...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-26 21:19:33)
transpositions...

Hello David. Thanks for your feedback !

That's a big deal. Actually I have a solution to automate transpositions management. But it could bring other problems... In example, a secondary (or totally wrong) line should always transpose to the main line..

Your example (f4 e5 e4) is true, so we should give our opinion about the position (and future moves), not the last move...

About the search function, you're right again, but this point is even more complex ! I'll think about it later, I must care about time processing. Anyway, you can use Chessbase or Chess Assistant to find games sorted by position. So, by now, the search function works for openings, not positions.


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


David Grosdemange    (2006-05-28 22:55:15)
more annotations

yet , there are only 3 possible annotations : ! , , ? . it would be more interesting if we can annote a game with !? or ?! . or if we can annote a position with for example +- , +/- , += , = , =+ , -/+ , -+ . another problem , Nxf7 can be written Nf7 , and these moves create two different articles , whereas they are the same . (see e4 Nf6 e5 Nd5 d4 d6 Nf3 dxe5 Nxe5 Nd7 Nxf7)


Trent Parker    (2006-05-29 03:03:51)
Sorting your own games

Hello Thibault!

I know that you are working hard on this site already. But could i suggest that a sort function be implemented so that a player could sort their games according to how much time they have on the clock?

Most of my games are long standard games, however i am playing in one rapid play game which, when sorted by game number are quite a long way down the page. On days where i dont have much time to make moves i would prefer to make moves on my rapid games rather than my long games. This is where that sort function would become handy

Once again thanking you for this great chess server.


Trent Parker


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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-29 16:56:44)
Big chess

A word about 'big chess' : This is my view of anti-computer chess variant, as Chess 960 is now played by programs (Chessbase can manage it too). I thought about it in the Go/Weiqi way, avoiding random start positions (thus theory is still possible), just increasing incredibly the number of possible good moves...


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-05-29 20:47:01)
Big chess

The middlegame could be a challenge, particularly if you have no board to test the consequences of your move. And what do you think about an endgame with 12 pawns and 3 rook or 5 knights on each side? What are the values of the pieces? There is much to investigate there. Perhaps I should write a computer program ... (just a joke)


Tom Hodges    (2006-06-01 05:46:34)
go server issues

Regarding the Go games: 1. 30 days is way to short. A go game takes about 200-250 moves so at 2/day it needs over 100 days. This is a deal breaker. 2. There should be a link to send and go the next game where you are on turn.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-01 06:17:28)
FICGS go rules + quick link

Hello Tom.

You have 30 days + 1 day / move !

About the 'quick link', that's a good idea, I'll think about that.


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


Ryaad Aabid    (2006-06-01 15:30:25)
Go Tournament # 1

Hello all players - GO tournaments I have applied to this new started tournament by mistake , I will be thankful if any player can replace me to reply here or e-mail to FICGS. *I never done moves yet. Kind regards Ryaad/Norway


Lionel Vidal    (2006-06-01 22:17:30)
Go rules

I don't quite understand what kind of problems with draws remains with FICGS (sic!) rules: as passing is not allowed, if you add the non repetition of the same whole board position and a non integer komi, I do not see how a draw is still possible.

BUT... this solution does actually not solve anything as I don't think you can forbid passing (as a matter of fact, I checked the official japanese, chinese, new-zealand, AGA (USA) and SST rules: pass is allowed and needed)
The main reason is, IMO, that you need a legal way to end the game (double pass). And yes there are situations where the best move for BOTH players is NOT to move at all in the area: the simplest case I can think of is thousand-year kos, which in the case of japanese rule usually end in seki.
Note that a single pass (that is the game goes on after it) can change the difference in scores in area mode: the AGA rule introduces the concept of pass stone to compensate and insists on white making the last move (if necessary with an additional pass and pass stone) to ensure that the total number of stones played by the two players are equal!
(BTW this is one of the reasons, admitedly far behind familiarity, why I prefer the japanese rule in face to face go)

To sum things up (!!), while I agree that FICGS could develop its own set of rules, I feel that the subject is too complex and error-prone, and has been long, and still is, disputed by highly competent authorities : why not use the result of their work?
I would add that the point of all this is rather moot if you consider that situation like triple ko and alii are indeed rather rare: why not stricly stick to, say, the official chinese rule, and replay the game by referee decision in the rare cases where neither playing side will yield?

oh, but I could also check what they do in the kiseido server ?!?
oh, and do take what I say with great caution: I don't feel and I am certainly not competent enough on the subject! Any other advice over there? :-)


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') ?


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?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-02 20:50:09)
Positional superko

The superko rule says that it is forbidden to repeat a previous board position. There are two versions of this: 'positional superko', where it is forbidden to repeat a board position, and 'situational superko', where it is only forbidden to repeat a board position with the same player to move.

FICGS now uses the positional superko rule.


Kuzma Pecotic    (2006-06-03 07:28:29)
Incorrect move

This is my game:

[Event "FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_A__000003"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2006.04.22"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Pecotic,Kuzma"]
[Black "Sobrecases,Guy"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "2179"]
[BlackElo "2105"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4 Qc7 9.f4 Qa5+ 10.Bd2 Qb6 11.Bd3 Qxb2 12.O-O Qd4+ 13.Kh1 Ba6 14.Bxa6 Qxe4 15.Rb1 Qa4 16.Bd3 f5 17.*


For what reason: Incorrect move : 17.exf6


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-03 13:59:27)
Graphical interface

Hello Kuzma.

Sorry about that, actually it doesn't work while entering the move in plain text (bug, working on) , but it does work with the graphical interface. You should try to move the piece by clicking.

Thanks for feedback.


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.


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    (2006-06-05 14:11:42)
Rules : Forfeiting / Replacement

Hello to all.

As a few players stopped to play (forfeit) in their games, I answer here to questions from their opponents.

- Rated games lost on time / forfeited are not calculated for the winner's (only) rating if less than 10 moves have been played and position is equal.

- If a player forfeits in a rated tournament without having played a single move, his games will be lost and he will be replaced, ie. FICGS CHESS CLASS B 000003 ... furthermore, his account will be closed. (obvious cheating)

Best wishes.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-06 17:39:44)
7.5 komi + Superko

Hello to all.

In accordance with Chinese rules, the last update of the FICGS rules of Go states a 7.5 komi (3.75 by chinese counting)

http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html#threeKK

The last ambiguity may concern the superko rule, as now FICGS graphical interface forbids any board repetition (not only previous move). See this page on BRITGO site, at the very bottom : Positional superko (PSK) means a play may not recreate a previous board position from the game, referring to the position just after the play and consequent removals.

However, forbidding any board repetition is the only way to prevent draw games.


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.


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    (2006-06-16 13:28:11)
Ok

Hello Amir. I'll let him know when I play my next move against him...


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-19 15:13:45)
Chess Openings

Hi Tim.

What do you mean with Ruy Lopez ? There's IMO no opening better than other, it first depends on you play Black or White, who is your opponent (strength, favourite openings...), time controls..

Maybe you should specify your question... What opening against what move etc...

PS : I hope Amir will take a look at Wikichess, his opinion on chess openings would be very interesting to know ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-19 16:15:01)
Follow the lines :-)

Hello Amir.

You just have to follow the lines clicking on the moves... If you want to create a new line, enter the new move (submit) then enter a text for that move (submit) : The article is created.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-20 16:05:08)
Sicilian opening & Kasparov

I quote from Amir analysis : "But if you want to win, the Sicilian is really the best choice."

I fully agree, I'll just add: but Sveshnikov sicilian :)

Actually, (not a surprise) you just have to see how Black pieces are conducted by Garry Kasparov in sicilian opening to understand what lines to follow, why it is the best choice... and why he became the best player of all times.

He simply always wanted to win, never draw... It is an illustration of a quote in this interesting (but failed) movie by Guy Ritchie, "Revolver" : "To win against a weaker opponent, you have to extend the game field."

Finally, it's the exact opposite of what Bobby Fischer said : "I don't believe in psychology, I believe in good moves". That's not enough IMO, chess openings are a psychologic battle that reflect the state of mind and will. It often decides in a way the result of the game, not by moves, but by the intention.


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-06-22 03:44:19)
Chess openings

Nothing could be farther from the truth.. Bobby was right, makes good moves and you dont needs to worry about phoney baloney. Bobby was right no first move is as strong as e4


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 :)


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-30 12:50:53)
Games lost on time

Hello Paul-Iosif.

When a game is lost on time you just have to wait a few hours and the game is adjudicated automatically.

I'll try to make a replacement in the tournament soon. You may have noticed that the game has been rated as a loss for your opponent, but not as a win for you, according to the rules cause less than 10 moves have been played.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-30 13:23:48)
Replacement

Two players (who played no move for 30 days) have just been replaced in tournaments :

FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_C__000002
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_B__000006


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-03 18:58:48)
Remaining time

Hello Pablo.

There's no problem :)

Last move by your opponent has been played on 2006 may 14, 50 days ago. The rules state that no move shall be played in more than 60 days. Your remaining time for the game is 35 days, so you just have to play one move, and the 9 days limit will disappear, your clock will be only 35 days. If you don't play a single move before 9 more days, the game will be lost on time.


Gino Figlio    (2006-07-04 01:07:56)
Symmetrical games

The format used(8-game match with simultaneous games, 4 white and 4 black) brings up the issue of avoiding symmetrical games. I don't see a perfect way of doing this other than being conscious of the problem, and trying to deviate early on. If I see an opening chosen by my opponent that I am also planning to use, I have waited to respond in one(or more) of the games, until the position reached a point where I would normal deviate, and choose an alternate move with the opposite colour. Anyone else with better ideas about how to avoid this problem?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-04 01:52:31)
Symmetrical games

Hello Gino.

What do you mean "symmetrical games" exactly ? (time is an important element)

First case, a player copies move after move another game played at the same time (a move after). Cheating is obvious and it's forbidden (rules)...

Second case, a game is symmetrical but moves are not played "at the same time" : It means suicide in the match for the player who has to win, with either Black or White... The same about the games played by the same player as White, there's no interest to play the same openings, as it would save his opponent's energy and loose chances to provoke a fault.

I had seen you were waiting to move with black in your match, but you can play the same opening with Black, it's up to your opponent to play different openings, otherwise it's good for you...


Gino Figlio    (2006-07-04 04:06:08)
Symmetrical games

I meant 2 identical games played with different colours usually against different opponents, but in this case against the same person. I'm sorry for not reading the rules, but there is no way to prove in simultaneous games, who is copying who since known theory in certain openings reaches 20+ moves. However, if someone delays his response until the opponent makes a decision in a critical point of the opening, he can then play the same opening without fear knowing that once that point is reached, he will make a different move.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-04 12:17:36)
Symmetrical games

Playing the same opening until move 20 is not a problem IMO, particularly in correspondence chess nowadays...

John, about the format, that's interesting discussing... Why wouldn't it be "normal" in your opinion ? Not usual for sure, as round-robin tournaments are used everywhere in correspondence chess. So it will be a surprise for hardened CC players, but will it be for OTB players ? Why the "match format" couldn't be an acceptable alternative ?


Gino Figlio    (2006-07-04 16:34:00)
Symmetrical games

I disagree, the farthest you go with identical games, the closer you will get to a position where only one move wins. Once you get there with identical games, then whoever plays first wins, since the other one will be accused of copying the winning move.


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 19:33:17)
Symmetrical games

It's not possible to reach such a situation so that a player would have to play against himself... Cheating is obvious !

If you play your moves with a small delay (2 or 3 moves) in the other game, it will be always possible to find another line. Then it is mentioned in the rules there's an algorithm in FICGS that detects (!) symmetrical games. If needed, I can bring the proof with the moves dates.


Gino Figlio    (2006-07-04 19:40:02)
question

How many identical moves do you need to decide "cheating" is occurring? It will have to be an arbitrary number since there is no reason to say one or three moves before or after a certain number...what if the player shows a previous game played exactly the same way he has played? How do you know he is "cheating" instead of following a previous game? What if previous game was played by himself?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-04 20:22:29)
Symmetrical games

Gino, it's easy : Symmetrical games are a way to cheat if all (!) moves are played at the same time. The algorithm detects players who MAY have played such games (different numbers of moves are tested), then there must be a human decision by a referee. If such a situation happens, knowing the moves dates, there obviously can't be a single doubt about the player's honesty...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-04 21:03:47)
Symmetrical games

Understand me, referee has to validate the evidence, nothing more. There can't be any ambiguity in this case (all moves are copied ad tempo, or not). Rules are written in this way : No human factor.

However I can't let the program close an account because of cheating :) .. There are a few players trying to use several accounts, they are automatically detected, but we can discuss (and finally close the facticious one). This site is friendly, we are not in Matrix :>


Gino Figlio    (2006-07-04 21:19:14)
statistics

Dear Thibault, I don't have the answer, I suspect there is no solution for this problem. If you apply statistics to extreme situations, there will always be some outliers that will prove your prediction wrong. One good example is ICC(internet chess club) and their self-proclaimed perfect method to detect online cheaters. I can tell you some OTB 2100-2300 players can perform sometimes close to 2600 strength, and sometimes more than 95% of their moves coincide with one of the chess engines...statistically you can call this a cheater, but reality is not respectful of normal distributions


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


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 16:38:23)
Out-of-time

Hello Marc.

You just have to wait the robot to adjuge the game (takes a few hours). If your opponent tries to play a move more, the game will be adjudicated automatically.


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.


Paul-Iosif Guralivu    (2006-07-06 20:35:49)
Some interesting!

I think this site has more succes then other(which haven't reach 500 after a few years), because:
-it's offer an online way to move
-it's allow players from other sites to keep their titles
-and offers other title



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 01:24:28)
Limit for one move

Hello Alarich.

The rule is the same for all time controls : Limit is 60 days for one move, appearing between brackets if this time is inferior to total time for the game. The idea was first not to constraint players. (so there's practically no limit but the total time in WCH time control : 30 days + 1 day per move)


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 ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-10 02:19:12)
Italy vs. France...& Zinedine Zidane out

Finally........ Not a great happy end (whoever the winner).

Really happy for Italia, not really deceived for France who played it well... We'll probably never know what the Italian player said to Zinedine Zidane... Anyway, that's the game and provocation TOO.. The party is only wasted by this awful move. That's a pity...

That is soccer... Definitely I play chess (and Go) :-)

Cheers & viva Italia.


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.


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. :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-12 23:12:46)
Delay before tournament start

Hello Rodrigo.

I think your idea looks like very much the system used in email chess. I just wanted to make it easier to understand. Quite strange to make moves and have no days added to the clock. "Official" and "non-official" start for a tournament is a thing we can avoid. That's the main reason of this time control 30 days + 1 day/move.


Paul-Iosif Guralivu    (2006-07-13 22:02:02)
Days for a move

I a player doesn't move for about 20 day... I think his games should be declared as lost.... I don't know what is the actual limit... but it's look like is bigger than 40 days


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    (2006-07-15 17:51:39)
Big chess

Hello Heinz-Georg.

I'll play my next moves soon... That's right, no time enough and many chess & Go games to play. But I keep a look at my clock ;)


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    (2006-07-19 12:39:31)
Public comments

Hello Gino.

Indeed, no way to message your opponent if not your turn (you may wait to play a move and ask him - message window when confirming your move).

About public comments, maybe we can improve it... 3 ways IMO :

1) Public comments should be available only when the game is finished.

2) A checkbox in your 'Preferences' to authorize public comments from your opponents. (I don't like this one much..)

3) I specify in the rules that comments are simply authorized.


What do you think is best ?

In my opinion, comments should be always available... I see no reason why it could perturb more than private messages.. By the way, this option was asked on the forum previously when looking for a way to warn players who obviously last games too much... Maybe we could see and wait.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-21 12:26:07)
Big chess strategy

This game is pure madness.

Much more tactical than I thought... ('cause of Heinz-Georg strategy so far, obviously)

Anyway, I would be curious to see computers playing. (I just played my move... a surprising one undoubtly ;))


Santos Agustin    (2006-07-22 10:41:56)
Bug in vacation section

I d'ont understand why a player that has vacation can answer the moves on the board. If you visit for example Iecg then you can see that if you are on vacation then is blocked the option of make moves.


Glen D. Shields    (2006-07-22 19:50:51)
Interesting Discussion Topic

Thibault - this is a interesting discussion topic. Of course, no one knows the future with certainty, but we can all offer an opinion :)

I'm nearing my 40th year of correspondence play. Sometime later this year I will complete my 1000th tournament game. All my games were played by postcard until the mid 90's. E-mail dominated my CC schedule from about 1998 until 2002. Now I only play server chess. I've played on the FICGS, IECG, GameKnot, ChessFriend, Schemingmind and ICCF servers.

Contrary to many people who've played as long as I have, I do NOT see chess engines as a threat to the game. I think they've changed the game, but not hurt the game. I believe they've increasd CC's popularity and game quality. The same is true for opening and ending databases.

Some of the changes that will occur in CC the next ten years:

- Servers will improve functionality and ease of use.

- Due to engine use we will grow to accept 2200 as an "average" rating rather than "Master."

- Tournaments will be re-structured to include fewer players per section and shorter tournament durations. This particularly applies to ICCF where 15 player sections and slow time rules to simulate postal chess are used.

- New server functionality will be added to allow players the option to SLOW down the game. It's too easy to get caught in a mindless "server flurry."

- New chess software will be developed to analyze games. This analysis tool will give proability estimates on what engine one's opponent is using. That information will allow one to counter and plan against one's opponent.

- There will be more anti-computer books written and theories developed. We will use these techniques to beat our opponent and and improve our chess planning skills.

Bottomline ... I am excited by the new technology. I see continued advances in the way we manage our gameload, the way we send moves, the way we play, plan and analyze our moves. The way we play in the future will be different and will still be fun for those who embrace new technology. My disappointment is I am an old man and unlikely to enjoy all the advantages the future brings. I hope those who follow me enjoy what I will miss :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-23 16:23:05)
A thousand moves !

More than a thousand moves in Wikichess...

Thanks to Dirk Jan (very active already ;)) and to all contributors.


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-07-24 11:13:10)
Re: Future of correspondence chess......

I foresee that in the future there'll be teleconferencing & chatting live with the opponent/multiple opponents while making one's moves, analysing, drinking coffee etc. Well, players may be making faces at each other trying to scare off each other and/or rattling off bizarre variations to make it seem that the opponent has no option but to resign the game/s. Haha!!!!!


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-24 15:09:28)
Wikichess : Improvement

The main page now displays the last 20 lines created (instead of moves). It should allow us to discuss lines in an easier way.. :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-24 16:58:17)
Copyright issues

About Wikichess ?

Of course you can enter any move. Chess games belong to everyone... :)


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    (2006-07-24 17:07:52)
Good Luck

Good luck Thibault. You've definitely given John an edge. I suggest you move the Knight in and out a couple more moves and see what he does :)


Dirk Jan Van Dijl    (2006-07-24 18:59:04)
Copyright issues

Indeed, moves are free, but not necessarily the comments, question marks, exclamation marks etc.


Don Burden    (2006-07-25 01:25:39)
Handicap moves?

The idea may be a new way to offer a handicap to lower rated players. Maybe for each rating difference of 200 points, the higher rated player must play two moves moving the g8 knight to f6 & back (g1 knight to f3 & back if playing white). To be fair, the lower rated player should not be allowed to capture or give check during each two move sequence of the knight.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-25 01:51:34)
Handicap moves

That's an idea... Actually I don't think many players (benefiting of the handicap moves) with a 200 points lower rating would be interested, cause it's quite "risky" to play with an advantage. If you win, that's just normal, if you loose (even draw): that's a big defeat.

Such matches may be interesting for both masters (2400+) and amateurs (1600-), maybe even in a simultaneous context, so that draws could satisfy everyone.


Mark Carroll    (2006-08-01 00:49:20)
Trouble adding lines

I am trying to add articles to wikichess and most of the time it works fine. But for some reason I cannot add some moves. One example, both knights can move to the same square so I tried Nb d2, b1 d2, Nb1 d2, and several others but to no avail. I also could not get e4xd5 to work before either (as well as PxP etc). Any help informing me of the correct way would be appreciated.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-01 11:52:23)
PGN format

Hello Mark.

The correct move was Nbd2 ... "1" is useless in Nb1d2, as "b" is enough to know what knight is moving. If the knight had taken a piece, the notation would have been Nbxd2 ...

I suggest you to familiarize with PGN format (Portable Game Notation). You can check the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Game_Notation

The best way is to look at many PGN games...


Thomas Tamayo    (2006-08-01 23:36:10)
Pass in Go games

How can I play "Pass" on my move?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-02 20:36:00)
Chess WCH waiting list

Hello José Antonio.

Players who had not entered chess wch waiting list before July 1st (start of the 1st wch) can do it before August 15, in order to start more tournaments (july was a bit early to start). Most players who entered it lately already play in new groups or have replaced players who didn't make a single move in their games (and lost on time). If this is the point you're talking about, it's difficult to consider a game without a move has been really played. Replacements (particularly players rated 1200: beginners) allow to low rated players to enter this 1st WCH tournaments cycle, otherwise new groups wouldn't have the necessary rating average.

Finally, everyone play a 6-games tournament in this first round. So, why 12 games ? Maybe I did not understand well... :/


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 20:30:44)
Update of the 11.5 rule

A small update of the 11.5 rule, that should clarify some ambiguous cases (referee calls are stored) :

"In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious. If a player doesn't want to resign (or accept draw) and obviously last the game, his opponent may report to referee a first time. If the player takes 30 days more to finish the game, his opponent may call referee another time, then the game will be adjudicated. An analysis submitted by a player should contain sufficient information so that no doubt is possible. This may include a sequence of moves, but in some circumstances it may be sufficient to claim a win or a draw on the basis of material or positional advantage. Final decision belongs to referee."


Graham Wyborn    (2006-08-09 09:24:23)
Missed the point

When I click the game number the screen appears with the game etc. but no (download) button at the bottom of the screen. I need to click the game number button again, then on the second attempt, the (download) button appears. It seems to me that the (download)button should appear on the screen when I first see the game page. Also have problems entering a move after using the (download) button! Anyone else having the same problem, or is it me and my PC! ........................ Great site, keep up the good work!


Graham Wyborn    (2006-08-09 16:03:46)
(download) button

When I first press the (download) button I move to:- http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=move &...
which does not show the (download) button.

When I press the (download) button a second time it moves to :- http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=move &...
where I can now see the (download) button.
Does the above help? I was looking at game 690.

If the above does not help, could it be my IE settings. I am using IE 6 with Windows XP Home


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.


Jaimie Wilson    (2006-08-11 16:10:55)
Unrated miniatures

I read that games are not rated for the winner if less than 10 moves have been played by his opponent (most probably forfeit or obvious cheating). So if my opponent plays brilliantly, lures me into a catastrophic error and mates me on move 9, then he or she would not get any rating benefit.


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 !


Charlie Neil    (2006-08-14 12:16:58)
Drag and drop

Hi Thibault, I'm too lazy to look anything up as you always respond quickly to any enquiry. I'd like to be able to "drag and drop" my moves, it is nothing more than laziness. Will such a feature be possible? Keep up the good work!


Benjamin Aldag    (2006-08-16 01:47:12)
my only problem is my next move....

...nice to be from germany ;-) Best Regards Benny


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-08-16 02:08:03)
Resign rule

I am informed via email that F. Diego resigned for a loss, in a game he was gonna loose in my opinion. less than 10 moves). That rule is very bad. T hat win has not showed up as a win for me or a loss for him in the tournament standings. Not fair, I sure think this stinks. whats happening here Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-16 03:20:49)
Resign rule

Hello Wayne.

Quote : "That win has not showed up as a win for me or a loss for him in the tournament standings."

The win is shown in the tournament standings, but game is not rated if it's an early forfeit (less than 10 moves)...


Benjamin Aldag    (2006-08-20 22:37:05)
How can i send a message to another.....

Hi,

how can i send a messages to another member of FICGS ? Is it only possible by playing with a member move by move, or is there another way ? It would be nice to send a message to anyone anytime.

Benny


Marc Lacrosse    (2006-08-22 12:04:09)
Thematic Blackmar

Hi Thibault

I think you should go one move further for the Blackmar thematic tourney (2..dxe4).
In the present definition you will get loads of French and Caro-Kann defences through 2..e6 or 2..c6 !

:-)))

Marc


Pablo Schmid    (2006-08-22 14:33:13)
Re

Maybe he should have put the starting position of the true BDG via : 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3, but there are differents move orders, and Black are not forced to play 3.Nf6 in that move order. But if 3..e6 or 3..c6, it could transpose into a French or Caro, but White could still play in a BDG style : 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 c6 4.Bc4!? followed by a f3, or 4.f3!?; and 3..e6 4.f3!? (Nxe4 is already a well-known position of the French).


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-22 14:45:55)
Future Rating

Hi Wayne.

Reason is game 2179 was not agreed as a draw yet... It's your turn, so you may have forgotten to confirm your move ;)

Future rating is updated instantly.

You can email me at : info [at] ficgs.com


Benjamin Aldag    (2006-08-22 17:56:16)
SORRY

Second move of black must be Nc6 !!!!

2...Nc6

BENNY

(moderator : corrected)


Benjamin Aldag    (2006-08-22 20:12:07)
Disproved

Ok,

i got my knowledge by GM Roman Dzindzihasvili's Video-Tapes, some studys and a lot of played games of Kings Gambit. Latvian isn't good too. I think, with a good computer and a good knowledge about kings gambit, the minimum what black can reach is a draw. If white play latvian, black will win ever. Latvian Gambit is so easy to calculate with a computer. Black has from the beginning on, no move-options.

But we can try both desasters in a thematic-tourney.

Benny


Jay Melquiades    (2006-08-23 18:35:23)
rapid tourneys

if the time control in rapid tourney is a move/day,do you have until 23:59:59 server time to make a move or its a forfeit win??? this expiring mind wants to know :)


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-24 01:56:40)
rapid tourneys

Hello Jay.

No, 1 day / move is the increment added to the clock after each move ! But your clock is 30 days at start, so you have time ;)


Benjamin Aldag    (2006-08-24 13:00:07)
Premove ?

Hi,

a premove-feature would be very nice, were i can klick on my opponents figures and tell the interface > If my opponent play THIS, then i play THIS. Good idea or bad idea ?

Benny


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-24 13:31:19)
Premove (conditional moves)

Hi Benjamin.

Conditional moves was one of the first features expected and discussed here... I'm still not sure it is a good idea. Of course it may save time in forced sequences, but there are some controversial issues (see previous discussions with Glen about chess servers) about time and holidays. Anyway, the truth is it's a major change, and I've too many things to do right now :/


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-24 18:47:42)
Latvian gambit

Waiting for your move in the Latvian gambit line, Benjamin ;)

Your line is very interesting... It's not easy for black after a long forced sequence, but it's still playable over the board in my opinion...


Benjamin Aldag    (2006-08-24 20:01:31)
we will see....

Sorry for my slow commentating-speed, but i have over 60 corr-games here at the same time and must analyse. Tonight (german-time) i will commentate the rest of your moves. Maybe i think wrong, but i still do not believe in the Latvian-Gambit. There is no good line for black in this Gambit. Just a few traps. Chess is not a game of hoping for a stupid opponent. Chess is a game of good moves by black and white and i would never play a line, by hoping for a bad move of my opponent. Maybe in Blitz or Bullet.....but never in Corr-Games.


Elmer Valderrama    (2006-08-25 13:08:31)
bug: en-passant captures

In the ongoing games of players Herr, Jeff v Sarihan, Sefa FICGS_CHESS_RAPID_C_000004 and FIGCS_CHESS_CLASS_G_000003 there is an "en-passant" capture (move 10.dxc6) which is not allowed by the chess rules (as I know them, maybe FIDE Congress has already changed them ;) The pawn c was first moved to c6 (3...c6) and then to c5 (9...c5) Somehow, the player Herr managed to capture the pawn by playing 10.dxc6 after 9...c5, which was accepted by both the player Sarihan and the interface ..(!?!) And the same happened in the game Ducreux, Regis v Sarihan, Sefa FIGCS_CHESS_CLASS_F_000007, this time pawn c was moved twice again (2...c6 and 10...c5) and captured ("of course") by 11. dxc6.. 8()


Ryaad Aabid    (2006-08-27 14:33:55)
CheckMate = Not lost yet

FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_C__000006 (type : rated round-robin , increment : 40 days / 10 moves) Game 972 Hi! The mentioned game is still at my games list ! Thanks for your attention. Ryaad


Jay Melquiades    (2006-08-28 06:18:00)
help any1 thibault?

in chess960 tourney,game 2754,the interface is denying my opponent a en passant move. pls fix it


Julien Baudement    (2006-08-28 17:21:40)
Go rules : no pass option

A little problem with the go games : It's possible to move, to resign, but not to pass. I remember that it was extisting before because one of my opponents did it! Thibaut: je t'aurai... dans quelques années mr Kobayashi m'a suggéré un site pour se perfectionner !


Benjamin Aldag    (2006-08-28 17:47:56)
easy PASS function

Just type PASS into the field and send this as move.

Greetz

Benny


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...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-03 16:45:33)
Re: First mover loses

Hello Joachim.

"why nobody seems to enter these tournaments" : first because they are not open yet :)

As I said, this is only an example. New categories will be created, with formulas as simple and fair as possible, and other ones that could allow to low-rated players to meet strong titled players...

Anyway, all suggestions are welcome.


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


David Da Silva    (2006-09-04 16:30:13)
Clock running while on holliday

Hello, I may have missed something but in one of my games, maybe more but this one I'm sure because I had few days left, my clock runned enventhought the hollidays I declared. When I came back, I had 6 hours to play 9 moves wich I couldn't do(damn sleep ;))... Is this a bug or a rule subtility ? Thanks for the answer and congrats for this great site ! David


Benjamin Aldag    (2006-09-04 16:52:11)
Cheaters ?!

Hey Charlie,

i understand your opinion about computer-assistence. But we are no cheaters ! The difference between the cheaters and us is, that you will often lose your games, when you will only play computermoves. A good chessplayer with a good machine, will ever win versus a bad chessplayer with a good machine. You would kill yourself, when u ever play only computermoves. Ask yourself, why some of corr-chess players have a rating between 2600 and 2700 or more and many players "just" 2300 ? Are the players with a rating over 2600 the better hardware and the better chessengine ? I say NO ! These playres know, how to win versus all these little computermovers. A Computer will ever make mistakes and in corr-games its an interessting part, to search for these mistakes. A Human-Chess-Brain and a computer can be an unbeatable team !

Benny


Ulrich Imbeck    (2006-09-05 01:04:27)
How many moves within 40 days?

Hello, im playing my first tournament. I can't see anywhere in this domain how many moves I have to make within 40 days.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-05 01:15:57)
Time control 40 days + 40 d. / 10 moves

Hello Ulrich.

The time control 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves only means you have 40 days more to your clock after you play move 10, move 20 and so on... You may loose the game on time if you don't play the first 10 moves in 40 days, but it doesn't mean that you "always" have to play 10 moves in 40 days during the whole game...

Is it understandable ? :)

Best regards. Thibault


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...:-/)


Dirk Ghysens    (2006-09-05 12:16:53)
Time control in thematics

How about time controls in thematic tournaments? Suppose the first 12 moves are "given": are there still 40 days for the first 10 moves then?


Ulrich Imbeck    (2006-09-05 12:17:16)
Winning time?

If i am faster during my first 10 moves I save this time for my second 10 moves?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-05 12:42:18)
Time control in thematics + Winning time

Hello Dirk & Ulrich

That's a good remark ! .. The program wouldn't add these first 40 days in thematic tournaments, as move 10 has already been played. Anyway that's fair IMO and not so important with this slow time control.

Ulrich, the answer is yes, the faster you play, the more time you save for the rest of the game...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-05 16:27:10)
All tournament boards on a single page

A new update (test)... All boards for each tournament are displayed on a single page, when you're connected only. Click on a tournament, then click the "photo" icon at the right of the name of the tournament : All boards, moves and public comments are displayed on the same page.

I'm interested to know how much time it takes to your browser to display it.

Thanks.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-09-05 23:13:06)
Time to display all informations

... watching videos, hunting for divX and mp3? What's that all? No time! I had to find the next move in the game no 1


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-06 16:52:06)
100.000 moves played !

Already 100.000 moves have been played since the start of the server, exactly 5 months ago !

Now waiting for the million moves... ;)

Thanks to all for support !


Mladen Jankovic    (2006-09-07 17:26:38)
Seen Shogi, sounds interesting

I've seen Shogi before, but i didn't play more than few moves. Shogi is actualy a family of variants, board sizes range from 4*5, to 36*36. I had a program once that handled a number of variants (I probably still have it somewhere). I read something about the Chinese Chess, it sounds interesting, the computers have not realy mastered it yet, and it seems somewhat slower than the regular Chess. I'm not realy sure how one can play corespondence Backgammon (I prefer Tavli).


Ron Keyston    (2006-09-07 18:30:32)
More options for Wikichess moves

Hi Thibault, I have a suggestion for Wikichess. It would be nice to have the ability to mark a move with ?! (dubious) and !? (interesting) in addition to the existing ! and ?. What do you think? Ron Keyston


Ron Keyston    (2006-09-07 18:41:14)
Wikichess Bug

Hi Thibault, I just put the Lasker Trap of the Albin Countergambit into Wikichess and every move after fxg1=N+ now starts with fxg1=...not sure what the problem is. Thanks, Ron Keyston


Ron Keyston    (2006-09-07 18:43:41)
Oops

Sorry, forgot to give the moves to find the line: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.e3 Bb4+ 5.Bd2 dxe3 6.Bxb4 exf2+ 7.Ke2 fxg1=N+


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-07 18:52:06)
Wikichess Bug

Hi Ron.

I just forgot this way to write promotion.. fxg1N+ or fxg1=N+

I corrected the moves, the bug will be fixed soon.

Thanks for feedback !


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-07 18:59:40)
More options for Wikichess moves

Hi Ron !

Of course it makes sense, but too much marks could add more confusion than accuracy... As it's "open" & everyone can write, wikichess should stay easy to read and simple. It's better IMO to explain why a move is dubious or interesting than giving a lot of marks...


Ron Keyston    (2006-09-07 19:24:50)
More options for Wikichess moves

Good point...thanks for the input Thibault. Ron Keyston


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


Lionel Vidal    (2006-09-09 16:39:44)
Correspondence backgammon?

Where would be the fun? I mean, a program like Jellyfish could give me in a few hours by simulation the best move in a probability sense without any effort. Of course I can still play aginst the odds, but what would be the point to play inferior moves in the long run? (of course you can play, say in a casino, knowing you will loose in the long run and still have fun (I don't but that's only me), but in a strategic game?)
Compare to chess: an engine, say Fritz, can give what its evaluation function marks as the best move... but I can still play another one, because I see a better plan, or because I set up an ending I know I will draw (or win :-)... in short the proposed move may not be the best one, and I still have to make a choice... In other words, I may still have the illusion I have a chance :-)
The cases where Jellyfish will not give the *tried* and *validated* best moves are very rare with today computers... so where would be the fun being a button-man or being crushed in the long run by such one?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-13 00:20:05)
Latvian Gambit

Still waiting for your moves in wikichess... ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-13 12:36:32)
Re: Elo

Hello Alarich.

You finished 4 games until now. 3 of these ones are unrated (win & elo difference > 350 points OR win & less than 10 moves played).

1 rated game has been taken in account when the last rating calculation occured : Game 2177 (draw)

That's ok :)


Miguel Pires    (2006-09-15 01:05:13)
Chess database

This is the rules of the gk, you can see in this link http://gameknot.com/pg/pol_community.htm What is important is this one: 3. You may not use chess engines, chess programs, chess computers to help you decide your next move. You may not consult with anyone nor ask advice about any games in progress. You may analyze games with chess engines after they are finished. You may consult chess books or game/move databases at any time. Soo i can consult databases. You can fin the tablebases in PGN or other thing, by this rule you can use, any databasese, oppening, games etc. Don't you agree? Regard's Miguel Pires


Thomas Gilbreath    (2006-09-15 02:53:36)
re: computer help

Greetings:) Maybe I was misunderstood.......the use of databases is ok - but like Miguel said, we oppose the use of computers to recommend moves. :) Thomas


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 ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-15 20:17:44)
two moves from the start

"White has a 2/3 (66%) chance to win, and 1/3 (34%) to draw" ?? ... you mean "to draw or loose" ?

Great idea, this move 0. Statistically, this is quite the same for : 1.Nf3 d5 2.Ng1 ... but 66% wins for Black seems a lot !? .. I would say about 40 to 50%, maybe less.

So, what chances for 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 Ng8 .. ?

And what about 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 Ng8 3.e4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Ng8 .. ? :)


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 ;)


Elmer Valderrama    (2006-09-16 10:54:22)
2-games matches

The test ground could be 2-games matches between weak v weak, weak v strong, and strong v strong players(*in the ELO sense) : in the first game, the player has odds of two moves, in the second, he must defend the side with two moves down..

This could shed more light into this scheme..


Elmer Valderrama    (2006-09-16 13:49:35)
better extra moves

..I'd like to have a choice of those 4 extras moves: Nf3,d4,e4,Nc3 are not the best, IMHO ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-16 14:03:47)
better extra moves

Sure they aren't ;)


Elmer Valderrama    (2006-09-16 15:14:06)
5 moves in fact

..just checked the thematic tournament 0007 on this sequence, and in fact White has 5(!) extra moves at the starting position (as it's his turn after 4.Ng8). No surprise most of the games are 1-0 (there are a couple of 0-1 too)

So 5 moves are too much; same would be for 4, or 3,..to me 2 moves it's a reasonable deal for Black (i.e. if draw Black "wins")


Claude Brisson    (2006-09-18 06:40:34)
Problem with Go scorer

Hello.
Nice effort to have a go scorer, but it still needs some improvements.

Look at this game:
http://www.ficgs.com/game_2093.html

After move 138, there isn't any ambiguity on the goban.
After removing dead groups,
q1 t3 k3 s5 t9 s10 q11 h11 t12 p12 h15 t16 f16
all the intersections are either black or white.
The scoring methods says:

* Scoring method : Horizontally
Black points : 103
White points : 244
Unknown points : 14

* Scoring method : Vertically
Black points : 103
White points : 268
Unknown points : -10

Rather strange. Scores should be the same. Where do those unknown points come from?

Thanks,

Claude



Claude Brisson    (2006-09-18 06:49:19)
"pass" move not shown

Hello.
I just passed in a Go game and the "pass" move doesn't appear in the list of moves.
Oh, by the way, couldn't we have a small sgf link for go games?
http://senseis.xmp.net/?SmartGameFormat
It would really be usefull!

Thanks,
Claude.



Dirk Ghysens    (2006-09-18 10:33:56)
Not all, Henri

I know of two exceptions: 1. Yelena Dembo, FIDE rating 2466, WGM, IM, and a GM norm; rating at Gameknot 1775; 2. Marius Ceteras, FIDE rating 2427, FM (he missed IM title due to a strange decision by FIDE officials), very well-known correspondence chess personality, chess publisher, organiser etc.; rating at Gameknot 1740 (not in top 2000 there and loses regularly against 1800 rated patzers). Unfortunately Yelena Dembo is no longer playing at Gameknot; they threw her out. Also Marius Ceteras has no ongoing games there during the past month. So you may be right after all: most players above 1600 are using a chess engine (except the WIMs, WGMs, FMs, and IMs rated below 1800), and certainly all players above 1800 (with one possible exception, a WIM from Holland/Russia, who managed a rating slightly above 1800, but she got thrown out also, for being a nuisance). BTW, it boggles my mind why the use of tablebases is allowed there; unlike engines, tablebases tell you the perfect move to play and what the outcome will be with 100% certainty.


Thomas Gilbreath    (2006-09-18 13:52:13)
Dinesh

FYI it was not I who brought up GameKnot players being expelled from our site, but I can comment on it. Players have been expelled from GameKnot for numerous reasons. Some include 1) ratings manipulation, 2) using computers to recommend moves (our webmaster investigates all complaints re: games where, say, a 1300 player defeats a master, etc...), 3) foul language and/or intimidating behavior, and 4) general behavior that is unsportsmanlike. We pride ourselves at GameKnot on playing honorably, and do not tolerate otherwise. :) Thomas


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-18 14:03:51)
Comments at resignation

Hi Nigel.

I mean, using the "Public comment" text area at the bottom of the viewer / move page (the first page when you're to make a move).. There are 2 fields : "Personal notes" and "Public comment". The public comment appears to all and will be emailed to your opponent !

Best regards.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-18 14:08:20)
Pass + SGF format

Hello Claude.

Did you really send (confirm) your move ?

About Go SGF format, there's a link (download) at the bottom of the viewer / move page for each game...

Best.


Peter Schuster    (2006-09-19 12:19:52)
Solved

I must klick "move" with an empty move and now I can accept the draw offer.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-19 13:17:44)
Solved

Thanks Peter ! :)

Most often (if problem with draw or resign), players forget to click the "move" or "confirm" button.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-09-19 16:45:57)
Thanks!

Thanks about moving my post in the right place. I put a move for white in 5.Nxf7 variation. I am waiting for black replies. Cirulis


Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-09-19 17:36:22)
Really!

New moves for white are waiting your reply! (: Nothing is known yet. Cirulis


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-20 01:39:44)
Kxf2

Just call me Thibault ;)

I responded to your moves... It's still a draw :)


Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-09-20 03:06:11)
+-

I'm waiting for your moves in d6 cxd6 Bf7+ Kd8 variations, Thibault. (:


Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-09-20 03:35:19)
I understand.

But i still believe that white wins!!! :D I made new move in Kxf2 variation, and some moves instead of exd5. And I believe that it is possible to analyze all lines. Of course, not in one day. May be in 10, 30, 100, 1000 days. :D :D :D


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-20 07:39:09)
Wikichess - Famous chess games !

An interesting update in Wikichess : It's now possible to enter, locate, watch (with the javascript viewer) and comment famous chess games move by move !

You can now analyze the Immortal game, entered as an example.

The program simply locates the last articles (that should be entered at the very last move of the games) which start with "End of game : "

ie - "End of fame : G. Kasparov - A. Karpov (Moscow)"

All feedbacks welcome.


Claude Brisson    (2006-09-20 10:48:16)
Re: Pass + SGF format

> "Did you really send (confirm) your move ?"
Yes. The "pass" appeared after my opponent played.

"About Go SGF format, there's a link (download) at the bottom of the viewer / move page for each game..."
Oh, great! I hadn't seen! Thanks!


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-20 13:31:53)
Move not shown

Ok, about the move not shown, it doesn't appear in the moves list when you just send it ! .. (it appears just under, this way : Your move f10 has been sent)

But it does appear if you look at the game then, ie with the viewer...


Benjamin Aldag    (2006-09-25 20:51:27)
ERROR

Hey,

this is a WM-Fight !!! And i dont want to see !7! Questionmark-moves in 2 games. This is not a man vs. machine game and the blunders are no openingblunders. Here are the two best chessplayers at work and blunders like 57..f5?? in the first game are absolutly lame ! Get well back Topa ! Benny


Rodrigo Jaroszewski    (2006-09-26 08:38:26)
...f5?? > ...f5!!

The fact that Topalov had the guts to not simply go for a draw in a game against Kramnik made my opinion on him go up by 100%. 57...f5?? will be on my memory as the move that didn't let the first WC I was able to see live become a dull, drawish face-off.


Halil Kiren    (2006-09-27 19:24:38)
My vacation (BUG)

I am currently using my vacation time..so I can't make any move..But the thing is my clock is still working and I'm losing my games ..I want the administrators to find a solution to this.I have lost a game because of this so far and I'm about to lose one more...i lost game 2036 ..and.. game 2006.. my clock = 1 day 02:12:02..what will i do??


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-29 03:40:57)
Re: A small Go help

Hi Don.

That's a very good idea but I have to think about that. The program avoids to read all moves in order to display the goban. First priority is to save time processing... This change would add some work. But that's right, it would be better.

To be continued.


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

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

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

Elista, 29 September 2006

Open Letter to FIDE President H.E. Kirsan Iljumshinov

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

Dear Mr. President,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further and more detailed legal investigations are already in process.

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-30 01:26:09)
Server / Email - Time control

Hello to all.

Two players, formerly playing email chess at ICCF, recently lost a game on time with the 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves time control and mentioned the difference between FICGS and email chess ways to count time.

FICGS time controls are a bit harder because there's no classical email chess 'bonus day' added for each move due to time difference between countries. It seems to me that the difference is not so important with 40 days... On the contrary, the 30 days + 1 day / move scheme is quite hard ! ...

Now the question : Do you think a slower time control should be offered in future ?

Thanks for feedback. Thibault


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."


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


Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-09-30 23:42:57)
i'm thinking too much...

It's true. :( Now, after some analyses, I think that 6.e4 is one of the stronger moves. Maybe I must keep silence few days. :|


Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-10-02 18:31:15)
I :D

I use Rybka. 1.2. It is my only engine. :D I don't know about other ones. I have too poor eksperience with correspodence chess. But sometimes the engine tells weak moves - especially in very sharp and difficult variations. For example, Traxler or Latvian gambit poisoned pawn. I must think, too. :D


Rodrigo Jaroszewski    (2006-10-02 18:44:08)
Well...

I'm just a patzer, but since there are all levels of players here...

My computer is low-end for today's standards, and I use only freeware engines for cost restrains. I used about 4 different engines for analysis during my WC and Class G games, but it proved to do less difference than I expected. I was the weak link at all times in the chain, and only in the games I was able to understand why my engine showed certain moves should be made I was able to win.

But I guess you can't always blame on the patzer. I had quite a few instances that it became obvious why I couldn't understand the moves: the engine was wrong. Best way to test this is to let it run a position where it gives a slight advantage to you for 15 minutes. After that, make the moves and check if you have the same score or better. Of course it might be just my below-average computer, but the shareware version of Fruit got me into some really bad spots. The best solution I had up until now was Toga II, as it proved to be pretty solid on that aspect.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-03 13:54:48)
Traxler is not dead.... :D

Ok, sorry about 2988... but, you play for Black now ? :)

Anyway, it only means White played a wrong move before...

Good try against 7. ...Qe7, but there's 8. ...Qg5+ 9.Kxe4 Qf4+ (d5+)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-03 14:40:57)
About 50% IMO

Just a personal estimation, according the number of moves played & time.

I would say about 50% ...


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 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    (2006-10-04 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...


Roger Weber    (2006-10-04 16:53:51)
hmm

Well I guess there's a point in using chess engies, however to a certain degree. If you only play with chess engines and only do the moves that the engine suggests, you shouldn't play chess anymore.
I think I can accept the combination of a sensible player and an engine from an ethical point of view.
Although I still don't like it, but that's just my opinion on it. I did not mean to offend anyone.



Regards,
Roger.


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!


Glen D. Shields    (2006-10-04 17:52:20)
Yes Thibault - Thanks for Asking

Thibault -

I see a need to offer player defined delays. My desire would be that when a move is sent, I have the option to post the move immediately or 1, 2 or 3 days later (using my reflection time during the delay). This option allows players to stagger their games and better manage the pace particularly at the beginning of a tournament.

Servers like FICGS have become the meeting place for postal players, e-mail players, correspondence server players and real time server players. It's a diverse and interesting group. Server chess is nothing like postal chess, but it shouldn't be a substitute for OTB chess either.

Starting a server tournament is like a ping pong match. You send a move and ten minutes later you have a reply. One can't ever keep their inbox empty.
Once the opening is over, the match then moves into "Groundhog Day" mode. You wake up to an inbox full of moves, you work all day on them and then wake up the following day to an inbox of moves from the same players. It's tiring.
I'd like the option to send a move, forget about it and then chose whether it should be visible to my opponent immediately, 24 hours, 48 hours or 72 hours later. The delay allows me to manage my game load better and gives me some flexibility how fast I want to play.

Server chess has grown rapidly the last five years. Its benefits are fantastic. Curiously, however, this year is the first year since e-mail chess was officially introduced that ICCF is reportedly (unoffical source) seeing an increase in postal chess. One of the biggest reasons talked about for this change is players are worn out from the fast server pace. I can relate to that. I'd hate to give up server chess because it makes so much sense. I know no one twists my arm to move fast, but why not give me server tools to help me manage my game load? I let the server count my time, keep my game score, chase my opponent when he forgets to move and report my results. Why can't it also help me manage my game load and slow down the pace when it needs to be slowed?

You asked ... so here are my two cents :)


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


Glen D. Shields    (2006-10-04 21:33:32)
Let me see if I got this right ...

Guys - let's see if I have this right. If i make a move and wait three days to enter it on the server, you're okay with that? Yet if I make a move on the server and chose the option to have the server send it three days later (using my reflection time), you have a problem with that? I don't get it. Games aren't slowed down. All that's being suggested is that we be given server tools to regulate the game pace to a more comfortable level using the server. We use the server to manage all other aspects of our game, why not this too? I don't understand your objections.


Elmer Valderrama    (2006-10-04 21:44:39)
Danailov accuses Kramnik of using Fritz9

In my view, the best proof of computer use is the number of missed oportunities rather than the number of coincidences, which can be manipulated as pointed by Thibault. Thus, an average player misses 80 to 90% (99% in the worst cases ) a Master - 30-40%, a GM 10 to 20%. With the extreme -no missed oportunities we have those reported cases of cheating in Tournaments by average players So the suspictions would be worth something if they are accompanied by the report of (not)missed oportunities, otherwise the moves are in the usual coincidence range.


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-10-07 16:45:18)
Kramnik loses 9th game too.......

Kramnik loses another game in quick succession with the Black pieces this time. His 10th move of ....., dxc4?! was anti-positional, allowing White to expand in the centre with the Bishop pair backing it. Aftre some more mistakes, White broke through the f file by aiming at the weak f7 square.


Elmer Valderrama    (2006-10-04 22:31:46)
engine use

I believe a player should be stronger than an engine (in terms of positional understanding) to get a feeling of where the centre of gravity (of the analysis) should go to have a "win".

If left alone/by themselves, the engines would make very stupid things, that's why they are in severe need to be told what opening to choose, eventually what line, and in the line, what series of moves -so called "plan". The difference in strength -given that engines are now public/free and very strong- lies in the difference in playing skill between players, if not in the computer power owned by them, in my opinion.


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-10-05 04:22:20)
Delay/slow down games

I dont make a move and wait 3 days or whatever to enter it in the server. Games will be slowed down if a player has an extra delay time allowed with his pondering decisions. Heck, I look at the tournaments and see no player in time jepardy. A day added to each move provides more than ample time for coorespondence play. This a bad suggestion in my opinion. I am very very much not in favour. Wayne


Don Groves    (2006-10-05 08:05:37)
Why not manage the pace yourself?

If you only have time to make two moves per day then do that. You will then only receive two new moves per day maximum. If you don't want the emails in your inbox, create a box for unanswered moves, keep them there, and answer them at your own pace. Just my 2 pence.


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.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-10-05 19:58:41)
To Miguel Pires.

It is nice position. Thanks!
After 17.Bxh6 gxh6 18.Qxh6 white easy win, no doubts.
But black has another move, much better, - 17.. d5. After it white wins, too. But now it is harder to win.
I found only one way for white to win after 17.. d5.
P.S. If we move queen from c7 to d8 in the position, then the sacrifice don't work.

Again - thanks for the nice position. Cirulis


Yannick Maret    (2006-10-09 09:39:01)
A question about chess engines

At first I was against using engines but the opinions given in another thread made me believe that they might be an useful teaching mean.

So I'm starting to think about using a chess engine here... but just to check if the moves I chose spring any tactical opportunities for my opponent! Following the suggestions of the engine would just remove the fun of the game for me.

Anybody has an idea on how to do that easily, and what engine to use? I would like a method that avoid the temptation of playing moves suggested by the engine!

Thanks in advance,

Yannick


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-09 10:56:23)
Server peaks of charge

Hi all and thanks for sharing your views.

I agree with Marc, there's no reason to slow down games by force. I'm just thinking about an emergency system that would delay (a few minutes at most) the moves to appear in 'My messages' and 'My games' with an appropriate message if too many players are sending moves at the same time - in future. Some games run particularly fast (30 moves played in half an hour).

The idea of delaying the sending of moves is interesting but I'm not convinced yet. I fear it wouldn't be used a lot and too many options is not good IMO. (more, the delay wouldn't be 100% accurate) As for me, I just 'accepted' to have 10 or more pending moves continuously, I delete emails (or set email notification off) and come back later to the server... Another way would be to filter moves responded before a defined time in 'My games'. Not so useful...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-09 11:19:53)
UCI / Winboard engine

Hello Yannick.

Maybe you could try a free chess engine like Crafty (quite strong already, also running on Chessbase / Fritz interface), GNUchess, Arasan, Ghost or any engine running on Winboard / Arena free interfaces...

See a list of chess engines here :
http://www.ficgs.com/wiki_en-chess_engines.html

A well-known french speaking website about computer chess :
http://perso.orange.fr/lefouduroi/computerchess.htm


Actually it's probably very hard not to be influenced by chess engines suggestions, but the point is to understand, then find better moves...

All depends on the level you want the engine to play. There are hundred of engines to download...


Yannick Maret    (2006-10-10 11:37:56)
Hmm

Thanks for the links... I will have a look!

Actually, I'm looking for a program on which I can set the actual position of a game. Ideally, I would then propose a move and the program would tell me if the move is sound or not (without giving its reasons). Then I can figure out by myself why the move is unsound and choose a new one... without being overly influenced by the engine.

Hmm, I guess I want too much... and should implement an interface for doing just that :(


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-10 16:16:37)
To be continued...

Open Letter

To
FIDE President
H.E. Kirsan Illyumzhinov

To
Head of the 2006 Executive Committee
Mr. Valery Bovaev

Dear Mr President, Gentlemen,

Having received innumerable published and unpublished inquiries I would like to clarify, in the name of Vladimir Kramnik and his team, our position in the decision taken by FIDE regarding the fifth game of the current World Championship match.

As you know Vladimir Kramnik is playing the current match under protest. Nothing has changed in our attitude, which is documented by Kramnik’s actions around the fifth game and our statements, protests and letters:

29.09.2006:
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=104
02.10.2006:
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=106
04.10.2006:
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=107

Consistent with this standpoint Vladimir Kramnik will be playing this match, including a possible tiebreak, up to the last move under protest.

Should the decision of FIDE regarding the fifth game have any influence on the awarding of the World Championship title, with Mr Topalov receiving the title after being granted a free point for the unplayed game, Mr Kramnik declares unequivocally: “I will not recognize Mr Topalov as World Champion under these conditions, and I will take legal action against FIDE at the end of the World Championship.”

The damage done to Mr Kramnik in public opinion (e.g. the slander campaign) after the illegal release of private video images by the then FIDE Appeals Committee or the WCC 2006 Executive Committee to the Topalov team, and the subsequent release of these video images and private information of Mr Kramnik in his restroom to the mass media, as well as the interruption of the match, which broke Mr Kramnik’s concentration and playing rhythm, will all be part of the legal action which will be initiated.

As a sign of good will Mr Kramnik once again requests FIDE to arrange for game five to be played out on the board immediately after game 12. This in our opinion is the only way to alleviate the personal, sporting, judicial and ethical injuries that have been incurred by Mr Kramnik.


Elista, October 10, 2006
On behalf of Vladimir Kramnik
Yours sincerely
Carsten Hensel
(Manager to Vladimir Kramnik, Classical World Chess Champion)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-10 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


Rodrigo Jaroszewski    (2006-10-12 05:38:01)
Kramnik

Oh, forgot to say it, since you commented after posting the moves for g11. You probably read it already, but Kramnik's latest open letter says he'll play through the tiebreaks, even if FIDE doesn't go back on the g5 decision. But if he looses, he'll sue FIDE.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-12 15:41:13)
FICGS chess championship #1

Pairings for the semi-finals in the first FICGS WCH knockout tournament are known :


GM Farit Balabaev / SM Peter Schuster
-
IM Gino Figlio / SM Petr Makovský


FICGS WCH round-robin tournaments (stage 1) are still running, next round should begin in 2007 january.

This time control, 30 days + 1 day / move, is definitely hard ! .. but definitely challenging :)


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-10-12 16:57:29)
Re:

The 12th game ended in a very exciting! draw in 47 moves. It goes to a tie-break now.


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-10-13 13:54:02)
Tie Break Game No. 1 Is A Draw

Top. (White) & Kram. (Black) drew their 1st tie break game in 47 moves just now.


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-10-13 14:57:27)
Kram. Wins Tie Break Game No. 2

Kram. (White) strategically outplayed Top. (Black) in tie break game no. 2 in 45 moves just now. After Top. conceded the bishop pair, he was forced on the backfoot in an ending, and went down a bishop for just two pawns, at which point he resigned.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-13 19:26:48)
Game of time ?!?!

The point is that only one player seems to be in zeitnot, but NO - it is just his tactic (in all games) - strange attitude - he loves it to do his last move before new time count (after move 10, 20 etc) always in the last minute.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-14 04:30:07)
Game of time ?!?!

Legal doing is not the same as right and good doing! When a player stops always at move 9, to do the 10th in last minute (mostly after a long time period of inactivity) is this strange. I think, i have enough experiences in correspondance chess to differ this from normal handling with zeitnot. By the way, at the same time he has also enough time to discuss in this forum copiously.


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 ! :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-19 20:06:19)
Mate in 292 moves

Otto - Titus Blathy (1860 - 1939), Hungary
Vielzügige Schachaufgaben, 1889
(10 + 12)
Mate in 292 moves

Illegal position


Now you may try to solve the problem, but my question is : Why is this position illegal ??


ChessPosition (see diagram)


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-19 20:19:50)
Mate in 292 moves

Hello Thibault, I think the pairs of double pawns on e-g-h-lines are impossible to achieve out of the normal chess start position! Wolfgang


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-19 20:47:01)
Mate in 292 moves

The white pawn h4 cannot reach its position without striking the black g-pawn - but this g-pawn is still there! Wolfgang


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-19 23:07:16)
Re: Mate in 292 moves

Can't the pawns strike other pieces, rooks, bishops... ?!


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-20 07:22:10)
Mate in 292 moves

You're right! But this position seems to be so artificial, that I can't believe to reach it in order with all chess rules out of a normal chess start position. And I can't see any other problem with this position. Wolfgang


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-19 20:56:51)
Mate in 292 moves

More accurate: The white pawn h4 cannot reach its position without striking the black g- and h-pawns - but this g- and h-pawns are still there! In combination with the black g-double pawn an the black h5-pawn, which position need to strike the white g- and h-pawns is it unpossible to reach out of the normal chess start position! Wolfgang


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-20 09:39:00)
Mate in 292 moves

Yes, Gino, you are right! All pawns on board, so the double pawns can reach their position only by striking of other figures. For this position black should have had 9 (!) other figures (h4 by 2 figures; g5 by 3; e6 by 4) - but only 4 are missing. Wolfgang


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-20 14:09:35)
Re: Mate in 292 moves

The minimum number of pawn captures is 8, that's a funny problem :)


Now here is the solution for the mate :

http://www.chess-problem.com/classic4.htm


Scott Prestwood    (2006-10-20 19:32:24)
Time Control Clarification

I am looking for clarification on the interpretation of the time controls, specifically; time : 40 days, increment : 40 days / 10 moves. I presume it is 40 days to make the first 40 moves then it is an additional forty days to make to next 10 (to move 50). This seems to be a disproportionate amount of time for moves 41-50. Thank you, Scott


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-20 19:41:21)
Time Control Clarification

Hello Scott.

It is 40 days to make the first 10 moves then it is an additional 40 days to make next 10 moves and so on...

Note : There's an accumulated time limit (100 days) rule.

See rules - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#playing .. and particularly 11.4


Scott Prestwood    (2006-10-21 02:42:17)
Moderation in everything

I find it easy to take on too many correspondence games my self. I prefer to have time to analyze as this is the tradition of coorespondence chess. I often feel busy (zeitnot as you call it) with just 15 games with long time controls. Some principals I use in moderating my challenge rate are; 1) I dont start new games if I have a game under 15 moves in progress, opening require less analysis, and the mid game is where most of the work is done. 2) whatever the estimated days per moves is I limit myself to 1/4th of that as my limit of games. i.e. if the average days per moves is 12 days I will try to keep around 3 games going if possible. These limits work well and I'm on several coorespondence sites.


Scott Prestwood    (2006-10-20 19:56:46)
Time Controls

Thank you, it sounds good for a 6 game tournament. From my calculations it has an average of 5 days per move(40 move basis). Are their any other forum readers that are interested in a 7 day(weekly) time control?


Elmer Valderrama    (2006-10-20 21:55:18)
retrograde analysis

from math.harvard.edu

"Legal position (n.): a position that can be reached from the initial array by game consisting entirely of legal moves, however bizarre. Conventionally every chess problem should have a legal position. Naturally then, an illegal position is a position that cannot be reached by a legal game. For instance, a position in which one side has more than 8 pawns, or has both White and Black Kings in check, is illegal (why?). So is any position with a White Bishop on h1 and White pawn on g2 (why?), such as the following mutual Zugzwang (q.v.), which Lewis Stiller discovered in the course of an exhaustive computer search: White Kg6, Bh1, Pg2; Black Kg4, Pg3. The Kniest position White Kc8,Pb6; Black Ka8,Pa7 (seen above under Helpmate) is legal BTM, but not WTM since Black is in ``retro-stalemate'': Black could not have made a legal move to reach this position. [Thus this position can be set as a Helpmate in Two but not a Mate in One (or ``helpmate in 0.5'').] There are positions that can be recognized as illegal only after extensive retrograde analysis. To prove that a position is legal, one need only exhibit a single legal game reaching the position; such a game is called a proof game. Some retrograde analysis may still be needed to construct a proof game."

I bet nowadays there exist a problem solving chess engine which can give such a 'proof game' in 0.0001milisec (as the moves maybe bizarre, no need to evaluate positions, just to check them for legality)


Scott Prestwood    (2006-10-21 03:15:11)
Full Disclosure

Perhaps tournaments should be labled as permiting engines and not permiting engines. Coorespondence chess has tradionally had only the rules of chess and the time control limiting it. And the early masters that used and believed in coorespondence chess as a method to improve ones game did not have access to computers, nice to know I could get killed in the tourney I am in just because I'm playing 6 computers. The initial allowance of databases and books to aid ones choice of moves as well as playing the game through allowed improvement of ones chess abilities. Computers will have a greater tendency to be the one playing the game because they only prescribe one line of action from a position. That line is very strong and likewise tends to be the operators choice of the next move. If the allowance of computers is posted for the games it will allow for the players to chose which type of game they prefer.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-21 12:09:00)
Best game

The "Best Game" should be a figurehead of the FICS-Site - but is it? I don't think so. That so an exotic opening experiment (particularly with black) will run in a real loosing position, is not very suprising. And also the praised last move is found by several engines in a very short time! What we (this site) need is a very high classed game with surprising twists - which engines never can find. And it must be with very good comments on most moves. Looking for this - that is the real challenge for all of us! Wolfgang


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 12:19:48)
Game 2222

Really ?? .. Maybe my engines are outdated :) .. What engine prefer the last move ?

About the best game, I fully agree..... But I doubt a majority of players will choose the best game with the same criteria :/

By the way : FICGS with 'G', FICS is another one :)


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-23 18:00:29)
Rating / 8-game match

Hello Wolfgang. (FICGS, not FICS ;))

In these 1st FICGS WCH quarter finals, there were 2 forfeit cases & 1 match with 6 games out of 8 lost on time. In the first 2 cases, not all games were rated as a win (according to the 8-game match rule), the last case was a bit different but as far as I remember, the winner had a better position (winning or small advantage) in all games... Anyway, ratings wouldn't change significantly if 2 wins were not rated.

The real question is about 8-game matchs & fast time control 30 days + 1 day / move (quite hard). There's no perfect rule & particular cases could happen, but that's really interesting IMO & the number of games with rapid time controls are probably enough to balance ratings in time. We'll see...

Anyway, several players were surprised by the difficulty of this time control, I hope it won't happen again during the next cycle (that should start in january)...


Halil Kiren    (2006-10-26 01:51:49)
I cant move

i cant move for 4 days..:(( whats that..and my clocks going to be over.. i have 13 hour in a game..and i have a lot of games like this.. ..this error is being for 2. time is there any one have a problem like me?? or only me?


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-26 15:07:40)
Re: I cant move

You're not in vacation, so that's really strange. I just sent to you an email to fix this problem.

Best wishes.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-26 15:20:20)
Re: Rating / 8-game-match

That's not right.

These quarter finals are particular cases because there were no forfeit before move 10 in all games... (games with less than 10 moves played are not rated for the winner) That's why there's a special rule 'general forfeit' for 8+ games matches.

Moreover, the waiting list for the 1st FICGS WCH remained open from april to july, maybe it was a too long period, that's why the waiting list for the 2nd FICGS WCH (that could begin in january) is still closed.


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 :)


Graham Wyborn    (2006-10-30 10:04:22)
Go games "display"

First allow me to say how much I enjoy playing chess & go on this site. Keep up the very good work!

Would it be possible to mark or display on the board when playin Go the piece that was last moved?

Also on other sites the option to flip the board is present. On this site the board is already fliped when playing white. Is this needed? If you download the .sgf to a viewer it will not show the game the same way round.

We have to press "send" and then "next". Is it possible to have an option included where after pressing "send" you go automatically to the next game?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-30 13:16:29)
Update : last move (Go)

Hello Graham, thanks :)

I just updated the display of Go games, the last move is now marked in red.

Boards are fliped because it's more logical at chess (and most games), to be nearer "reality". I prefer all games displayed the same way, sorry :/

At last, about going automatically to the next game, that's quite right but the confirmation page ('Your move has been sent') may avoid some "problems"... I prefer this way, unless many players ask for this change.

Kind regards.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-30 18:13:36)
Big chess "birthday" tournament !

FICGS now counts more than 1000 members :)

The display of Big Chess games has just been improved : Last move marked, coordinates, speed, bugs fixed... So it may be funny to see more games !!

A special tournament will start soon, if you want to enter it, just post "I'm in." (or something like that :)) in this thread. The first 7 players will be in.

The tournament will be there :

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

Games unrated, time control is 30 days + 1 day / move... 7 players -> 6 games per player (big challenge).


Reminder : To see what Big Chess is, see the Inaugural match game...

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


100% human chess guaranteed, no chess engines & databases :)


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.


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-10-31 02:43:50)
2nd FIGS chess WCH waiting list is open

Tribault de Vassal. Would you kindly remove me from the waiting list. Thank you. Wayne


Sebastian Ilie    (2006-10-31 06:55:11)
Go games "display"

Thx Thibault , for displaying the last move in red , you make my day :) Speaking about improving this site , i must say that it would be better if the opponent message will be displayed at the top - i usually missed 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.


Don Groves    (2006-10-31 09:51:41)
No marked move for me :(

I'm the one who requested the last move be marked but my games haven't had the mark so far. Is this my punishment ;)


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



Don Groves    (2006-11-01 05:24:52)
Browser problem

Thibault, That I don't see the opponents highlighted last move is apparently the fault of my browser since it works fine using IE on someone else's computer. However my browser *does* display the highlight on my move just before I send it. Are the two highlights done by different methods? I can't think of any other reason why my browser would display one but not the other.


Alarich Lenz    (2006-11-01 18:44:52)
Draw offer

my oponent offered me a draw. i did not see his offer and made a move how can i contact him (offer a draw)?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-01 21:03:53)
Draw offer

Hello Alarich.

You can write a public comment that will be sent to your opponent by email. (or just offer a draw when it's your turn - check the 'offer draw' box when playing your move)

Best wishes.


Daniel De Noose    (2006-11-02 01:45:41)
Pas du tout car voici le mail ...

que j'ai reçu de notification :

-----------------------------
[Event "FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_17__000001"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2006.7.1"]
[Round "1"]
[White "De Noose,Daniel"]
[Black "Ould Ahmed,Samy"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1470"]
[BlackElo "2166"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.O-O Bg4 6.h3 h5 7.d3 Qf6 8.Nbd2 Bd6 9.Nc4 Bxf3 10.Qxf3 Qxf3 11.gxf3 Ne7 12.f4 exf4 13.e5 Bc5 14.Bxf4 Ng6 15.Be3 Bxe3 16.fxe3 b5 17.Na5 Nxe5 18.Rf5 f6 19.d4 Nf7 20.Nxc6 Kd7 0-1

Move sent : 2006.10.29 - 11:35:31
Move replied : 2006.10.30 - 22:27:44

Non et j\'ai essayé ici mais cela ne me plaît pas ...
-----------------------------------

[j'ai volontairement coupé la fin du message car le reste ne regarde pas les autres utilisateurs.

Comme tu peux le voir c'est son coup qui est affiché mais le message est le mien ! C'est celui que je lui ai envoyé en jouant mon coup qui n'apparait pas cŕd 21.Cb4 !



Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-02 19:35:14)
Next & Send buttons

You're not ;)

What do you think about another (Next) link just below the board, like this :

Position after your move (Flip board) (Next) ?


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-11-06 18:06:27)
Board diagram not the same as pgn

Hello Thibault, your move sent (26.bxc4) is not realized on board diagram! What is to do? I would like to answer 26....Bxc4, but I can't. Greetings, Wolfgang


Don Groves    (2006-11-07 06:43:17)
Now it works in Camino!

Hi Thibault, Did you change anything just now (about 0600 Monday, 7 Nov)? Suddenly, with nothing different in my setup, I see the red Go move in the Camino browser. Regards, Don


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-11 05:47:37)
All tournament boards on a single page

A new update...

Reminder : When browsing a tournament page, if you click the "photo" icon at the right of the name of the tournament, all boards, moves and public comments will be displayed on the same page.

It may take more than 30 seconds the very first time (these days, because of the update), but then it should be much.. much faster...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-11 06:31:12)
... translation

Sorry to all who don't speak french... This thread is another one about FICGS time controls. Several players complained about the 60 days rule and time controls which are too slow... We discussed it already : In my opinion, one can last a game the same way with a 20, 30 or 60 days limit per move rule. What's important is the global time control and I think the 30 days + 1 day / move scheme is fast enough.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-11 07:24:59)
temps de réflexion

Such a rule (a player who do not connect to the server during more than 30 or 60 days [+holidays] automatically looses all his games at the same time) could be applied, but would it solve all cases & problems. I don't think so...

About time controls, is 30 days + 1 day / move really too slow ? What else ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-11 14:13:54)
temps de reflexion

I don't understand why it is a problem !? ..

Many players like the 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves time control, it is even - much - faster than the same time control played by email (ie. IECG) !

Finally, why didn't you prefer to enter the RAPID M tournament waiting list ??


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-11-12 13:42:38)
White to move!

Is there a way to win for White and if it is - which could be the only move to realize this? ChessPosition (see diagram) Black's last move has been 49...Qa7. Has there been any better move for Black? Have attention to the proposals of your chess engines!


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-11-12 13:54:23)
White to move!

Here is the FEN: 4bk2/q3r1p1/1R1p1p1p/3P1P2/4PKPP/4QN2/8/8 w - - 0 50


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-12 15:00:01)
Chess problem

Interesting chess problem...

The first move seems quite easy to find, knowing only one move wins & considering bishop and knight, but proving it is not obvious... maybe I'm wrong (my first idea was h5)... Anyway, chess engines are lost here, it seems Hiarcs is the only one finding h5.


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 15:41:35)
Chess problem

In wikichess you "just" have to follow the opening, then enter all new moves of your game until the position or complete game (but you would give the solution)... You may 'sign' the game at the end with this comment :

End of game : W. Utesch - Opponent : 1-0 (ICCF)


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-11-12 16:34:24)
Chess problem

I'm looking forward to your answer to my move 50.g5! I think, it will be a very interesting (and not too short) end of this game. It is a very instructive example of the especial appeal of correspondence chess.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-11-12 17:04:21)
Black to move!

It seems to be an easy way for White after 50.g5! - but wait and see. The Black defending resources are not to underestimate. FEN= 4bk2/q3r1p1/1R1p1p1p/3P1PP1/4PK1P/4QN2/8/8 b - - 0 50


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-12 17:46:57)
Black to move!

Ok, that's quite funny I didn't consider the most natural move because it's a chess problem :) .. g5 is also chosen by most engines quite quickly.

Anyway, the win is still to prove. I'll try some lines in wikichess.

Note : A new feed (RSS) will be available for wikichess very soon.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-11-12 17:57:17)
Black to move!

Not this move but the way behind that is the secret - in my opinion. Let us see!


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-11-12 20:33:06)
Nice endgame

In complex positions it is always hard to show all lines I investigated during the game in depth (!!!) and then to be confronted with an other line suddenly, independent of its value. I don't think, that 61...Rh5 (instead of 61...Rg1) will be a fundamental better move, but for evidence I have to do a lot of work!


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-11-15 02:17:33)
Re:

He will most probably play semi closed openings & defences, which gives a slight/miniscule advantage or equality somewhere, avoiding early tactical open positions. So we might not see any Sicilian at all as Black in his repertoire. He'll try his best to outwit the computer by sometimes introducing deviations or novelties in the first 25 moves or so.


Arthur Alfred Macarsindale    (2006-11-15 11:31:26)
1996

It was a straightforward email chess akin to postal but by email.I am afraid my knowledge does not extend to Unix (?) and so on!!! So one had a boars set up and the moves came through by email.Primitive by today's standards but it served a purpose.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-15 14:23:14)
Go scorer (improvement)

Hello to all Go players.

A small improvement in the Go scorer : Komi (7.5 points) is now added to White score and the program says who 'probably' wins !

Also a small bug corrected in the count algorithm, about a few unknown points...


In example, you can score this exciting game Vorobev -Steveson :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=score&game=3102

Just remove these groups : n8 m9 g18 r18 g17


Score is 183 to 178 (+ 7.5) -> White wins by 2.5 points. (verified with a viewer)

See the game here :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=3102


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 13:02:24)
Suggestion

The idea to jump the first time control (not to add 40 days at move 10) would have been interesting if we knew 'where' ends the opening, but that's quite impossible... The real problem is some players can't connect so often, or play so quickly !

It may be frustrating in some cases but that's correspondence chess... I connect about 20 times a day but I have many games and I feel in zeitnot in some of them. As for me it depends more on the game than on the time control...


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-17 18:59:02)
Tournaments with money prizes

Hello to all.

Finally, Chess & Go tournaments with money prizes will begin in 2007 january !

"Money chess" is an all times controversy, many players play for fun only (even at the highest levels), others like much more this way of play. I think it's simply the most challenging, finally it quite looks like classical tournaments.

About Go, things are quite different, as software & particularly engines are a negligible factor in the play. The best players will probably always win, but weak players may be interested in a lesson.


You may have noticed some changes in the waiting list categories for money tournaments :

Two formats for 2-players matches will be available, 8 games matches (time control 30 days + 1 day / move) and 2 games duels (time control 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves) renewed in case of a draw.

Simultaneous games will be also organized with international masters for both games, with prizes shared if some players could beat the masters.

Of course, it won't change anything to the free tournaments & championships, it will be optional only. I hope it will help to provide prizes for the FICGS chess & Go world championships (sponsors are welcome :)) ...

The membership page - Terms and Conditions - has also been updated.

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

Some major changes (as in money tournaments pages) might happen until 2007 january.


Feel free to post here if you have any comment or suggestion.

Best wishes.


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


Josef Riha    (2006-11-20 09:38:38)
Wikichess

Hallo Thibault, I have also a question about Wikichess. I never entered any move or comment, neverthless my name appears in many of the lines under Contributors. Why??
Greetings, Josef.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-20 16:20:17)
Wikichess

Wikichess is a chess tree, you can go forward or back just by following the links - moves or 'back', then enter new moves...

When you browse Wikichess in contributor mode (when logged in), your name is automatically added but it will be recorded only if you submit the commentary. It's all explained on the wikichess page ;)


Lawrence Nesko    (2006-11-20 18:38:08)
En passant?

Hello again, all. Once more, I apologize if my question has been answered before, but I have searched the Help and Forum sections and can't seem to find an answer.

In one of my current games (#4602), I wish to capture my opponent's pawn en passant. I have a pawn sitting upon e4 and he has advanced his pawn from d-2 to d-4. I had always been under the impression that the proper algebraic notation for the capture would be

exd4 ep

However, this was not accepted in the notation field. I tried a couple of more variations (i.e. exd4 e.p.) to no avail.

Fortunately, I was able to execute the move via the board graphic. The move was noted as exd3. Is that the porper algebraic notation, or is that something that is necessary due to the mechanics of the notation field?

Thanks in advance for your patience and reply.


Don Groves    (2006-11-21 00:45:58)
Go: Komi

Hi Thibault, I'm confused as to why elo ratings matter. Go has used komi a long time to compensate for the first move while chess never has. But in chess, you have narrower rating groups, so practically never is an expert matched against a novice. Since in Go we have only three rating groups, these uneven matches happen many times. Until we have enough Go players to have more rating groups, a sliding komi scale would be a way to level the playing field a bit. PS - I'm not interested in traditional Go handicap games -- the empty board is the only true way to begin, IMHO.


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)


Lionel Vidal    (2006-11-21 13:03:54)
Oops, sorry!

After rereading my last message, I saw I forgot a negation that change the whole meaning: I meant a komi change would *not* occur soon in the Japanese scene IMO!!
Otherwise my whole point and argument is nonsense... anyway, while I would prefer 6.5 (just to play the very first move identifying myself to some of my Go hereos... come on, just grow up :-), I can live with the still much uncommon 7.5 :-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-21 19:44:09)
Vacation cancel : Not possible...

Hello Sebastian.

To cancel vacation is not possible, sorry. Because time is frozen during vacation, time virtually added to your clock may differ according to who played last move (you or your opponent), so it's quite difficult to take it back. Sorry about that :/


Don Groves    (2006-11-21 20:49:23)
Go: komi

Hello Lionel (and Thibault), I think you misunderstand what I wrote. I am suggesting "reducing" komi in certain games, not "increasing" komi as a way to handicap games. I agree the games should not be handicapped. I do not agree that a much higher rated player playing white should receive 7.5 komi against a much weaker player. The much stronger player already has a great advantage and does not need to be compensated for the weaker player making the first move.


Barry Bell    (2006-11-22 04:42:46)
Introduction - Anyone4chess.com

My name is Barry and after corresponding with Thibault on my website (www.anyone4chess.com) for the last few days, Thibault suggested I drop by and post something about our website. Anyone 4 Chess is not a correspondence chess, we call our system an online a turn based chess system (Association – A4C). The site works on a 7 day cycle for moves and you receive no emails that a move has been made however, if you are entered into one of our free tournaments (all tournaments are free and their will never be any cost to play chess on our system) an email is sent to each player in any tournament that the next round is about to begin. Anyone 4 Chess is an online turn based chess system however, it also hosts the Association dedicated to promoting, supporting and developing an association for webmasters / players who support this type of chess. We believe there is a place for this type of chess (different from correspondence, OTB and real time chess) and the association will work to promote this type of chess following the example of FIDE and other organization to work towards our mandate and goals. Thanks


Lionel Vidal    (2006-11-22 14:17:20)
Scrabble

Duplicate scrabble is a form a competitive scrabble where each player (more than 500 in some big tournaments!) has his own set and play the same letters, chosen at random by a referee. The goal is to score the maximum at each move. The referee, in case of multiple max scores, chooses the possibility that opens the grid more, then all players play that move and the play goes. The very best players end usually with very few points under the theorical top score!
Note that a computer always gets the top score (obviously!) in that form a competition, and so cannot loose. But in a duell, because of the strategic aspects, the best humans may still beat silicon monsters :-)


Barry Bell    (2006-11-23 02:49:56)
Re:

Hi The site works on 7 days to make a move, the clocks are reset after each move. To answer the next question: The site is a free turn based online chess system (a place to play chess free) and it also hosts an association to support webmasters that believe and or support what A4C stands for regarding online chess. As for google, as I mention to ThibaulT, we have no interest in google at this time, we are in the first phase of development and when the third phase is finshed we plan to take full advantage of these options when we are ready. Thanks


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???


Barry Bell    (2006-11-23 06:35:18)
Re:

I also want to mention that our system is very fexiable, with tournament play and normal game play. Example re tournaments: You start the tournament, you get choose whether it is open or closed, you make decisions on pairings if you want or just let the computer decide. You deal with complaints, withdraw or return players in the tournament, declare a winner, draw etc. In other words you cant just set the tournament on auto pilot and forget about it (well I can no else can...grin). Normal play, you find 7 days is not enough time, if the other player agree you baiscly can set your own time frames. Yes an option to claim a win will appear if your opponent does not move in 7 days but you dont have to accept it! I hope this is not to much information. - Thanks


Marc Lacrosse    (2006-11-24 09:27:56)
completely unfair and thus impredictible

The fact that the match conditions have been arranged on such unfair rules has two immediate consequences :
- we already know for sure that Kramnik himself is sure that he could not succeed on a more fair ground
- final result is unpredictible and probably already arranged beforehand

Marc

By the way the rules are really incredible.
Just an example : not only does Kramnik have the final opening book of Fritz at home for preparation, but moreover he will have the right to see Fritz's opening book _during_ the games with the various moves that could be played by the engne according to the player's intended move, together with the associated statistics. so in the unfortunate case where Kramnik could not remember is home killer preparation he will have the various choices presented to his eyes during play. Pretty incredible !
and there are quite a dozen rules like that ... (including the right for Kramnik only to call for an adjournement with subsequent overnight computer- or fellow-GM-assisted analysis ...)
For those who would like to have a look the complete rules are on Susan Polger's blog : http://www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com/



Don Groves    (2006-11-25 20:42:20)
"Next" request

I would like to see the "Next" function changed to move through a player's games by going to the next game in the list instead of going to the front of the list each time. The reason for this is: if I have skipped over a game because I don't want to move in that game until I have given it more thought, I can't use "Next" to step through my games but must instead use "My Messages" to keep skipping that game. With a long game list, this gets tiresome.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-26 12:20:28)
"Next" request

The current "Next" function displays the oldest opponents move played, maybe not the most logical way. "Next" could display the next 'id' or the last opponents move played (looks good ?), what do you think ?


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-11-26 20:16:14)
Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz, 2006

I think, Kramnik has played very well, the ending was won up to move 31. !


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 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 08:18:21)
"Next" request

The new next function still can be irritating when the game with the newest move is the one you want to skip until the end. Next takes me back to that game each time. Is it not possible to cycle through the list of games presented when one logs on? As new games become available, they can be added to the end of this list, not the beginning. In fact, a "Next Game" button beneath the board would be a nice feature, making it easy to skip over games needing more thought.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-29 15:11:37)
White to move :)

Okay, I just made a test.

Three beginners who were not aware of the game... 'White to move' : Only 1 of 3 found the checkmate, so maybe it's harder than we thought :)

ChessPosition (see diagram)


Charlie Neil    (2006-11-29 23:31:15)
Ficgs Chat

Hello Thibault, I logged in, switched off chat so I could make the moves i wanted to without distraction and now I can't get 'chat' back on. I am sure it is simple, like me, to do. and thanks for all your hard work.


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: "tempęte sur l'échiquier" (sorry I don't know the name of the english version)... at least I feel competitive enough :-))


Elmer Valderrama    (2006-12-01 22:13:19)
good news and bad news

Some good news and bad news for "deep" Fritz 10 (& CB..)

The good news is that game 4 was drawn with the computer playing a respectable good ending as White which forced Kramnik to display all his arsenal of strategic knowledge in endgames and his World class mastery to calmly withhold a difficult position...

The bad news is that "shallow" Toga would have played the same good moves made by Kramnik :-}


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-01 22:29:35)
Intuition?! what for?

The problem is a "complete analysis" is not possible, in most cases... So intuition (and psychology) - in these 2% of moves - will always have a small place, in a small gap of... a few hundred elo points ! :)


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 :-)


Lionel Vidal    (2006-12-02 09:54:32)
A lone engine in CC :-)

Suppose I make the following test (it has certainily be proposed before, but let's do it again, for the fun of the argument):
- I buy a recent engine (say the new Fritz10)
- I play in some CC tournaments (I do not want to pay fees, so let's say, here at FICGS of course :-), and at iecg)
- I choose the first moves of all my games based on some statistics made on a CC base (just to avoid some openings statistically bad in CC)
- starting from a few moves before the engine goes out of its opening book (to be defined, maybe 4 moves) I let my average computer run 10 hours by move (around one night per move... I know, I sleep too much :-)
- I *always* play the very move the engine finds as best
- I play as many tournaments as I can, considering the time constraint that limits the number of games (just to get a meaningful rating as fast as possible)

Now, what rating do you think I can reach at most, strictly following these guidelines?
(note that if I know some basic maths to do the stats, I do not even have to know chess rules... although a basic knowledge is assumed to ease the play in practice)
Are you ready to bet on your guess ? :-)

In pratice, the test does not work, because the tester dies from boredom long before he gets any rating :-))


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-02 15:55:16)
Engines and intuition

About chess engines, that's hard to say. If we call 'intuition' their ability to play speculative moves - calculating less possibilities than usual in complex positions - it's quite easy to change some parameters and say "this engine plays according his evaluation function more than calculation", like us... It's a question of proportion and that's hard to compare with human thinking.


Lawrence Nesko    (2006-12-02 17:58:08)
Does it even make sense...

...to attribute intuition to engines at all? I mean, even if the parameters of an engine were to be altered to limit its analytical abilities, isn't the engine still going to play what it's algorithm considers the objective 'best move'? If such is the case, then the engine still isn't using intuition at all, correct?

Furthermore, I'm not sure any grandmasters could be said to lack intuition. Fisher may have had less intuition than Korchnoi, but probably possessed more intuition regarding chess in his litle finger than I ever will in my entire body.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-04 12:52:51)
Intuition

I don't agree with that. If you oppose intuition to calculation / algorithm / reasoning, chess engines do have intuition. Even Fritz has chess knowledge, that looks like ours by the way, and can play at a 1900-2000 level OTB without any calculation (1 move forward) IMO. And the same, some chess engines improve their evaluation of positions by training.

Quite complex question, nearer philosophy than computers :)


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


Mladen Jankovic    (2006-12-08 18:56:16)
Re:

It's realy a problem of inadequate conditions (like not owning a chess board and connecting only from public computers). And playing too much games like that can be a frustrating experience, last time I started making dumb moves to just to end games, and reduce the presure.


Don Groves    (2006-12-08 23:27:56)
Disabling Chat

Thibault, I hate to make more work for you but how about disabling chat only on the page where we study the board and make moves. This will satisfy those who don't like the distraction on that page (like me) but who want to see the chat bar on other pages, such as the forum page.


Ryaad Aabid    (2006-12-09 02:57:17)
At last

I could know WHEN to do my moves for the 2 mentioned games successfully! At last my last 2 opponents became out of time. Thanks to FICGS and good luck for all. Ryaad


Lionel Vidal    (2006-12-09 14:34:04)
scrabble+?!

I am not sure this scrabble+ would be a better game than the current face to face competitive version. (the rules imply a game of skill; but also of risk management because of the clock and the correctness you may loose, but willingly give up, in a form of bluff very like poker).

The point is, why would one change a game where players can beat computers if one has enough skill (because computers are still bad at valuating the level of openess of a scrabble position), for a game where a searchable tree is (in theory) enough to play the very best moves?
The game then becomes IMO quite void of fun in correspondence play, because the player skill adds nothing to the computer evaluation. Note the difference in chess, where most correspondence players are convinced they do add and choose something worth improving the play. (although I have just give up the idea to buy an engine... gnuchess is enough for me as a sparring partner, and correspondence analysis, I let it to my shaky brain... for shaky analysis :-), but more fun!... And thank you Thibault, you convinced me to play correspondence chess again :-))

The deepness of the game is another wonder: in the current game I have to ponder many possibilities, an probalistic equipartition (sorry for the bad translation) (and good players always keep the count of the remaining letters)... it seems much more complex, though less analytical, than just wandering along a calculation tree?!


Lionel Vidal    (2006-12-09 21:24:05)
scrabble+

Your idea for scrabble is interesting but the luck seems still there (not that luck is a problem per se IMO): even if the letters are shown, their very order is luck dependend ; and the only thing that really changes is that you can forsee the letters of your opponent and play accordingly... and so the game is actually more simple (!) IMO, more calculating prone and less strategic because you remove some possibilities, all as likely, in your move tree.
To be more concrete, suppose you can play a scrabble for, say, 75 points, and open the grid for the opponent, or play a nice glue-word for, say 40 points, but let the grid closed enough. In your proposed game, I just have to look at my opponent possibilities, as I know his letters... I calculate one, two or more moves ahead and say, ok, I can open the grid and still win by 10 points. In the normal game, I have to estimate, if the openess of the grid is worth the 35 points difference and that means calculating the rough propabilities to score points on the letters I open, considering what my opponent already played, if he seems waiting for some specific letters, or maybe he is bluffing, but then by experience I know that the double 'e' I let is not very valuable, considering that only four expensive letters remain...and so on: the game seems much more strategic and interesting for me.
Of course, I can loose because my letters are really bad... but that is quite uncommon on a whole game for good players, and almost meaningless on a match with, say, five set or more. (remember that the goal is not to make words, but to score points, or to prevent your opponent doing so on the grid, something a good player can almost always do whatever his letters).

For the chess engine, I did try some, and frankly my level in blitz play is so terrible that gnuchess is enough for me for a quick match:-). Now I tried Fruit and Hiarcs on some of my correspondence games and even on my modest scale, I was not very happy with the result: they did suggest others moves than mine, but that were moves I would never have played (maybe (surely?) I am wrong, but I am not sure)... so what would be the point to waste computer time? Even if they may suggest a good move I missed, I would still feel uneasy to play something 'outside' my own mind... old fashion maybe, but that is how I have fun in chess :-) I still like the waiting of the reply, while wondering if I made an oversight! (that being said, I used and will still use the tablebases reading engine when needed: very useful at some points :-)
But then maybe my biais against engines made me use them badly :-) Never mind, I am not going to apologize for that to a silicon piece of junk :-) And if the beast feels somehow insulted and asks for a real time match, let's just play Go!


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 ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-15 14:20:00)
Ok !

Ok, I'll remove your entry when making the pairings.

Best wishes.


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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-16 13:06:09)
Correspondence chess time controls

Hello Lennart.

Sorry about that, it's been discussed a lot, as in all other correspondence chess sites: correspondence chess time controls are the source of many problems, I'm afraid without a solution. I can only say that's the better solution anyway.

If 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves is too long for you, feel free to play rapid tournaments at 30 days + 1 day / move time control.

My best, Thibault.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-17 05:09:41)
Accedental waiting list sign-up

Hello Austin.

You've been removed from Go tournament waiting list.


Jason Repa    (2006-12-18 07:56:00)
new chat bar

Thanks for allowing players to remove the chat bar in their preferences. It was getting annoying having to manually remove it every time upon logging in.


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-12-18 19:34:15)
Having said that

My personal Feeling is that Rybka has not proved itself in coorespondance chess and especially against top Gm's. It makes a lot of silly computer moves as do all engines That a Gm will exploit. So I guess I agree, more or less with Thibault that chess fritz10 probobly is #1. I have purchased all of the fritz engines except for fritz 9 and the new fritz10, which explains why I jumped on the chance to get fritz 9 for free here this site. Forget about that free stuff, but that is another subject that I wish not go into. P.S. Maybe Santa will deliver F10 to me :)


Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-12-24 19:29:15)
Merry Christmas, Thibault! ;)

Thanks to Thibault for big XP in Latvian and Traxler. :)

>> About Latvian gambit game:

11.0-0 is a mistake. King feels safer in centre.
11.f3 is the best white move. IMO


I am still thinking that Latvian gambit and Traxler counterattack is won for white. :D

Now I will play 5.Bxf7+ in Traxler. 5.Nxf7+ is too complex for me yet (IMO it is winning too).


Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-12-26 10:55:45)
About Traxler counterattack

My sixteenth move was a mistake. Much better would be 16.d3. IMO


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 13:03:05)
Traxler is dead ?!

Here you can see my game with Thibault:
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 Qe6 16.Nc3 Qh3+ 17.Kf2 Be6 18.Nxd5 Nd4 19.Rxf7 Bxf7 20.Nf4 Qf5 21.Bxf7+ Qxf7 22.Qd1 g5 23.Qg4 Qf6 24.Kg2 Rf8 25.b3 Nxc2 26.Rb1 Ne1+ 27.Kg1

It is not finished yet. But it looks like a draw.

-- My 16th move was a mistake. Only chance to play for win is 16.d3. -- I could make much better 14th move: 14.Rf4 with possible 14.. Rxf4 15.gxf4 Be6 16.Nc3 Rf8 17.Qh5 g6 18.Qh4. P.S. Hi, Thibault! :D


Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-12-26 13:25:29)
What now?

So now I am looking at move 16.d3.
It is so funny to refute me by myself! :)


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. :)


Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-12-26 14:48:40)
What about 13.Nc3?

Now I remember why I didn't like a move 13.Nc3.

Look at it:
13.Nc3 dxc4 14.Qh5 Be6 15.Ne2 Qd5 16.Ng5 e3+ 17.Kg1 h6 18.Nxe6 Qxe6 19.dxe3 Qd6 and black has serious chances to draw.


Miguel Pires    (2006-12-26 20:23:46)
Opinion

Is against the rules to ask an opinion about the postion, not the move to make, but an evaluation of the position? Regard's Miguel Pires


Steve Sabean    (2006-12-26 22:26:57)
The games are on!

OK Ilmars, I have sent my moves to your e-mail. Good luck!


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.


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-12-28 20:48:53)
open challenge

sorry, remove me from challenge...Thanks anyhow Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-29 14:48:31)
To be continued

It has been discussed already, my conclusion was vacation had to be hard to use enough, in order to reduce influence on time controls, ie. a player shouldn't be able to take days to think more time when having difficulties in some games and cancel his 'holidays' after finding a solution... So it has to be discussed. Anyway, I'll add a message specifying vacation can't be canceled when taking days leave.

Reminder :


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

11. 4. Time rules

Any move in any game shall be played in a maximum period of 60 days, otherwise the game will be adjudicated on time. Time accumulated in a game can't exceed 100 days. Please don't call referee since you see your opponent's clock 'Out of time', you just have to wait a few hours a robot automatically adjuges the game.

Please be aware that it's possible sometimes your internet provider or a point between the server and you may block the connection between the server and you. Even it's a rare thing, it's strongly recommended to always have several days left at your clock. No result will be reconsidered or time added due to such a technical problem. No time will be added due to any problem during a period less than 1 day long.

It is possible to take a maximum of 30 days leave per year, called vacation. During this time, clocks are frozen and it is no more possible to play, in order to reduce the effects on time controls.

Please note the time limit per move clock still runs during vacation. Take your days carefully, as it's not possible to take back or displace your leave dates. However you can add days leave.


Thibault de Vassal    (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')


Charlie Neil    (2006-12-31 01:02:56)
Blitz Chess on Ficgs

Hello Thibault,"10 moves in one hour". Starting next year. I am intrigued. That would be something! All those dull Sunday afternoon in January and Februuary just crying out for something like this. Tell me more.


Elmer Valderrama    (2006-12-31 11:01:04)
Blitz CC

It looks like half-way between chessbase freestyle and rapid CC time control, personally would prefer the old OTB control of 2h + 30min for 40 moves + 1h for 20 with adjourn; or similar TC.

Another time control variation on the 10moves/1h format would be to add an adjourn (suspend for a later specified time), this could be done after 4 hours of playing (or 6 hours) Then, players meet the next day after some home analysis for continuation with the same format (+ second adj after 4h or 6h)

I presume Thibault will enlighten us soon on this subject.

However I think it would be nice to let the player choose a time control for a chess challenge (duel) so all flavours and individual tastes are met.




Graham Wyborn    (2007-01-02 13:23:11)
Sledge Hammer to crack a nut!

The rules seem too hard to me. I am locked out of this until the 10th January. This is the only site that I use that does not allow you to cancel holidays. Nor am I allowed to move whilst on holiday, which other sites allow.


Miguel Pires    (2007-01-02 15:32:11)
Interesting

One of the most interesting games i've played in the Portuguese oppening: http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=2851 The Novelty i intruduce is in move 15. I really don't now if is a good one but... Best regard's and an happy new year


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-01-02 20:43:37)
Blitz correspondence chess

Programming problems you mean?

In a 1-game match I would gladly play Black all the time :) -provided that if draw Black "wins" of course-

It's tricky to make a fair 1-game match; the old proposal of giving odds to White (first two consecutive moves in a MUST WIN -other result loses- situation) would give White -I reckon- 60-to-70% chance to win, which is about the same odds as playing Black for a draw. But it's something new, which could be tested. Here I could play Black just to try to prove me wrong, lol.




Ron Keyston    (2007-01-02 21:19:58)
Me too

Not necessarily just you Wayne, I've never noticed the envelope either. I don't believe that I've ever missed a draw offer, but there have been a couple times where I didn't notice it until I was just about to hit the move button.


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.


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-01-03 11:00:42)
Blitz correspondence chess

Well, as long as it's an unrated chess game, you can call it Silver Thematic and virtually any variation would qualify as a real chess game..

The way the winner is chosen in a 1-game (or 2-game for that matter) match is what is debatable, it's a little advantage to have White that's why having Black would be good if the color decides.

I think that players would agree to enter a tournament under some conditions (e.g. as playing on Satuday 3pm & Sunday 3pm), people were/are happy to enter the Chessbase "marathon" (freestyle with 3 rounds per day) and most here hang around making several moves per day in their CC games every day, so it's a matter of agreement about the appropiate time (easier to achieve with just two players (2-game match) than a tournament of course)

Maybe a poll would help although the players who would enter these events may not be even registered to FICGS yet, lol


Charlie Neil    (2007-01-03 23:04:06)
Blitz Chess on Ficgs

Hello Thibault and New Year greetings to you and your team. Blitz on ficgs. I've beeen thinking, would it be possible to have "real time" games? The human element is the difficult one there. As for the tournament set-up, how about a six round swiss system? Speaking as one down in the ratings basement, single pairings with a rapid time limit in the swiss pairing set-up would be fun. Setting games between opponents on a real time basis I imagine will be very difficult so, what about a really rapid time limit tourney 10 days plus a day a move. I'm sure there lots of options available. Well it's just a thought. No one likes drawing in a Swiss tourney, you have to play for the win!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-03 23:57:33)
Blitz Chess

Hello Charlie, happy new year :)

What do you mean 'real time' games ? What about a time control like 10 moves / 1 hour or 40 moves / 2 hours ?

I'm not sure to understand the point... Swiss system means 6 rounds not played at the same time with complex pairings. Not usual in correspondence chess. Anyway, quite hard to win a round-robin with draws, isn't it :)


Charlie Neil    (2007-01-04 12:07:29)
Blitz Chess on Ficgs

Hello Thibault, By "Real Time" I mean both players are on the site, at the board at the same time. " The rendez-vous system" as you called it. The Swiss system of pairings by rating and then the second round having the winnners play the winners and those with no points play each other and so on into the next 4 rounds just may work I think, draws are then discouraged. If it is possible to play 40 moves in two hours on this site that would be brilliant! But how about 2 hours each for the whole game! Games lasting 4 hours maximum would be a challenge, and maybe fun. Along with the correspendence chess features. Ficgs would have it all! But then "you may call me a dreamer but I'm not the only one".


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-04 12:43:32)
Blitz Chess

:)

Yes, it's possible... I've to implement some things (auto-refresh of 'My games' page in case of a fast game in the list, maybe with a pop-up window), but 2 hours for the whole game may be hard due to the way to send moves... 10 moves / 1 hour or 40 moves / 2 hours could be interesting.


Miguel Pires    (2007-01-04 14:35:29)
Blitz Chess

I think the best is 2h/40 moves One more thing, you can create tournament's/match with the help of engines (Freestyle) and without engines. what you think?


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 15:53:27)
Waiting list WCH 02

Hello Karsten.

Ok, you will be removed when making the pairings.

Best wishes.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-07 21:55:13)
chat (bug)

... was a small bug created when I added this option to remove permanently the chat bar (in preferences). Only new players were affected since that moment :/ .. Thanks !

I had to reinitialize this option for everyone, so feel free to remove the chat bar again if needed. Sorry about that.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-09 01:00:39)
Zucketort / Tennison / Chicago gambit

All explained here by Kieran :)

http://www.ficgs.com/wikichess_3832.html

First moves : 1.Nf3 d5 2.e4


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


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-01-13 12:23:08)
Wikichess, javascript with comments?

(thanks Kieran for your support in the thread "WikiEndings"! hope you'll like this one too :)

Just looked up some lines in Wikichess but I had to go though every move with the browser, not with the javascript cleverly provided to view the line/game so far, to see the contributions from players. However if the comments in the line could be attached to the moves in the javascript it would be great as it would be seen as a "commented game", just a thought.


Sandor Marton-Bardocz    (2007-01-16 18:29:21)
Conditional Move

Hi there! I noticed that there was a topic regarding conditional moves but it is closed. I think that conditional moves, aren't a bad thing after all..it should be implemented..Just think about the first moves of a game....for now, even the weakest players play theory ( fritz database or something)and this implies that the first moves will be played rather fast...Then why spend time clicking around to get to the games on a starting tournament over&over again, just to play the well known moves? U can overcome the "irritation" issue by limitating the use of conditional moves. Let's say every player has the right to use for example ...10 conditional moves in the begining of the game (in the first 15 moves for example). After that in 10 to 10 moves have let's say 2 possibilities to use conditional moves...This way it's erradicated the annoyance of countless use of premoves. Btw. I think that the example of those players who might use Fritz or whatever chessprogram to play, and then premove the lines indicated by the engine isn't really good..Only if the opponnent against whom they use it ...playes using the same lines indicated by ....an engine :-) Otherwise I can't realise how on earth the replied moves can be the same and matching with....or those lines are really forced..and if that is the case then the use of premoves is normal. Thank You.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-17 11:24:53)
Conditional Move

Hello Sandor.

Still I have no time enough to implement this major change :/ .. This question, premove / conditional moves, will be debated again & again anyway.

My best. Thibault


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-17 17:59:25)
2nd FICGS chess world championship

Hello to all.

2nd FICGS chess WCH just started only 6 months after the first one and with about 75% players more.


24 tournaments with an elo average from 1620 to 1698, 1 group M (elo average 2363) and 4 quarter final matches in the knockout tournament :


GM Farit Balabaev (2569) - FEM Wolfgang Riemer (2415)
Thibault de Vassal (2514) - FEM Wolgang Utesch (2460)
SM Peter Schuster (2537) - FIM Harry Ingersol (2456)
Wolfgang Kund (2557) - SM Wladyslav Krol (2423)


By seeing the first moves, I predict the 4th quarter final will be a very exciting match with risky games :)

Thanks to all for enjoying these tournaments, I wish you good games and may the best player win !

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


WCH waiting list will stay open during next months for eventual replacements.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-17 23:05:51)
Ok

Ok, I'll remove you from pairings. I guess it will be difficult to be more accurate (less than 1 month) about next stages... Maybe WCH 1 stage 2 shouldn't start so near WCH 2 stage 1


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-19 10:25:53)
Correspondence chess

As I wrote to Nigel, correspondence chess teaches 'best' moves, probably not best chess IMO... I'm not sure at all this is the way a GM (should) play.

Definitely it's a very different game and we must keep an over the board vision of the game if we still want to play exciting games and avoid quick dead draw positions. (look at the games of Wladyslav Krol in example :)) .. Chess engines are a very important tool, so think different. A full debate.. to be continued...


Nigel Davies    (2007-01-20 07:42:54)
Correspondence Chess

Hi Thibault, I picked up your message and I would agree in terms that an OTB player should not try to play 'perfectly'. The point of my article was that correspondence chess can help cure OTB players of becoming 'too practical' at the expense of good moves. A lot of OTB players will develop defective (but dangerous) methods to score heavily against weaker players but get cut to ribbons when they use the same methods against a stronger player. This is particularly noticeable on the ICC, where some players will just try to win on the clock regardless of the objective strength of their moves, and most of the time it works. But their 'chess habits' suffer mightily as a result. Best wishes, Nigel


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!


Lionel Vidal    (2007-01-21 17:49:41)
Go and Chess

About your point number 3... A chess world champion could very well note its moves before playing and yet be mated in one move :-)
In Go pro-matches, the moves are usually recorded during play by another (younger :-) pro, who has also to deal with time keeping: it makes sense not to disturb gods at play by basic housekeepings :-). I remember an article on the WEB counting the numbers of obvious blunders in go pro-games, and it was *very* low compared to chess.

Concerning your point 2, it is not quite true AFAIK: most top pros run a school of younger pros or wanabe pros who play and analyse numerous games on the Master supervision (He does rarely play with students and then it is a great honour!). So a master does not not really analyse alone, but discuss many ideas with others.

Concerning your point 4, I think that increasing the number of games would change the playing calendar too much and a pro cannot play many more games by year without consequences on his results... even at my very low level, I find a go game *much* more tiring than a chess one (here I mean a face to face game, not correspondence or server go... something I still don't manage to get used to :-)
BTW, I also find that recovering from a loss in go is much more difficult (again I mean face to face Go) than in chess: maybe because of a higher involment, maybe it is just me. What do others players think?
Another point is that a pro is paid by the federation (a fixed amount depending on its rank, not linked with his gains in tournaments that are much more important), and have to give some services to the community: lessons, conferences, teaching games... and so on... and this is more true for the lowest ranked pros!


Michael Finkelstein    (2007-01-22 08:39:51)
problems with playback --

Whenever I play back a game and hit the move button, the computer screen drops down a quarter of a page and I have to move the screen up to get to the move buttons. I use firefox as my browser I came here from playing a lot at queen alice. That site has an easier to use and more informative interface. For instance, allowing me to download my games in progress all at once instead of one at a time; also, have a light by the name of a player to indicate he is online; a buddy list, etc.


Michael Finkelstein    (2007-01-23 04:37:26)
problems with playback --

Dear Thibault, Thank you for your kind attention to my issue. I appreciate your efforts here very much. When I am at the start of a game which I wish to play back, I hit the forward button to play the next move -- when I do so the screen drops a quarter of a page. I then have to go to my screen up button to move the screen up again so I can see the move buttons. Or, when it is my turn to move, I click on the piece I want to move, and the screen again drops down a quarter of a page -- so I have to do a screen up button to get back to the board and click on the square I want to go to. I assume this is a unique problem to me since I saw no posts on it. What do you think, do I need to do a better job of explaining my situation? In regard to the light by the names of people online, I find it helpful when I logon and go to my games to see in one view which of my opponents is online, that way I can know if I will be making several moves before I log out since my opponent is online too. It is more tedious to search on my messages to see if any of my opponents is online. It would also to nice to have a buddy list so I could see stats in one view on my friends here. Thank you so much for allowing us to download all our games in progress at once. I did not mean to be critical. This is a nice site and you do a nice job here. Thank you again for your response to my question. Mike


Charlie Neil    (2007-01-23 10:54:15)
playback

Hello Thibault, Michael is right about the board dropping quarter of a page when you are going through each move of a current or a past game. But otherwise this is still a 'simple' site to play on. I mean not too many features that detract from the game. Keep up the good work.


Michael Finkelstein    (2007-01-23 21:25:52)
problems with playback --

Thibault, When you are looking at your own game, or any game in the site, you see the chess pieces on the chess board on your computer screen. Belown the chess board are the arrows to move the pieces forward and back in the game in order to replay it. When you click on the arrows to move a piece forward or back as you replay the game, the screen drops a quarter of a page. Thus, to get back to the arrows to replay another move in the game you have to scroll the screen up. Also, I just noticed that when viewing my game where it is my turn to move, the arrows for replaying the game are not present. This is a problem since I may not have played that game in many days and would like to replay before making my move to remind myself of how I got into the position. This is a nice play to play, but I do think you shoud visit queenalice.com to see some of the nicer features that you can incorporate here to make the experience better. Thank you for your kind consideration, Thibault. Mike PS I note that when I write here I do put in paragraph spacing but it does not show up in the preview or post. Yet your messages do have paragraph spacing -- how do you do that?


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-01-24 14:26:13)
playback

If you want to review the game, the pop-up window that is accessed trough the magnifying glass icon is a better option, and on top of that you don't have to reload the page. About making moves, I never noticed as I find it a better option simply to type in the move directly in english algebraic notation.


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-01-24 20:07:30)
playback, paragraphs

It is true that you can't change the perspective, but it is the easyest way to see how the game progressed. Besides, having your own perspective is the most important when you are making your move, IMHO. For paragraphs, try pressing enter while you type in the text.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-24 23:22:32)
playback

Thanks for help :)

Viewing the game with the javascript viewer (magnifying glass icon) is the best way to replay a game : You can change the perspective by clicking on the numbers - vertical scale.

"When you click on the arrows to move a piece forward or back as you replay the game, the screen drops a quarter of a page." - I did not experience this yet ?! .. I don't understand how it can happen. (theorically, this happens with a url like www.ficgs.com/page.html#anchor with <a name> HTML tag or browser's back / forward buttons)


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


Ron Keyston    (2007-01-29 19:04:14)
Specifics and Examples

OK, one PC is a 3.2GHz P4 w/1GB RAM running XP Pro. 256MB Hashtables with an ~800MB Maximum possible. The other PC is an Athlon X2 4600+ w/2GB RAM running Vista Ultimate (RTM.) It has 1GB Hashtables with ~1.5GB Maximum Possible. I can pretty much guarantee that it is not a hashtable issue though as the problem is with the legality of a move and only arises after saving into a database, closing the game and then re-opening it from the database. Also, if I open the same saved game from the database into Fritz 9, castling long as black is perfectly OK.

As for some examples, I will give the same five games that I sent to Chessbase. Some of these are contrived examples, whereas some are from my games here at FICGS:

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bc4 Bg4 6.O-O Nc6 7.d4

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.Bxf6 gxf6 7.Nf3 b6 8.Bc4 Bb7 9.Qe2 Nd7 10.O-O-O c6 11.Rhe1 Qc7 12.g3

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c4 7.Qg4 g6 8.Nf3 Qa5 9.Bd2 Nh6 10.Qh3 Nf5 11.g4 Nxd4 12.cxd4 Qb6 13.Bg2 Nc6 14.Qh6 Nxd4 15.O-O Bd7 16.Bg5 Ba4 17.Nxd4 Qxd4 18.Qg7 Rf8 19.Be3 Qxg4 20.Bc5

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 a6 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Qd2 Bf5 8.Bd3 Bg4 9.Be2 e6 10.O-O-O

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c4 7.Qg4 g6 8.Nf3 Qa5 9.Bd2 Nh6 10.Qh3 Nf5 11.g4 Nxd4 12.cxd4 Qb6 13.Bg2 Nc6 14.Qh6 Nxd4 15.O-O Bd7 16.Qg7

In all five examples, it is black to move from the final position. Also, in all five examples, castling long/queen-side is perfectly legal and likely one of the best moves. BEFORE the game(s) is/are saved into the database, Fritz allows black to castle long (and it is at or near the top line in infinite analysis mode.) AFTER saving the game into a database, closing the game window, and re-opening the game from the database, Fritz treats castling long as an illegal move.


Marcus Miranda    (2007-02-01 14:43:32)
Computer assistance

I do not know very much about chess, I am just a beginner, but I think that using a computer to help you play your moves is kind of not fair with your opponent, and if both players are using it, seems to be a game between two computer engines. Maybe I just do not know how people use computer assistance, I apologize if I am talking nonsense.


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.


Marcus Miranda    (2007-02-02 15:37:22)
Without computer

Thanks Charlie for directing me to the old forum, I thought that a computer engine is unbeatable if you give it enough time, and if this was the case there would be no human touch in the moves you play, I guess I am wrong.


Benjamin Aldag    (2007-02-04 22:26:09)
To Marc Lacrosse

Hey guy, come down !

I just say, it makes more fun to play without computer-assistence.

I play here, because i will never reach the level of computerplayers and my opponents are in 99% free of computer-assistence. I dont want to be a slave of my computer and in my opinion is this the right way.

I know 9 people here with an official rating between 1500 and 1600 ELO(DWZ) and here they have a rating between 2200 and 2300. :-D<br
You say, with only computermoves you will never reach the highest level here and i can say - YOU ARE RIGHT !

Players with a FIDE ELO 2200 and higher will have here a rating over 2600 and they will not only play computermoves. But i play chess for two years and have an official FIDE rating of 1822 and believe me, it makes no sense for me to play with computer-assistence.

yk


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-05 12:34:53)
Correspondence chess / OTB chess

Quote : "Players with a FIDE ELO 2200 and higher will have here a rating over 2600 and they will not only play computermoves."

Benny, this is just wrong ;) .. There are many examples, here and everywhere... Best correspondence chess players are not best chess players with computer assistance, they are 'only' the best correspondence chess players.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-02-08 21:04:34)
Steve, how do you do?

I send my move to you in Jan 15.

And I don't have your answer! :( What's going?


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.


Dinesh De Silva    (2007-02-13 08:45:07)
Re:

What's the latest on this saga?! Does these gestures of Danailov seem to suggest certain precise moves like pawn captures, pawn pushes, piece captures etc?!


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 13:45:09)
Tablebases 6 pieces

There was a russian website where tablebases 6 pieces were available. You just had to set up a position, then see the move to play and if it's a draw or mate in x moves.

I suppose there are other places with this feature now, does anyone know more websites like this one ?


Tom Hodges    (2007-02-17 19:02:17)
Go features

Most servers have a button for Send and Go To Next Game Can this be added here? Also for Go games it is vital to display the # of prisoners taken. A game may go up to 300 moves and the score may be within a few points. Since the server doesnt do a fimal score, we need to see the # of prisoners.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-17 20:01:13)
Go features

Hello Tom.

Did you try the 'next' link after you sent a move ?

About the prisoners, as we use Chinese counting, it seems to me the number of prisoners is not really important. What about the Go scorer ? .. - click the 'score' link before to play your move... Thanks for feedback.


Charlie Neil    (2007-02-19 14:01:54)
Without Computer!

I am just going to say at the start of my games that "I don't use computer assistance". It will be obvious by move 10 usually! But why don't you just state your intention at the start of the match to use books, computers or smoke, (tobacco, of course!)..... %-}


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-21 16:17:50)
Chinese counting

Hello Lazaro !

Maybe I did not understand some things yet :) .. It seems to me, as we use Chinese rules with Chinese counting, that the numbers of prisoners is completely useless... It is a question of territory (you may use the Go scorer - link Score - before to play your moves to evaluate the board), right ?

Best regards.


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...


Kim Peters    (2007-03-03 13:41:34)
Suggestion : Analysis board

forgive me if this has been mentioned before but i think the one thing this site is missing, and the one thing that would take it from being a very nice site to a GREAT one is an analysis board. one of the advantages CC has over OTB chess is the ability to move the pieces around and see how a position will play out 5,6 10 moves down the line. yes we have the "review" board, which is nice to see where you've been but we need something to see also where we are going.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-03 13:53:36)
Analysis board

That's a fine suggestion. The problem is the whole site (also the chessboard) is implemented in HTML, not Java / Javascript. Such an analysis board would be quite slow, loading a page for each move... Anyway I'll think about it.


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.


Nicola Lupinacci    (2007-03-06 12:39:26)
Follow a game move after move

Is it possible to follow a game move after move?

i.e.: is it possible to receive an email (or something else) when players make a move in the game i want to follow?

sorry for my bad english :-)


Khaled Toutaoui    (2007-03-10 12:30:03)
yes sorry...oops...

oh sorry sir i forgot a move the complete annotation is...1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4 Qc7 9.f4 Bb7 10.c4 Bb4+ 11.Ke2...but i think that in the Scheveningen play 2.d6 before e6 so that the Knight in f6 is protected from the attack e4-e5...i think that 4...e6 here in these case is really ?! or ?...what do you think...


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-03-10 15:27:33)
Playchess Freestyle Tournaments

Interesting and true observation, Thibault.

What about the format 2h/40moves displayed under Money Tournaments in Waiting Lists? Maybe this is equally harder (in order to beat Rybka) that at 1h+15sec (!?)

And second question is why do you think Black needs so many moves to have winning chances in the proposed Silver/Gold Thematic game, or a better question could be: Do you think White can get a draw after that sequence: 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ng1 d5 3.Nf3 c5 4.Ng1 Black to move. -->assuming the idea is that if the game is drawn White would win the 1-game match--.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-10 15:43:17)
Playchess Freestyle Tournaments

Hi Elmer.

1h+15 is worth 1h10/40 moves... 2h/40 moves is the longest time control before correspondence chess (games that don't finish the same day it started) and I think it's long enough so that human can do something else than operate Rybka :)

About Silver/Gold Thematic game, if White/Black obtains much more than 50%, I'll change the opening until to find one that give about 50% chances. What do you think ? .. About this opening, I think chances are about 50%, I would play it with both colors :)


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-03-10 16:17:33)
Playchess Freestyle Tournaments


1hour+15sec per player makes 2hours and 20 min for 40 moves overall which is significantly worse than 4hours for 40 moves overall, so I guess yes you are right (there is enough time to beat Rybka)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-10 16:49:12)
5. ...e6

You mean 5. ...e6 right ?

.. well that's a common move, simply not bad so without any annotation.


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2007-03-10 23:24:38)
This is called the 4 knights sicilian

This line is a very complicated line of play. You could play the scheveningen with e6 as your second move,the difference is you chose as your second move Nc6 that allows this line of play. So e6 is a perfect line of play neither good nor bad. Just for your tastes :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-11 01:36:31)
Your best quotes :)

I just read a great "quote" written by one of my opponents... :)

You saw these quotes about chess, Go and other subjects while playing your moves, actually you probably saw all of them already, so I'd like to gather your favourite quotes here, I'll add the best ones in the file !

Don't hesitate to submit your own ideas ;)


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 :-)


Phil Cook    (2007-03-13 06:59:33)
Chess/Go

You think you've found a good move,but look for the better move,the problem is finding it!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-13 13:57:37)
Quotes

Make it short ;) .. "Found the best move ? Now look for a better one !"


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-13 20:53:51)
Correspondence Go rules

I read a post at GoDiscussions.com by a player who wondered how to tell his opponent he's lost... That's quite true some correspondence Go games may last (sometimes more than 50 moves) whereas the result is obvious, ie. when a very strong player beats a beginner who even doesn't really know why he's lost.

I was thinking about a rule to solve this problem but I couldn't find one good enough :/

Is it correct to ask his opponent to resign (according to a rule) or simply he's 'most probably' lost ?!

All ideas are welcome.. Thanks in advance !


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-15 13:59:35)
Lightning chess games

Hello to all.

A new update, you may have seen a new category in money tournaments :

Lightning (correspondence) chess games, time control 30 minutes + 1 minute / move


I think it's a quite interesting time control for chess, it should attract more advanced chess players (or simply strong computers).. Really faster than "blitz correspondence chess".

I updated the server so that it is really easier to play fastly in these games. When you send your move, a new option will appear next to (Flip) and (Next). The link (Wait) will redirect you to the viewer page that will be auto-refreshed every 10 seconds. When your opponent play his move, you'll be automatically redirected to the "move" page to play your move and a pop-up window will appear to warn you (if Javascript is activated)...

Read more about in Time rules - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#time


Money tournaments will start on April, 2


Charlie Neil    (2007-03-17 21:18:40)
FIDE time controls

OTB 1 hour plus 10 seconds a move. The Fischer time clock manufacturers will be happy with that.....and it makes my old turnier clock obsolete! I checked out the site and read about the candidate matches in June. Boris Spassky is on the appeals committee. I wonder how he will deal with the ridiculous acussations that no doubt will arise.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-18 02:00:14)
FIDE time controls

I agree, actually this is "1h ko" with no loss on time... (less stress and more Fischer clocks, indeed)

That's a pity, I very like 2 hours / 40 moves. Maybe it's useless in some open tournaments, but in others the quality of the games will be affected undoubtly. I hope it will attract more new chess players, I suppose it is the main goal...


Don Groves    (2007-03-26 02:04:20)
Computer Go

Yes, we were saying the same things about Chess 30 years ago. This is one reason I feel as I do, the fact that computer capabilities are still increasing just as fast as they did over that period. From experience, using the past 30 years as a guide, I just cannot bring myself to doubt there is much they won't do in the next 30 years. The reason I mentioned neural networks is that they are very good at pattern recognition which must be a large part of the solution if computers are to excel at Go. I do not think a brute force approach, or even a statistical one, will ever succeed at computer Go except in the endgame where they can dominate as they do in Chess once the number of possible moves becomes small enough. But if neural nets can be trained to recognize good shape and then apply basic fundamentals in the opening and early middle game, we already know they will excel in the endgame. It's the latter part of the middle game where I think the action will be in designing computer Go programs -- where fundamentals are not enough and there are still too many moves available to use brute force. But, if computers are ever good enough to get to a winnable endgame, watch out ;-)


Graham Woodcock    (2007-03-29 17:03:09)
game 6909 query

Regarding game 6909 (on Best Games), can someone explain the thinking behind 10.exf5 when white could have moved 10.gxf6 instead? Also, why did black then choose 10. ... d5, which allowed 11.gxf6 when the f6 knight could have been moved to safety on black’s 10th move? I’m sure there must be some good reasoning for those moves, but I can’t see it. Cheers.


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-03-29 23:44:48)
Fast double RR at five players

"Finally I think the idea of double round-robin tournaments with 5 players could be a good one for a new category, with a different time control (maybe longer ?!) .. What do you think ?"

Or why not testing it with faster time controls (5 days initial + 1 day per move, maximum accumulated time 20 days) for example.

Sure I would immediately enroll for a 2200+ tournament on this basis.

:-)

Strongly limiting maximum accumulated time is also a project I would support wholeheartedly !

Anyone for a test ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-30 00:00:10)
Fast double RR at five players

My prediction for such tournaments : More droppers / silent withdrawals (what difference with losing on time then) after the 10 first moves... More unfair rating changes. This is no more correspondence chess IMO.


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-03-30 07:29:57)
why isn't it correspondence ?

"This is no more correspondence chess IMO"

Why so ?

I prefer few games where moves come quickly : I can keep them all in mind and I analyse them almost everyday

That's already the way I actually play : see the state of my clock at the end of my games :-)

At the opposite for what regards myself I feel terribly uncomfortable if I have more than 10-12 games running simultaneously and slowly: when I get a move it's like being in a new game because I cannot remind my former analyses (well they are written down but this is not the same)


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-31 16:14:34)
Grand prix attack sac. against Caro Kann

I always look with interest the games played by Wladyslav Krol :)

We discussed last month this explosive variant with 3.Nf3!? in Grand Prix attack, now Wladyslav used the same opening against Caro Kann !

1.e4 c6 2.f4 d5 3.Nf3 ...


I found 3 results on Google about this opening, 2 come from FICGS :

http://www.ficgs.com/game_6886.html
http://www.ficgs.com/game_8263.html

http://www.chesspublishing.com/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1160671893;start=all


It would be interesting to have comments from the players for this interesting opening, out of the books at move 3... Could be a new thematic tournament very soon :)


Ercan Ertem    (2007-04-05 08:34:45)
My opponent's last move!

Is it possible to set Highlight my opponent's last move?


Don Groves    (2007-04-05 09:25:53)
Opponents last move

It should already be highlighted. What browser are you using, that may be the problem.


Ercan Ertem    (2007-04-05 10:17:24)
Opponents last move

I don't know what's the problem. But I can't see highlight last move.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-05 16:06:16)
Opponents last move

Hello Ertem.

What's your browser ? Feel free to message me via "My account" form.

Best wishes.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-07 05:00:31)
Live games (demo)

Hello to all.

I need two chess players who would accept to play a demo game using the "blitz" time control : 2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves.

The game would start today, 2007 April 7 at 16:00 (server clock), thanks to respond to this post if you're interested. Thus everyone will see the last server improvements that will appear with money games.. (that should start next week, a new delay :/)

Among the new features :

- Real time clocks
- Auto refresh for all & auto redirecting for the players
- Pop up windows to warn the players "it's your turn"
- Links for live games in comments on each page.

Thanks for your help !


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-07 18:52:59)
Lightning demo game

Finally it was a lightning (time control 30 min + 1 min / move) game.

A lot of thanks to Catalin for playing this nice game... another one with this funny thematic opening 1.Nf3 2.Ng1 3.Nf3 4.Ng1

All seems ok, but it would be better if the page isn't refreshed until the position change on the board. I'll make some improvements this way.


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 23:41:10)
Go / Weiqi : Enigma

While looking for other ways to optimize the server, I had an interesting question about Go, that may look more complex than at first sight :)

"Is it possible to repeat a position (at a particular move) without taking a stone or group (at this particular move) ?"


I submitted it in GoDiscussions forum, one member proved it is possible on a 2x2 board... then on 19x19

http://www.godiscussions.com/forum/showthread.php?p=27834


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-09 23:48:03)
Go / Weiqi : Enigma

Okay, harder ! Is it possible to repeat a position at move n without taking a stone or group at move n AND at move n-1 ?


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.


Don Groves    (2007-04-10 01:41:45)
Go / Weiqi : Enigma

I wonder, would this move n ever be a good move?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-10 16:57:41)
Improvements

Once more, two chess players are welcome to play a demo game using the "lightning" time control : 30 minutes + 1 minute / move. Thanks to respond here if you're interested.

Now the viewer page checks positions every 5 seconds for players, 10 sec. for observers WITHOUT refreshing itself until the position changed.

Thanks for your help !


Matt Lasley    (2007-04-13 22:15:13)
Skip feature

Is there a skip feature? When a move is entered on one game, it's great to hit "next" and move to the next game. Sometimes, I want to "skip" a game, and go to the next without making a move. So far it seems I must go back out to "games" and come back in to a different game. tx-Matt


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-18 17:18:32)
Next & Download

Hello Graham.

About the (Next) link, the page 'move_send' guarantees to the player the move has actually been sent. It can avoid some complaints. Anyway to skip this page is not easy, you could be redirected to the next game automatically after this page but it could be a bit disagreeable.

Do you use (download) after each move ? .. Just trying to make this part of the window quite 'light'.

Thanks for suggestions.


Graham Wyborn    (2007-04-19 08:19:07)
Download

I do not use "download" after each move. But I do often use "download". It is the scrolling / wheeling up & down the screen that seems unnecessary.

Or am I just plane lazy!! :-)


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    (2007-04-22 21:06:10)
win against Anand :-)

4900 lines ?? .. huge !

I just looked at the game a bit deeper. You played it really well... Would you have agreed a draw at move 16 ?


Jason Repa    (2007-04-23 10:04:00)
Cheating Accusations

My advice is to take the accusations with a grain of salt. I'm a very good blitz/bullet player and years ago before I found out about ICC and Playchess.com I used to play at the crappy free sites such as yahoo and pogo. I would often be the strongest and highest rated player in the room and would get constantly accused of being a "prog". I would say take it as a compliment but these people are too stupid to understand what a good move or good technique is. They make the accusation based on successful results only.
As for your game with Anand. I think it's ridiculous to accuse you of program assistance. For starters, the game isn't very important. It's just an unrated simul game with no prize whatsoever. It seems to me you should have received some sort of award, not necessarily cash, but something chess related and of value. I understand it's for charity, but I can't see who in their right mind would pay money to play in a simul when there is no incentive to win. You might as well just write a check to send directly to the handicapped children of India.
When Chapters bookstore hired me to do a chess simul it was a fundraiser for our chess club. I didn't lose any games, but the sole person to merely draw me (28-0-1) in the 29 games I played received a free tournament entry ($30 value) to one of our local monthly events. I thought this was a great idea and had the benefit of bringing a new player into our club.


Catalin Ionescu    (2007-04-23 16:34:15)
Good Job!

So you are the guy who defeated Anand :) ... I saw only the last 10 moves of your game.

Anyway congratulations for this victory !!!


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 ?! ;)


Nicola Lupinacci    (2007-04-27 01:25:32)
Elo question...

I have a question...

I have now 1410 Elo points and at next elo refresh (1st May) I probably raise at 1576 Elo points.

Now there is a problem: I arrive at 1576 becouse I have won 5 game where after 15-20 moves my opponent's clock silently finish without any other moves and in 3 or 4 of this games my opponent was in a really good position.

The question is:
Is possible do not to calculate elo variation of this particular games?

I think it is a good idea to make an option that when I win a game by time, I can choose if this game will be calculate or not calculate in my elo variation...

I suggest this becouse I gain elo points from losing games and it is not fun :(

Sorry for my bad english... :)


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


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    (2007-05-03 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 ! :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-07 14:32:34)
science,art and bluff

The environment is different but there's a lot of bluff in correspondence chess IMO, even if the number of draws is higher at 2400+ level. It is no more based on obvious mistakes but on apparent "weak" moves that actually can win ie. a long endgame, particularly moves that are completely missed by the best chess engines such as Rybka. This kind of moves happens often yet, fortunately.


Nicola Lupinacci    (2007-05-09 10:04:10)
suggestion

What about Dory defense?
1. d4 Nf6, 2. c4 e6, 3. Nf3 Ne4

or (in italian language) Attacco Aculeo?
1. g4 d5, 2. Bg2 c6; 3 g5 (I don't know if Black can make the first move in thematic tournament)


Nicola Lupinacci    (2007-05-09 17:54:04)
Re: Re: Suggestion

Becuose same gambits or critical openings start whit a white move,
i.e. King gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.f4
and now black can play 2. ... exf4 or 2. ... d6 or 2. ... Nc6 ecc. ecc.
I think that in certain thematic tournament whit opening like this 1st move would be made by black...

but i don't know how thematic tournaments work... :)



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-12 15:44:08)
Money chess and Go tournaments

FICGS money chess & Go tournaments will be open today !

At last, after the next update (in a few hours) including legal informations (home page / rules) and the 'My account' page, the money chess & Go games can start.

Players interested are invited to read rules (updated) in its entirety, particularly 04. Entry fees, 05. Prize money, 06. Warranties, 07. Money transfer ...

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


Feel free to discuss rules for entry fees and prizes in this thread, some points may have to be clarified yet. It's a long time I think about these rules to make them most interesting at the same time for the players and the server, according to french taxes & laws.

Of course, all free tournaments will remain free. As FICGS becomes a commercial server, the more players will enter money tournaments, the more ads on the internet so the more players :)

Time controls for money chess games & tournaments are 30 minutes + 1 minute / move (lightning), 2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves (blitz), 30 days + 1 day / move (rapid), 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves (standard). Thematic chess money games will be played at blitz time control.

Time controls for money Go games & tournaments are 30 minutes + 1 minute / move (lightning) and 30 days + 1 day / move (standard).


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-13 13:54:47)
Sveshnikov

Interesting line, indeed. I just entered a few moves in Wikichess, feel free to show us your lines after g4 :) .. Another great line is 11.Nxb5 !? IMO.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-15 18:37:06)
Tablebases 5-pieces

Well, quite strange.. Shredderchess.com tablebases don't give a result anymore for the current 7-pieces position !? .. Was it a bug or...

Indeed it is mate in about 37 moves, but my engine with 5-pieces tablebases can't see it. If the game is not finished in a while (before the next rating calculation), you can call referee for adjudication.


Robert Mueller    (2007-05-20 10:19:40)
Opponent dragging out lost game

Hi, Is it possible to get a game adjudicated, if the opponent just does not resign. It is game #5664, where my opponent ist in a hopeless situation. We are already in the six men tablesbases and he is lost with check mate in 34 moves. From his original 100 days time he already used 57. He seems to be determined to drag this out as long as possible. Do I have to wait another 43 days for the win :(


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-05-22 22:20:20)
Any 2200+ for a rapid double round ?

Hi all, hi Thibault

Would you agree for a five players rated double round robin tournament at rapid timing (30 days + 1 day per move) if four other 2200+ players declare in this thread that they are ready to join ?

I am ready to play...

Marc


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-09 04:48:24)
Nodes per second

Well, game 2 was a draw, game 3 was a win for Deep Junior...

"Deep Fritz is running on an eight-core machine and searching 13-14 million nodes per second, reaching a search depth of 20-21 ply. Deep Junior is employing the latest Intel Server technology with 16 cores. The program is running at 24 million nodes per second and consistantly reaching search depths of 24 ply."

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3916

Not bad in such a time control : 75 min + 10 sec per move... but does it mean anything to run two engines on two different computers !??


Don Groves    (2007-06-13 09:22:01)
Rating lists for established players

I agree with this also. Either that or remove inactive players from the current lists. If a person wants to establish an FICGS rating, let them play some FICGS games!


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.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-15 21:29:58)
Dead Man's Defense

Game #11340, my opponent is playing since 10 moves against the tablebases. No comment from me can him stop! Loosing is just to difficult!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-16 02:23:50)
Dead Man's Defense

Ok, that's an interesting topic.. and should be discussed for sure !

Once more, there are 6 pieces on the board and even if it is an obvious win, my engine doesn't say Mate in # moves (so your opponent may not see the mate too).

How to react ? .. No hypocrisy, IMO there's no perfect way to answer this problem. If the DMD doesn't work after tablebases, it will work well before, so players will last the game earlier. Of course it's a way to manage rating and so on... Is it really possible to avoid this ?

Any suggestions ?


Be patient anyway... :)


Dirk Ghysens    (2007-06-16 04:06:23)
Not "dead man's defense"

This is not a case of dead man's defense, since the game started less than 20 days ago and they are at move 86. From international postal games I remember waiting more than 20 days for my opponent's 1st move. While it is allowed, certainly nobody can be obliged to consult 6 men tablebases. I'd also like to point out that the FIDE rules (which are mentioned in the FICGS rules) forbid a player to make disturbing remarks, and that a game cannot end by requesting your opponent to resign. Also posting such comments about ongoing games, trying to discredit the opponent, is unethical. The complainer should forfeit the game.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-16 15:45:46)
FICGS 3.0 , novelties & advanced chess

Dear chessfriends, the new FICGS version is installed :) ... Improvements :


- New random design (see preferences) after each login, great IMO :)

- Correspondence chess established, preliminary & complete rating lists (user mode)

- Big chess rating list
- http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_big_chess
- Rated big chess tournaments (no more unrated)

- Advanced ches rating list
- http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_advanced_chess
- Rated advanced chess tournaments (money blitz & lightning games)

- New advanced chess games category : CHESS MONEY BRONZE (entry fee 0,2 E-Point)

Advanced chess games are chess games played at Lightning (30 minutes + 1 minute / move) or Blitz (2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves) time control. Computer assistance is encouraged. See rating rules for advanced chess, everyone gets a rating (first estimated from your correspondence chess rating) after you played your first game.

Every member now has 2 free E-Points to play 10 free CHESS MONEY BRONZE (advanced chess) games. Consequently the FICGS advanced chess server is not free of charge after this free trial.


This is a major improvement, so there will be some adjustments during the next days, particularly to reorganize money tournaments.

Feel free if you have any comment or suggestion...


Have good games :)


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.


Charlie Neil    (2007-06-17 13:03:53)
Me as well

I did win both my games against Gameknot! So I'd gladly volunteer my services again. (Thibault, is it a "computer assistance allowed" match? Because all my moves are Carbon-based.)


Dan Rotaru    (2007-06-17 19:31:49)
Swiss tournaments

That is very true, you can't play more than one game at the time and one single unfinished game can delay the next round for very long time. But maybe once a year, a 5 round tourney played at fast time controls: 30 days / 0.5 day per move, or even faster? I wonder what kind of interest this type of tourney would generate.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-18 20:50:23)
Big chess theory : "Queens opening"

The first rated Big Chess tournament started a few days ago... I like this game more and more, no theory, no databases, no chess engines, many strategies & many queens captured already ;)

Every opening seems ok, we still don't know if taking pawns with the queen during the first moves is worth something or not, the value of the pieces is quite unpredictable... Many players now play 1.Nh4 to threaten 2.Qo7 then 3.Qc7 if needed, winning a pawn. What is the best response if you want to keep the same material ? .. Anyway that's very interesting to see a side with 1 or 2 pawns more, giving some rooks activity to the opponent.. Still looks like a draw theorically.

My main line is : 1.Nh4 Nh13 2.Qo7 No14 3.Qc7 Ql13

Any other suggestion ?


See Big Chess waiting list in Chess Special Tournaments.


Viktor Savinov    (2007-06-19 15:34:04)
GM_FICGS__CHESS__RAPID

GM_FICGS__CHESS__RAPID (type : rated round-robin, time : 30 days, increment : 1 day / move) entry fee : 100 , prize : 894 Let's play in such structure: Savinov, Viktor; Atalik, Suat; Balabaev, Farit; Figlio, Gino; Sumets, Andrey; de Vassal, Thibault; Vovk, Andrey; Schuster, Peter; +1


Albert Popov    (2007-06-20 12:40:06)
We are in need of a good challenge!

I don't think Rybka could win in the same overwhelming manner, if Deep Junior the Horrible took part in the tournament. Why, it might be a well-thought move on the Junior team's part. Aren't we in for another Rybka - Junior thrilling match challenge soon? I would bet on Junior in that chess brain war as Junior's long-standing loyal customer.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-22 20:30:57)
Rybka's strength at CC time controls

An interesting poll, following a discussion at TCCMB :

http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=109.msg809


Let's say Rybka playing alone, running 4 days per move (quite useless IMO) on a multi-processor computer, which rating would it/she achieve at FICGS ?

In my opinion, 2200 (with some peaks to 2300) would be great already... What do you think ?


Michael Aigner    (2007-06-22 21:27:50)
Re: Rybka's strength at CC time controls

I think you are right with your Elo approximation (2200 to 2300). There is just a little problem. In the case everybody would know he/she is playing against the latest Rybka version this would be a big problem for the program. In this case Rybka should loose almost every game because everybody would know Rybkas response to any move and could build wonderful traps. Did you hear about the so called "Planetenmatch" (match of the planets) where correspondence Chess GM Arno Nickel played against several Programms of unknown identity (the alias was the name of a planet). I think the engines had 24 hours per move and no chance - a desaster for the programs. That was of course before Rybka appeared, on the other hand he won also against Hydra!


Nick Burrows    (2007-06-22 23:35:27)
engine strength..

Surely if different engines beat a correspondance GM at 24 hours per move, then their est. rating on 4 days per move should be higher than 2200-2300. Especially Rybka.


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


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-06-23 06:02:44)
Black 20th move...

20.-- Re8 is losing. Search for games and you will see. But 20.-- Rd8 is drawish, IMO. And I don't understand why I don't play it?


Garvin Gray    (2007-06-23 09:31:22)
time for a different thread


Hello,

Hasnt this discussion now about real names v nicknames moved away from the original point of this thread?



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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-23 18:12:34)
FICGS freestyle cup

Hello to all.

You may have noticed new changes in the waiting lists & tournaments pages. Trying to create more interesting tournaments with entry fee & prize, with different time controls.

The FICGS chess freestyle cup (I did not find a better name yet :)) will be a 6 rounds swiss tournament played from time to time (every month would be great) at a very fast time control : 10 minutes + 20 seconds / move, see the rules in the tournament page in waiting lists. All rounds will be played the same day, about 1 round per hour.

Blitz tournaments have been gathered with lightning ones under the category advanced chess lightning tournaments.

Feel free if you have any idea or suggestion !


Sergey Pligin    (2007-06-23 20:18:55)
Who is Viktor Savinov?

Mister Savinov Viktor has doubted my surname is real. It is not true, I can easily prove it. I am playing Mr. Schuster Peter in one ICCF event. The latest moves, which are now invisible for public, are 46.Rb6 Kf8. Peter will understand me. If there is any need I can show the full score of this game.


[moderator : end of the message deleted, feel free to read rules and particularly membership & netiquette sections]


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 :)


Alexander Shalamanov    (2007-06-24 07:12:04)
Hello, chess friends!

Yeah, I've read the polemics, but don't feel like doing that, coz whatever I say would be misinterpreted by Serge & Co. Lol! I've got nothing to do with IGAME now. I've left it forever and explained the reasons behind my move on the IGAME forum. Thibault, I do respect your decision that only western-based FICGS players join your team for the match. I thaink, that is quite right to do in the current situation. Cheers, Alex


Charlie Neil    (2007-06-25 14:45:39)
Ficgs vs Igame.ru

Is this the most replied to forum in Ficgs history? Regarding nicknames so what? It's a friendly match. Amici Sumus. (And psychology in chess still can win the game before the first move!) As far as I am aware you must give your real name to the administrators on the site before you can use nicknames. So there you go. Now play the board and not the man.........Look at my rating very very low but I have fun! it's only a game.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-26 09:20:54)
Vacation

In my opinion there is no need to change. The argument, then players can play more games in same time can be countered by if they play less games they can speed up their moves. Already in the current situation most time won't be spended for finding best moves, but for stretching lost games!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-26 14:28:24)
Correspondence chess / Rybka

The Rybka's correspondence chess rating discussion moved from TCCMB to Rybka forum :)

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=1516#fp


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-26 16:06:08)
Ratings

The discussion of ratings is very problematic. Ratings on different sites are depending on different premises. What entry level was accepted? How long did you playing there – how often? How much thinking time did you spent per move? Is the basic rating you earned over years to be caused by old tournaments with postcards (maybe without any help of engines – and your opponents did it the same way)? How much care did you spent ratings (i.e. Norm tournaments?!)? Are you a member of the exclusive cycle of an organisation, getting invitations to closed high-level rating tournaments? Engines (also Rybka) are playing own styles and it depends on whether you can play better or worse against their special styles (knowing their potencies and weaknesses). Old fashioned players (independent from their ratings) will have much more problems to win or to hold draw against engines than players which have positioning themselves at actual situation. In my opinion today Rybka alone with one week thinking time per every move without any other help will reach a rating of about 2.400 at FICGS SM-tournament with an average rating of 2.450. In an ICCF anniversary tournament (average rating of about 2.600) same Rybka under same conditions will reach a rating about 2.550. I for myself wouldn’t play longer correspondence chess, if I would have the feeling that any engine is playing better without my command. How long will it still take? My engine handling is not in this way, that I am waiting for longer times which move is offer by the engine. I have own ideas and I’m trying their possibilities, investigating positions in depth over many moves in all directions. But sometimes engines have the better ideas and I have to accept this!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-26 22:04:29)
Rapid tournaments

I agree that rapid tournaments (30 days + 1 day / move) may be quite hard for some players, but as Heinz-Georg and Wolfgang said, it's up to you to choose the tournaments that fit to your available time.

WCH tournaments are quite hard to play the same way, but that's a condition to start a new cycle every 6 months and adding days of vacation may last important games and force some adjudications. That's why I'm not favourable to this change.

But I agree, that's quite hard not to enter certain waiting lists too... (it's a fight of every day) :))


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-27 06:19:40)
Bullet games & prizes

Hello to all.

A few new changes and one more time control in lightning tournaments category :


- Bullet games (available for chess & Go), 10 minutes + 20 seconds / move.
- Bronze bullet Go games are available... Everyone can test it for free.
- Bullet & lightning Go games are now rated (same rating list).


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-27 10:31:35)
Rules

Rules are very immportant! For all the same rules. If rules will changed about actual serious problems by a few players, it will be a disadvantage for all other players, which have arranged themselves with the same rules, independent from their own difficulties with that. Maybe sometimes they have thought less time for a single move as they would have wished - maybe they have lost therefore, but they have accepted the rules - that is the game (and that is life also).


Alexander Shalamanov    (2007-06-28 08:35:41)
FICGS Chess World Championship

Hello dear chessfriends, I regret to inform all of you that, due to lack of time because of my involvement in the Russian Team Cup Final and a lot of time needed to analyse my remaining games there, I find it utterly impossible to play in the global championship on this server. I have to make this move reluctantly, but the circumstances are above me. I might return back later when I have more free time. Hopefully, you will understand why I took this decision. Amici sumus! Alexander


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-28 13:40:40)
Thinking in decades of moves

There are many specialists here who are thinking in decades of moves. I mean not the extreme of this, Dinesh, but many other players do it in a moderate way. I accept in principle that it is more effective to use to full capacity of thinking time, because there is a chance, that some players will forfeit in that more time. I think in WCH-Cycle it is much better, because there is no period to control as every move. Perhaps it will be better, if this method can transfused to all other tournaments without changing the average total time for all different types of tournament we have. Just a question.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-28 13:56:08)
Thinking in decades of moves

You mean it would be great to have a 2400+ rapid tournament ?! :)

I think we should keep both formats (standard & rapid) anyway.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-28 16:48:26)
Thinking in decades of moves

Thibault, you've misunderstood! Rapids have 30/+1 day per move. Standards could have 40/+3 days per move. That's the deal!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-28 17:03:48)
Longer time control

Ok ! ... I don't think the 40/+40 days per 10 moves should disappear but true, 40/+4 or 30/+3 days per move could be a good time control, maybe less stressful. Anyway, I'm still thinking about to add a category with longer time controls, maybe 50/+5 or 60/+6 days per move (not before september). Feel free if you have any suggestion.


Charlie Neil    (2007-06-30 09:26:19)
Cheering on Ficgs!

Hi, go to Tournaments, then Special Tournaments, then Ficgs Special Events and there is the Ficgs vs IGame match. There is one King's Gambit already! This is brave play in a strong match or not? Who needs sites covering matches and tournaments elsewhere when we can stay here and cheer on our own players against this strong team. "C'mon Ficgs! Check every move twice and again before sending. Take your time. Good luck!" Unfortunately we cannot pass comment of any kind on any of the games in progress. Rules forbid it...There must be somehow home advantage can count.


Garvin Gray    (2007-07-02 18:12:51)
suggestion for send button


Not really a time control suggestion, but it seems to be the closest related thread.

When playing lightning and blitz games on here, it would be helpful if the send move button was located directly under the game board, instead of having to scroll down quite a bit to send a move.

Having to scroll down when in time trouble can cost a few precious seconds, which adds up to quite a bit when done over many moves.



Marc Lacrosse    (2007-07-02 18:22:50)
Too fast

10+20 is a timing where a strong engine playing alone with a good book is unbeatable.
No time left for creative human added value ...
That's the reason why Freestyle tournaments on Playchess recently evolved from an initial 45 min + 5 sec/move to a slower timing (60 min + 15 sec/move)

I am pretty convinced that at 10 min + 20 sec increment the one with the most powerful computer will win for sure...

Marc

PS for a mean 60 moves game, 10+20 is equivalent to 30 seconds per move.
Freestyle tempo (60+15) gives a mean 75 seconds per move.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-07-04 11:31:09)
tie breaks + time controls

Garvin, I'll look at this question deeperly soon... Thx !

Marc, I quite agree, on the other hand it takes some time to operate the computer, a good chess player may be "also" required in such games, that would be interesting. Anyway, it would be hard to use longer time controls in a 1-day tournament. Less than 20 seconds per move would be hard with the current interface... How many days a playchess freestyle tournament takes ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-07-14 14:10:43)
Rybka vs. Human

That's a quite pessimistic vision of chess today, but maybe I'm too optimistic yet :)

In my opinion it would be interesting to see this kind of match with longer time controls... maybe 30 minutes + 30 minutes / move. The human play could be much more organized and secure, with less time pressure.


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.


Jason Repa    (2007-07-15 20:18:33)
Pure Stupidity!

So what you're saying is that chess alone is a perfect barometer of logic ability, and additionally, that a chess rating on a correspondence site where who knows who or what is playing the moves for you....not to mention you've only gained around 100 elo since you've been playing here compared to my 500+ elo and still gaining is proof of your "superior chess", LMAO!!

Wolfgang, are you pretending to be this stupid or is this really your mentality?


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-07-16 13:54:06)
Dead Man's Attack

Finally, it didn't work... After more than 40 days with less than 9 hours (then 4 hours) at his clock, Dinesh easily reached the time control at move 40 !

Do you ever sleep, Dinesh ? :)


Dinesh De Silva    (2007-07-17 04:53:18)
Re:

Haha! Good point! I actually do sleep. In the game you refer to, I was actually lucky to make the time control. Nevertheless, I had earlier lost a few games due to sleep! as I sometimes missed moves by a mere few seconds to time control. Some of those games I had some good positions Anyway, the main thing here is I enjoy my games win, draw or lose.


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.



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-07-17 12:12:43)
Game sorting

The page "My messages" displays only games where it is your move - sorted by 'date of last move played'. I'll probably add this option in september, there will be a (probably long) thread "Wish list" :)


Jason Repa    (2007-07-24 03:29:32)
.pgn vs .cbh

The modern chessbase format is .cbh. It has special formatting to provide extra indexing functionality and information such as timestamps. The old chessbase format is A .pgn file is simply a text file that contains a header and a chess game in standard modern algebraic notation. Remove the formatting from a .cbh, save it as *.pgn and, viola you have a .pgn file.


Garvin Gray    (2007-07-26 05:01:18)
too fast, too hard


I have a recommendation that the time control be extended. 10 min + 20 secs is too short.

I played one game with this time control to try it out and found that it just felt like a 5 min blitz game, especially since we have to scroll down to confirm our moves.

I agree that another way has to be found to allow people to put money into their accounts. It took me three days because I had to wait for notification of the exact euro amount.

If I wasnt keen on entering the freestyle cup, I probably would not have bothered.



Garvin Gray    (2007-07-28 03:58:25)
Rapid tournament games


I would like to propose a change to the rapid tournament time control.

Currently it is 30 days plus 1 day per move.

From the games I have been playing on here under this time control, I have noticed that as soon as you get to about 20 days left, it seems very difficult to get any higher than 20 days or so.

When you have a few games with this amount of time, it feels like not much time left at all.

I would like to propose that a new time control be made of 20 days plus 3 days per move. This still guarantees that a player will have 3 days to think of a move regardless of how many initial days they have used up.



Garvin Gray    (2007-07-29 07:40:12)
another idea


Thibault de Vassal- It seems this time control is ok for most players who use it (sometimes even too slow yet)... If you feel it's difficult, more reasonable would be to play standard class tournaments.

Another suggestion is that I make sure I play the opening moves of any rapid game rather quickly, so I dont get into time trouble early :)



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."


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-06 23:42:20)
future rating

Hello Dwight.

According to the rules, the game is not rated if less than 10 moves have been played by your opponent.


James Breeden    (2007-08-07 12:38:47)
score sheet, history, replay...

might any [all] of these (score sheet, history, replay, side to move) be useful on the main page with the board?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-07 16:17:18)
History ?

Hello James.

What do you mean "history" ?

The moves and side to move are available with the board on the main page, aren't they.. (?!)


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


Dinesh De Silva    (2007-08-13 06:11:01)
Re: Your best quotes!

"The 'MOVERS & SHAKERS' Of This World Are Those Who Play Chess In The Mornings & Go To The Disco In The Evenings."


Garvin Gray    (2007-08-13 11:42:10)
blitz silver time control


I wish to confirm how this time control works:

(time:0 day,02:00:00, increment:0 day,02:00:00/40 moves)

Does this mean that each player receives two hours initial time, then receives another 2 hours after 40 moves, and then receives no more time after that? Which would mean that each side receives 4 hours total and no increment after move 40.

or does it mean:

That each player receives two hours initial time, then receives another 2 hours after 40 moves and then keeps receiving 2 hours after each further 40 moves made?



Garvin Gray    (2007-08-13 14:28:23)
bye bye


So if I understand the situation, he has failed to make a move in more than half his games, is this correct?

If so, then he should be thrown out of the whole tournament. He has forfeited more than half his games in the tournament.



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-13 15:09:50)
blitz time control

"Each player receives two hours initial time, then receives another 2 hours after 40 moves and then keeps receiving 2 hours after each further 40 moves made" is correct.


Garvin Gray    (2007-08-13 15:27:50)
new rule wording?


I will admit I didnt reply with the intention of wording a new rule. Was just showing what I thought of the claimed actions.

Current server policy is that any games under 10 moves are not rated. So that seems like a good place to start.

If a player fails to make ten moves in 50 per cent or more of their games in a tournament, they will be withdrawn from that tournament.

The tournament will continue as though the withdrawn player was never part of that tournament.



Marius Zubac    (2007-08-13 20:24:33)
Obvious blunder possible move back?

I confused my game with Kuhne with the one against Aigner. Is it possible to get the move back?


Garvin Gray    (2007-08-13 20:51:16)
further information


Let me think about it and I will get back to you. I do think that I am on the right track though.

My train of thought had been that in most round robin competitions, if a person withdraws from the tournament before they have played 50% of their games, all their results are wiped for the tournament and the tournament is decided with one less participant.

Secondly, if a player does not appear at the board within one hour of the starting time, they lose (fide otb rule), so I had just extended that to a ficgs equivalent, which is timing out.

As has been said by Marc, Vovk did not play in any of the five games that he timed out in, so he did not 'appear at the board' so to speak.

Thirdly, ficgs does not rate games which last less than ten moves.

What I had done was combined these three areas into a quantifable rule that is 'easy' to enforce.

I was specific about saying 50% or more, instead of over 50%, because all the tournaments here have odd numbers, so each person potentially players an even number of games in each tournament.

This all being said, I think it really only applies to the World Champ sections and maybe to norm tournaments.



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


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-08-14 14:06:49)
I've done worse in the past

I've made some stupid moves that I knew that were stupid, but forgot why. And the worst thing I did was resigning during an opening that was actually to my advantage.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-14 14:27:21)
Nomic

Looks interesting :)

"Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect it differs from almost every other game. The primary activity of Nomic is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing them in that way, voting on the changes, deciding what can and cannot be done afterwards, and doing it. Even this core of the game, of course, can be changed. —Peter Suber, the creator of Nomic"


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!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-16 03:23:47)
Dead groups

That's a bit harder at correspondence Go since players may be not connected at the same time to discuss the dead groups. But anyway that's not a big difference, players can use the 'Score' function, remove dead groups then eventually write the score in public comments. By the way, is the score so important for spectators ? .. Knowing W+12,5 may not help to understand why White won :) .. Moves are all IMO.

I'll add the "lost on time" SGF comment tomorrow.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-18 02:46:19)
Yes

Hello Ulrich, see 'Lightning tournaments' it is possible to play ie. chess blitz bronze (2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves), lightning bronze (30 minutes + 1 minute / move) or bullet bronze (10 minutes + 20 seconds / move) games.

You just have to find an opponent... (you may try the chat bar)


Dinesh De Silva    (2007-08-20 06:04:54)
Re: Your Best Quotes

"Kasparov's greatest move was showing the rest of the world that the darkest part of Rasputin still survives & terrorises Russian politics."


Philip Roe    (2007-08-23 17:31:35)
draws and wins

Those statistics might have some curiosity value but perhaps not much deep meaning. Especially in the lower sections, all of the games defaulted in ten moves or fewer give a false impression of decisive play. Even if they are excluded, I feel sure that the proportion of draws is much higher for stronger players, so I dont know what an average percentage would tell us.


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


Garvin Gray    (2007-09-01 07:14:59)
Site unable to load, timing out


Just 'finished' a blitz silver game with Ilmars Cirulis.

Had four minutes remaining on my clock and five moves to make to the time control, when ficgs would not load on my browser and kept timing out.

I am not happy about this situation because this has resulted in costing me e-points (money) through no fault of my own.

It is not my fault that the site kept timing out.

I am not sure what remedy there is for this situation, but I really dont feel like I should be out of pocket financially through a site fault and not my own fault.



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-01 10:22:22)
Logs

Hello Garvin.

I didn't notice any server activity problem, so I'll wait & check the next moves logs. If it appears it's a server problem, we can continue the game with the clocks before it happened (if you both agree) or cancel the result. To be continued, quite annoying anyway :/


Christophe Czekaj    (2007-09-01 12:43:09)
Free of chess engine

Thanks Thibault for reconducing me to this past forum. Very interesting. The part about "real" elo and correspondance elo is edifying. I know correspondence players could have a huge better elo than their real life one (if they have any) : more time to think, no stress, no pressure (or less) but I believe players who play without engines have a coorespondence rating approximately equal to their over the board one. Personnaly, I play coorespondence chess to try new opening, to train generally since I cannot play over the board so often since 2 years. I often play from the office, wtih sometimes a couple of minutes on a move, or sometimes I go home with the moves to think about my response in over the board conditions (30 minutes maximum on one move). My correspondence elo is around 2000 (with a good start with a peak to 2098, but declining since ;-D) and my over the board rating is now 1990 (with a peak to 2040 last year, and a rapid elo around 2100). So I sometimes feel a bit fed up with playing against chess engines, notably, but perhaps I'm wrong I have remarked that since I got an advantage, often opponents defend very very well, like computers in fact. Ok it's part of the game, and I know t could be a good training, fight hard to win a game, display a good technique, etc. but it could be disappointing to have the impression of play with a human opponent and have to finish with an another, i.e. the computer. Perhaps could we compare over the board elo, with correspondence elo to know if there is computer help or not ? Anyway, a special category of tournament will be great, and I'm eager to play with other ficgs "OTB-correspondence" players.


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.


Christophe Czekaj    (2007-09-03 12:53:52)
no chess engines

Hello Thibault, I play here without chess engine. Anyway, recently I tried to play "hippopotamus defence", (with no good result yet, I have to admit) so a computer is no use, it doesn't understand anything, but perhaps it's hippopotamus which is wrong, not the computer ;-D. Anyway a difficult defence in correspondence play). I began on this site with 2000, and so my elo was too high to play against human only ? I don't see how it's possible a sofware detect computer use ? Ok we see strange, computer-like moves sometimes, but... Perhaps two players, at the beginning of the game can agree to not use computer. Again about chess engine, I use a computer to record the moves (chessbase),to gain time, and replay fast the moves to get to the actual position, but my chess engines (an old fritz (5) and chess tiger (14) all that on a old PC) would certainly suffer a lot use against more recent chess engines ;-D Like Philip, I like to play on ficgs and it would be nice to plmay against more human opponent. I play one tournament on itsyourturn since last year, and I saw a lot more human mistakes than on ficgs. So, how explain it, I sometimes feel more comfortable on itsyourturn, but still I do like the spirit of ficgs, match against RU, the tournaments, forum, nice people to meet on the board, and so on


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-03 18:25:05)
Ajudication

Thibault is there any way for the sever to link to table bases and automatically give a result? I face playing 39 moves to give mate in a queen v R + P ending


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 06:30:28)
calling referee


Andrew- By the way how do you call for the referee?

Scroll down in the game window in question and press call referee and follow instructions. It is located under the move notation/game score.



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


Glen D. Shields    (2007-09-06 04:20:15)
Engine Use - My Take

The switch from postcard to server chess has been a wonderfully positive experience.

The transition from human chess to silicon chess on the otherhand has left me bored and wondering if there's still a purpose to the game.

Every tournament is the same. The tournament starts with 6 to 10 players. The moves transition out of the opening at lightning speed, then "Fritz and Rybka time" begins. Turn on your favorite engine and there's a >95% probablitity that your opponents' moves mimic the top engines. There are no surprises, nothing interesting, just boring repetition.

Only a few percent of the chess world can outplay the top engines on fast hardware. Human intervention is like adding a drop of water to a bucket of water and thinking you've made a difference. Most matches are one computer versus another computer and the results are predictable: 1-2 wins, 1-2 losses, most of the games drawn.

I don't oppose engine use. There's no way to enforce it, so there's hardly a reason to forbid it. I do question, however, its purpose. It's just as easy and entertaining for me to play against my computer as it is to play your computer ... and I can do it on my timeline not yours.

I played a friendly young man earlier this year in the ICCF. He was vocal and proud of his high rating and good reults. He'd been playing for less than a year. He eventually admitted through our friendly chat that he hardly knew the moves and rules. He had no idea what "en passant" was or the basic theory of the openings. It took everything I had to save my position and earn a draw from him. That game was "my epithany." I made up my mind to take a break and reconsider what CC is all about. Engine use has been a great technical accomplishment, but has it made CC more enjoyable? Not for me. I hope most of you feel differently.

Good luck and good chess to all :-)


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.


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 02:08:01)
Hardware and software

Oops, sorry I forgot to answer about the hardware but anyway the site should move soon on a new server.

Linux, Sql, Php, FICGS, that's all software, only "those parts of the system that you can hit with a hammer (not advised) is called hardware"...


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-09-07 02:24:29)
:)

I understand 'software' (it seems that by mistake) as Wikichess, chat, move making etc.

Yes, I know standard meaning of 'software' :P


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    (2007-09-08 03:45:44)
Enrolment Cancellation

If the tournament started already, this is not possible. If the tournament did not start yet, this is not possible also... theorically but just tell me the waiting list you want to be removed from and I'll do the necessary :)


Garvin Gray    (2007-09-08 05:21:37)
self removal

I think it would be good if a person can remove themselves from a waiting list. How come this is currently not the case?


Jason Repa    (2007-09-14 01:20:55)
[moderator : partly deleted]

(...) You might have noticed my M.O. of starting a new topical chess thread or trying to revive communication in an existing thread that is about chess when mayhem was going on before. This time I decided to just avoid the forums for awhile but apparently that's not good enough. I'm asking you to remove his post.


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 <<"


Dirk Ghysens    (2007-09-14 09:28:07)
Openings

Why is the Indian Defense so strong?
Because there are more than a billion Indians.

What is the best weapon against a Sicilian?
An AK47 ... or fleeing.

Why doesn't anybody play the American Defense?
Because its moves are 'classified'.

Why wasn't the Scotch popular in the 1920's?
Because of the Prohibition.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-08 12:19:39)
self removal

It shouldn't be possible for a player to change several times his position in the waiting list. Like any chess move it should be the responsability of the player IMO.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-09 16:17:20)
Waiting list is open

The rules are : "FICGS chess no engines tournaments are unrated single round-robin tournaments, involving 7 players. The special rule for these tournaments is that chess engines, databases and opening books are strictly forbidden. All games are played in 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves. Norms are not possible."


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-09 18:15:24)
Ooops !

It seems I made too many updates in the waiting lists these last months... I forgot that I removed silver rapid & standard. Sorry :)


Hannes Rada    (2007-09-09 19:03:05)
My wish list

- Conditional moves - drag and drop for the imput of the moves - I would like to see the graphical board diagrams after the chess notation not before


Hannes Rada    (2007-09-09 19:15:30)
chess diagrams

What I always wanted to know: Is there a public library for creating these board diagrams and for entering the moves ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-09 19:28:27)
Drag and drop

I have to look for a way to implement drag & drop without java. I still have no idea about it... About conditional moves, that's the eternal question. I think I won't implement it, sorry :/

About the graphical interface, why would you like to see it below the chess notation ?! .. Maybe to avoid to scroll down if you write your moves ?


Hannes Rada    (2007-09-09 21:26:43)
board diagrams + conditionals

Not for the imput of my own moves. For scrolling down through whole tournaments it is in my opinion more logic to see first the notation and then the current position on the diagram. I think it is quite hard or difficult to implement conditional moves. The ICCF-Webserver has this feature, but it is disabled. We had a perfect solution on the chessfriend server (silent conditional moves - great for saving reflection time and to speed up to game). Somte openings like the Grunfeld or the Sveshnikov are 'pefect' for conditionals :-)


Hannes Rada    (2007-09-09 21:30:30)
own development

Does that meant that the board and the interface for the input of the moves are your own development


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-09 21:43:59)
board diagrams + conditionals

I understand that some openings are quite "boring" to play :) .. and I saw conditional moves on Chessfriend server. Why is it disabled at ICCF server ?

Conditional moves is a quite difficult feature to implement, that's true (even more with several games). Also there are many ways to imagine it ! .. But the main question is "would it be fair" ?


Jason Repa    (2007-09-09 22:48:45)
To: Garvin Gray

I don't "think" you're a troll my mentally challenged little friend. I KNOW you're a troll. This thread was about FICGS Hardware + Software. Your post here had nothing whatsoever to do with that. You posted only to harass and annoy. That is what a troll does.

Gray, I'd play you for $100 a game anytime, but playing against your program is not playing chess with you. You would never dream of playing with me wtihout having your program make the moves for you. You know it, and I know it. I'd beat you even easier than I beat llmars Cirulis, when he decided to try some HUMAN ONLY chess with me.


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-09-10 01:54:09)
Confessions of a Magic 8 Ball ;)

Well, first off I started with the provisional rating of 1200, then I signed up for a bunch of tournaments and started playing 60+ games. Next, add irregular Internet access with no conditions to perform any reasonable analysis of games in progress and the pressing requirement to answer 40 moves in one go, only to go trough the same at the next soonest opportunity.

I "solved" the problem by not playing and forgetting about the server for about a month (needed that). For that reason I lost more than 250 points (254 to be exact).

Needless to say, the recovery of my rating to any decent level is slow, as, in the meantime I have gone trough periods when I played little chess here, or even none, with games in progress.

Your speculated reasons for my supposed intrusion here (it might be argued that your first post here is the real intrusion) are just plain wrong.

I also don't find ELO ratings to be a valid measure of a man. The real reason I "intrude" in the matter is that I like the general atmosphere here. I am also quiet aware that I am probably the lowest rated poster here, but, before few minutes ago, I was not aware of your rating (good job, while we're on the subject) or Garvin's, for that matter.


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 18:39:27)
Insults

Hello Andrew.

"Limited access to the server" means (like ICC) that a player still can play his moves, but can't post anymore, ie. on the forum. About tolerance, I have been less tolerant in the past, but like in any game, some turned round the rules and the result was not so good. Trust me, it is not possible to say after 15 messages (provocation -> insults) who "started" and who must be banned.

Anyway, "I will always beat you ! - Show me, let's play a game !" won't be considered as provocation, but provocation about the person (including the IQ / rating 'formula') has not its place in this forum IMO.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-10 22:42:32)
chess engines

First of all, every chess engines is a choice, ie. about selectivity, and has consequences & weaknesses in particular positions. Fruit/Toga algorithm is really good but it has probably still much less chess knowledge than Rybka. I think Rybka's algorithm is really better also, Vasik Rajlich added some "human features" while other programs still think about chess like mathematics.

Rybka changed correspondence chess because Fritz or Junior (very strong chess machines) added to a good chess player makes a good centaur while Rybka is "almost" a centaur itself... Consequently a weak chess player can reach quite easily a 2100/2200 rating. That's the main reason...

Of course Rybka will always make some bad moves, but it/she builds an advantage move after move against other engines in most cases in 'calm' positions. HIARCS, that was told during a long time to think most like a human, was not a strong 'chess machine'. I don't know much about Hiarcs 11/12, but Rybka is a major improvement in this way IMO.


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-10 23:31:53)
chess engines

Hi Jason As Thibault post indicates Toga is a fruit flavour ie fruit variant. Check CEGT rating list for single version engines (http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rating.htm) Toga II is at no3 and Fruit 2.3 is at no 5 position. As for our game no engine is ever going to save me! Maybe 28 ..Rc8 would have held but earlier on 14 exd6 Bf6 15 Bxf8 Kxf6 16 Qf3 looks really disgusting for black. I am not going to blame the opening but Fritz and I are back to the Najdorf! Apparently Aagard had a book out on offbeat sicilianl ines in which he could find no way for white to gain an advantage in this Prins line hmm Im sceptical. Thibault - thanks for expanding on your comments. I note your point about calm positions. The game I cited is the sort of wild position where Rybka is not so good later in the game it is convinced that 19 ..Nxf2 is good for black a move which loses and which fritz rejects fairly quickly.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-10 23:56:42)
Shredder 10

Shredder is really not strong enough in this case IMO. Shredder is best in calm positions where there's a good move to find many moves in advance...


Gene Sensabaugh    (2007-09-12 16:18:56)
Gene Sensabaugh

I am still trying to make a decision to use a chess engine or not.If for example my moves are the majority of the time according to Fritz10 are inferior I can't see how it's going to help me accept to gain rating points.Say during a game I consult Fritz and for example I have overlooked a mate in 10.Which move would you choose?I have serious doubts that many people on here can beat Fritz10 unless they are grandmaster class.In a game you consult your engine select between it's choices and select one of"it's" choices.You receive a move and the process repeats.So why compete against human players most likely inferior to engine analysis?


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


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-13 06:35:12)
Ratings

Hi Phillip I don't know what "an unsynchronised rating system" is. However at the rate of play 40/20 for example I am not sure I would be able to improve so much on the engines first choices. At the free style tournament stand alones do pretty well. If I needed 45 minutes to find one best move in the Topalov Kramnik line..... So yes a centaur can easily have a higher rating than the engine(s) he is using at cc time rates (on the same hardware). For one thing the centaur can use different engines and for another its a bit like taking a move back all the time and pushing past any horizon limitations plus there is the restrictions of opening books that all engines have. However I am not going to play my own cc games against Fritz 10 (Fritz 9 in my case)by giving it 1 day or even 10 minutes per move because I am not motivated - you need the human element for that. Hope that helps.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-13 13:44:25)
Droit de réponse

Christophe, as I said to you in private, it is only due to this rules change just before your post. It was too hard to make distinction of what is justified or not in some cases, so I was too much tolerant before. Now rules should avoid this. All responses to provocation will now be censured, a "droit de réponse" in this case is useless and pollutes the forum. Of course, you may ask for previous provocation & insults to be removed also.

Of course you were not accused of immorality ! .. Rules must avoid such discussions, nothing more.


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


Thomas Tamayo    (2007-09-15 13:59:23)
I like the status bar...

because it keeps me logged in... My only wish would be for a (non-scrolling) status of my games. If I have any open moves, maybe it could tell me or change color? It would cut down on me refreshing my game list :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-15 17:46:41)
Go tournaments

This message is displayed before to enter a Kyu/Dan/Pro tournament... (by the way there's a mistake, it will be corrected soon) I hope it helps.


"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. 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)."


Glen D. Shields    (2007-09-16 18:43:13)
Explains Much

Dear Thibault -

Your "confession" explains a great deal. Twice you mentioned in posts your awareness of my IECG games. Since I am no chess celebrity, that left me quietly puzzled both times. Now I know why! You and I played twice. You won both games. Both encounters reamin as a couple of my favorites. Your 90 move victory required outstanding end-game play and you played it perfectly! Well done my man :-)

Now to my confession. I am actually Brad Pitt, no, not the real Brad Pitt, but a close good looking second. I have beautiful women walk up to me all the time asking for an autograph. Amazing that I was able to find time for chess all these years ;-)

My best,

Glen (aka "Brad")


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 !


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.


Albert H. Alberts    (2007-09-18 17:04:14)
110 best chess moves ever

All: Dutch GM Tim Krabbe has compiled "110 best chess moves ever".I computerevaluated them.Most of them are spotted by machines and if not: they are refuted. Notably nr. Topalov-Shirov and a classic 1960 Spasski-Bronstein.www.howtofoolfritz.com. Albert Alberts Amsterdam.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-19 01:20:50)
Missing game(s)

Hi Wayne, that's normal ! .. The last update avoids many scrolls, with the new interface to send moves, also in My games page. You can click "(display all games)" at the top of the page to see your games displayed like before.


Charlie Neil    (2007-09-19 10:39:55)
Mighty Fine

Love the new interface! No drag and drop yet but, you can't have everything. Faster movement on the board gives me more excuses for finger-slip blunders. And all for the same price!.......B-)


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2007-09-19 18:02:57)
New options in Preferences

Hello Thibault!

Nice update, but ...

Is it possible to set in the preferences how to start a FICGS session? I would like to have "display all games" and "slow moves" as default ...


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 08:23:56)
One more thing...

I just noticed there is no longer a "back" button. With no "back" button, I am afraid of sending a wrong move! Can we have the "back" button back ;-)


Josef Riha    (2007-09-20 11:19:23)
One more thing...

Hello Don, simply click on the target field and the move is take back.
Greetings, Josef.


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.


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-20 21:30:15)
Chess Friend

I did not think there was ever any money paid out in chess friend but I never played in any round robins so I can't comment on the tie break being used in them. As for repeating the same 15 moves in 4 games because you had too many other games it just seesm farcical to me. Everyone is a strong player at that stage but still .... My point about IECG is just that perhaps (understandably) you take that more seriously and would not agree to 4 short meaningless draws because the others are strong and you have a lot of other games going on. The point i was making is that these 4 draws resulted from your tie break system having a higher TER as your opponent attempted to draw his way to victory and you went along with it. You have set up a system that encourages this sort of approach which is anti chess and , arguably, devalues the concept of a "World Championship" What is your objection to 2 game tie breaks involving accelerated cc rates that I suggested?


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-20 23:11:48)
chessfriend

Yes tournaments are different from matches but to take 50% of the match games as identical 15 move draws seems extreme and without parallel. Again it can only have been good for Farit to give up all his white games because his higher TER means he can get through by drawing his 4 black games so its really a 4 game match where black wins if he draws the 4 games. Anyway I just think it devalues the event to do that and the tie break rules encourage it - but lets agree to differ!


Don Groves    (2007-09-21 04:33:39)
One more thing (again)

Josef escrit: "Hello Don, simply click on the target field and the move is take back." Hello, Josef, and thanks for the tip!


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.


Don Groves    (2007-09-23 00:37:32)
100 best moves on FICGS?

Even though it is my own move, I nominate White's ninth move in game 1972. It proves the adage that the only absolute pin is against the King!


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-09-23 16:53:41)
50 moves rule

Is the 50 moves rule effective (50 moves without striking any figure or moving a pawn) - as in FIDE or ICCF rules? I can't find a hint in our rules.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-09-23 17:16:54)
50 moves rule (better wording)

Is the 50 moves rule effective (50 moves without striking any piece or without moving any pawn) - as in FIDE or ICCF rules (draw)? I can't find a hint in our rules.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2007-09-23 17:24:17)
50 moves rule

Hello Wolfgang,

look at the Playing rules (http://ficgs.com/membership.html#playing, 11.3.a.)


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-09-23 17:35:41)
50 moves rule

Hello Heinz-Georg, think you for that! So FICS has another special rule, different to ICCF or FIDE!


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 :))


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-24 02:13:51)
1st FICGS freestyle cup

Dear chessfriends,

The 1st FICGS freestyle cup waiting list is open ! .. This advanced chess or more commonly said "freestyle" (computers, teams, everything allowed) swiss tournament will happen on 2007 October 20 & 21 (14 pm, 17 pm, 20 pm server time), time control : 1 hour + 15 seconds / move. Entry fee is 10 E-Points (10 Euros), prize is 100% of E-Points (see rules/membership).

Thanks to players who broadcasted the news on the web already !


Garvin Gray    (2007-09-25 02:05:44)
home preparation


Thibault,

I see you refer to the game 6 result. They didnt really. Almost the whole game, especially for Zappa, was home prep till about move 35.



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-27 21:57:34)
New update (2007-09-27)

A new update :

- Private messages facility (see bottom of My messages) has been implemented, you can send a message that will be sent by email to your opponent. You can disallow other members to send messages to you in Preferences

- Now you'll be redirected to the next game by default after sending your move. You can change this option in Preferences.

- Go scorer, now much more convenient, you just have to click on the groups to remove before to score the game.


Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2007-09-28 01:07:38)
empty page

This is just a little issue: When I submit a move, and no game with pending moves is left, an empty page is displayed. I think it would be better to return to the games page immediately.


Don Groves    (2007-09-28 05:48:24)
New interface

Just as I was getting used to seeing My Games after submitting a move, now I'm taken to a game! I'd rather see My Games so I can choose which game to see next.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-01 05:20:50)
Tablebases : Mate in 517+

While I was checking some positions in 6-pieces tablebases, I was wondering what was the longest win found in tablebases so far...

I found the answer here (new record established in May 2006) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase#Endgame_theory

"For some years, this position held the record for the longest computer-generated forced mate. (Otto Blathy had composed a mate in 292 moves problem already in 1889.) However, in May 2006, Bourzutschky and Konoval discovered a KQNKRBN position with an astonishing DTC of 517 moves. This was more than twice as long as Stiller's maximum, and almost 200 moves beyond the previous record of DTC = 330 for a position of KQBNKQB_1001."

What I just can't understand is how is it possible not to know the DTM (Distance To Mate) while knowing the DTC (Distance To Conversion) ?!

Anyway, amazing ! .. Any taker ? :)


Peter Schuster    (2007-10-01 10:07:37)
New Interface castling

Hello, I'm not able to castling in the new interface. When I move the king from e1 to g1 then the rook stays on h1. Only when I write O-O in the text field, the castling is O.K. Best wishes Peter


Wayne Lowrance    (2007-10-07 17:02:50)
time increment

A 000027. game 14107. I dont understand this tournament time control i guess. I have been making moves this game but the time increment isnt happening. If continues i will loose on time.....What am I missing Thibault ? Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-07 18:36:20)
increment : 40 days / 10 moves

Hi Wayne, time control is 40 days + 40 days per 10 moves, meaning 40 days will be added to your clock after move 10, move 20, move 30 and so on... You just have to play your next (tenth) move to gain 40 days more ;)


Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2007-10-10 13:32:04)
Why clump?

What is the advantage of this in comparison to an increment of 4 days per move?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-10 22:13:10)
More stressful ? :)

... more seriously, I suppose this time control was directly inspired from the over the board chess classical time control : 2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves (correspondence "blitz" time control @ FICGS) .. so, no advantage IMO, a historical issue only.


Don Groves    (2007-10-11 02:08:40)
Cracking Go

Svante Carl von Erichsen escrit: "This statement seems to relate not so much to Go but more on projected calculation power of supercomputers. My impression is that "provocative" is the main intent here." No, my intent was serious, only the small joke at the end was not ;-) By making the goban lager, Go can avoid the fate of Chess regarding brute force analysis. Even at a trillion moves per second, as mentioned in the article quoted by Thibault, brute force analysis will fail if there are trillions of trillions of trillions of possible moves!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-11 12:43:33)
pinot noir, knowledge & 9x9

I agree with that :)

Don, I mean 9x9 should be compared to checkers, it is "chess" at a size where brute force is enough, so a 'particular case' only. But just like Rybka/Hiarcs playing at master level even thinking a few seconds per move by imitating (knowledge + algorithm) an international master's way of thinking more than calculating trillions of positions, why not a Go engine built the same way, much more complex though. Actually Go engines do not calculate much, they try to 'see' already but sure these programs will be improved significantly soon and it could play about the same level (without joseki databases) on different goban sizes. I feel a Go engine could reach a 1 dan / 2 dan level on our small computers, whatever the size of the goban... But it should be incredibly harder to beat stronger players, which is great for Go :)


Don Groves    (2007-10-11 23:33:36)
knowledge and 9x9, etc...

My 0.02€: Chess has rules which make it easier to program than Go. Just one example, when the King is in check, the search tree of possible moves is pruned enormously. Go has no analog to this. Until the endgame, even when several pieces are in atari there still may be a better move than saving them. As for "playing like a master...," Chess is far more local than is Go. In Go, the whole board must be nearly always in focus, not so in Chess where losing a local battle can spell almost certain defeat. Another factor in making Go so difficult to analyze is the evaluation function which the program uses to decide on the best move. This is far easier to do for Chess than for Go. Maybe I'll start working on a Go program, just to prove myself wrong ;-)


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


Peter Schuster    (2007-10-15 14:05:23)
match pligin-schuster

Dear Sergey, Thank you very much for your very friendly offer. After my mistake (quick move input) I resign both games because I was so anger about myself. If Thibaut and your team was agree with your suggestion, we continue both games. Best wishes Peter


Garvin Gray    (2007-10-15 17:49:02)
slippery slope


Sorry to say, but I am against this re-instatement. Main reason is the slippery slope effect.

Also what happens if in another game a player claims that they moved the wrong knight and the opponent says too bad or your responsible for moving correctly?

The recriminations and ill feeling could result.

Sorry but Peter is responsible for the moves he makes and his actions towards those moves.

It should be a double win to igame.



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 : ?


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2007-10-17 02:50:47)
Spanish

Haga click en la pieza que desea mover


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-21 01:07:45)
Go freestyle tournament

What do you think about a Go freestyle tournament, just like FICGS chess freestyle cup ?

A problem is to define the best time control and number of rounds... With about 100 to 120 moves per game & per player, time control 30+10 means 2 hours per round. As there's no draw at Go, 5 or 6 rounds played in a single day could be ok to find a winner. Any opinion ?

Another question is : Are there players interested to play it ? .. Entry fee would be 10 E-Points / 10 Euros, prize 100% entry fees in E-Points (or 75% for a money prize). It may attract some strong players for interesting games :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-22 15:07:45)
Update : Interface

The interface for fast moves has been updated, now it shows the move number. The (Flip) (Skip) duet disppeared, replaced by symbols and a shortcut to public comments.. I hope everyone see it correctly.

Also a few minor bugs corrected & improvements...

The titles page has been updated - http://www.ficgs.com/titles.html


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-23 02:59:46)
Time zones

I'm to add the waiting list, Go "freestyle" cup will be a 6 rounds swiss tournament... Chess & Go freestyle tournaments will occur at the same time. Rounds will start at 15:00, 18:00, 21:00 server time on 2 consecutive days.

Time zones are a problem for players from ie. New Zealand, but it should be ok for players from Moscow to New-York.

Time control will be 1 hour + 10 seconds per move.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-01 21:56:57)
Ratings in waiting lists

Hello Marc,

As Don said, ratings displayed in waiting lists are current ratings, so it happens when players enter a waiting list before their rating decrease.

Anyway, I changed the rating range for CHESS RAPID M category to 2100 to find more players, if this is not ok for you, I can remove you from the list.

Best wishes, Thibault


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-11-01 22:56:53)
??

"if this is not ok for you, I can remove you from the list."

I never enrolled for this tournament and I am not on the list ...

I just had a look as I was searching for a possible new tournament with higher ratings ...

Marc


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


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 :)


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.


Don Groves    (2007-11-13 22:59:04)
Number of games limitation

Hi, Thibault -- I agree with a limit but not for the reason of protecting a player from himself (or herself) because that cannot be done ;-) But to protect the rest of us from long waits between moves, unnecessary forfeits, poor quality games, etc., it is a good idea.


Garvin Gray    (2007-11-14 18:26:42)
related issue


I think there is a bigger issue here. It is very rare to see a player who is just under the rating cut off enter said tournament.

For example: Tournament rating range is 1600-2000. It would be very rare indeed for a 1950+ player enter this type of tournament.

Maybe all the rating bands for tournaments need to change ie be moved to 200 points difference, with no cross over.

So the standard tournaments are:

1600- 1799

1800- 1999

2000- 2199

and so on upwards.

Rapid tournaments are:

1700-1899

1900-2099

2100-2299

and so on upwards.



Robert Mueller    (2007-11-18 08:52:18)
Class M Waiting List

Hello Thibault, I noticed that in the Chess Class M (ELO 2200-2600) Waiting List there are two players with a rating of well under 2200 (2174 and 2147). I suppose, they had a rating higher that 2200 when they signed up, but dropped under 2200 before the tournament was started. Shouldn't they be removed from the waiting list now?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-18 15:21:04)
Class M Waiting List

Hello Robert, it wouldn't be conventional to remove players from waiting lists IMO. These players just lost their 2200+ rating but they probably deserve to play this tournament. Rating considered is the one you have when you enter a waiting list. Kind of "last chance" :)


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    (2007-11-19 01:45:52)
Done

Hi Wayne, you've been removed from the list.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-19 02:07:51)
server based games

No, of course :) .. there are interfaces for each game played here, see tournaments & games. When a tournament starts, your moves can be notified to you by email but you have to connect to the server to play your moves.

See also Help - http://www.ficgs.com/help.html


Dinesh De Silva    (2007-11-22 03:57:13)
Is the IECG lss.chess-server down today?

Thibault, Is the IECG server down today? I tried to connect to make moves, but been unable to log in to it for hours now.


Glen D. Shields    (2007-11-23 00:57:19)
I Can't Login Either

Dinesh - it's about 7 PM Eastern US time Nov 22nd and I'm not able to log in to the IECG server either. I'm sure that's frustrating if you want to get some moves entered. Good luck.


Pekka I. Turakainen    (2007-11-27 22:44:48)
Can u figure this out?

Some time ago we played a game of chess with my friend and after 66. move reached the following position: 6k1/5b2/8/4q3/1K6/8/1RR5/8 w - - 0 1 We agreed that it's a draw. No it isn't! It's white's move and the material looks balanced, but black will have his win after 53 moves (if white has an ideal defence). This is what the almighty Nalimov says. Don't bother to check this out with your multiprocessor chess software...it'll probably take months before it finds the right combination. What to speak of the poor human brain. Feeling humble now....


Ulrich Imbeck    (2007-12-01 12:57:09)
time counting

Why is there such a big difference between me and my opponent in http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=move&game=15704


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-01 15:02:34)
time counting

Hello Ulrich.

Yes, this is the only tournament where this problem happened, simply because the thematic opening starts at Black move number 10 :/ .. So the program added time to player Black when playing his first move, not to player White (at move eleven). I did not think about that when the tournament started, but anyway this advantage or disadvantage is shared (3 games with, 3 games without). Sorry about that.


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    (2007-12-13 17:59:07)
Wild cards & cheating

I don't think wild cards are useful (but wch cycle, maybe) cause ratings move quite fast, simple rules is best IMO, also to let the program apply accurate rules without human decision, as far as possible...

About cheating, if a player manage to play from several accounts that the program couldn't detect, the effects are negligible in 7-players tournaments, even more at a high level, so he'll stop quite quickly as it requires even more time.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-14 15:40:44)
Tablebases on R+B vs. N+N

Good to know this endgame (Rook + Bishop wins against 2 Knights in 150 to 220 moves in the longest cases - tablebases 6 pieces), as there's no draw granted after 50 moves without any capture according to FICGS rules.

Karjakin, Sergey (2694) - Shirov, Alexei (2739)
World Cup Khanty-Mansiysk RUS (6.3), 11.12.2007

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4322


Garvin Gray    (2007-12-15 17:29:41)
tablebase wins


If I understand this correctly, does this mean now that if any position is given as a win by tablebase and the win is over 50 moves, the 50 move draw rule will be ignored?



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-15 17:51:51)
50 moves rule

Absolutely.

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


Robert Mueller    (2007-12-16 13:57:56)
Conditional Moves

I am sure this must have been discussed in the past, but if I could vote for one improvement on the FICGS server software, it would be conditional moves. After all, it is soon Christmas and the time for big wishes ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-16 16:22:18)
Conditional Moves

Indeed, it has :) .. Conditional moves still brings many questions but I'm still opposed to the idea.

Anyway a new wish list is a good idea ! .. The main issue I'm working on these days is money prizes for WCH & freestyle tournaments, but ideas for improvements are always welcome.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-16 16:31:33)
Make your chess variant :)

"Too many draws, chess is dead", one read such things quite often for a few years. True or not, what about to imagine a new variant like Chess-Vodka (one move or capture, one mouthful.. funny games :))

Ok, I can't implement Zubrowka on this server :) , but we could imagine a funny rule that would let the game rules very near classical chess but with more mad games, less drawish & giving equal chances to both players (main point being FUN)?!

Any ideas ?


Robert Mueller    (2007-12-17 05:54:09)
Why are you opposed to the idea?

Now I am puzzled. I thought there were no conditional moves on this server because it is a technical issue. Why would you be opposed to the idea? It is pretty much standard in correspondence chess, even on servers.


Glen D. Shields    (2007-12-17 14:51:16)
Conditional Moves ICCF Server

Conditional moves are technically possible on the ICCF server. The tournament organizer has the option to turn the conditional move feature on or off.

ICCF decided to turn it off for all ICCF tournaments. I don't recall the exact reason for doing this, but it has something to do with concerns about time abuse. One can peruse the ICCF Congress minutes to find why this was so decided.


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.


Hannes Rada    (2007-12-18 21:57:02)
conditional moves and ICCF bureaucracy

> ICCF decided to turn it off for all > ICCF tournaments. I don't recall the > exact reason for doing this, but it > has something to do with concerns > about time abuse. How can conditional moves be considered as "time abuse" ?? What is the rationale behind this ? Chessfriend.com had a perfect implementation of (secret) conditional moves. But ICCF is a slow, conservative and bureaucratic organization. Why not making a poll to find out if the players want this feature ....


Glen D. Shields    (2007-12-19 00:07:29)
Send a Note to ICCF

Hannes - if you want a complete answer to ICCF's rationale, or to argue about ICCF's bureaucratic practices, I suggest you post on the ICCF forum or write one of the ICCF officials. I posted only what I recall. I don't represent ICCF, nor am I here to defend ICCF's decisions.

I agree that CFC's secret conditional moves worked well. Whether conditional moves add value is not an unanimous opinion. Some like it for convenience. Others hate it and believe it adds to an already too fast game. Personally I could care less either way.



Garvin Gray    (2007-12-19 09:36:21)
no conditional moves


I do think no conditional moves is the best way to go. It is simple to understand and there is no possibility of confusion.

I can see that having conditional moves would increase a td's workload. On there that would be Thiabault.

Just easier to have no conditional moves and therefore no confusion.



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-20 00:21:24)
conditional moves, ICCF

About conditional moves, it would be a lot of work to implement it, but anyway yes I'm opposed to it, following several discussions around it. I think it's not completely fair and adds a (small) chancy factor to the game, so in this way I understand "time abuse".

But I can't see yet how it adds some work to a tournament director (Garvin ?!)...


Lincoln Tomlin    (2007-12-20 07:44:37)
Chess variants

Many years ago, a friend and I made up a variant with the idea of practicing our endgame technique from a normal starting position. It worked like this: The pieces are setup as usual and the rules are exactly the same as in the normal game with the exception that all major and minor pieces cannot move unless they are capturing. The play then centres on pawn and king moves as if it was a K7vK7 endgame, which would be too easy to draw, but with added strategies of bringing pieces into play via sacrifices to unbalance the position. Which then cannot be moved again unless they take of course.


Garvin Gray    (2007-12-20 20:28:01)
needs new glasses :)


But I can't see yet how it adds some work to a tournament director (Garvin ?!)...

I have not played on a server with conditional moves, but I would imagine that there are times when the two players disagree over what conditional moves were proposed and so the td has to sort it out and maybe 'offend' someone with a ruling against.



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-20 21:42:02)
Conditional moves

I don't think so, it worked perfectly ie. at Chessfriend server. The program stores the conditional moves, there can't be any error but a human one. There was no case yet of a disowned move at FICGS, so I suppose it would be (have been) the same with conditional moves.


Hannes Rada    (2007-12-20 23:27:22)
Unfair ?

Thibault, Why do you think conditionals are unfair ? There are some openings which are perferct for conditional moves. For example Grunfeld. On chessfriend I offered my opponent the first 10 or 12 moves as conditionals. And the game really started on the first day with an interesting middle game position (avoiding to enter the boring and well known opening moves step by step).


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-21 00:17:08)
Unfair

I agree, of course conditional moves may be useful to save time, often for both sides. That's not the point.

In many forced sequences, only one side may take advantage of conditional moves to save time, that's not fair and that's the point according to me.


Gino Figlio    (2007-12-21 19:27:23)
conditionals

Hi Thibault,

I would like to comment on this issue.

While it is true that only one side benefits from a one-move conditional, the other side needs only to add his own conditional string to benefit himself from saving time.

Best regards,

Gino


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-21 20:42:31)
conditionals

Hi Gino,

So it's up to the other player, who's almost forced to use conditional moves to save time also. But there are forced lines where only one player has "no choice", that's what I meant. Well, conditional moves could be implemented in many ways, with several lines, a complete tree and so on...


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    (2007-12-29 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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-07 14:54:59)
Possible to stop the clock

Ok, definitely I have to update this feature right now, but the 60 days limit per move should remain IMO, so it won't be possible to take too many days of vacation according to the clocks (or the player will be warnt that he'll lose some games)...

Well, if all players in the tournament agree to stop Viktor's clock, I'll arrange that.


Garvin Gray    (2008-01-07 18:21:04)
conditional move tournament


Can we have a conditional move non rated tournament to test out the differences as I have never played on a server with conditionals?

Might give some of us more idea of whether to be in favour of it or not.



Hannes Rada    (2008-01-07 20:04:20)
Stop the clock

I agree. It does not make sense to get a win without playing. Because we are here to play chess .... :-) However I saw that the game with H. Ingersol is already over ... So I would stop the clock, if every participant in this group agrees. But we need a more simple solution concerning the reflection time. I would propose: After 10 days without playing a single move: 1st warning, after 20 days: 2nd warning, afer 30 days: the game is automatically lost for that player. Warnings should be sent to both involved players be email. During 30 or 40 days holiday during a year the refelection time will be stopped. That's how it worked at chessfriend.com and this is in my opinion the best and simplest solution.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-07 23:07:41)
Vacation : Update

An update is to be installed : It won't be possible anymore to take too many days of vacation provoking the loss of any game without being warned of this.

I agree that vacation could be implemented in a more simple way, but no move should take more than 60 days and it could be possible with a 30 days limit per move and the clock per move frozen during vacation. Anyway, we'll see how it works...


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-11 17:30:04)
width, game number

Hello Mladen, you mean because of the scrolling bar ? (feel free to send me a screen shot)

Patrick, you're right... There's no place enough, that's a problem :/ .. Did you try to put the mouse over "Move : " and over the last move ? There are informations about the game there also, but that's not a perfect solution, I agree...


Konrad Hornung    (2008-01-13 03:05:32)
Possible Improvement to site

I like to sometimes analyze a position before moving i.e. move pieces around, and I don't think this a possible option on the game page.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-14 16:19:56)
challenges

Hi Andrew, yes players are ordered by login time (then roll so looks like random) while they most probably should be ordered by rating. Maybe soon... If a player challenges you, a line with an "accept" option appears below the box. If you challenge a player, a line that you can remove by clicking the double arrows appears below the box and your opponent is warned. But I have to make new improvements to increase the interest of these bullet/blitz bronze games - maybe it should be free after all :) .. Now, the empty games (without any moves) will be deleted by new ones...


Peter Unger    (2008-01-15 14:58:03)
Conditional moves

Conditional moves! to accelerate the games. Peter Unger


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-15 20:31:55)
analyze board : update

The analyze board is online for classical chess, click the A option (available in "move_express" page only) then play your own lines :)


Konrad Hornung    (2008-01-16 07:11:38)
Games Database

Having a user friendly games database, showing the board and position and listing the options of moves played in that position by users of the database, with the option to filter games below a particular rating e.g. 2000, is my next idea to improve this site.


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.


Garvin Gray    (2008-01-21 08:02:03)
database

I have a database of my played and ongoing games in fritz. I just download each game after a few moves and add it to the database and then keep refreshing the game each time a move is made to keep the position and my analysis current.


Don Groves    (2008-01-25 09:45:36)
Logged out!

Hi, Thibault -- I'm being logged out rather quickly again. I log in, take a few minutes to decide on a move but when I make the move, I am told to try again. I thought the practice of being logged out automatically had ended a while back.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2008-01-25 11:59:22)
Rating rules

Hi Thibault, will games rated also if one player withdraws without any move (or only a few moves < 10)? I can understand that the withdrawing player should be penalized by negative rating, but not if the "winner" will get positive rating! Otherwise the FIGCS ratings will be a farce or better a gamble! i.e. Ingersol - Popov 8:0 without any move by Popov (TER 2463) in WC quarter final 4-000003


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-25 16:20:55)
10 moves rule

Hi Wolfgang, of course the 10 moves rule applies to the winner (the withdrawing player will lose points in all cases) !

"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."

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


Hao Nhien Nguyen    (2008-01-30 10:04:16)
Under-10-move checkmate

What about under-10-move checkmate? Will the winner get the point?


Nicola Lupinacci    (2008-01-30 12:18:55)
Under-10-move checkmate

I think checkmate under 10 moves will be counted in rating variations, becouse if you checkmate a player you do not win automatically the game: he has to resign.

I don't now perfectly how rating works but in my opinion rating variation is not cuonted only in games that endend before the 10th move with one player losing on time

Is it correct?


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 :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-31 01:51:01)
Nothing strange

Hi Nicola, that is normal... just trying to replace the first bullet games without any move in the database.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-02-12 20:56:41)
3 fold repetition

Hi thibault I was just wondering is there a draw rule on FICGS by 3 fold move repetition?


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?


Garvin Gray    (2008-02-14 19:00:38)
draw claims


Hello Andrew,

A point about the laws of chess from your last post.

The player who is claiming the draw via three repetition of position does not actually play the third move on the board. They are to get the arbiter (in this case referee) and indicate which move they wish to play.

The arbiter then makes the required ruling (draw or incorrect claim).

By the laws of chess, if you were to play the move on the board, it is then your opponent's move and you can not make any claim for a draw.

So taking this for server play, the server should not say draw until one person has made a successful claim. The reason for this is that both players may still want to play on after the third repetition.



Mladen Jankovic    (2008-02-16 15:00:33)
re:

The new interface seems to be mainly graphical, and I doubt that Links has JavaScript implemented. I prefer to input moves using notation manually, regardless.

The command line browsers I used so far were various variants of Links. I use those if I'm stuck with just the terminal for one reason or another. Or if I'm playing certain openings and don't bother switching to graphical interface.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-02-24 01:00:57)
re:

Hi Mladen. It is still possible to enter moves in the textfield through the new graphical interface.


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


Mark Hailes    (2008-03-20 23:23:16)
Voting For Best Game

Hi thibault------ I’m a bit envious of those carriage returns you manage to get in your posts... >>>> Voting will be more difficult <<<< I do tend towards laziness in my daily life (I can’t imagine life without a dish washer for instance). But even so the fractional mouse movement & additional click would not I think cause me such effort as to eschew voting, but it might make it more likely that I’d vote for what I consider to be the best game rather than a random one :-). So that’s one vote for the confirmation! >>>> There's no criteria... 'best' game, according to each player :) <<<< I assume then (from this somewhat enigmatic comment!?) that voting is for the best game in the tournament. Perhaps it might make sense not to allow voting on a game until it is finished? It may be that after playing well in the early part of the game, the player/s collapse later and mess it up. BTW. If I vote again for another game, is my vote removed from the first game I voted for? or not counted? Or can I in fact claim that multiple games are the best game in the tournament? What happens if I vote for the same game more than once?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-03-24 01:37:15)
voting

Votes are removed after 50 new votes, voting for running games allow to follow interesting games before and whatever the end... Well, I suppose players don't make the error twice about votes but you are probably right about this confirmation dialog, I may change it soon.


Purity Tallant    (2008-03-26 01:29:42)
Teaching lessons

It would be nice to have someone to actually be able to teach me proper moves!


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-03-29 18:35:09)
time per move / vacation

Hello Andrew. This issue has been fixed a few months ago, all clocks are verified, if you try to take 11 days vacation in this case, a warning message in red appears... also the My games summary shows the time left for each move taking account of the time per move rule, so it should be ok... But I'll add a note in the vacation page about this.


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    (2008-03-30 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.


Lincoln Tomlin    (2008-04-02 03:38:45)
Unsporting behaviour

It would be respectful if players who have no intention of making any more moves in a game would have the decency to resign. Some players on here are carrying on with other games at the same time so are obviously ignoring these games on purpose. It messes around with your grading cycle if you only have a few games awaiting results and I personally find it very rude behaviour. Rant over :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-04-06 20:39:41)
Unsporting behaviour

Hello Lincoln. Of course this issue has been discussed here before, in my opinion it is not possible to avoid every unsporting behaviour. This is "included" in correspondence chess rules... If a rule says "checkmate -> game is over", a player would just have to last the game one move before checkmate.. If a rule says "one move before checkmate -> game is over", a player would just have to last the game when his engine says +1.87 .. and so on :/


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-04-06 23:50:54)
checkmate

Hi Thibault I think in the case of checkmate the system should end the game there and then. I say that not because it would necessarily reduce players spinning out games but because playing on a server this should be automated. Isn't checkmate always the end eg in email (ie non server cc)chess?? I had no idea it wasnt here it is on other servers I have played on. actually I think many players dont know that checkmate does not end the game here and that they have to wait for time to elapse so I dont think players would all stop the move before checkmate abd it would reduce time in some games. Incidentally stalemate should also be an automated draw


Ulrich Imbeck    (2008-04-14 19:05:39)
i tried to resign

In http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=move&game=15697 i tried to resign. what does i have to do in the move formular?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-04-27 00:52:53)
blitz

Hi Garvin, the reason why blitz games shouldn't be free is the 2 hours time limit for the 1st move. I'm not sure anyone would wait so much time to save a few rating points ;)


Volker Koslowski    (2008-04-28 10:10:33)
Too much...

Hi Thibault!

The idea is nice but seeing the full conversation history at every move is a little bit to much I think. For me it would be enough to see the last message from my opponent and the message I've sent to him the move before. Maybe it is possible to introduce a new option at the preferences where we can set the number of messages that will be shown at the game?

Regards!
Volker


Benjamin Block    (2008-04-28 16:20:51)
How do you play correspondence?

Hi, In bigchess i use my own brain because i don´t know if there is any computer i think around 1 min in the moves. In Go i am a beginer and i just think 10s. In corrspondence chess i let my computer think 0-1 min. How do you play corrspondence? Do you use Deep position analysis?


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


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


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-01 19:50:21)
Marc

Thanks for the informative reply! I do the interactive walk thing you mentioned its very useful though you need reasonable power to have several engines running at once - this you have! I am afraid I dont know how to organise test matches but sounds good. same with Rybka randomiser I have the engine but no idea how to use the randomiser and get it to play itself. 2 wins from the c3 is good as I think it gives white nothing ..but in the line I chose I noticed that after Gelfand (as black) got a draw against Adams with this line Adams repeated it aginst Kasparov who varied. So I guess Adams had an improvement perhap it was what you played? - as black has to find some very accurate moves . Incidentally I very nearly played 5..g5!!? which is really interesting but as my other games were promising decided to settle for taking a draw I like the Basman-Sale and although I have given up e4 in cc will play e4 if we play again as I have some ideas against it. Thanks for the reply


Wolfgang Utesch    (2008-05-02 15:59:02)
Showdown time

It seems we should have a (deeper!) look at WC-Quarter Final Riccio-Zubac - it is showdown time! The both last games are equal for all the 33 moves and Riccio has just to draw for the match win - easy? I'm not sure.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-03 06:22:50)
Arena

I have loaded Rybka into Arena and it seems to be performing at a superchetged rate - unfortunately I cannot make sense of its analysis out put. I am used to a Fritz environment where you can select how many different moves it displays and it ranks them and assisgnsa value + 1.1 etc. it does the same for other uci engines. In arena hoe do I get this kind of output??


Josef Riha    (2008-05-03 15:48:18)
Arena

Hello Andrew, try out the following:
Open the Engine-Paramter dialogue of Rybka and then:
Display PV Tips...on
Win Percentage to Hash Usage...on
Display Current Move...on
Preserve Analysis...on
For more information look at www.rybkachess.com and click on Parameters FAQ on the left side of the screen.
With best wishes, Josef.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-04 07:45:33)
From??

I agree with most of what you said, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to conclude that all variations of the From's Gambit are busted. We might end up finding out that some variations of it are fine for Black.

I also disagree with your statement that "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". Assuming I'm willing to hypothetically go along with the argument that there's supposedly something "wrong" with 1.f4, even though it's at worst a Dutch Defense a move up......you're not taking into consideration the fact that some people actually do more than "play" correspondence chess and want to practice lines they play in live tournaments. 1.f4 has been played by many of the world's greatest players, and in serious competitive tournaments. Fischer, Kasparov, Lasker, and many others have played 1.f4 occasionally, and there are many current IM's and even a GM (Henrik Danielsen) who have played it quite frequently.

Perhaps your idea of "playing chess" is to simply plug a position into various chess engines and mindlessly relay the moves your program suggests, but as for myself, I use the data I acquire from my cc games to prepare for my real chess (chess between human mind vs human mind). Anything other than that is just analysis or group study at best.


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.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-06 03:59:45)
Bird's Opening

Comparing 1.b4 to the Bird's Opening is just revealing your lack of chess knowledge. 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, as I've already mentioned to you. I wasn't making an argument that it should be someone's "main weapon", and I don't use it as a "main weapon" myself. Your original statement that I was contesting was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white".

I'm significantly higher rated than you are on this site, and I beat you quite easily when we played last year (only took me 33 moves if I recall), so I don't think you're any authority in cc either.

And you shouldn't equate a lack of an "opening advantage" with winning potential. Chess is a complex game, and its not about simply trying to make the best theoretical move all the time. It's about defeating your opponent. Theory suggests that 3.Nc3 is the strongest objective continuation for White against the French Defense, yet you still see 3.Nd2 quite regularly and even 3.e5 sometimes. There is more to think about than trying to get an opening advantage when it comes to winning a chess game. There is positional maneuvering and jockeying, as well as psychological factors to consider.

Additionally, trying to win the most games on an online correspondence chess server isn't everyone's goal. Some of us play real chess and use the information garnered here to assist us in our over the board play.


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.


Pablo Schmid    (2008-05-06 14:33:19)
Jason,

I 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? And when you say that after 4..Nf6 you don't see how Black can get the pawn back, I want to say that chess is not all about material but activity. So it might be possible that with best play, even if Black can't get the pawn back, they could reach a dynamical equality.


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 22:01:25)
10...Bf5

A good question Pablo. This is one of the points where I felt that Frenchie made an improvement. The main line used to be 10...Bf5, which I believe is worse than 10...Qe7, because White is a move up after the Bishop on f5 must move again soon.

For example; 10...Bf5 11.e4 Qe7 12.Bg2 0-0-0 13.Be3!+/-


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...


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 12:45:03)
Pablo BACKS DOWN!

Your OTB rating is NOT stronger than mine, liar. If it were you'd step up to the plate and play me, instead of backing down as you're doing. You're probably a 1500-1700 elo OTB player. Considering your rather beginnerish question about the Lasker From, I might be giving you too much credit at that. You know as well as I do that you'd be lucky to get a single draw in ten games against me. I'd probably just win all ten.

Do you always run around challenging people to a chess match on the internet, then retreat like a frightened animal, with your tail between your legs, when they accept your challenge? How pathetic is that? I was looking forward to playing some human mind vs human mind chess with you, but the idea of actually having to THINK and use your own mind to come up with the moves was too much for you to deal with, so you BACKED DOWN like a little girl!


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...


Jason Repa    (2008-05-12 01:14:13)
Rating changes

Could you write a script that removes players whose rating falls below the requirements before the tournament starts? It doesn't seem fair that a 2100 player should be playing in a tournament intended for 2200-2600 players.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-12 10:14:41)
Rating changes

1) There was never a "rule" stating that a player has carte blanche to drop as many rating points as they want and still enter a tournament for which they do not meet the rating criterion.

2) Thibault has already manually removed players from rating lists for this reason. Nobody is being "penalized" except the players who are legitimately qualified to play in that category and who must play with the lower category player. The rating average is being erroneously brought down. The player who's rating was lowered is free to enter the correct waiting list for which his rating qualifies.

3) Your "C" class rating category is hardly comparable to the "M" class category where this has been an issue, so your opinion, even if it did have a shred of merit, which I proved it doesn't, is moot anyway.


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.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2008-05-12 20:02:28)
Rating changes

Hello to all,

I think a player should be removed from the waiting list if his rating is out of the restriction of the tournament.

In my opinion TER means the rating at the start of the tournament not at the entry into the waiting list. If the tournament starts the current rating is used as TER.

For example in FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000015 the games with Jason (!) and Sandor were rated with 2174 and 2147 and not with >= 2200 (their ratings when they entered the waiting list).

No words in the rules about this theme?

Best, Heinz-Georg


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 11:30:35)
French traps

The French defence is one of the best replies to 1 e4 - accidents however are always possible as the following correspondence game shows with black playing into a lost position after just 13 moves: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Qb6 9.Qd2 Qxb2 10.Rb1 Qa3 11.Bb5 Nxd4 12.Bxd4 Bb4 13.O-O O-O ?? (black had to play 13 ..a6 although he will still be under pressure) 14 Rb3 Qa5 15.Qe3 Nb6 16.Qg3 Nc4 17 f5! and the correspondence game finished Rd8 18.Rf4 Bf8 19.Rg4 Kh8 20.f6 g6 21.Rh4 h6 22.Kh1 Kg8 23.Qh3 Kh7 24.Bc5 Rd6 25.g4 Qd8 26.g5 h5 27.Rxh5+ These things happen OTB but French defence players have known of this since Rechlis (2525) - Zueger (2448) 2001 which went 19 f6 g6 20 Rh4 a6 21 Qh3 h5 22 Rxh5!! gxh5 23 Qxh5 axb5 24 Kf2 and white won. since then 13 0-0 has been avoided. Of course at cc a player has time to research the databases and access to powerful chess engines at no cost.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 12:07:15)
Trusting engines

I should add that if you play through the game with an engine it will show black doing ok and even better some time after the position is lost. So its a good example of not just playing the move the engine suggests but actually analysing the position.


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 13:57:40)
Databases and books

Well I dont think a book should ever be trusted for cc no matter who has written it. It should always be critically examined - playing 18 moves from the book without switching on the engine seems very risky. I think the position is lost after 13..0-0 14 Rb3 Qa5 15 Qd3 and I see no defence here. The only Dreev game I have in this line continued .. Nb6 16 Qg3 Nc4 and a draw was agreed.(Ivanchuk-Dreev 1993) Chess engines were not as good then and 17 f5 wins as was later discovered. Where are these GM games from 2003?? Its strange that your database does not have Rechlis (2525) - Zueger (2448) 2001 In fact an earlier game Ernst - Grigutavicus (1999)had seen white crash through with 15 Qf2 Nb8 16 f5 - although Nb8 does not look a very good move. Whats the date of this Psakhis book? I hope its not after 2001!


Hannes Rada    (2008-05-14 20:10:41)
Jason's query

Jason, I gave up OTB chess some 20 years ago. So I have no OTB rating (anymore) Playing in my chessclub was not and ist not compatible with my working hours. CC is perfect for me. Analyzing and making move later in the evening when I am returning from work, or whenever I can find time. It's wise to play the strongest possible opponents. But cc rating does not implicitly say anything about chess strength. Too many variables may influence the players chess abilities. (Too many games at the same time, lack of motivation, ....) On the other side an ambitious 1800 Elo newcomer can sometimes more dangerous than an "old" CC-GM. FICGS is quite a nice community. Here you have the chance to raise your rating and play against the higher rated players pretty soon compared with ICCF. But your "strong opponent experience" will end here around 2500 - 2550. Raising your rating in ICCF takes much more time (because tournaments are slower) but when you've established yourselve at a certain level than you have the chance to play the > 2700 guys like van Osteroom & Co :-) But at this level correspondence chess is no fun anymore. I've talked to GM Peter Hertel from Germany several years ago and he told me that he had to analyze and work on his cc - chess positions around 10 hours per day to compete at this level .... if you are retired or jobless and a billionaire (van Osteroom) than you have the best chances of winning an ICCF championship final .... :-) Do you think the playing cc helps to improve your otb abilities ? I've talked to several players regarding this issue and I received different answers. From: Yes I benefit from my cc-opening experience To: No, these are absolutely different stories. OTB requires the abilites to calculate deeplines correctly and to maintain concentration for a couple of hours. All things which are absolutely not necessary for cc. My experience for the short time frame when I played both otb + cc is that for the purpose of improving the otb abilities it would have been better to study chess books and solving tactical exercises than playing cc.


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.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-15 23:14:37)
Books and databases

This thread is really about how reliance on books and lack of research can get someone into trouble ie a lost position after 13 moves in a main line opening - even with plenty of time and powerful chess engines available. Actually its not even necessary to own an up to date database to avoid this - the resources are freely available to anyone with an internet connection. The point about ELO is dead I think referring to ELO points is associated with FIDE ratings irrespective of the fact that most national rating systems use ELO's methodology. Mr Repa does not agree - thats it. "but when I'm dealing with who says down load and data base ..." I don't read anything into the omission of the word "someone" here nor the numerous spelling mistakes that have cropped up. Incidentally the book I referred to with analysis of the dodgy siscilain variation is called Experts V the Sicilian with different chapters by various GM's and IM's including a chapter on the pin variation about which one reviewer says: "we get no less than 12 pages on the “silly” Pin Variation, and in the end Aagaard seems unable to prove a certain advantage!" Whatever the truth about that variation its highly risky and not recommended for cc!


Arnab Sengupta    (2008-05-19 09:53:53)
Find the best move

Find the best move for white here and the possible continuation- 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nge2 dxe4 5.a3 Be7 6.Nxe4 Nf6 7.N2g3 O-O 8.Bc4 Nbd7 9.O-O Nxe4 10.Nxe4 Nf6 11.Qd3 Bd7 12.Nxf6+ Bxf6 13.Bf4 Re8 14.Rad1 Rc8 15.Rfe1 c5


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-20 23:58:25)
3 fold repetition

Hmm.. The server most probably replaced the last move played by Farit (which actually provoked the threefold repetition) by the final result, sorry about that, I'll correct this bug soon - and the game.


Arnab Sengupta    (2008-05-21 14:01:58)
Help!

Does anybody has some better moves for black in the game between Kramnik-Aronian, Wijk aan Zee 2008, after Kramnik's 25. Nc3 dxc3 26.Qxc3+? somebody help me plz


Arnab Sengupta    (2008-05-21 18:21:19)
game

well Cirulis, i know that game...... i dont need the moves played in it....i want to ask if anybody has any better variation in that position.


Benjamin Block    (2008-05-21 18:26:44)
The best move?

The best move is very hard to say but i think it is dxc5 Rxc5


Jason Repa    (2008-05-21 21:39:46)
To be or not to be

I believe in free will when I make good chess moves, fatalism when I make bad ones!?


Graham Cridland    (2008-05-21 21:55:39)
dxc5

Nice, safe route to a draw, which seems inevitable in that position anyway. Black's kingside is well defended and there aren't any obvious d-file tricks, so the best move from a wasted-effort standpoint might be a draw offer.


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2008-05-22 16:15:45)
Game ...

According with Crafty, 27. ... Rb8 is a better move.


Michael Aigner    (2008-05-23 10:30:13)
White is simply better

Hi Arnab, in my opinion it is too late to look for improvements after move 26. I think white has just the better game (for ever) because of the unsafe black king. Regards Michael


Arnab Sengupta    (2008-05-27 17:08:39)
Help

Well two moves comes in mind for BLACK 29....Re6 or 29....Rc7 I think both moves holds fort for Black. What say?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-27 17:18:27)
Provisional rating

Not so big IMO. Ratings move fast, it doesn't take a long time to move to a higher category at this level (for a strong player / centaur).


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-27 19:02:42)
Provisional rating

1800 is quite usual as a provisional rating in correspondence chess, some sites prefer to ignore games played by players who don't have an established rating in rating calculation. In my opinion, the effects are quite small here and ratings move faster this way.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-28 00:32:54)
Advanced Go games

Actually, it should also open a pop-up window if your browser allow it for the site. Anyway you should remove from the waiting list if you can't check the page regularly.


Don Groves    (2008-05-29 00:17:16)
Fast games vs. slow games

Hi, Mik -- Fast games are more often lost by a mistake rather than won by good play. Many of us enjoy the challenge of finding the best move and winning by good play instead of relying on opponent mistakes. Try it, you may like it too ;-)


Mik Kris    (2008-05-29 06:37:00)
so thing you might not know about go

go is not about making a better move its about keeping the game equal you cant win in go unless youre oponent had a misstake that you fix or a simple misstake you didnt evean have to fix most players take too long to realy understand this hell i know this i stil dont understand it but its true ask any strong player or pro its evean more true in our kyu games where we make a wrong move every few also i took some time lookin at some games on this site it seems that most players here dont use the extra time they have to read or make shape any way in fact many games are lost becouse of misstakes in reading what seems to me becuse the lack of faster games where you have to read perfactly fast


Garvin Gray    (2008-06-02 19:14:39)
response


Wayne, this is an enternal problem and while you complain about it for the rating group 2100-2300, saying that only 2100 will benefit from it.

No matter what the rating bracket, it has been shown on this site many times that very few players will enter a waiting list when their entry is just below the cut off.

So changing the rating limits to 2200-2400 will not change this behaviour, all it will do is move the 'problem'.



Thibault de Vassal    (2008-06-03 18:00:59)
Correspondence Poker

Live time is easier, a problem is that correspondence poker may be very long : ~6 moves by hand by player, let's say from 10 or 20 hands to 100 hands and more in one game, so many moves :/ .. but it may be possible to limit the number of hands and calculate ratings also by taking account of what is left after ie. 100 hands - which is quite few anyway.


Benjamin Block    (2008-06-06 18:59:39)
Hydra vs Adams.

What was the time control in this game? How could Adams know that his move was better when the computer?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-06-07 17:28:51)
Hydra vs Adams

Wasn't it classical time control ? (40 moves/2 hours)

What does mean your second question ?


Robert Mueller    (2008-06-07 22:48:44)
Why so few top players in Wch 5 ?

I can only speak for myself. 1 move per day is too fast for me. I decided not to sign up for the WCH but play standard time controls (4 days per move) instead. When I signed up for WCH 4, round 2 of WCH 3 started and then I surprisingly qualified for the WCH 2 final. Suddenly, I had more than 20 fast games in progress. This is too much stress for me.


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-06-08 06:24:35)
Rapid chess entry rating

Jayson Repa has a point but I think he is missing my point. If Engine help was not allowed, I would agree 100%. But with engine help, in practice mostly Rybka, a 2100 player is grossly under rated, I mean gross. So that is a huge barrier to overcome for a 2200+ rated player. It is not obvious that a 2300 player climbing the ranks against 2400 players has a larger barrier than a 2200 player reaching 2300. \The point I am making is: It matters little the ratings in correspondence chess with very very long time controls. Rybka does not know or care, the lil girl just makes best moves anyhow. The skill comes in when the human selects the best opening and is the most capable of steering his engine consistant with his chess knowledge. Heck Mr Repa I would love to play 2400 players, my chance of loosing is no greater than losing to a 2100 player, both would be using Rybka or engine of their choice. With respect sir Wayne


Benjamin Block    (2008-06-08 08:51:48)
oops

It was a mistake. i mean Nickel vs Hydra. What was the time control in this corr game? I guess Nickel used a computer too. But how could he know that his move was better then the his computer?


Jason Repa    (2008-06-09 00:22:32)
Rapid chess entry rating

If you're not bright enough to figure out how to look up someone's rating, you better stick to "engine-assisted" chess. I'd probably beat you blindfolded in chess where you have to come up with the moves using your own mind. You're not even intelligent enough to figure out how to spell someone's name, when the spelling of it is right in front of you.

And for someone who doesn't want to engage in insults, you sure are doing a good job of insulting. Nice of you to "claim" I wouldn't accept your "challenge" of playing match games, before you even make the challenge. Obviously it's YOU who's backing down from match games with me, under the pretense of not having any time to play. What sheer nonsense. You seem to have a lot of free time on your hands....enough to blabber away with numerous forum posts where you whine about not being able to make it to 2300.

I'm challenging YOU to some human mind vs human mind chess on the playchess server right now. You can get a free trial account there (if you don't already have an account) in about 2 minutes. For a guy who's incessantly bickering about Rybka hurting your performance, you should love having the opportunity to prove to everyone reading this that you're not the spineless hypocrite coward I'm claiming you are and step up to the plate to play me some fast (so rybka or other engines cannot be consulted) online games.

Nice of you to tell us you have problems, but it was already obvious.


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.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-09 11:05:13)
Brackets - Chess and Go

"Thanks for your reasoned response"

Somehow I don't think you know the meaning of the word "reason", groves.

"(1) Having one lower rated player in a group of seven does not seem to me to be much of a dilution"

It is very much a dilution. As I just finished explaining to you, it will not only make it more difficult for the other players in the tournament who legitimately qualify to be there by rating, to acquire the rating points necessary to get to the next level, but it will lower the overall rating average and effect the awarding of norms.

"Also, remember that this player is at or very near the top of the next lower rated group"

Total rubbish. You just finished saying, in your previous post, that you propose to allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification REGARDLESS of his/her rating. There is no certainty that the winner of the tournament will be near the top of the next lower rated group. They could very well be at the bottom of the next lower rated group, as I often was, as were many others, when I won tournaments.

"and again, this doesn't seem like a large enough disparity to be of concern."

And AGAIN, As I just finished explaining to you, it will not only make it more difficult for the other players in the tournament who legitimately qualify to be there by rating, to acquire the rating points necessary to get to the next level, but it will lower the overall rating average and effect the awarding of norms.

"Thibault instituted a rule that losing to a lower rated player only counts as a loss to someone a maximum of 150 ELO below"

Where did you get the 150 ELO figure from? I was under the impression it was a 200 ELO ceiling. Not that this has any relevance in terms of supporting your position anyway.

"The new rule could easily specify that no more than one lower rated player may enter any given tournament."

I just finished explaining to you that there is no guarantee that the "M" class tournaments will end at the same time as the "A" class tournaments. Not only do "M" class players tend to take the game more seriously and move slower, but there are more "A" class players than "M" so it takes longer to fill an "M" class list, hence less "M" class tournaments are played. If you propose to have only one "A" class player sent to an "M" class tournament at a time, then you'll quickly accumulate a waiting list backlog of "A" class players waiting to be seeded into a tournament they don't legitimately qualify for, stretching for decades. The other reasons I mentioned are MORE than enough reason to ditch this suggestion. This is just gravy.

Additionally, and once again, as I just finished explaining to you, if someone is winning tournaments, they're gaining rating points and will soon be able to qualify for the new rating category through legitimate means. So there is no reason at all to provide such "handouts".

I hope I don't have to repeat myself a third time here. It seems quite silly that you don't yet understand the simple and logical truth of what has been explained to you.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-10 08:34:35)
Senility is a terrible thing

How long are you going to keep whining and crying here groves? If I had any doubt about the accuracy of my comments, it would certainly be removed after this emotional protest from you. You're extremely pathetic, even for the standards of a geriatric imbecile. First you say that you won't be posting in this thread anymore, then you prove to everyone reading this that you're a bold-faced liar, in addition to everything else that has been said about you. I proved how patently stupid you are, in point by point form. You don't even realize that you've contradicted yourself repeatedly. You can't even remember your own words.

Do yourself, your family, and society a favor little man, and see someone about euthanasia.


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.


Marc Lacrosse    (2008-06-17 07:55:59)
Conditionals ?

I know that this has been discussed before...
But I still feel that possible use of conditional moves would be a nice improvement here.
Nothing mandatory : simply the possibility to tell your opponent : "If you play this move my answer is that one". I cannot see how it could hurt in any way but I feel that it may help soften (and fasten) the play in situations like forced suites, exchanges and so on.

Your opinion ?

Marc


Garvin Gray    (2008-06-17 08:25:59)
conditional thematic tournament

I agree with this Marc and would like to see it trialled in a non rated tournament just like the thematic tournaments. That being said, I have seen Thibault express some concerns regarding conditional move use.


Marc Lacrosse    (2008-06-20 08:04:12)
Why ?

One of my opponents rated 2300+ continues to play even though there is an announced forced checkmate in eleven moves (no possible miracle : any engine finds the mate).
His game has been completely lost for weeks but the road to mate is long in this minor pieces ending.
Is it correct?
OK this does not infringe any rule but in OTB play this would be considered very bad manner.
Does it happen frequently here?
what is your opinion?
Marc


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-06-20 20:45:46)
Why

Playing on in a completely lost position is to get to the next rating adjustment. Particularly when the loss would take them below a threshold - in this case 2300. Your opponent will probably resign on July 1st. Nice game by the way although I didnt like 6 ..Bxf3 (why give up the bishop?)I think 6..Bh5 then e6-d5 and black is fine. 12 Rc1 was a great move! A few moves later and black is suddenly in big trouble


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-02 23:34:50)
Open games

I just wonder what is a good definition for "open games" ? Exchange pawns is ok, but after how many moves ? It is commonly said : e4 = open game, d4 = closed game, which is very inaccurate.


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?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-04 22:43:41)
vacation

Hello Normajean,

Point 2 means that no move will be played in a period exceeding 60 days, even if you take vacation (otherwise you lose the game on time). However, when you take vacation the program will warn you if you take too many days, ie. if you have 20 days in game xxx but if you did not play a single move for 55 days (actually since your opponent replied) in this game and if you want to take 10 days of vacation, a message will appear in red before you confirm.


Normajean Yates    (2008-07-09 03:01:53)
re: make your chess variant

continuation of closed topic: http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=4362

minichess: 5x5 board with starting pos
rnbqk/PPPPP/5/ppppp/RNBQK w Qq - 0 1

superchess:10x10 board with starting pos.
rnbqskqbnr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/10/10/PPPPPPPPPP/RNBQSKQBNR w KSks - 0 1

S is superqueen, moves like Q or N. Just as Q moves like R or B. So S moves like R or B or N.



Mark Hailes    (2008-07-09 18:25:19)
Derrida

Yes I see, but Derrida's sensitivity to the social dimension of the aesthetic form and his comprehensive hermeneutic method make it possible to raise the question of the dialectical meaning of the ambiguities in the subtext of the game and the moves themselves, perhaps, are not a centre but the meaning of the game.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-07-14 21:41:51)
hmmm

I remember you previously posted about this game having, after many hours, found a problem like win. It sesm that this was wrong! I guess that 89 ...Be7 followed by g5 holds the draw and white just got the order of moves mixed up and played g5 first. It happens.... On the other hand 25 ..Bd3 seems unecessarily risky while 25 ...Ra5 looks fine for black. Still you kept up the pressure and often you make your own luck :))


Normajean Yates    (2008-07-15 03:25:32)
is mirroring moves legal on ficgs?

suppose I am playing a tournament. I need only 1 point [1/2=draw,1=win]. in one game I am white. In another game I am black.

In the game where I am black, I wait for opp to move, say move w1. Then in the game where I am white, I make the move w1, then I wait for opp's reply, say b1. Now in the game where I am black I move b1. And so on..

So i am guranteed exactly 1 point (1/2+1/2 = 1 + 0 = 0+1 = 1).

Is this legal? If not, by which rule?

Thibault?


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-16 00:32:46)
Mirroring moves

Mirroring moves is (of course) strictly forbidden, rule 11.3 [end] :

"It's strictly forbidden to play simultaneously the same game with black on a board and white on the other, against two different players or the same one, playing black moves like the opponent in the game with white and playing white moves like the opponent in the game with black."


Wolfgang Utesch    (2008-07-16 17:33:20)
Thibault: From which move on ...

... does this rule work???


Wolfgang Utesch    (2008-07-16 20:32:14)
Cannot work ....

.... within opening theory - this could be more than 20 moves in a game!


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-16 23:12:46)
Mirroring moves

This rule work from move 1 (let's say move 5 :)) .. it can be verified within the site by examining the date of each move.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2008-07-17 00:42:45)
Mirroring moves

Hello Thibault,

I think it is not possible to decide if a player mirrors moves ("plays simultaneously the same game ...") in two games before the two games have been finished.

Best,
Heinz-Georg


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-17 02:36:56)
Mirroring moves

If you understand well how mirroring moves are done, it is very (very very..) unlikely that all moves dates prove it by coincidence in a whole game... Maybe 3 or 4 consecutive moves are possible in the opening, no more.

It is possible to mirror any move, so check or checkmate.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2008-07-17 04:57:26)
In example ....

... Both players of a match decide to play Sveshnikov with white and black, so it is normal that the first 8 moves are mirrored, may be that both players decide to play a special way in this opening with white and black, it can be that 20 moves are mirrored. Where is the problem? What can be wrong?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-17 06:34:33)
Mirroring moves

Hi Wolfgang,

Your example is ok but you do not take account of the date of each move... Even in Sveshnikov (let's say until move 16) there's a difference between playing the same opening and mirroring moves !

BTW, do you live in New-Zealand too ? :)


Wolfgang Utesch    (2008-07-17 16:03:58)
May be I'm a fool ....

...., but what is the simple difference between playing the same opening with black and white over 10 and more moves and MIRRORING? When is ending the first and when beginning the second?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-17 18:42:37)
Mirroring moves

Let's say you (player A) play B with White on board 1 and play C with Black on board 2 :

Case 1 : C plays 1.e4 on board 2, then you play 1.e4 on board 1, B plays 1...e5 on board 1, you play 1...e5 on board 2 and so on... this is mirroring.

Case 2 : You play 1.e4 on board 1, then C plays 1.e4 on board 2, you play 1...e5 on board 2, B plays 1...e5 on board 1 and so on... this is not mirroring.

The dates of the moves say it all.


Benjamin Block    (2008-07-17 19:30:56)
Why more times an be good.

First i am going to take a example. You will play on a high rated tournamnet on iccf. The fee is 10 euro. But it is too hard for you too win so you need help from this site. You take help from this site. If you lose on this site you will win on iccf. If you lose on iccf you will win here not smart?
One more example. I play vs example you Thibault. You are white. You start with. 1.e4 i make the move on iccf. the player on iccf. move 1-.e5 and i make the move on this site and so on....


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!


Olivier Desormes    (2008-07-18 17:24:56)
i just want to know why

i just want to know why half of my parties are lost before i finish it i play 1 move a week


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-18 17:51:09)
Rapid tournaments

Hello Olivier,

WCH and rapid tournaments time control is 30 days + 1 day / move.

BTW 1 move a week may be too slow for classical time control 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves in some cases :/


Don Groves    (2008-07-25 04:55:58)
Yes...

... it was Gloria Steinem in the mid-1970s, at the height of the US feminist movement.
My spouse's favorite is "51% sweetheart; 49% bitch -- watch yourself!"


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-01 04:19:01)
Rybka 3 encrypted

It seems that Rybka 3 would be actually even stronger that the commercial version of Rybka 3, Rybka team (V. Rajlich, L. Kaufman) explains that the compiled code was encrypted, as a consequence the engine would lose about 60 ELO points in that process.

A smart move by Vasik Rajlich to prevent his engine to be cracked by using simple decompiling tools. (ICE may help the most motivated though)

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=5184


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-07 16:00:12)
Longest game

I just wondered whats the longest game game ever played on FICGS - in terms of moves? Potentially it could be very long as the 50 move draw rule does not apply automaticaaly on this site.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-07 17:03:04)
Longest game

I wondered the same a few days ago... I'll write a small script to find such statistics today ;)

92 moves, Wolfgang... not bad, we will see.. In another category, I played a 200+ moves big chess game with Heinz-Georg :p


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-08 13:19:10)
MoGo wins ! (estimated 2 dans)

I just read it in the American Go E-Journal, MoGo computer program defeated Myungwan Kim 8P by 1.5 points in a 9-stone game billed as “Humanity’s Last Stand?”

The professional player estimated MoGo’s current strength at “two or maybe three dan”, “made some 5-dan moves” (the program used 800 processors, at 4.7 Ghz, 15 Teraflops on a borrowed European supercomputer)

Strangely, Kim easily won two blitz games with 9 stones and 11 stones and lost one with 12 stones and 15 minutes by 3.5 points before this one hour game.

http://senseis.xmp.net/?MoGo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-08 19:44:16)
Longest game : 129 moves

Now you can find some additional statistics for the longest games in the page http://www.ficgs.com/about.html (at the bottom, below opening stats)

Go - http://www.ficgs.com/game_9942.html
Chess - http://www.ficgs.com/game_10806.html
Chess 960 - http://www.ficgs.com/game_8791.html
Big Chess - http://www.ficgs.com/game_15403.html


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-10 07:45:29)
Mogo

So mogo gets to put down 9 stones to start with but I dont know whether he moved first or second - it sounds like he moved first and there was no Komi. Anyway its a big handicap but the breakthrough appears to be that the win was achieved on a 19x19 board in a "long" game (1 hour) Kim didnt use so much of his time but said more time spent would not have made any difference prononcing Mogo invincible at 9 stones and very difficult with 8 stones. The programmers were excited because they said 1 year ago they needed 18 stones now 9 and maybe a year to lose the other 9! If they can maintain this rate of improvement then they are suggesting that in a few years mogo could be the strongest go player in the world. Interestingly there is a reversal here with chess: programs being stronger against humans the shorter the game (ie blitz) but Mogo did better with more time! I guess this is about the time Mogo needs to assess the long term consequences of each move.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-10 07:58:24)
Fischers move

White has chosen 12 g3 - in all 4 games - a slightly unusual move order - but I expect black to head down the main "highway" where very few deviations have been seen on the white side. 4 wins or 4 draws? The next 3/4 moves will determine the nature of the game - very interesting!


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-11 18:03:22)
Annotated games

This feature could be interesting, but there are many ways. An idea could be to link moves from any chess game to Wikichess (but Go and Big chess don't have such a wiki), however I'll have to make it easier to enter a complete game.


Normajean Yates    (2008-08-12 02:10:55)
Okay, requestiong annnotation!

Consider this latvian fraser 'book' line:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Nc6 4. Qh5+ g6 5. Nxg6 Nf6 6. Qh3 hxg6 7. Qxh8 Qe7. [yes I know it is in crisis :)]
well, opp played 8. Nc3 [which i couldnt find in any database] and I was already in serious trouble after:

8...fxe4 9. Be2 Nd4 10. O-O.

Cant see any counterplay by black.

[not on this site; and the game is in progress but has moved on a few moves beyond this point - so I am not cheating!]

Anyone care to comment on - ahem, annotate - my [black's] 8th and 9th move?


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-12 08:54:10)
Latvian

I dont think black has anything better than 8...fxe maybe 9...d5 is better. But Whites 8 Nc3 seems a very good strong simple move. Its strange that it has not been analysed because the position has been looked at by Nunn and Watson - but that was in the pre Rybka era. Now 3...Nc6 looks too risky at cc. So 3 Nxe5 Qf6 is the best chance. Game 18479 (ongoing) is perhaps the most that black can hope for - for some people not much fun but for latvian fans survival is a triumph!


Don Groves    (2008-08-13 05:32:01)
Random?

Thibault -- It's hard enough with everything the same each time I log on!

On the other hand, maybe a few random moves would improve my game ;-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-13 11:41:25)
Random design

Would the design (background color & board color) influence your moves ? :) So red could make us aggressive... Maybe I'll change the design by default to the random one..


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-16 11:55:47)
Wikichess :)

Moves would be more readable in Wikichess, I'll find a way to link all games moves to wikichess.


Phil Cook    (2008-08-17 01:29:23)
wiki

Have entered a few moves in wiki, Thibault, would like to see if anyone adds to it from this game??


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'ętre 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!


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 12:21:49)
Correction

In the analysis given below in "Its a win" under a) I omitted the move 86 Ra6 for white. It should read "85 Ra6 Bc7+ 86 Kxd4 with Table base win" and not "85 Bc7+ Kxd4 with Table base 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


Benjamin Block    (2008-08-19 18:05:13)
Yes it is white win!

I can found win but it will take a lots of move maybe in around the 100 move white will win.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2008-08-20 17:08:55)
Re

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=move_express&game=23081


Normajean Yates    (2008-08-21 05:25:54)
it is! llmars is on the vive-greco team

So the greco countergambit [latvian gambit] is alive, and as long as llmars is there it will stay alive:) I am not so courageous - I play it only in no-engines chess :) [although engines cannot help much in the opening - this being a *real* gambit - can they?] No, actually I *am* courageous! In the ongoing chess tournament I am playing here I did play the greco [latvian] against Taoufik - it is a pity that Taufik decided to forfeit all his games on time [incl. mine on move 5 :(] ...


Marc Lacrosse    (2008-08-21 10:41:22)
Thibault I fear you are wrong ...

From PGN standard 1994.03.12 (8.2.3.3: Basic SAN move construction):

"SAN kingside castling is indicated by the sequence "O-O"; queenside castling is indicated by the sequence "O-O-O". Note that the upper case letter "O" is used, not the digit zero. The use of a zero character is not only incompatible with traditional text practices, but it can also confuse parsing algorithms which also have to understand about move numbers and game termination markers. Also note that the use of the letter "O" is consistent with the practice of having all chess move symbols start with a letter; also, it follows the convention that all non-pwn move symbols start with an upper case letter."

So only the "Ooh" letter is allowed, not the "zero" number.

Marc


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 04:20:35)
Castling bug corrected

Hello again Marius.

The problem was not your last move, it should work fine now.


Michael Aigner    (2008-08-22 18:11:08)
Interesting idea :-)

I played the Lavtian Gambit in OTB chess when I was young, therefore I would like to play on the side of the defenders. Whats about time control - are we going to have 40 days for 10 moves? Best regards!


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-22 18:57:32)
Time control

Of course, games will be unrated, time control would be 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2008-08-22 18:59:56)
WikiChess

I'm tired. Imho I completed to input almost all my "theory" of Poisoned Pawn Variation.

Imho, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 Qg5 5.d4 Qxg2 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Bf7+ Kd8 8.Bxg6 Qxh1+ 9.Ke2 both black moves - 9.-- Qxc1 and 9.-- c6 are lost for black.

Corrections and improvements are welcomed! :)


Normajean Yates    (2008-09-08 14:41:49)
not playing...team game i meant diff.

when I wrote 'team game is okay' I meant consultation-game - team decides on a move.

too busy to play individual games as part of team, even unrated - dont want to spoil latvian reaserch by my bad games.

So, one contestant less. Have a good latvian match! [without me - at present I'd only have bad games to contribute so repeat I am NOT playing]


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-09 18:27:21)
Kramnik vs. Rybka / Zhukov

Posted by Larry Kaufman in Rybka forum : "According to GM Roman Dzindzichashvili quoting GM Sosonko who says he was present, a two game minimatch was held recently between former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik and Russian Chess Federation President Alexander Zhukov, at a serious time limit, with the following condition: Every fourth move, Zhukov was allowed to consult with Rybka for three minutes."

The complete discussion :
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=7270


Around cheating in OTB chess, interesting...


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 ?


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-09-13 00:47:03)
Rybka 2300 @ FICGS

That is interesting Tribault. Do you mean the program running unassisted, no player help, Rybka choose own book moves ? If that is your basis then I say no Way Rybka on FICGS get this rating. There are very many sharp Centaurs playing here. With excellent tuned books. That is the main thing. CC games are won/lost on opening book. I am of the opinion that centaur + program is too strong for Program itself. Results on ICC have demonstrated that. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-15 20:54:47)
Wikichess : Update !

Now you can see strong improvements in Wikichess articles :

- Opening ECO code
- Name of the opening
- Moves played at FICGS
- Find games played at FICGS
- Statistics (White wins, Black wins, Draws)...

Thanks to report any bug.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-15 22:22:26)
Chess quizz beta

Another update, a chess 'quizz' : Guess moves in games played at FICGS.

This is a test version in "My messages" only (on the right).

To be continued, but all feedbacks and comments are welcome already.


Michael Aigner    (2008-09-18 18:16:36)
Too fast =:-O

Hi Thibault, in my opinion we (maybe it is just me) need more time to choose a move (1 minute ?). Do I have to give the choosen move in writing to the program or is it planned to be able to make the move on the board? Best regards Michael


Iouri Basiliev    (2008-09-23 15:07:07)
Michael Aigner

It is bad. From the beginning blacks is really worse and hardly faiting for the draw. Imho collapse will come around move 20.


Iouri Basiliev    (2008-09-25 11:58:00)
Andrew Stephenson

Hey Andrew, why You don't playing in the match black or white? For me 4.d4 is the best whites move. Developing, space, defence - all in one :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-27 04:14:35)
Tactics & strategy

... of course my question raised from the fact that McCain said that Obama made no difference between tactics & strategy, I assume in general, I'm not interested here on the U.S. moves and complete strategy in Iraq !


Don Groves    (2008-09-27 06:43:07)
Strategy and tactics

Salut Thibault -- Military strategy and tactics are similar to chess. For example, the US opening in Iraq was flawed -- too few troops, overconfidence, etc., a bad strategy exposed by the insurgents' successful counterattack. On the other hand, this year's "surge" in Iraq was a tactical move, like moving a rook into an attacking position.

Actually, it was more like adding another rook in the late middle game ;-)


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2008-09-28 15:34:26)
Languages ...

This is very interesting, in the olimpic games in Barcelona, the King of Spain spoke a few sentences in Catalan, someone told me it was the first time in History that a King of Spain spoke publicly in Catalan, instead of Spanish, also in Italy, in Bolzano, the streets names are in both Italian and German and the region I think have the status on bilingual.

In my opinion a second language is always a wonderful thing, been able to speak another language always enriches a person.

There was a SF writer in one of his stories he said that langiage gave shape to thoughts, not the opposite, and in the novel 1984 of George Orwell there was the concept of eliminating dissident movements by creating a new language without words that could be used for thoughts against the government.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-28 21:48:03)
*

The answer in "My games", when you see '*' after a move :) (mouseover the symbol will give an explanation)


Josef Riha    (2008-09-30 09:01:07)
copy games

No problem :-)
Very dubious! I've done this several times and it works.
After loading the .pgn file into the GUI you must change to your database and in that window click on the 'add game' icon(I don't know how it is written in the English version). A dialogue appears where you can edit some datas. With OK it is saved.
I hope you don't misunderstand my extensive description:-)
An easier way is to create a new game and parallel to FICGS you enter the moves done by you and your opponent.
Greetings, Josef.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-02 11:50:49)
Game 16370, towards a new rule ?

What do you think about this case :

http://www.ficgs.com/game_16370.html


Last move : Qe4+ 2008 September 30 19:57:40

White clock - 94 days 18:34:55 (58 days 08:20:25)
Black clock - 0 day 01:19:54

[Event "FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_A__000032"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2007.11.30"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Koch,Christian"]
[Black "Stephenson,Andrew"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "2140"]
[BlackElo "2104"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.h3 Be7 9.Qf3 O-O 10.O-O-O b5 11.g4 b4 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.exd5 Bc8 14.Kb1 Nd7 15.Qe2 Bb7 16.f4 Qc7 17.fxe5 Nxe5 18.Qf2 Bd8 19.Bg2 a5 20.Nd4 a4 21.Rhe1 a3 22.b3 Ra5 23.Nf5 g6 24.Nh6+ Kg7 25.Qf4 Bxd5 26.Bxd5 Rxd5 27.Qxb4 Qc6 28.Rxd5 Qxd5 29.Qf4 f6 30.Bc1 Qc5 31.Rd1 Ba5 32.Qe4 Rc8 33.c4 Bb4 34.h4 Qc6 35.Rd5 Re8 36.Qf4 Bc5 37.Bd2 Qb7 38.Bc3 Bb4 39.g5 f5 40.Qd2 Bxc3 41.Qxc3 Kf8 42.Kc1 Qb6 43.c5 Qc6 44.Rxd6 Qh1+ 45.Kc2 Qe4+ 46.Kc1 Qh1+ 47.Kc2 Qe4+ 48.*


So here player Black has good chances to lose the game on time, even if the best thing player White can do is to draw the game. In my opinion, "in general" player Black should play his next move, unless an analysis prove that the game is a forced draw - according to the rules, http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#adjudications - and eventually the result will be corrected after the game, but I'd like to know what other players think about this situation in general...

Thanks for helping to build strong rules.


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.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-10-03 09:06:04)
Rules

I think you are right Thibault ie amend the rule as you suggest. However maybe change the wording put EXCEPT instead of BUT ("except games where an advantage is obvious")otherwise the english is difficult to understand (but so much better than my french!!)In this case though perhaps Marius is not going to play anymore moves at all in which case it could be classified as silent withdrawal?? At the level he is at it he surely does not need the time to get the positions the fact is that Marius (probably because he has got lot of games/commitments elsewhere) is not playing much at all in FICGS - looks like he will forfeit in the Round Robin final for example.... The existing rules make a distinction between matches and other tournaments. if you follow the other posters then it seems that they are saying that you should not have the rule for silent withdrawals or even losses under 10 moves?? So I vote for the extension proposed by Thibault it seems logical to me for matches - they are not primarily about rating. The idea is that it is too distorting to have a rating that shows a 6-0 win over a similer high level opponent when they just stopped playing and it has nothing much to do with relative playing strength. On the other hand Thibault it will give you a cool rating!! :) Both view points are valid - its true time is a part of the game - but rules involve compromise and the proposed amendment just extends the principle already there........


Michael Aigner    (2008-10-03 13:28:09)
Makes sense!

I agree with you that Thibaults suggestions makes sense in the context of matches where many games are played against the same opponent. For normal tournaments a loss on time should just be a loss (after 10 moves played) - even when the player is loosing all his games in this tourny because of time. Maybe there is some space for exeptions in case of illness or somethink like that - but on the other hand how is the player going to proof such things?


Don Groves    (2008-10-04 04:27:29)
Silent withdrawals

Silent withdrawals could be taken care of by having a 10-day-per-move rule. If a player does not make a move in a game within 10 days and is not on vacation, the game should be forfeited to the opponent and the forfeit rules should apply as to whether the game is rated or not. Maybe a 7 day limit would be even better.

We all dislike silent withdrawals. This rule would end those games sooner and also may eventually stop players from starting more games than they can handle.


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2008-10-04 09:03:00)
In response to Don

That is nosense you have a time limit being 30 days for the whole game or 40 days for 10 moves, if a players forfeits by time let it be. Why create more time time controls or impose faster timings controls . I have made moves after more than 10 days of analysis why should I be penalized?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-04 19:35:26)
re : In response to Don

You wouldn't be penalized in that case. All this is about 8 games match, as Andrew said "The idea is that it is too distorting to have a rating that shows a 6-0 win over a similer high level opponent". The whole problem is just to know where to put the limit.

Well, 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, but 8 wins this way shouldn't be taken in consideration.

Consequently, I propose a new rule, quite reasonable, that could satisfy everyone (finally even my rating :)), here is :

"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, including losses on time whatever the context in a 2 players tournament, ie. chess championship's 8-games matches, except games where an advantage is obvious, in this case at most 2 of these games will be rated."


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.


Iouri Basiliev    (2008-10-06 12:30:18)
Latvian gambit

My first two games with Michael and Rodolfo simply confirmed - "LG is bad opening". 15-20 moves and black can resign. I choose 3.Nxe5 as most difficult for black. 3.Bc4 has been played with Denis. Do not expect more than 20 moves here as well.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-15 23:49:23)
Game 2

GM Anand (2783) - GM Kramnik (2772) [E25]
WCh Bonn GER (2), 15.10.2008

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.dxc5 f5 9.Qc2 Nd7 10.e4 fxe4 11.fxe4 N5f6 12.c6 bxc6 13.Nf3 Qa5 14.Bd2 Ba6 15.c4 Qc5 16.Bd3 Ng4 17.Bb4 Qe3+ 18.Qe2 0-0-0 19.Qxe3 Nxe3 20.Kf2 Ng4+ 21.Kg3 Ndf6 22.Bb1 h5 23.h3 h4+ 24.Nxh4 Ne5 25.Nf3 Nh5+ 26.Kf2 Nxf3 27.Kxf3 e5 28.Rc1 Nf4 29.Ra2 Nd3 30.Rc3 Nf4 31.Bc2 Ne6 32.Kg3 Rd4 1/2-1/2

The prize fund (1.5 million Euro, not bad :)) will be equally split between Kramnik & Anand.

Time control : 120 minutes for the first 40 moves, 60 minutes for the next 20 moves and 15 minutes for the rest of the game with an increment of 30 seconds per move.


Iouri Basiliev    (2008-10-20 16:54:53)
2 Denis

Sorry, but your position isn't bad - it's lost after move 5. Interesting that "theory" do not gives correct moves for white. Let's see...


Iouri Basiliev    (2008-10-20 20:14:27)
2 Denis

Not yet, but mat will come soon. About next 12-15 moves if you play best.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2008-10-22 14:02:51)
Bc4

Next I will move d pawn as fast as it will be possible. :)


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 ;-)


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 :)


Garvin Gray    (2008-10-27 05:23:28)
Intentional?

With the adding of seven days, I am now showing that in some games I have more than 59 days to make my next move. Is this intentional?


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.


Scott Nichols    (2008-10-30 10:06:18)
Quick chess?

I would like to see a new time format of game in 10 days with a 4 hour increment per move. A lot of players like to play fast but need more than one day, but do not need 30 or more days. Would anybody else be interested? Any thoughts?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-30 12:12:34)
10 d + 4 h / move

Hi Scott,

A strange format, very stressful and difficult to play.. I think many players would try it but it would cause forfeits (losses on time) and rating problems quite quickly IMO :/ .. 30 days + 1 day per move is very fast already. Then, the "correspondence blitz" format seems a good choice to me.


Benjamin Block    (2008-10-30 14:14:34)
Extrem fast time.

The fastest time control i ever seen in corr is 7 days+0 on a whole game. The game chould not be more then 14 days. But it is too fast for me. I did test it. It is more a time game you need to play on the day and night. 30+0 Did i also play it was hard but it did work if the games did not get over 100 moves.
30+1 is a good time control! But if you want a max time control it is better with the other.


Normajean Yates    (2008-10-30 14:53:51)
I agree w/Benj.,even more so w/Thibault

10 d + 4 h / move??? that's not correspondence, except technically, IMO.

But if enough ppl want to play it, and M. Thibault is willing to arrange it, who am I to complain :(

So long as no one forces *me* to play that format... ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-30 17:05:04)
Normajean, 1 point :)

Ok ok :) .. I meant thinking about your moves only. I have to be even more careful about what I post now that you're in the place ;)


Don Groves    (2008-10-30 20:15:01)
Quicker chess

I would like see some way of making players play more regularly. Some players join a tournament and then play only a very few moves until their clock turns red. Others take sometimes a week or more between moves until the are forced to speed it up or lose on time.

I have a couple of these games going now and it is frustrating to wait so long. If a player does not have the time to make moves regularly, they shouldn't enter so many tournaments at the same time. </rant>


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.]


Don Groves    (2008-10-30 20:19:24)
Response to Scott

Hi, Scott -- How about specifying a minimum number of moves per day rather than a time increment? Four hours per move would interfere with my sleep pattern ;-)


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


Scott Nichols    (2008-10-30 21:23:12)
To Don:

The 4 hours is not "per move", it adds up. Like if you played six quick "book" moves at the start, you would have an extra day right there. Also, an 8 hour increment would be more appealling to some :). We are getting some interest, that is for sure.


Normajean Yates    (2008-10-30 21:27:23)
what I *really* miss is 1 move/month...

Wish there was a site with one move / month, one week increment after every move, max 400 days vacation every decade...

It will have health benefits also - I mean you may be a B up in the middlegame and opp may have no counterplay, but you have to maintain good health to live long enough to deliver checkmate! :)

Preferably, resignation should not be allowed in such a format :)


Normajean Yates    (2008-10-31 03:38:44)
similarly,smallest natural *extension*-

similarly, what is the *smallest* natural *extension* of chess? [Again I am reposting this idea - i did it a few months ago]

Think about it this way, as far as way of moving is concerned, [keeping aside pawns for the moment] you have R, B, N moving in essentially different ways. Q = R + B as far as movement is concerned - i.e. a queen can move like a rook or like a bishop, as the player chooses. The movement of the Q is nothing more and nothing less.

So, to extend chess minimally and naturally [therefore extending the symmetry also] IMO the natural choice of new pice would be a piece which I call the superqueen, lets call it U [because S is knight in chess problems and in many non-english roman-script languages..]. The superqueen U moves like a R, a B, or a N, according to mover's choice. In other words, it moves like a Q or a N.

movewise, U = R + B + N = Q + N.

Now keeping symmetry and minimality in mind we get 10x10 chess with the following starting position:

rnbqukqbnr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/10/10/PPPPPPPPPP/RNBQUKQBNR.

In 10x10 castling O-O and O-O-O, it may be more natural for the king to move *three* squares [and the R crosses the king and goes adjacent to the new position of the king, just like in 8x8 chess.]

Actually long ago (1981-82) we tried this 10x10 a few times with some friends - we used to call *this* 10x10 thing 'big chess' :(

[we used a one-pound coin heads-up and tails-up for white and black superqueen resp.]

But the name bigchess is taken [and bigchess is nice :) ] , so I am just calling it 10x10 chess now..


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    (2008-11-02 02:36:49)
to Iouri Basiliev - extra tempo..

Loss of tempo? I claim that after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 the unique move that puts white into *zugzwang* is 2..f5!!. Disprove the statement mathematically if you can! :D


Normajean Yates    (2008-11-03 03:12:58)
It will need writing engine from scratch

Many of the published optimisations : rotated bitboards onwards etc - are specifically for 8x8 - the optimisations is that they combine legal-move generation and best-move genertion : conceptually, at one stage we have a list of 'maybe legal' moves and so on.

The high level optimisations are of course common[to begin, see Aske Plaat's Ph.D. thesis - search for it, it is online - also I have a printed copy - and papers on alphabeta+TranspositionTables]


Normajean Yates    (2008-11-03 05:43:35)
vacation bug?

I have gone on vacation, but in Game 21702 it is opponent's move - and opponent's clock is still moving!:

Normajean Yates ... is in vacation until 2008 November 7

White clock - 98 days 01:11:33
Black clock - 94 days 15:34:05 (59 days 23:22:32)


and now:

Normajean Yates ... is in vacation until 2008 November 7

White clock - 98 days 01:11:33
Black clock - 94 days 15:32:46 (59 days 23:21:13)


So opponent's clock has decreased from 94 days 15:34:05 to 94 days 15:32:46 !


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. "


Volker Koslowski    (2008-11-03 11:05:33)
Bug?

I don't think that there is a vacation bug. It ist still possible for your opponent to make his next move (if it is his turn) even if you are in vacation.

As far as I can see Rule 11.4 does not say that you and your opponent could not make any move when you are in vacation. It only says that all your clocks in all of your running games will be frozen and it is not possible for you to play further until your vacation is over. In order it is not possible for you to cancle your vacation, or take only a vacation in one special tournament you play.

Maybe Thibault could say more about this...


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-11-03 18:30:23)
Quick chess

Well seems to be a lot of interest here by many players. My thoughts on super short games here are, if that is what you all want I am for it. I wont enter most likely any super short games however. The original post of 10 days + a increment of 4 hrs/moves is too fast for ole gramps here. Like several have commented here, allowing time build up to enormous value is very very bad. I agree with Don and Mark on these notions. I think the suggestion of not allowing the timer to exceed the base limit is practical and VERY desireable Thibault ! I like the discussion on this topic, It is good.


Don Groves    (2008-11-05 08:02:06)
8 x 8 chess variant

There is another way to foil the computers and re-energize chess: A screen is placed between the two sides of the chess board and each player places their pieces on the board in accordance with two rules: (1) one pawn on each file; (2) no piece past its own third rank. Then the screen is removed and the game begins with White's first move.

Opening books become useless (requiring the computer to begin using its clock from the first move) and the usual endgames will rarely occur (although endgame databases are obviously still useful).

Knowing your opponent's tendencies becomes even more valuable than in the normal game.


Benjamin Block    (2008-11-05 15:14:48)
Build openingsbook in fritz 11.

1.You need to extract the files first.
2.Start the program fritz 11.
3.Press edit->Openingsbook->Import games.
4.Choose the extracktet files.
5.Take 1-????? if you want all. ????=the highest nummber. (you get it in the start.
6.Choose how many moves you want in every game. MAX 100.
7.Press "ok".
You can say thanks by giving me the links you 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    (2008-11-09 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)


Ilmars Cirulis    (2008-11-14 19:07:51)
'Experimented players' still here :)

'Experimented players' still aren't corrected.

I look at the right upper corner of site (when I am not logged in yet). And what I see?
Imho, I see some flash animation with rotating sentence (in purple colour under line in blue "Wikichess, open chess repertoire") - "Chess moves explained by experimented players"

It was what I meant previous time. :D


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-19 10:13:34)
First poker holdem game

You may now see the very first poker holdem game played at FICGS :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26171
http://www.ficgs.com/game_26171.html


Of course, many players will prefer the bullet time control (10 minutes + 20 seconds / move).


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-19 19:36:35)
No limit poker

Sorry Benjamin, I missed your post. No, it is NO LIMIT poker, you can bet from 1 chip to all your chips whenever. You can change it in the form before to send the move.


Don Groves    (2008-11-20 09:58:15)
Weirdness?

I'm trying to play my poker games but even after I send my move, nothing happens and it's still my move. Am I doing something worng?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-20 10:55:47)
Don

Which games are you referring to ? (and which move ?) Sometimes you have to play twice in a row, this is normal (according to the button position).


Don Groves    (2008-11-21 00:15:03)
Poker interface

It seems there is an unnecessary extra step. When we choose our play and press "Move," why isn't that sufficient? Why must we later press "Send?"


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.


Don Groves    (2008-11-21 00:33:56)
Fast moves!

I've switched to fast moves. For sure much better ;-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-22 22:55:35)
Bug : Poker games 26171 to 26300

A small bug happened in a few Poker games from game 26171 to 26300.

FICGS uses a virtual board to save processor time and avoid to re-calculate all moves to display the current hand, but there was an 'invisible' bug until now : The virtual board may be different from the re-calculated current board in rare cases. Consequently, when you'll look at previous moves in some games, your hand may not be the one you actually played. This bug has no consequences on the result of the game, it shouldn't happen again.


Michel van der Kemp    (2008-11-24 12:57:14)
Another request

Since you are obviously not busy at all, Thibault: would it be possible to show the betting history just for a specific hand? I understand it can be seen from the 'moves', but it's not in a human-friendly format. It's difficult to see where an old hand ended and a new hand starts, for example, or just the numbers is hard to decipher what was going on. It would be great if we could get a history something like this, perhaps on the right of the board?: Player 1: raises with 3 (Pot: 4) Player 2: checks (Pot:6) Dealer: deals flop (Pot: 6) Player 1: checks (Pot: 6) Player 2: raises with 4 (Pot: 10) etc. This way it's easy to see the history of the hand.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-24 14:50:09)
Poker Holdem game duration

Well... as a correspondence poker holdem game may last about 500 moves at most, it is quite complicated to think about a multi stages tournament that would last 3 or 4 years... I think the current formula (looking like the Go championship) will be the one... waiting for a Poker freestyle cup :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-24 18:48:29)
Go championship : Lu vs. von Erichsen

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000002&boards=1

About 40 moves played in all games.. at a first sight, the games are still open, any predictions ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-25 18:15:35)
Pocket cards

The update occured, now you'll see your opponent's pocket cards at showdown. I had to restart Game 26250 after this update (a few moves only were played).


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-26 11:19:40)
High Stakes Poker

Nice :) .. Four of a kind vs. Full house


Reminds me a bad adventure on this server already ;)

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26407&move=728
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26407&move=729


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-26 17:27:45)
The very best Poker hands at FICGS

Here we go :)

November 26, 2008 - Almost 200 running poker games and already a nice best of poker texas holdem hands seen at showdown (one per game only) :


1. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26173&move=36
2. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26208&move=169
3. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26407&move=729
4. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26182&move=94
5. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26234&move=190
6. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26233&move=41
7. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26183&move=41
8. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26311&move=20
9. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26196&move=10


Well, I touched my first four of a kind (aces) yesterday but it seems logical as I'm probably the most addicted player :)


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    (2008-11-27 12:44:40)
Showdown

Could you send me an example (here or email) ie. the game number & move ? Thx !


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-27 19:31:51)
Straight Flush !

We just had the very first straight flush...

1. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26329&move=109


Michel van der Kemp    (2008-11-28 19:29:17)
Link

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26217&move=23 Humm 1 out of 649740? Unless you're playing with an extra deck up your sleeves ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-29 01:07:30)
Poker : bug fixed, a few games restarted

A few games restarted (or a few moves were deleted), Game 26234 and a few games played by Xavier Pichelin who highlighted a bug : It is no more possible to enter ie. "Fold" (only "fold" is correct), "call", "raise", or "check" when only "fold" is possible and so on...

Sorry for the inconvenience.


Normajean Yates    (2008-11-29 04:04:33)
suggested improvement in game->wikichess

At present, for any game, only the current position can be searched in wikichess with one click. That too only if it is your move. So,

(a) In current position, if it is opponent's move you cannot one-click-wikichess-search.

Also, (b) therefore other people's games cannot be one-click-wikichess-searched.

(c) Further, But if you click on an earlier move, you can see the diagram of the earlier position, but you cannot one-click-wikichess-search that position.

So, suggested improvement: implement 'ocwcs' (one-click-wikichess-search) for a,b and c.


Xavier Pichelin    (2008-11-29 15:56:18)
4 For king! VS Full!

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26307&move=23 Very luckly! Best regards, Xavier.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-30 01:01:55)
Game 26306

Which move ? I can't see the problem... What move/bet did you try ? Wasn't your opponent all in ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-30 11:47:43)
Viewer

You can navigate into your game here - http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26316 , by clicking any move or the arrows, you should be able to find the problem again (if there's one :))


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-30 13:56:19)
Caire - Utesch

Hi Wolfgang, you probably mean #23018, 23020, 23022, 23024 .. Interesting games, waiting for the next moves :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-01 15:34:42)
Straight Flush 5432A

Another straight flush... Indeed, it happens quite 'often' with 7 cards.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26287&move=31


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-12-01 22:09:55)
15...a5!?

I dont know of any games but when I was following the game and before 15 ...Rae8 I started investigating this move and the more I looked at it the more I liked it - its a very annoying move for white at just the right moment. However Wolfgangs approach seemed to work I just would not have had the courage to enter those endgames


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.


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 :)


Don Groves    (2008-12-05 23:23:13)
Game 26311

Yes. That was the first time I saw the results of that hand.

Sorry, but I have already played more moves there before I saw your answer.


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


Normajean Yates    (2008-12-11 01:46:47)
my response...

Excellent, thought provoking article.

About subconscious thinking - I am in two minds: as an existentialist I am uncomfortable with the concept: yet there are memory/thought acts which bear no other explanation yet. The famous existentialist psychiatrist R.D.Laing who applied Sartre's work to psychiatry, also did not dwell on this issue, really..

I believe it is partly volition, partly innate - the innate part being proneness to 'subconscious', involuntary and in particular obsessive-compulsive thought patterns in OCD or in certain bipolar depressive states [I am bipolar depressive type 2], which responds to high-dose fluoxetine...

I am more comfortable with the part of the article I quote in the next paragraph, although there no reason we should have a specifically '*chess* pattern-recogniser organ' [1] - more likely we have an innate but more general 'chessy' pattern-recogniser-faculty ('organ') which takes in chess too. [our music-hearing faculty i.e. the ear can hear music, but not only music..] *This* is what the author Rune Vik-Hansen means, I am certain.

[from the article:] 'Playing on Noam Chomsky’s LAD, or Language Acquisition Device, we might say that chess players are guided and supported by a, perhaps slightly Kantian sounding, CAD; “Chess Acquisition Device, making is possible to display sound chess judgment which foundation is the subtle interplay between knowing what to keep and what to discard among triggered moves and in the final part of this article, we will have a closer look as how to increase and improve our chess judgment to form better decisions over the board.'

I will only add that subsequent investigations and deeper questioning of de Groot's subjects (experimented chessplayers? ;-) ) has shown that this faculty/device/organ is less important to chess ability than de Groot thought...



[1] I am calling this presumed faculty/device an 'organ', just like Noam Chomsky occasionally does [in his *linguistics* output, not in his *political* output! :)] - even if you choose to think of it as just a metaphor, it is a very hepful and suggestive metaphor.


Philip Roe    (2008-12-11 15:32:43)
Interesting for sure..

Impressive, not so much.

He seems to make a big distinction between conscious and unconscious thought with no real justification. The fact that electrical activity can be detected prior to awareness does not tell us much. Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" is the most satisfactory account that I have read, and his "multiple drafts" theory is not unlike Runes, except that it allows for a more sophisticated interaction. Roughly, the conscious mind sets goals "I want to attack on the k-side" and the subconscious suggests means "How about Qh5" which the conscious rejects or selects for further review by setting a new goal " Lets see if Qh5 works". By ignoring this interplay Rune creates difficulties from which he cannot extricate himself. And Dennett also asks himself much tougher questions like "why is there consciousness at all? What evolutionary purpose could it serve?"

Interestingly, the subconscious seldom suggests really silly ideas, like Qh5 if there is a pawn on g6 and nothing else going on. Indeed, the filtering out of "non-candidates" can be quite impressive. I recall a moment from the BBC TV series The Master Game. Bill Hartston, an IM and a psychologist, was momentarily taken aback by an unexpected move made by his (weaker) opponent. "Why didn't I see that?" A few seconds later "Oh, that's why I didn't see it!" (the move involved an unsound combination) Hartston was about to coauthor a book on chess psychology with John Wason, and his remark was not entirely in jest.

Hartston was suggesting, by his remarks, that he could usually trust his unconscious not to show him anything irrelevant. That, to my mind, is one of the things that characterizes a strong player. The irrelevant moves just don't occur to them.

So then what about blunders? Well, the system is very fallible. It IS just made of meat, and the real surprise is that blunders do not occur more often. But the blunders made by strong players seem different from the blunders made by rabbits. They are usually relevant to something, but they have a hole in them. I dont see anything at all about Runes proposals that would eliminate blunders, except through the indirect route of making you a stronger player.


Don Groves    (2008-12-13 00:15:45)
My €0.02

I greatly appreciate the "exformation" concept -- but the person who coined the term got it backwards! In a human communication, "in-formation" should refer to inner (unstated) data and "ex-formation" (from the Greek prefix 'exo-') should refer to outer (stated) data. Now we are stuck forever with yet another mis-defined term.

The author didn't cover the importance of visualization, i.e., the ability to "see" how the board will look after a series of future moves. For me, this is the biggest stumbling block to improvement in OTB chess. This type of visualization seems to me to be a conscious function as opposed to subconscious.

In discussing blunders, the author failed to point out time pressure as a primary cause. Again, this is a problem created by conscious awareness.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-13 23:42:25)
FICGS poker holdem championship

The waiting list for the 1st FICGS poker holdem championship is open, as all ratings are not established, the rating limit has been changed to 1600.

Only the 9 highest rated players at the beginning of the tournament (february 1, 2009) will play it, consequently the best way to improve your rating before the deadline is probably to play POKER HOLDEM BULLET BRONZE games (you may use the challenge function in My games).

The current rules :

"FICGS world poker holdem championship is a 2 stages tournament. First stage is a single round-robin tournament, involving the 9 highest rated players who entered the waiting list. The winner of this tournament is the challenger for FICGS world champion title. 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. If current world champion defends his title, he will play a 5 games match (3 games with White, 2 games with Black) against his challenger.

All games are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. Rules for poker holdem are official rules. You may find more information about the FICGS betting structure in FICGS rules. 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."


Don Groves    (2008-12-15 01:57:22)
A suggestion

Bonjour, Thibault

There are many players here who like to play several moves per week and there are others who sometimes play less than one move per week until forced to move faster by their clock. There are even a few who don't move at all (or rarely) until their clock is red.

Would it be too much work to make another tournament classification? The time control would be 7 days plus 7 days more for each 3 moves, up to a maximum of 7 days. In other words, each player must make a minimum of 3 moves per week.

Those players who can't, or won't, move that often can play in the standard tournaments. Those of us who like to move more often can play in the faster tournaments. Everyone is happy ;-)


Normajean Yates    (2008-12-15 03:40:42)
another suggestion

The slowest time controls on offer are too fast for some people.

Could there be a separate category - say 80 days/10 moves, 80 days fischer-increment after each 10-move block; up to 200 days accumulation-ceiling?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-15 14:39:56)
Disagree at a first sight

Hi Don,

I think that's too dangerous for the ratings 'cause many players would like to play this fast correspondence time control until they accumulate too many games (playing such a time control may show an addiction already), finally general forfeit and rest in peace far away :)

It happened already to many players with the rapid rapid time control (10 days + 1 day / move, limit 60 days). Moreover, blitz time controls are not played enough yet and that's a pity IMO, that's now a nice alternative and I'd like to promote it.


Normajean Yates    (2008-12-15 23:55:15)
how about a fun thematic with foll pos

starting position:

RNBQKBNR/PPPPPPPP/8/8/8/8/pppppppp/rnbqkbnr. [this is offered on fics i.e. freechess.org as 'chess wild-5']

Note that all pawns of both sides are ready to promote, but because of self-blockade the only legal first moves are knight moves!

Engines fluctuate wildly on this because they are not designed for such positions!


Don Groves    (2008-12-16 11:06:48)
Blitz is not the same

Blitz games require you to play the game in one session. That can be difficult when players are in widely separated time zones.

What I am proposing still allows complete analysis of each move, just that the moves must be made more quickly than longer time controls.

I realize this will not suit everyone, but no one other than those who want faster games has to play. It's just another option for those of us who would use it, just as is blitz.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-16 11:12:07)
Rapid time control

Sorry, I meant 30 days + 1 day / move :/

I suppose that it is possible to find a compromise theorically, but it adds some rules and restrictions... I'm still not favourable to this.


Normajean Yates    (2008-12-17 03:53:02)
small improvement suggestion..

Don groves sent message with prev move; I was ready for reply to move so - i noticed the envelope icon but by that time I had made the move in a reflex action.. and the message disappeared! So I couldnt read it..

It would be nice if opponent's message stayed until opponent made next move.


Normajean Yates    (2008-12-17 04:15:15)
Game 26099 - fit case for adjudication?

Game 26099 Salinas - Yates 13...Qe1# {mate} - more than 50 hours ago. On my checkmating move I had sent request to resign.

Salinas posted this in international chat: [I am pasting:]

"salinas marcelo : congratulation ..nice victory Norma. (2008-12-16 00:31:15)"

So he has sent 'final friendly message' also. But in international chat, *not* with resignation! He has *still* not resigned.

If you click 'more messages' and scroll down international chat, you'll see that I had - immediatety after his message, politely explained that he had to resign.

Salinas has blocked private messages.

I feel that all this is annoying and unfriendly, so the game should be adjudicated. (since the purpose of NOT having automatic checkmate-recognition is NOT being served, but the feature is being abused by opponent.)

What do you people think? What is the precedent/convention for such a case on ficgs?

Thibault, adjudicate?


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..]


Matteo Tognela    (2008-12-25 16:56:46)
Small Linux script - pgn to clipboard

I know it's not of vital importance... but looking for some more automatic way to copy to clipboard the moves from a game window, say to be pasted into db software, I I've written this little bash script. (this requires xclip to be installed; for the rest I make reference to gnome&firefox, but it should work also in other environments)

#!/bin/bash
#content of grabpgn
xclip -i -selection clipboard $1
exit

...chmode +x grabpgn, and then associate the extension pgn to be opened with it (in gnome it's quite easy, but for sure there's some conf file where you can do it manually)
Then from a game window, click the "download" button, and in the dialog box, select "open" and check "always perform this action on similar files".
Done! now when you hit "Download" you end up with the game in your clipboard, ready to be pasted wherever you want.
(you can still download it with a right click on the link)


Hannes Rada    (2008-12-25 21:12:07)
Game 1

looked very promising for White. Without deeper looking into the position I thought that white is going to win here. But than I found that black has perpetual check due to his pair of rooks. With only 1 rook on booth side, i think white should win. Wolfang, have you analysed a possible exchange of rooks at move no. 51 51. Rb7 instead of 51. a4 ? I did not analyse this position, but at first sight this seems to be a good chance for winning this game. Can you comment this ?


Gultekin Gumusyazici    (2008-12-28 17:25:10)
Chess rating system and Suat Atalik

Primitive Chess Game rules still applied through world competitions does not represent capacity and skills of human brain but a useless rating system that only orders whose photographic memory is higher to cheat others detail improvisions. I just want to present a past time memory about this hypo. Suat Atalik Number 1 rated Master Skill here in FICGS was opponent to me at a simulation of 25 person at Middle East university when he gets fame. I have started a very defensive game to make him bored crazy. But those boring behaviours caused him to lose his Queen and game next 3 moves. What is most interesting that, His Photografic memory aworns him after he made his moves and passes 3 more players after me. Then, While i congragulate myself with some fucking hand moves, he stood there where he froze and came back to my desk disobeying order. There he stood against me and made his pose as he just remembered something. While I was pretending My man there is no hope for just fuck off he hehhehehe, He asked Ahh sorry i made some misplacement, let go 3 move back and evaluate this situation again. Man, I am just human I am not machine or Computer Memory. I can not fight against bots. it is insane. So I let him score back knowing I am Winner not loser. Loser he is loser the system he tries to success on. Chess System applied to rate people with such communities only applies a fake counts depends on bots photoprahic memories. And It tries to neglect Humans sensitive intentions on variations. There exist no bot yet to evaluate humans preferences at a game with advanced chess rules. Do not you ask me what is those advanced chess rules. Just Imagine them as not bots can do. And Cheating is applied on determined systems. Cheating belongs to bots and botminds. Sincerely, Best Chess player nEverknown


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.


Bradley Small    (2008-12-30 21:20:28)
RTFM I guess

Blaming it on the layout is probably a lame excuse, but it is all I can use. I really must have overlooked that page. As for what is allowed, I will let that be my guide. However, for what is expected, what do most people do as a matter of strategy? For instance, when it is one's time to move... Do you go to the databases and research each move, or simply play from your own head unless you just don't feel like you see a good move? Or somethign else?...


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-31 00:37:01)
One player, one strategy...

I suppose everyone has a personal idea on this, it all depends on the time you want to spend on each move. The very best players obviously use Rybka 3, recent databases and may search games played by their opponents (you may use the "Search games" option) to avoid the openings they master.


Bradley Small    (2009-01-03 05:29:24)
Dumber question than my last

The best I can find is that all moves are to be sent to the server. How specifically do I make a move? Do I simply reply to the email that I received telling me the previous move? And what is this GUI that I hear speak of, as none of them I see am I able to move any pieces?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-03 14:36:34)
GUI

Hi Bradley, this is not email chess, you have to login to play your moves. GUI = Graphical User Interface. Did you read the Help section ?

Feel free to tell me if you encounter any problem...


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-01-05 17:51:35)
NO,

I am not sure if I understand your conditions. do you mean moves by your opponent must be made at depth 23 (don't know how you propose enforce that). Anyhow I have not time for such a match. 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 :)


Normajean Yates    (2009-01-05 19:12:44)
Is BenMilton thinking of move mirroring?

Then he will lose both games, because move mirroring is illegal here :)


Ben Milton    (2009-01-06 03:22:29)
.

Im not sure what exactly move mirroring is. Also as i said my opening book is perfect 15 book BUT it is tuned. Thibault Id have put 100 E-points on the line if i had it. At the moment i only have 12. Does anyone believe they can beat the conditions i proposed and are willing to have a game?


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?


Ulrich Imbeck    (2009-01-07 08:36:51)
interested to see

These developments exists in the www. I'm interested to see these development here. But first of all I have to make my moves :-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-08 12:23:20)
No ratings...

Just an idea, this challenge could be played here in this forum, move after move, with the conditions mentioned above (& Rybka 3 analysis in real time, no need to hide it after all). 2 unrated games, 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves. What do you think ?


Hannes Rada    (2009-01-08 18:53:24)
Chess improvements

To be honest I would more prefer to see an improvement of the chess features here. I.e. Conditions moves, better tables, better layout modern forum (phpbb) What I do not understand: How can Thibault earn money with this "social stuff" ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-08 19:17:53)
Chess improvements

Hi Hannes,

What do you mean better tables ? About the other improvements, this may be a choice in some cases. As you may have seen, there are forums with more options (ie. bbcode) inside FICGS, but I'm not sure this forum should follow the same way. The FICGS chess server is somewhere between IECG & the numerous over-featured servers, maybe it should keep its 'sober/serious' side, what do you think ?

I'm still not a fan of conditional moves, but I'm open to other improvements.

Finally, about the "dark side of FICGS", any improvement may bring new players :)


Hannes Rada    (2009-01-08 19:55:05)
Tables

Hi Thibault, Just a few ideas. I mean 'spreadsheet-like' tables with cells where you can not only see the points, but also the results (1,0, 1/2) between all players. Furthermore on the tournament page I would prefer to see the notation first and then diagram of the actual position. I think this is more logical to see first who is playing and what has been played (the moves) and then the actual position. I think it is also an idea to show only the running games on the (main) tournament pages and to show the finished games for a specific tournament on a second page per tournament. Chess fonts (?) on the ICCF Server looks a little bit nicer then those here. I have been playing now my first tournament on the ICCF server where (secret) conditionals are allowed (chessfriend had this feature already many years ago). And I am a big fan of it. Conditionals can help to speed up to game significantly. Some openings like the Grunfeld, the French, and The Sveshnikov really cry for conditionals :-) I don't see any disadvantes regarding the introductions of conditionals (maybe except for the programmer :-). Why are you against them ? But finally I have to say that I really appreciate playing here. I can imagine how tough and how much work it is to maintain such a server as a 'One man show'. I really appreciate your efforts.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-09 08:44:35)
Why ?

The purpose is only to show if Rybka 3 can be or not a strong correspondence chess player already, nothing more. Ben has no interest to try to cheat and it would be a big work to change the full Rybka analysis (ie. 5 first lines for each move) that would be copy-pasted here.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-10 18:06:40)
Time span of ratings

Actually ratings (correspondence chess ones) are calculated based upon the previous ratings and games played the last 2 months only. In your example it may take 8 or 16 months "only" for the lowest rated to catch the other player in a tournament. Moreover, ratings at FICGS move faster than in other organizations in order to find the good category quickly. So I think that's not a real problem here.

As an example, it took not so long (one year) for Wayne to reach 2113 from 1400 ! That's quite short in correspondence chess.

More details about rating calculation :

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


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


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-11 14:11:17)
Time controls & increments

Hello Tom, the 40 days is your total time for the game, the increment (here 40 days / 10 moves) is added to your total time every X (here 10) moves. Consequently you have a clock for the game (limited to 100 days) and a clock for each move (limited to 60 days). Does it help ?


Tom Smith    (2009-01-12 21:40:28)
Re: Marc

By allowing engine use, the site is allowing players to have the computer engine make certain moves for them or indeed play an entire game for them, I can play fritz or any engine for the same effect, I wish to play against humans who play moves themselves rather than get an engine to make moves for them, how is that not cheating? If you dont see that as cheating then I dont know what to say, I think this is a fair complaint and does not quite deserve being told "go away if you dont like it", I am simply suprised a site allows it thats all.


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 18:49:58)
Reply

Thank you all for your comments. I will reiterate again that I am not pointing the finger at anyone, I just asked about this as I do not wish to play against people who just let a computer play their moves, that is all. I do not think that all people who use engines are cheaters, and I apologize to all those who do not blindly let a computer play their games for them. I am astonished now at normajeans hostility, I dont believe I have been offensive to anyone, if I have then it is unintentional. To Normajean, I can only assume that your hostility is due to someone mentioning about selling some software, I can only say, not only have I not heard of any software of this type, but I am in no way involved at any such goings on. I came on the site to join up for some chess and had one issue I wanted to ask about before I started playing, I am beginning to regret this as I did not expect quite such a response! I can maybe understand some suspicion at a new person asking a question of this nature, and understand that some may not like me asking, so again I am sorry for the offense I have caused those players who play a fair game. "Care to confess to the libel under oath in the U.K. and get a taste of the receiving end of libel law?" This comment is ridiculously over the top and again that particular post was unecessarily hostile imo, if you read my posts to this point normajean and still dont see what I am trying to find out about then I shant try any further to answer you as you and some others have obviously found me guilty of a plot of some form against you. I thank the people who answered me honestly and calmly for their comments and I shall try the site out as I said to give it a fair shot.


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.


Normajean Yates    (2009-01-15 05:34:46)
engines and deep analysis...

A year ago, Thibault posted links to record of GMs v engines -- but almost all games were blitz.

raising questions:

1. At standard [2.5 hours / 40 moves] time controls, and at correspondence time controls [like here - or even 1 day/move] - humans are still better than engines. true?

If true, how long are they expected to be better?

[I mean in competitive chess, not in specifically design positions which are at present very difficult for engines]

2. which engine is best for standard and correpondence time controls (as I defined in 1)?


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


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-15 13:40:41)
Poker question : All in at the river

Hi all,

I'm just not sure about this : When a player calls by all-in at the river, is he supposed to show his cards (just like in a pre-flop all-in) even if -in that case- he pays to see or is it a particular case ?!

In example :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26199&move=232
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26199&move=233

In other words, is there a bug in the example above ?

Thanks in advance.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-17 14:25:37)
Problem fixed

Hello all... Sorry about this 12 hours problem :/

There was a minor problem with MySql during the night, when I rebooted the server, it seems that the games table crashed and I just did not notice it .. my entire fault.

The table has been repaired and 12 hours have been added to players expected to move.

Sorry again.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-18 15:29:29)
Garvin

Strange bug... what browser do you use ?! there may be a special setting for sessions management.

About the example above, you may also follow these links :

http://www.ficgs.com/index.php?page=viewer&game=26199&move=232
http://www.ficgs.com/index.php?page=viewer&game=26199&move=233


Normajean Yates    (2009-01-19 15:30:21)
:) [to rodolfo] - and, to sophie: re OTB

to rodolfo:

:)


to Sophie:
[and a general point to all wikichess contributers]:

I think that it will be a bit less confusing if in your wikichess entries, you include the phrase '(at OTB chess)' or something like that.

The reason is that this is (for chess) a site where engine-use and *slow* correspondence-chess is the default.

Contemporary computer programs do not get 'tense' or 'fooled' by an attack -- they just calculate the static evaluation functions for positions on the game tree [using hash tables, alphabeta, iterative deepening, nullmove, quiessence search, endgame recognition heuristics, etc etc for efficiency :) positions]

computer programs *can* be fooled [otherwise every game here would have the same result by now], but not by the same techniques as those by which humans can be... :)


Normajean Yates    (2009-01-19 15:38:51)
to sophie [contd]..

Sophie wrote: 'the halloween gambit refused is a dull game.'

Programs cannot understand the concept 'dull' and 'interesting'.

(actually they *can* very roughly, but then they cannot distinguish efficiently between 'interesting' and 'unsound'. Something like: run the position on rybka3 'dynamic'; then cross-check the move with the main rybka3 )

They can understand 'drawish'.

Objectively of couse, either the initial pos is a win for white, or a win for black, or a draw. We simply do not know...


Normajean Yates    (2009-01-24 16:53:42)
I would be most intesrested in reading..

.. posts in this thread.

though I am afraid i have nothing to contribute - didn't keep statistical track: until 2006, I used engines for analysis of critical positions of my favourite historical games only.. at up to 5 days / move! [but I didnt keep hardware/NPS records - all I can say is I mostly used whatever was the latest version of rebel - that was until 2006. Until 2002 I ran long analyses with crafty also...]

Also, in my experience the hash size does change the PV, not only the time taken to reach a certain ply [ because if a line/subtree is in hash it gets appended - with eval - so that say at 18-ply you are seeing *some* lines which are actually 28-ply or more - so it affects what gets pruned by alphabeta ... and if the engine has forward pruning it affects that much more..]

But this being a centeaur chess site (as far as chess is concerned) I suppose every chess player here knows this... :-/


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-27 16:40:31)
We need more Big Chess players !

Come on, let Rybka & other chess engines work in your 8x8 games & play Big Chess with us, that's the real life, amazing chess & the only way to see such incredible moves :)

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=24656&move=85

Waiting lists > Big Chess standard tournaments !

Waiting for strong players in Big Chess standard M tourney.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2009-01-28 00:15:09)
And a great move ...

And what is white's next move in this game:

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=24653&move=97




Garvin Gray    (2009-01-28 03:22:26)
Since poker has started


Since poker has started on here, it feels as a general rule that my chess opponents are taking longer to reply with their moves, suggesting that poker is taking over.

Has anyone else noticed this? If my hypothesis is correct, then this would be a real shame and could cause me to find another chess freestyle site.



Normajean Yates    (2009-01-28 21:13:52)
re - NPS

Well in the mid-90s some of the fairly good programs were open-source : crafty one of the the strongest open-source programs, and its author Bob Hyatt used to dicuss chess-programming related issues...

Even with closed-sourse proprietory programs, however, the *empirical* fact of NPS being not so relevant can be established statistically by just seeing the results of inter-engine tournaments..

[of couse NPS is not totally relevant! a 1 NPS engine is likely to be quite bad in comparison with a 10000 NPS engine on the same hardware! :) And a 0-NPS engine can only generate moves by using a random number generator ;) [not-necessarily uniformly distributed] - or by tablebase lookup ... but is the present position counted as a node? If yes, then 0 NPS can do nothing at all, not even check legality of move! :)


Normajean Yates    (2009-02-01 09:55:59)
poker is NOT interfering with chess..

Players that are *choosing* poker over chess (as posted by some as reason for delay on moving, delay in tournaments starting...) are either not *that* interested in chess anyway, OR it is a transient phenomenon - they are trying out poker as a novelty.

We are humans, not dedicated chess-playing machines.

If someone takes longer to move because of poker or anything else (whether the 'anything else' is related to this site or not, whether it is related to the internet or not); it gives me either more time to analyse, or effectively more vacation time, so I see no reason to complain.

If poker generates revenue for ficgs, it will help ficgs survive and so it will help ficgs chess (and go) survive.

The point is, whatever choices we make have to be made taking into account that we are embedded in a capitalist economy. We are not living in some anarchist utopia.




Normajean Yates    (2009-02-01 10:15:31)
thanks Mr R.-Román, and I am *Ms* Yates.

Mr Russi-Román, I am Ms Yates, not Mr Yates.

I thank Mr Russi-Román for the valuable info and link: (and others too) : I'll update myself whenever I have free time [not only from chess play, but from higher-priority things...]

So, what is the state of the art in noticing drawish nodes (blockade, repitition etc) during search? [remember: 'false positives' are as bad as 'false negatives'] Offhand here is one area where significantly good new heuristics would be much more important than hardware..

Another example: at present, has any program - however highly parallel - delivered mate from a suite of mate-in-60+ troitski positions (NN v P) *without* using tablebases? (ignore the 50-move rule for this question. Anyway this site doesnt have the 50-move rule...) I dont know the answer...


Don Groves    (2009-02-01 10:44:54)
3/5 or ?

Thibault: Its true that longer games are better for ratings but the question is how much better? If a game lasts 100 hands, there is about a 10% chance that the game was decided by luck rather than skill (one player getting significantly better hole cards than the other). If a game lasts 300 hands, that chance drops to about 3%. If a game lasts 500 hands, it drops to about 1.8% So you can see there is a diminishing return in having long games to make the ratings better. It would take 10,000 hands before the chance of luck winning instead of skill dropped to 1%.

I have some games now that are over 300 hands and nowhere near finished. Also some of my games ended after only 100 or fewer moves so those games could easily have been decided by luck. It just isn't realistic to think that games lasting several hundred moves are the answer to good ratings. You can never account for a run of good luck winning a game in only a few hands.

It would be interesting to know the average length of the games completed so far using best 3/5. It could very well be that best 2/3 would give very reasonable ratings and more games will be played in the same length of time.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-02-01 15:14:58)
The fact is...

... ratings should be in accordance (as much as possible) with ELO rating system : if player A is rated 1800 and player B is rated 2000, player B should win about 3 games out of 4. So the question isn't first to make ratings "accurate" (by the number of games), but to be "significant" .. eg. in a 1 round games system (30 hands max.), all players would be rated from 1600 to 1700, this has absolutely no interest.

Don's statistics are interesting and actually (imo) justify 3/5, it is probably possible to estimate the best average number of hands [btw the no-limit is not the best way, but more fun] but in my experience 2/3 is not enough. The longest game reached 1000 moves already (maybe about 400 hands), some games lasted about 35 moves only (of course the chancy factor is bigger there), it is hard to "calculate" anything one thing is sure, the longer the games, the more significant are ratings... then of course, the more games, the more accurate are ratings.


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    (2009-02-17 17:23:43)
Poker : suggestions & improvements

A new thread to discuss possible improvements for Poker Holdem 'board', in example I've been asked to add the possibility to know the "rabbits (?!)", in another way the turn & the river even if a player folds after the flop, what do you think ?

Also, for those who prefer to know what is the next card just after having played, the "slow moves" option may be a good choice but it may be really too slow (do we really need to confirm a bet ?), your opinion is needed...

I'll probably add a button to open a new window displaying the previous move very soon.

Feel free if you have any other suggestion.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-02-17 17:31:24)
Coupon Go, computers & future...

Two articles reported by the AGA (American Go Association) on Monte Carlo simulation, Coupon Go, Computer Go in general :

"Based on predictable advances in computing power, he rockons that a program will beat the best professional Go players on even footing within 28 years."

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/02/computers-get-go.html

"(...) To get around this obstacle, Berlekamp created a version of Go called Coupon Go, in which players have the option of either putting a stone on the board or taking a coupon. The coupons, which have different point values, showed Berlekamp what the most valuable moves were."

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/40910/title/Coupons_help_evaluate_game_of_Go


Frightening, what do you think ? :)


Don Groves    (2009-02-25 02:14:55)
Clock correction

It is easy to fix, Hannes, simply move your clock forward by ten minutes ;-)


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!


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-03 20:39:59)
Show the cards & history

Hi Don, well I don't know which solution is best, waiting for more opinions on this...

Michael, the PGN does not include the cards, actually displaying the history would take much more processor time that I prefer to save. You may also 'mouse over' the last move just below the board and you'll see the last moves played in title.

Also I just added an option : "V" in the 'move_express' (fast interface - for poker only yet), that opens a new window with an improved viewer to navigate into the game more easily... Feedbacks are welcome ;)


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.


Don Groves    (2009-03-06 00:20:25)
I don't see it...?

I have several games in which it's my move but I don't see the ! you are talking about.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-06 00:49:04)
(!)

Hi Don, just load "My games"... let's say you have 12 pending moves.. just wait.. if suddenly you have a new move to play (so 13 pending moves), the page will reload and you'll see (!) in the page title.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-06 12:34:18)
(!) to Don

"I see the page title in my browser tab get refreshed when the timer expires" : Actually the page title gets refreshed only if you have a new move to play AND when the timer expires... and of course the (!) is displayed at the beginning of the title, so that you can see it whatever its length.


Anthony Jones    (2009-03-06 13:06:37)
Perverse poker

Its certainly gripping to watch, but the level of aggression he displays is borderline unethical due to the intimidation of his opponents.
As tournament director i'd offer him a single warning before booting him out.
Imagine the same actions in chess after winning a pawn! Although i do remember Nigel Short saying that in a world Junior champs when he was 15 he played a move and Kasparov laughed in his face before crushing him....


Don Groves    (2009-03-07 01:00:50)
But then No!

I checked in a poker game. Since I was not the dealer, it was my move again. I waited for the timer to cause the title refresh and there was no (!) in the title. There was a ! beside that game as it was my turn. Should there also be the (!) in the title in this case?


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 11:10:11)
Big Chess Games

That's the problem... Usually a big chess game is quite short (often shorter than regular chess games), but between two strong opponents, theorically it may last more than 1 year with time control 30 days + 1 day / move.


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.


Denis Ivanchenkov    (2009-03-14 22:58:49)
one more improvement

Thibault, is it possible to show captured pieces beside the board - this would help greatly to those players who set up the board to think over the next move.


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 ?


Scott Nichols    (2009-03-15 21:05:35)
Excellent solution.

IMO Thibault has come up with exactly the right solution. Maybe there should be a way for all players to withdraw under the same conditions. Sometimes things come up and people can't follow through with what they planned, if they can withdraw without penalty it might save a lot of under 10 move losses and the remaining players just receive a forfeit win. Just an idea.


Robert Mueller    (2009-03-21 08:28:45)
Slower Time Controls

I would like to see a World Champion Cycle with slower time controls. I like the WCH tournament, it is just too fast for me. Standard time controls (10 moves in 40 days) would be great. And yes, this means that a cycle will last several years to complete. That is not unusual in correspondence chess.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-21 19:26:53)
Slower time controls

Hello Robert,

Well, in a perfect world I would like to create another multi-stages tournament ("Cup" or something) with 40+40 days/10 moves time control. Maybe we can start it already but I'm not sure we have enough players... The same about the format. Any opinions ?

I think we should keep a fast multi-stages tournament anyway.


Denis Ivanchenkov    (2009-03-22 11:27:20)
one more improvement

Hi, Thibault!
Is it possible to show captured pieces beside the board - this would help greatly to those players who set up the board to think over the next move?


Denis Ivanchenkov    (2009-03-29 14:14:21)
Wayne Lowrance

>By the way, Thibault if you want to increase participation, open up some faster tournament bases.
imho 1 day/move, 2 day/move or 3 day/move - these time conntrols more demanding for players.

and I'd like to suggest one more idea - so call ladder tournaments (well, this may be too complicated to develop corresponding soft - but this is just a suggestion). so the essence of such tournament is that we have "ladder" classes H (lowest), G, F, ... and A - the highest one. In the beginning all players belong to H class. And there are open 5/7/9-player tournaments starting in each class - they are just waiting until filled and then open again. each tournament is all-play-all 1 game with fast (1 d/m 2d/m 3d/m) control. When tournament is finnished the winner (or several winners in case of a tier) is promoted one class up. Similarly, the player (players) occupying the last position is demoted one class down (except for H classers). So winning the tournaments is actually a "climbing" the ladder.

this scheme was used in igame.ru and was pretty popular among players. i suggested this scheme to chess-online.ru - unfortunately they were pretty hesitant as to realization (maybe due to soft development complexity?)


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."


Don Groves    (2009-03-31 22:39:35)
Poker ratings

The last time I checked the poker ratings list, I noticed a large number of players rated at 1800.

I thought the starting rating was 1600 except for players with a lot of previous experience. Have all these new players at 1800 asked for this higher rating?

This practice throws off the ratings for all of us who began at 1600 and have moved up by actually winning games on FICGS.


Scott Nichols    (2009-04-06 02:40:34)
A couple more thoughts

Maybe the history of updating ratings every 2-6 months was necessary with slow mail by letter or postcard games. I've played in the Golden Knights back in the 80's where games easily take over a year. But now with the instant moves, there might be cause for change. Also, (#1)towards the end of a rating cycle, the games noticably slow down because players do not want to resign and lose their chance to enter a particular tournament. #2. A player may achieve a rating milestone and want to enter a tourn. right away, but can't because his/her rating doesn't change for another few weeks. So he/her may delay resigning lost games and prolong others waiting for the change. If it had changed right away, he/her would enter the tournament and proceed with his/her other games at a normal pace. Just a couple of thought...would love to hear more opinions on this, :)


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.


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'.


Don Groves    (2009-04-14 05:54:35)
draw offer

I agree with Nick. The second player sent a move which he should not do if he wants to accept the draw.

I also agree that the draw offer that was made should be binding just as if the box had been checked. If the second player accepts the draw he can check the box. If the first player then wants to continue, the referee should be called to adjudicate the draw.


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 17:45:59)
draw

The reason i ask is that this would give the players to capability to fix matters themselves without referee intervention, though i can see that it may cause more problems than it solves.

I think no.1 is the better ruling. On the rare occasion that this occurs, the player truly did offer a draw but simply didnt know the correct way to offer it. If his opponent consults the rules and calls the referee, the draw is binding, if he plays a move then the game continues...


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 !


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 01:54:27)
My choice is...

... option number 1.

If the player did not intend to make a draw offer, why did s/he say so in the message? To allow that player to change his mind after seeing the next move is a violation of chess ethics.


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)?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-15 13:48:07)
shortest possible bigchess checkmates

Good question & good idea to develop the bigchess theory :)

I don't know, no time to think about it today but it may be not so easy to do it in less than the obvious 11 half-moves checkmate for White.


William Taylor    (2009-04-15 15:24:11)
shortest possible bigchess checkmates

I like the 13 half-move mate where black pushes an edge pawn or something while white hops his knight all the way over to l15. :) May have a lookk for other ones later.


Normajean Yates    (2009-04-15 21:22:03)
11 half-moves: decent uper bound..

Thanks for the posts so far - So, we made progress (in the pure math sense) - we have a 'small enough' upper bound now - 11 half-moves for white, so by symmetry 12 (or 10?) half moves for black...

I can't say 12 or 10 (above) because I havent though about the answer at all - the question came to mind; I posted it; went to sleep... will think later..


William Taylor    (2009-04-15 23:15:21)
Intermediate time control

Yes, perhaps the time limit for 1 move could be shortened. A week would be fine for poker games, I think, but (although I would almost always play a move in less than a week) I wouldn't favour the introduction of such a short time control in chess games. Regarding Don's proposal that the game would not be rated if fewer than ten moves had been played, it is of course theoretically possible to have a large or winning advantage after ten moves, and in such a situation it would seem unfair not to rate the game. (That's assuming that the player who won on time was also the one winning on the board).


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-17 00:55:56)
Intermediate time control

I'm not favourable to change the time per move limit or to change anything for chess & Go. In my opinion, we should add a tricky rule for poker games only to reduce their duration.

This rule may apply only in certain cases, what do you think ? In example, the player who has less chips and/or won rounds may have a reduced increment or a time penalty, something like that, but it must be fair enough... Thinking about it.


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 09:44:17)
Tricky rule?

I would rather speed up poker games by reducing them to best 2 of 3 than have such a rule. It is much easier to make up a deficit in poker than it is in either chess or go. If it is right for poker, why not then have such a rule for the player who is behind in chess or go? Make them either move faster or resign.


Scott Nichols    (2009-04-17 12:41:53)
Increase the blinds

A simple solution to shorten poker games is to increase the blinds to like every 20 moves the blinds double. This would put a lot more importance on every hand. This is what is done in major tournaments.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-17 19:28:33)
Poker vs. Chess

I agree with Nick on this. 3 rounds & 100 chips by round is the only way to play "deep poker" IMHO (also to try to have significant ratings). In some cases, such a rule may work also for chess & Go, but it should probably be different as the number of moves is really different in each game, that's a problem. Let's try anyway.

Maybe the increment could not be added if the move has been played in more than a week (7 days), what do you think ? Not too hard and it may incitate to continue to play !?


Ulrich Imbeck    (2009-04-18 22:24:35)
GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_I__000012??

I could open my games in GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_I__000011 and GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU__000072 and I made my moves there, but I can't open GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_I__000012.


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.


Ulrich Imbeck    (2009-04-18 23:01:13)
pending games

From my beginning here at ficgs I was only in the pending games-mode. There was the problem. I just made a move in KYU_I__000012 during the all games-mode.


Ulrich Imbeck    (2009-04-18 23:09:55)
3 my games-modes

I just saw that there are 3 my games-modes! From my beginning here at ficgs I was only in the running games-mode. I just made a move in KYU_I__000012 during the pending games-mode. My problem seems to be the running games-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'?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-19 03:46:53)
Rules

Thanks Nick ! Normajean has a point on the verbal moves. About rule 11.2 and this issue, the aim is not for me to force a decision, not even to take the good decision as I'm not sure in this case, it is only to build accurate & understandable rules so that every player know what to do without having to ask.


Normajean Yates    (2009-04-19 04:41:26)
But thibault, you already have them!

Thibault, you say: About rule 11.2 and this issue, the aim is [...] only to build accurate & understandable rules.

But, on this issue, you already *have* a very easily understandable rule - tick draw offer box and make move and send it (for making draw offer). That is very accurate and easy, isn't it. So what is the problem?

And in general, for rules of games, [except in mathematics :)] it is understood that what is not mentioned is not true (if the situation is such that this is expected by common use of language). For example, about move of the knight, we say that it moves fom one end to the diagonally opposite end of a 2x3 rectangle, and can jump over pieces while doing so. Since nothing else is mentioned about knight moves, it is understood that the knight cannot move legally except in this way. [In mathematics, we would have to explicitly say: 'the knight moves in the above way AND IN NO OTHER WAY.']




Don Groves    (2009-04-19 08:08:48)
Verbal moves are impossible

Sorry, Normajean, but in order to send anything, including a message, you must press the "Send" button. If there is no move in the "Move" box, the send will be rejected. Good try though ;-)

Conditional moves are already forbidden by FICGS, so that doesn't work either.


Don Groves    (2009-04-19 08:21:09)
Ending abandoned games

This requires more programming for our already overworked director, but how about having the system send an email to anyone who has not played a move in a certain (to be determined) time period asking if that player intends to continue the game and requesting that s/he resign if the answer is no?

The message could also request an RSVP and, if no response is forthcoming, the game is ended. This handles a common situation in Internet games where a player enters some games, then after a short time never returns to the site.

This seems like a reasonable thing to do and it doesn't change any existing rules or time controls.


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!


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-23 19:54:11)
Move with a draw offer

Such a draw offer should never be considered. Casual online players may not know correspondence chess or FIDE rules very well, I don't think there should be a penalty in this case (but harrassment cases), but I'll include it in the rules.


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


Don Groves    (2009-04-23 22:42:08)
It's even worse than that!

Even if I send him a private message, the system still thinks it's my turn, so he cannot move... Help!


Normajean Yates    (2009-04-24 00:33:24)
me too: I just ignore the draw offer..

It has happened three times here in *one* game: an ongoing chess game of mine here on ficgs. :)

[The first time *I* offered the draw. Opponent moved, thereby automatically declining and cancelling the draw offer. The other two times *opponent* offered the draw and I moved.]

(btw I declined the offers not out of spite but because I have a win: all lines I tried give me a win. It is a most interesting game: since the annotations will not appear on the record; I'll just say that opponent returned my early exchange-sacrifice setting a trap: I could have reached Q and 3 pawns v Q, but opponent would then draw by perpetual! The [probable] winning line has Q and 2 pawns v Q and P, but my centralised Q and promotion threats win!)

It does look to me like a mountain is being made out of less than a molehill.. (not by me - I didn't start this.)

This post was to illustrate how there is *no* problem at all[1]; and neither me nor my opponent (both were playing their first games when the game began) saw any problem at all.

this is my last post on this topic.

[1] If there is at all a problem here, it is of the same level as the 'problem' that the following rule is not mentioned in ficgs-rules:

. 'gn is not allowed in chess unless n is an integer between 1 and 8 inclusive, where 1 and 8 are to interpreted as the standard numerals standing for integers in the ordered real-closed field R, with the *canonical* ordering. (As opposed to, say, an integer in the domain Z[2+i*sqrt(5)] or an integer in some exotic Grothendieck topos).
;)


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.


Don Groves    (2009-04-24 07:18:10)
Like over the board?

It isn't quite the same as OTB. In OTB, my opponent will know that I have denied his offer and will make his next move. On FICGS, the system says it is *my* move, not his! So, how does he make his next move when it is not his turn (although it should be)?

The "My moves" page is wrong and there seems no way to correct it.


Don Groves    (2009-04-24 08:08:35)
I'm a dunce...

... and will now sit in the corner. There was a move sent, I just didn't see it. Senility is a terrible thing...


Normajean Yates    (2009-04-26 18:11:42)
I think Thib's IS the shortest...

To spell it out, white moves Nh2-j4-h6-j8-h10-j12, while black helps by g15-g14,Nj15-h13-g15,Ng16-j15, (and one irrelevant move e.g. moving an edge pawn). That is 5 moves ['half-moves'] by each side, and the 11th half-move is white's Nj12xh14 mate (the black K is smothered and the h14-pawn is unprotected).

You need five [half-]moves for a N to reach the opposite king; so: black can mate white (helpmate ie white co-operates) in 10 half-moves.


Philip Roe    (2009-04-27 20:32:11)
Nine half-moves

1. e2-e4 m15-m13 2. Bf1-a6 Bl16-n14 3. Nj2-h4 j14-j13 4. Qh1-k3 helps 5. Qk3xk13 mate

with many minor variations.


Normajean Yates    (2009-04-28 12:25:12)
PhilipRoe+SophieLeClerc - wonderful!

PhilipRoe+SophieLeClerc (Sophie should get joint credit I think because she first posted in 'international chat' (2009-04-16 08:31:15-25) that a Q+N mate would be even shorter) - that's wonderful - congratulations!

But Sophie had posted that 'it can be done in 8 half-moves with the Q and N' (she didn't give the line). Philip's line, if reversed so that *black* checkmates white, will need 10 half-moves because the mating side in this process needs to free the f-Bishop, free the Q, move the f-bishop once and move the Q twice - a total of 5 [half-]moves. So if black mates by Roe's method it on black's 5th move - which means 10 half-moves.

So, is there a shorter way [specially, with *black* mating]?

Waiting for more posts..


Don Groves    (2009-04-29 00:03:49)
Normajean

You don't deserve mockery any more than I do for my senior moment of thinking that a move had not been sent with a draw offer. Let's just write it off to failing memories and let it rest there, bygone.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-29 14:17:53)
1st team tournament !

Hello all,

As you may have read in the forum previously, the idea of a team chess tournament came up (originally Olympiad, maybe later).

The 1st FICGS CHESS TEAM TOURNAMENT will start on May 15th, 2009. Each team must be made of 4 players, whatever their ratings.

The tournament will be a single round-robin tournament, games will be unrated (just for fun !), time control : 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves.

You may contact other players through the form in My Messages (bottom) or just make a call here in this thread or in the chat bar to find partners, the definitive teams should be announced with their name in this thread to be in !

We might also vote for the funniest team name after the tournament started, be aware ;)

Have fun :-)


Normajean Yates    (2009-04-30 05:54:40)
games search is much easier than...

deciding on the best move, even with engine assistance :)


Hannes Rada    (2009-04-30 19:16:18)
Wolfgang's retirement

Wolfgang, I am really shocked about your decision.
However I can understand, that from time to time someone needs a break from the daily chess analysis routine.
Although some of the positions look favourable for Xavier, I think that most of them could be defended.
I thought that according the rules games will not be rated if less then 10 moves are played.
So imho this match should be rated and we should not have any problem with Xavier's 2682 rating.

And we know also now the next WC:

Xavier Pichelin - Edward Kotlyanskiy !


Marc Lacrosse    (2009-05-01 00:02:15)
Rating or not

I just happened to be in the same situation in a wch semifinal against Dirk Ghysens : for some personal reason my opponent decided to withdraw.
All games were far beyond the 10th move.
Thibault decided that only two of the eight games should be kept for rating.
I do not understand why his decision seems to be completely different in the present case a few weeks later.


Normajean Yates    (2009-05-01 04:06:00)
sorry+thanks Sophie - but: its still 9..

but it is still 9 [half-]moves because the mate is on white's 5th move, so 5 white-moves + 4 black-moves, = 9 [half-]moves.

If you see, yours and Philip's solutions are essentially minor variants of each other...

In Sophie's solution, 2..h14 is of couse an easily repaired mistype [2..h14 is not possible, you see]- one can just replace it by say 2..a14.


Normajean Yates    (2009-05-01 04:18:45)
Sphie's soln is a tad more interesting..

arguably. Because, the L16-B instead of moving away, comes to k15 to be captured..

Interestingly, (very minor point) both Philip and Sophie mistype the checkmating move 5.Q(k3)xk15 mate: Philip gives 5.Qk3xk13, Sophie gives 5.Qxk5... (I just noticed it because I was reading what was meant, not what was written..)

Finally, by 'she' I meant 'she or he': I sometimes do...


Normajean Yates    (2009-05-01 04:22:07)
only, searches dont give transpositions

Or do they, now? Have the hashtables been implemented? (in wikichess search and in game-search by movelist)


Sophie Leclerc    (2009-05-01 05:09:37)
8 moves

I am man....


The presence of knight around the king protect him from worst idiocy, I don,t think a lone queen can mate sooner


Normajean Yates    (2009-05-01 07:10:41)
yes this (9 [half-]moves seems shortest.

I agree, doesnt look like it can be done sooner..


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-03 14:09:17)
First team : "The Dark Knights" :)

Name : The Dark Knights

#1 William Taylor-2140
#2 Scott Nichols-2089
#3 Don Groves-1991
#4 Josef Riha-1989

.. brr, frightening :) kind of Monthy Python tribute ?


About team tournament ethics, I don't think that the best player would play all moves for his team in any case, FICGS rules should still apply, I don't think it will be a problem, particularly in an unrated "for fun" tournament :)


Sophie Leclerc    (2009-05-09 21:49:51)
Sure you accept^

Right.
Then we need to find another player.
We will contact the webmaster once our team is created. We should see who accept, wonder if it could be right for Yugi inving to help us a little with that tournament.

Even if I have to make his move since he don't have a computer. I do not make him win....

The summer breeze is a good name, but I still believe the phantoms suit us more, as no one see us.


Vadim Khachaturov    (2009-05-10 09:11:30)
summer breeze

Ok, Sophie. I accept any name. If Cheshire is not an appropriate name, we can call it summer cats. lol. I hardly imagine, how You can make moves instead of Yugi. If so,and if our opponents have no objections, let it be this way. You just need to know that as soon as possible,cause we still need the fourth player.


Sophie Leclerc    (2009-05-10 22:13:49)
For the move

He send me his move by e-mail, since I am his friend, I promise I would keep his account and play his on this site and inform him of his opponent sometimes I mess up and play badly a couple of his games or resign them, he grew angry at me...


I don't think our opponent will have any objection, they will just ask to not be stupid and to not play for him.

I can reconnize his account now, he set it in french..


Normajean Yates    (2009-05-11 02:07:31)
thoughts on Big Chess... and tips...

I find bigchess more and more fascinating.. I Think it is a wonderful creation of Thibault's (I presume it is Thib. who created it: any way he offers it seriously on this site...) - the starting position is very well-concieved..

I think Bigchess needs more publicity. This is about the only place one can play it - and here there are 2-3 top-class players; less than 20 middle-standard players (including me); others try it once or twice and for some reason get scared or overwhelmed and give up - I see no reason why..

Bigchess gives no advantage on account of huge memorisation of theory, or of better engines: there are *no* theory books; and there are no known engines in existence (probably there isnt one - too little demand, and writing a *good* engine is somewhat laborious, coming up with a *good* static-eval function is tricky, fast board-implementation issues...), so it is all wits...

In fact last week I spend part of two days writing down whatever theory I could discover [with help from top games], it comes to half a page..



Tips for people who want to try bigchess:

1. Bishops are much more powerful than Knights. (because of much longer range compared to 8x8 chess).

The consensus on the values of bigchess pieces is David Grosdemange's valuation:

pawn=1
knight=2.5 (written 2,5 in the continent, of course)
bishop=4
rook=6
queen=11


2. In the opening position, the c,f,L and o-pawns are unprotected.

So, if white's opening move is with the j2-Knight ( freeing the queen), then on move 2 white can move the Queen and threaten to pick up a pawn by forks.. Similarly for black.

*However*, such pawn gambits are quite playable because the Queen can be forced to make many moves to capture a pawn, while the gambitting side develops their pieces.



3. Most Important For Many People: board for offline analysis.

Best of course, is to take time to draw a 16x16 board on paper and stick it on cardboard. And get hold of four sets of chess pieces.

Another way: print a position, and after a move is made - just update the position using correction fluid (typewriter/printer-ink erasing fluid) or something. That way you don't have to keep printng a lot of positions.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-11 21:27:26)
Bigchess pieces values

Actually the value of the knight seems to change a lot during a game, according to the left pawns positions.

200 or 300 moves is not so much compared to a poker game (that can be over 1000), but some games may be really time consuming when the position gets really complex... Well, we play for this kind of fun after all ;)


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).


Normajean Yates    (2009-05-12 00:33:50)
response to Thib's post:

But that is true of 8x8-chess also (about value of knights) - there, 'P=1, B=N=3,R=5,Q=9' is a very rough guideline. Ditto for bigchess piece values.

What is it that Reti (or was it Breyer said) - about move depending on particular position, *not* general principles? ;)


Normajean Yates    (2009-05-12 00:47:43)
more bigchess thoughts..

compared to 8x8 chess, bigchess has twice the number of men but four-times the number of squares. Hence, initial and average board-population density is half that of 8x8chess. So, games are more commonly 'open' - games as closed as an 8x8-chess closed game will be comparatively rare.

Hence, also, (because of low population-density) long-range pieces Rook, Bishop and Queen are *in general* -- Thib., agreed: only 'in general' :) --- much more powerful than their 8x8-chess counterparts.

However, the queen can still get trapped early - see my game number 31191 - opp resigned on my [black's] 7th move because of trapped Queen..
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=31191&flip=1


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.


Vadim Khachaturov    (2009-05-11 05:39:56)
team tournament

About Yugi or Daniel? We have one place only. Any of them two are ok. But for me, its better, when the player make his moves by himself.


Normajean Yates    (2009-05-12 01:02:03)
long bigchess .. and chess games..

from the english wikipedia: "in May 2006, Bourzutschky and Konoval discovered a KQNKRBN position with an astonishing DTC of 517 moves." That is distance-to-conversion! (and that was 2006!) So, you can figure out distance-to-mate and the overall length of a game that reaches this endgame ;)


Normajean Yates    (2009-05-12 07:21:02)
to Daniel: and to Thib and programmers

The queen-traps - of the patzer kind as in my game at any rate - will become less common once we have more middle-level players, I think.

Also, [to thib and non-retired programmers] in bigchess game records, it would help to indicate the piece moved [tiny array in the code so that the piece display is in the language one wants, or in figurine notation], to indicate captures by 'x' and the captured piece, and to indicate promotion.

This is trivial [to write a converter from present notation to this more human-freindly one, given a game from the starting position -- 10 years ago I would have written and uploaded it (C/Haskell source code, command-line window) in 3 hours - but now I feel sooo lazy to write a single line of code - my programming brain-cells are dead or in a coma :)


Alexander Blinchevsky    (2009-05-23 09:35:44)
The Knights with no name

I like this name too. Just remove "yet" in brackets ;)

Good luck for all teams in the 1st team tournament and a lot of thanks to you, Thibault!


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-29 20:09:04)
EGF rating list

To all european Go players who could be interested, the European Go Federation rating list moved from :

http://gemma.ujf.cas.cz/~cieply/GO/gor.html

... to :

http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/EGF_rating_system.php

EGF ratings should be updated more frequently.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-01 19:37:02)
Done

Your name has been removed from both waiting lists !


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-03 19:59:43)
Dead positions/openings

Good (and so large) question, Hannes... I did not exactly mean "openings", this is really beyond my own understanding already :) .. I did mean some endgames (which can be the end of a few openings, at move ~25) in example... On openings, I prefer to be really careful as e.g. there are some really interesting lines (incredibly complex) in Berlin's defence or Petrov's -russian- opening, whose reputation is/was to be drawish.

This could be an interesting debate, does anyone else have some elements on this ?


Hannes Rada    (2009-06-03 22:28:52)
Openings very important for corr chess ?

Well about 3 weeks ago I had a discussion with Austrian's only ICCF world champion.
And he told me that in his next world championship final he is going to chance his opening repertoire completely. Instead of 1. e4 which he prefered so far, he is now going to play another move (1.d4 most probably), because after years of studying chess his conclusion is now that 1.e4 is the weakest choice (compared to 1. d4, 1. Nf3, ...)
The same 'ideology' was also published by former ICCF World Champion Hans Berliner in his book "My System".
.
Dead Endgames: This is another interesting topic to be discussed ....


Normajean Yates    (2009-06-04 08:26:42)
suggest no rep. draw offer for 10 moves

suggestion: once a player has made a draw offer in a game, that player in that game cannot make a draw offer within the next 10 moves.

But is is really *that* irritating at correspondence? I notice my opps draw offer only when I am myself thinking of offering draw (or I am fighting for a draw) - in which cases I accept... otherwise I have often made my move and then later on I realise that a '*' that was there is now missing from the 'my games' list! :)


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.


Philip Roe    (2009-06-04 17:35:08)
Hypothetical case

Suppose that my opponent has a tricky move coming up, but I know that I can defend against it. Because I assume that they have seen both the move and the defense , I offer a draw.

They play the move anyway, thinking that I might not find the defense. But I defend correctly and offer the draw again.

Nothing evil has happened, but this sequence of events would be forbidden by some proposals. It seems to be an over-reaction to make elaborate rule changes in response to an isolated incident.


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 ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-05 14:02:03)
draw offer+timeout

There's no problem with violating FIDE rules as long as it is the best choice for correspondence chess (ie. 50 moves rule), on this suggestion for these rare cases, the player should accept the draw himself in my opinion to deserve the result but well, if most players think that's a good idea, I may change that.


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!


Benjamin Block    (2009-06-05 17:19:42)
Opening not too importent.

1.e4 is still possible and will be it a long time more. The problem is that many players are afraid of new variants and it is why they think the move is draw.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-08 21:19:20)
New feature : Silent mode !

Due to several problems caused by a few players recently (mainly insults in private messages), I just created a "silent mode".

Every player who will not respect the FICGS general rules & netiquette may be placed in this mode for a certain time or permanently, that way the player can play games and enter new tournaments but it is no more possible to send messages to other players (or receive messages with moves) by any way, this is the only way to avoid troubles in tournaments.

I'm very sorry to anyone who received such messages and I'll take care to avoid and prevent this in the future.

My best wishes,
Thibault


Garvin Gray    (2009-06-09 06:02:27)
change to vacation policies.

I know this has possibly be discussed, but would it be possible to change the vacation policy so that if a person comes back early from vacation, they can cancel the rest of their vacation and start making moves.

The current policy of not being able to make moves while on vacation would still apply.


Normajean Yates    (2009-06-09 08:09:58)
re Garvin Gray' suggestion - abusable..

Cancelling vacation is abusable - player pretends to on 20-day vacation; actually returns suddenly next day - when finds opponent busiest and so on, .. to upset opp's schedule and focus. So, if cancelling-vacation is introduced, I think there should be conditions/consequences. [e.g. if you take 7 days vac. and cancel after 3 days; then 7-3=4 days are added to opp's clock - incl. the 60-day nextmove clock.]


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    (2009-06-10 15:58:21)
vacation cancel

why not allow cancelling vacation period if you say take '4' days or just allow cancelling vacation max of one day early. There is many times where I go out of town for 5 days and it ends up being 4. I rather let my clock run and move on the 5th day then lock myself out for 5days completely. Letting us cancel vacation one day early would nice.


Daniel Parmet    (2009-06-10 16:06:56)
draws

consecutive draw offers is absolutely not rude if the position is drawn. I would therefore argue one should not create rules to interfere. If one player wishes to continue to play the drawn game out (as is his right) it is also the other player's right to continue to offer draws in the drawn the position after each move.

I actually consider it quite rude to play out theoretically drawn endgames anyways while I don't find it the slightest bit rude to offer draws in such endgames repeatedly.


Robert Gally    (2009-06-16 20:22:27)
E-mail notification

Is there some way to set notification e-mails on just the FIRST game an opponent moves in? Often, in tournaments, I get 4 e-mails at a time for moves made within a short period of time...


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-16 22:25:51)
E-mail notification

You mean that a "digest" (1 email for all moves per day) or max. 1 email per day would be more convenient for you ? Maybe I can add such an option in the future even if I'm not sure that many would use it. (?)


Robert Gally    (2009-06-17 18:17:09)
First!

Thibault, that would be great actually!

Don, All he has to do is check 'last logged in timestamp' if there is a 2nd e-mail after that time, don't send it! Doesn't matter if I read it, just that I have too many in my inbox without having come here to make a move!


Daniel, I have no idea how to configure a filter to accept 1 message of a certain subject, but not any others until the first is deleted... sounds way to complicated for gmail to attempt!


Normajean Yates    (2009-06-22 16:12:42)
looking forward to it...

looking forward to it... but I'll move in that after wimbledon is over! (hopefully it will start after wimbledon, since the waiting list is not yet in place...)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-22 16:41:00)
Discussion at Rybkachess

That's an interesting discussion... Once more, the confusion reigns between Freestyle chess (commonly played at classical & blitz time controls) and Correspondence Chess, particularly for centaur players who did not experience correspondence chess at a 2500+ level.

IMO (in brief) on several points :

1) All these made-for-engines books have no other interest than to "manipulate" chess engines & other made-for-engines books, actually this has almost nothing to do with correspondence chess (where they are completely useless at a high level, let's say 2300+) or even chess.

2) Many players do not realize the multitude of factors that appear to be more important that the basic strength of centaurs once the correspondence chess 2400 mark is reached and that still increases at 2500 and 2600... The higher the level, the more "opening books" depend on the recent games played by the opponent (and his level), the number of current games played, the score to reach in 8 games matches, the importance of rating, the goal in life, even the month/season for a few players and many other things according to the persons... Actually these "openings books" just live the time to use it one time, so a better term is preparation, actually opening books do not exist anymore in correspondence chess at a very high level, at most it may be useful against weaker players.

3) The previous point is enough to explain the rating changes of most 2400+ players ! In example...

- GM Farit Balabaev is a very experienced player who constantly has(had) more than 100 running correspondence chess games at several places for years, he's also a fast player, it is quite logical to me that he looks for quiet games and fast draws (or lose sometimes to very strong players who want to win more)

- Wolfgang Utesch, FICGS WCH finalist, like many players at one time in their life, decided that other things were more important and that correspondence chess was too time consuming, particularly once the 2500 mark has been reached...

- Eros Riccio obviously decided to win every correspondence chess competition at FICGS while playing a high number of games at several places AFTER having topped the FICGS rating list with the highest rating so far (which he did), so it is natural to look for a few quick draws in matches if 8 draws mean a victory for him (and a few rating points lost, that is quite inhuman anyway :))

- Michael Aigner tops most FICGS rating lists by playing only games at 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves time control, which is an enormous performance as obviously the longer the time control, the higher the rate of draws. I do not know how many current games he's playing at ICCF or IECG and other organisations but I suspect he plays a quite reasonable number of games.

- Xavier Pichelin may top the FICGS rating list this year as he's an incredibly dangerous player with White and Black and with a reasonable number of running games.

Many strong players also choose to play some tournaments for "fun" or to experiment openings and may lose some points while their real strength is over 2500 or more... so it is quite hard to make the difference between the real strength and correspondence chess ratings. So many parameters... It is likely that we'll see one day a 12 games match between Eros and Xavier (Michael do not play fast correspondence chess time control, yet I hope), we all wonder what rating could achieve Vasik Rajlich (Rybka's creator) and other very strong freestyle players but it is very hard to predict only by knowing their results in freestyle tournaments. Correspondence chess is a mirror of real life.


Normajean Yates    (2009-06-25 21:39:33)
Oh ! Thanks!

Thanks for pointing it out, Mr/Ms Russi Román!

I should have just search for benko/volga games (in the standard move-order) to check if a benko thematic has been held... Thematics #3, #58 and #59 were benko (volga) gambit thematics.


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 ? :)


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 !


William Taylor    (2009-07-23 17:57:12)
Draw offers

Would it be possible to record draw offers in the notation of the game? (Maybe with an = sign or the words 'Draw offered') Sometimes I forget whether I have offered a draw a move or two earlier, and it can be annoying for your opponent if you keep offering a draw on each move.


Don Groves    (2009-07-24 07:13:41)
Draw offers

Hi, William -- you can make notes to yourself in the Private Message box below each game. I've used this to record my thoughts against those who move very slowly. I have two games that began in November. No way could I recall what I was trying to do earlier in the game.


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.


Ulrich Imbeck    (2009-07-24 21:41:58)
p4 !?

My move 12 would have been p4
My move 13 also would have been p4


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-07-27 15:53:29)
p4 or n5

Hi Ulrich, yes probably many players would have tried p4 at move 12, but is it necessary to save the stone while n5 starts to build a bigger shape. I don't know if I would have played it though, that's why Svante Carl is much stronger than us :)


Ulrich Imbeck    (2009-07-27 23:16:09)
p4 at move 13 looks easier

My p4 at move 12 tries to divide the black stones.

n5 at move 12 is more space orientated.

But why p5 at move 13?

p4 at move 13 looks easier.


Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2009-07-29 00:41:23)
Unusual doesn't mean bad

I think that this is a perfectly valid opening. There have been much stranger openings that have been played by professionals, even though they appear to be "obviously inferior to standard play" (which this opening does not, in my opinion). I'd like to hear a solid reasoning for the stament that Black's first two moves "can't be best".


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2009-08-02 21:10:26)
Vachier-Lagrave

Karpov said he knew he was a tactical player some moves he (Vachier-Lagrave) made against him (Karpov) in San Sebastian this year surprised him.


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


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-22 15:08:37)
Vacation Time & 60 days limit per move

Hi Charlie, it is explained when you take some days of vacation :

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."

Note : The time per move clock is still running during vacation.


Anyway, it's not really convenient to remember so I'll add it in the Help section.


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-22 22:30:34)
Slow moves & chat bar at Poker

Hello everyone,

You may have noticed that the chat bar disappeared during your poker "moves"... In my opinion poker moves are usually played so fast that it is useless to display it but it may be a problem for players who write long messages with their moves and can be disconnected (the small message box keeps players connected as it refreshes automatically). Is it a problem for many players ?

The other question is : Should the "slow moves" process be kept for poker moves as it is (IMHO) not necessary to confirm such moves in most cases ?

Your feedback is welcome, thanks :)


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


Michel van der Kemp    (2009-08-25 19:47:10)
Mistake in ELO calculation?

I got this email from an advanced match.

Game 27857


[Event "FICGS__CHESS__BULLET_BRONZE__000132"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2009.8.23"]
[Round "1"]
[White "van der Kemp,Michel"]
[Black "Goršek,Gregor"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1966"]
[BlackElo "1623"]

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Be2 O-O 6.O-O c6 7.a4 a5 8.h3 Na6 9.Be3 Nb4 10.Qd2 Qc7 11.Rac1 Rd8 12.Rfe1 d5 13.exd5 Nbxd5 14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.Bh6 Be6 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.c4 Nb4 18.Bd3 Nxd3 19.Qxd3 Qd6 20.Re3 Rd7 21.Qe2 Re8 22.Rd1 R7d8 23.Re1 Rd7 24.b3 b6 25.Ng5 Bf5 26.g4 1-0



Move sent : 2009.8.23 - 17:54:11
Move replied : 2009.8.23 - 19:10:44


Player resigned.




WhiteELO : 1966 ... 1961
BlackELO : 1623 ... 1627


This email was generated automatically by http://www.ficgs.com/
My rating went down after winning a game :)


Don Groves    (2009-08-31 06:56:03)
Poker bug?

Game 34598, move 20: I won the hand on a showdown but was not able to see my opponent's hidden cards. The display only showed my hidden cards and the common cards. Why?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-31 14:05:20)
No bug?

Hi Don, I don't see the point here... Your opponent (Player 1) pays by checking so you show your cards, he does not have to show his cards in this case if he hasn't a better hand (no player is all in).

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=34598&move=40


Michael Sharland    (2009-09-01 03:41:29)
I agree with the Garvin's suggestion

If you look at the waiting list for any of the standard tournaments, you will typically see only players rated in the bottom 100 points of the band. This means that certain ranges are missing profitable opportunities to play and move up their ratings.

By narrowing the standard tournament bands and offsetting them with the rapid tournament bands, you will likely see an increase in signups as more players will find tournaments that align with their desire for the ability to make rating progress.

I am also in this 2100-2199 rating range and feel that there is no tournament that I can sign up for that would help my rating improve. So I find myself waiting for a WCH tournament to move me up or down rather than playing a new tournament as I would like to.


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.


Nick Burrows    (2009-09-05 02:43:25)
drunken sailor

his punishment should be the replacement of his 30 second per move increment with a shot of vodka per move, to keep the spectators amused.

Apparently he cost the French team a point at the olympiad due to the same reason - perhaps he has a serious problem :-(


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


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    (2009-09-16 13:23:31)
Quick Corr. Chess

Hi Scott :)

Why not playing blitz games between your correspondence moves ?

IMO the problem with that idea is :

1) If the quick corr. chess games share the corr. chess rating list, it may bring trouble in it with many losses on time. Some other servers offer this kind of time control & it is not serious IMHO.

2) If the quick corr. chess games do not share the corr. chess rating list, it will be less interesting for most players and it means another rating list, probably the one too much.

In all cases, it will be more waiting lists to fill. At a 2000+ level, it is never so easy.

Waiting for more opinions...


Daniel Parmet    (2009-09-16 23:04:15)
If the new bands are the problem...

If the new bands are the problem then remove them. I see no reason to add this "quick corr."


Benjamin Block    (2009-09-17 19:41:23)
Quick corr. chess

The only swedish site where you can play corr. chess have some very smal times the lowest is 7 days for whole game (no increment). But it is very smal and only person that don´t have a job or don´t go to school can fix it. It is also a contest about how can make the last move on the night?


Scott Nichols    (2009-09-18 02:11:45)
Obviously....

This idea does not have near the backing I thought it would. Gave it a shot, right? And since this is the best site on the planet, no way would go elsewhere. So I will be content to wait for my next move, SIGH....:(


Don Groves    (2009-09-18 05:18:23)
Sigh...

I feel your pain, Scott. I would like to see a lower limit on the number of games one player can have at the same time. Maybe that would encourage some players to move more frequently...


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 !


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-22 21:57:22)
Round robin tournaments

Very true, this is even more complex when taking account of this point !

So do you think that there shouldn't be any move taken back in round-robin tournaments ?


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-09-23 02:50:06)
after review

After further consideration and reviewing the responses, I change my vote to #3. After OTB touch-move !no take backs. 2 is the polite thing to do and that influenced me. But there are other considerations. Thibault, keep it simple, no take backs. I have miss moved here but accepted it as the rule !
Wayne


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.


Michael Sharland    (2009-09-24 20:16:32)
#3 is the only fair choice

I've lost several games and tournaments due to carelessly inputing a move but I can't imagine ever asking my opponent for a redo. In the same vein, I wouldn't like to be put on the spot of being asked for a take back that I would not ask for myself. This make #3 the only fair choice. Everybody has to live with their mistakes. That is sensible and fair.


Don Groves    (2009-09-25 08:14:23)
My 0.02 Euros

I'm against taking back moves but what about other mistaken things, like accidently resigning instead of offering or accepting a draw?

Maybe I should just use slow moves ;-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-27 01:35:59)
#3, finally

Let's do it. I'll modifiy the rules to choice #3 and there will be no move taken back in ANY case from now.

Thanks all for sharing your views, it was really helpful ! :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-28 19:53:18)
Rules modified & javascript added

The changes are now effective, no move will be taken back in any case ! (a javascript confirm window has been added to avoid accidental draw offers or resignations)

Thanks again for your help !


Don Groves    (2009-10-31 06:03:19)
Just made it...

You'd better speed it up, William! You're the only member of the Dark Knights with fewer than 24,000 moves ;-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-10-06 20:17:49)
2nd FICGS chess freestyle cup

Hi all,

Finally, I'll have some time to organize the 2nd FICGS chess freestyle cup during the next weeks !

The entry will be free for players rated over 2000, the prize will be 200 Epoints.


Three possibilities (swiss pairing) :

a) 6 rounds (1 hour + 15 sec/move), 2 rounds played each day - monday, tuesday, wednesday

b) 6 rounds (1 hour + 15 sec/move), 2 rounds played each day - friday, saturday, sunday

c) 6 rounds (30 minutes + 15 sec), 6 rounds played in a single day


Case a) could be organized next week or the week after, case b) couldn't be organized before about 1 month, case c) could be organized quite easily.

In cases a) & b), the best time for the daily 2 games remains to be found... IMO 8pm & 11pm server time or 1pm & 4pm server time are good choices, what do you think ?


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.


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-10-29 23:01:27)
Most active players, amazing statistics!

These statistics (updated every 2 days) are available at :
http://www.ficgs.com/about.html


And the overall winner is........ :)

Players most active : General (moves played)


1. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff : 124234
2. Rolf Staggat : 81806
3. Anderson Barradas : 55829
4. Stephane Legrand : 47936
5. Scott Nichols : 46711
6. Mark Noble : 37387
7. Findlay Murray : 35874
8. Volker Koslowski : 33241
9. Don Groves : 29539
10. Thibault de Vassal : 26104
11. Francisco Gramajo : 25281
12. Sergey Uzdin : 25256
13. Michael Sharland : 24890
14. Josef Riha : 24193
15. Jason Repa : 22765
16. Laurine Ségur : 22577
17. Alexis Bromo : 20198
18. Benjamin Collette : 20112
19. Fernando Vasquez : 19928
20. Laszlo Kis-Kos : 19174
21. Christian Koch : 18450
22. Evgeny Yarkov : 17168
23. Xavier Pichelin : 16559
24. Garvin Gray : 16388
25. Ranganathan Raman : 15750
26. Sebastian Boehme : 15190
27. Zdravko Stoyanov : 15186
28. Nick Ioffe : 15151
29. Phil Cook : 15007
30. Sean McNabb : 14572
31. Daniel Parmet : 13814
32. Ilmars Cirulis : 13118
33. Joaquim Malpalma : 13057
34. Dmitriy Panov : 12733
35. Nelson Bernal Varela : 12119
36. Marco Roncagliolo : 11741
37. Dmytro Romaniuk : 11648
38. Miroslav Rakovic : 11435
39. Nick Burrows : 11242
40. Janeen Walden : 10967
41. Claude Brisson : 10812
42. Sandor Porkolab : 10714
43. Christophe Czekaj : 10678
44. Janusz Kepinski : 10675
45. Peter Willoughby : 10634
46. Benjamin Block : 10633
47. Kate Lubeck : 10155
48. Charlie Neil : 10076
49. Darko Pipac : 10072
50. William Taylor : 10036



Players most active : Go


1. Don Groves : 17026
2. Claude Brisson : 10812
3. Nick Ioffe : 10795
4. Alejandro Suarez-Moreno : 10018
5. Mickaël Simon : 8986
6. Thibault de Vassal : 8870
7. Sean McNabb : 8666
8. Sergey Tarassov : 8236
9. Phil Cook : 8186
10. Tetsuya Kobayashi : 7816



Players most active : Chess


1. Josef Riha : 24119
2. Fernando Vasquez : 19820
3. Zdravko Stoyanov : 14523
4. Anderson Barradas : 12587
5. Ilmars Cirulis : 12200
6. Laszlo Kis-Kos : 12068
7. Janusz Kepinski : 10675
8. Garvin Gray : 10638
9. Scott Nichols : 10211
10. Charlie Neil : 10076



Players most active : Chess 960


1. Christophe Czekaj : 1224
2. Joaquim Malpalma : 916
3. Frederick Estieu : 672
4. Ilmars Cirulis : 605
5. Pavel Háse : 600
6. Sefa Sarihan : 524
7. Sandor Porkolab : 512
8. Jay Melquiades : 495
9. Christian Koch : 470
10. Rick Spangler : 447



Players most active : Big Chess


1. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff : 5583
2. Peter Willoughby : 4368
3. José Carrizo : 3319
4. Thibault de Vassal : 3199
5. Mark Noble : 2949
6. Sandor Porkolab : 2467
7. Volker Koslowski : 1887
8. Paul König : 1790
9. William Taylor : 1706
10. Ranganathan Raman : 1620



Players most active : Poker Holdem


1. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff : 111119
2. Rolf Staggat : 75570
3. Stephane Legrand : 41639
4. Anderson Barradas : 38671
5. Scott Nichols : 36500
6. Findlay Murray : 33008
7. Mark Noble : 31172
8. Volker Koslowski : 25829
9. Michael Sharland : 20721
10. Francisco Gramajo : 20431


Congrats Heinz-Georg, definitely you're the most addicted player ;)


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2009-10-30 00:06:43)
Amazing statistics

Thank you, Thibault, but maybe we should ignore the poker games or divide the number of these moves by 10? Then it would not be so evident :)


Don Groves    (2009-10-30 00:57:59)
And the winner is...

Thibault! He's made over 26,000 moves while also building and maintaining the site!


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-10-30 01:54:38)
Moves, ratings...

Thanks Don, I would have made more moves with a better broadband :/ .. If there was a formula taking account of ratings, moves & a lower weight for poker, Josef Riha would probably top the list !


William Taylor    (2009-10-31 13:14:20)
Don

One correspondence game is taking up lots of my time at the moment - a so-called 'Malkovich' game, where you explain all of your moves at length to the audience. It's here if you felt like taking a look: http://www.godiscussions.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10309

Anyway, I have some way to go before I reach 24,000 moves. :O I wonder if I can make it before the team championship is over and the Dark Knights hold the trophy...


Milos Budnar    (2009-10-31 16:32:14)
vacation time

Thanks William and Thibault,
There was just the diction "All games during the whole cycle are played in 30 days + 1 day / move" which confused me. Now, I am relaxed about that. Milos


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-03 11:36:47)
5.2 % !!

Another amazing statistic : Heinz-Georg played 5.2 % of all moves played on the server........... (thanks to poker of course)


Michel van der Kemp    (2009-11-04 16:37:28)
#2

I don't want others to make comments about my moves, good nor bad comments. Perhaps after the game I would comment but only when my opponent asks for it.


Hannes Rada    (2009-11-04 22:21:02)
Knockout Final 05

Lacrosse - Riccio

Marc Lacrosse:

Last connection : 2009 August 11

I am afraid, we won't see so many moves here .... :-(


William Taylor    (2009-11-05 18:36:33)
Is it worth improving?

FICGS is mainly a correspondence games server, and I wonder whether it's worth spending lots of time trying to improve its live games. Personally, when I want to play a live game, I go to one of the many servers which are dedicated to that. Perhaps the main disadvantage for me of playing a live game on FICGS is that the page keeps refreshing - it's annoying and you don't see the opponent's move instantly.


Daniel Parmet    (2009-11-06 06:05:32)
Yes.

As someone who made well over 100,000 dollars playing poker professionally over the board... I cannot deny its luck. Everyone will argue with you how much is luck but only a fool will deny there is any luck. Skill plays a factor but is significantly reduced by playing poker online as opposed to over the board.

The litmus test of luck: Can you still lose the game after having made all the right moves?

In poker, no doubt! The river can screw you completely even if you played all the right moves and the odds were always in your favor.

Ask the same question of Go or Chess and you will get a different answer. If you make all the right moves you could never lose a game of chess.


Lazaro Munoz    (2009-11-07 01:56:13)
Advanced games (blitz) : improvements

For blitz can you not define the start of the as move two (when to start the clocks too) so that you are assured that both players are present. If not continued after move 0.5 you can throw it after a period of time and go back to move 0 where both players need to start again. Or take the forfeit if the player does not return before the beginning of the next round.

--laz


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-07 16:16:28)
"blitz cc"

Well, FICGS cannot & will not become a fast games server to play eg. "2 0" or even "5 0" (by the way even on the fastest servers, there are lag - and other - problems) but I hope there will be more and more players interested in classical time controls (called blitz here) & 'freestyle chess'... William, I can't remember the last time when you played a fast game here, the page now only refreshes when a move is played, and faster now... With an AJAX interface, it will be almost completely transparent.

Lazaro, actually the fast games with less than 2 moves will be replaced when a new challenge is accepted, to delete the forfeited games.


Eros Riccio    (2009-11-11 23:49:00)
Knockout Final 05

Emails should have been sent by default to him when tourney started and when I sent him my first 4 moves... I am also disappointed, I had never played him before, and I was happy when I saw I was paired with him, I was looking forward to testing his "unusual" openings...


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?


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-11-13 18:42:00)
Centaur Chess

Howdy John, I will try and give maybe a little more detail to the best my ability.
1) Rybka is probably best up to "end game" and in end game I like Naum and Zappa.
2) Stonewall: , do not know best engine, but probably not Rybka
3.) Not enough information and again it depends on Engine Tactics. But in general, probably is worth looking into deep P.V.
4) Have no idea
5) No idea.
6) Out of book move "repeat/improvement recognition" as far as I know is not a feature. You as the Centaur of course should recognize this.
7) Well, you will get big arguments here. Many will tell you Aquarium (if you can master it).
8) NO In CC chess, the book is probably the most important thing to study and improve.As mentioned, experience is number one. Dont know if this post is of any value Wayne


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.


Vjacheslav Perevozchikov    (2009-11-14 03:10:41)
Thibault

Game 36911 and Game 36913 in my group seems to go in the same way. There is a temptation to spy the opponents game :)
My question - is there a possibility to hide games during tournament avoiding a simple repetition of the moves? Like LSS it does.


Ahsan Aah    (2009-11-16 16:23:21)
Its my first game How can i make a move

I am seeing the game but unable to make the first move.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-16 21:09:57)
First move

Hello Ahsan, feel free to read the Help section - http://www.ficgs.com/help.html

You may play your moves by going to "My games" or "My messages". Feel free to ask if you have any question.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-21 01:19:19)
E-mail notifications

Hi Wayne, you mean email notification for your moves or messages posted in the forum?

For the forum, I'll add an option in Preferences within a few days.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-21 15:24:16)
e-mails

Ok, so the new option will be the solution. If someone does no want any email from the server, the only way is to remove your email in Preferences.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-29 17:15:18)
Nigel Davies & Garry Kasparov

Hi Nick,

Nigel Davies played with computer assistance but IMO only to verify his moves, he was very creative in some games. As for Garry Kasparov, if I remember well, he said a long time ago that he could become easily the best correspondence chess player (if assisted by computers, I guess). However I'm not sure if his preparations for OTB chess would be useful here, but most probably he could achieve this. Hard to predict what rating he could reach as a centaur, maybe 2650-2700....... Without computer assistance, it would be much harder, maybe 2300-2350 ..

It seems to me that Peter Leko played some games at ICCF, without so much success also, right?


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.


Pavel Hase    (2009-12-01 01:25:54)
Notin movement

Scheme is here:
http://www.chesspraga.cz/images/Notin_BigChess_16x16.png


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-01 09:08:38)
Notin movement

What what ? What is this Notin movement ? Can anyone explain ?

About big chess pieces values, I agree that the pawn value is most probably less than considered before... Now I would say something like Q = 15.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-01 15:02:11)
Fixed poker bug (rare case)

There may have been a bug in a few poker games, provoking the loss of the game without any "obvious" reason.

As a reminder for myself it happened here :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=32014&move=1338

This is where PHP is magic, sometimes '1' == '1-0' , sometimes not (the operator === is useful then), according to the way the variables are calculated. I fell into the trap... Now it should be ok. I verified several thousand games without this problem but do not hesitate to warn me if you noticed something strange in one of your games.


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 19:01:23)
.. in Go discussions forum

There is a helpful discussion on that subject in the "Go discussions" forum :

http://www.godiscussions.com/forum/showthread.php?p=136208

Indeed it is not so easy to make the difference with some Fuseki to describe the first moves. Thinking about that.


William Taylor    (2009-12-05 17:22:48)
Opening theory

I remember Marc publishing some material about this opening on his website. Unfortunately it seems like the material was not transferred when his website moved. He had accumulated a lot of knowledge on this opening and it would be a shame to lose all his work on it - I don't suppose anyone knows if the material is available anywhere do they?


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?


Don Groves    (2009-12-06 22:56:17)
Problem?

What if I have several tournament games running and also a real-time game? If I had to respond to all other moves before playing again in the real-time game, I could lose on time.


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.


Gino Figlio    (2009-12-16 02:34:16)
benefit for FICGS

Hi Thibault,

The main benefit for FICGS would be that if you ever have team matches against other organizations that use XFCC, your players may be able to make their moves from your server even if the event is hosted elsewhere.

Best wishes and happy holidays,

Gino Figlio


Pablo Schmid    (2009-12-26 22:21:54)
Rating calculation

Hello Thibault, j'aurais préféré parler en français mais puisque je suis sur le forum...

Could you explain how exactly chess rating's calculation works in ficgs?

And I think games with 10 moves or less should be counted, maybe not every games but sometimes 8 or 9 moves can be sufficient to punish someone (nice miniatures or quick mates are possibles) and it enables the loser to resign (or be mated) without losing points. An example of an abusive situation: imagine I play the Traxler and I resign before 10 moves if I see a good choosed line by my opponent which I don't like to play as Black because I know I might suffer or even lose...

J'espčre que je t'aurai convaincu et que mon exemple ne donnera pas de mauvaises idées! Sur ce, bonnes fętes, Pablo


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-27 01:50:07)
Chess rating calculation

Hello Pablo! Bonnes fętes 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 14:08:37)
10 moves rule

IMO this rule is important because :

1) It dissuades cheating by creating several accounts playing together through proxies... This rule makes it really hard to win some points this way, it would be detected even more easily.

2) In many cases, new players (who did not realize that computer assistance was authorized, who do not like the correspondence time controls or who just wanted to try) forfeit their games after 3 or 4 moves rather than let it go. There is no doubt to me that this phenomenon would have much more bad effects on ratings.

3) It is likely that a player who "miniatures" another player is actually much stronger than his opponent, so his rating shouldn't increase so much.


Finally and that's the main point IMO, "unfair" situations are statistically negligible compared to the other possible rules. See the other servers...

So far I'm quite convinced that it is one of the best implemented rules here, and this is exactly the way I optimise the programs: "Statistics give better results than looking for perfection" :)


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (2009-12-30 22:35:09)
games

A little bump, we can say.


I have just finished 7 games with that gambit, winning them all. And not only with poor players.

Some games where really sharp.... The move c4.... is something to look for.


Scott Nichols    (2010-01-05 05:06:18)
Poker Software?

This has come up alot recently. I'm sure there are many claims by new programs that tout their analytical ability. Sure they could give you the best statistical move, but could they bluff? I think their play would be predictable and easy to beat. I don't use them and wouldn't trust them. Just one man's opinion, any others?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-01-12 09:28:43)
Problem with auto-refresh in My games ?

Hello all,

Two players reported a problem for the "My games" page when both 'pending' & 'poker games' (click the icon next to "Here are your pending games") are selected and only in this case. The page wouldn't auto-refresh correctly when there's a new move to play.

As it works fine for me, I would like to know if other players experience the same problem.

Thank you!


Aliyu Bori    (2010-01-24 04:21:17)
Quote festival, part 6

I dont move my porns as a sacrifice cos they are not officers, i move my porns cos i anticipate them to be officers.


Kamesh Nookala    (2010-01-24 19:34:39)
Resign before 10th move

Hello HOST,

I didnt know about this forum earlier and posted in the International Chat. I am sorry for that stupid mistake of mine. But the problem which i faced now is this. There is a guy whom i defeated in all 4 meetings where i played vs. him. This poor guy found me yet again and having known by now that he cant beat me, he simply resigned. I have no grievance against him. But in my very first Rapid B tour here at ficgs, i got an advantage of +-1.00 (approx.) vs. a player who simply resigned after my white 10th move. This meant that though I am awarded with a win, yet because my opponent resigned simply instead of playing the 10th move, he denied me earning some elo. That also implies that he saved his elo by simply resigning.

I dont know much above this site as i am pretty new to this. However, i have been already a victim of this sort of activities. For e.g., I could simply resign when i play bad openings and evals dip before 10th move and i can simply save my elo. That means i can simply resign vs. Big Guys as Black and play as Black only vs. weak players.

Just thought to express my views. Rest upto the moderators


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-01-24 20:18:09)
Resign before 10th move

Hi Kamesh, as I replied in the chat bar, it is not possible to save his elo by resigning before the 10th move, he'll lose the same number of points as if he resign at move 24 or 67. Indeed, the game is not rated for the winner before his 10th move, but if you are stronger than your opponents in this category, you'll gain almost the same number of points anyway. This rule is statistically fair, then this is only a question of time.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-01-26 10:52:41)
SuperGMs watch Corr?!

It would be funny to find the game Carlsen mentioned on Correspondence Chess databases (or even here?!). What are the previous moves?


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.


Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2010-01-29 23:03:44)
Go chinese rules: should pass count?

Lazaro Munoz, the pass stones do not "penalize" anyone, they just make the score of AGA territory scoring always equal to the score of AGA area scoring. Under area scoring, failing to occupy even a "neutral" point instead of passing costs a point (unless no neutrals or an even count of neutrals is left), and this has to be reflected in the territory scoring. AGA rules thus have two exactly equivalent scoring methods.

A better explanation might be this: Under area scoring, each move is worth exactly one point more than under territory scoring, viz. the point that it occupies. Under the assumption that both players make the same number of moves (that is the reason for the rule that White always has to move last), this precisely cancels out. Since a pass is worth 0 points under area scoring, it has to be -1 points under territory scoring, which is represented by the pass stone.


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    (2010-01-31 11:54:48)
SuperGMs watch Corr?!

The Vidalina-Kabachev games goes:

[Event "WC-2006-F-00005"]
[Site "LSS"]
[Date "2007.9.12"]
[Round ""]
[White "Vidalina, Franjo"]
[Black "Kabachev, Andrey"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco ""]
[Annotator ""]
[Source ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.Bd3 Ne7 12.Nxe7 Qxe7 13.c4 f5 14.O-O O-O 15.Qh5 Rb8 16.exf5 e4 17.Rae1 Bb7 18.Qg4 Rfe8 19.cxb5 d5 20.bxa6 Bc6 21.b3 Kh8 22.Nc2 Bc3 23.Be2 Qf6 24.Rd1 Rg8 25.Qf4 d4 26.Bc4 d3 27.Ne1 Be5 28.Qe3 Rg5 29.g3 Rxf5 30.Ng2 Rg8 31.Rc1 Bd4 32.Qd2 Rf3 33.Rce1 Rgxg3 0-1

Interestingly Shirov played 23. Qh3 in his game. Rybka thought the move absolutely sucked and would have responded with the material grab: 23...Bxe1 24. Rxe1 Qc5 25. Bf1 Qxc2 giving it +0.11. It thought that white was much better before 23. Qh3 with the simple 23. Be2 (as was played by Vidalina).

Vidalina may have resigned prematurely since after 34. hxg3 Rxg3 35. Re3, Black is better and has some attacking chances there does not seem to be knock-out move.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-02-03 16:52:19)
Huang Xiangren 4p vs Lin Shengxian 7p

The first black moves looks very interesting and indeed it rotates... I feel I'm not strong enough to start to understand this.


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    (2010-02-03 19:56:46)
Go chinese rules : should pass count?

I think I see how this last move compensation "sharpens" the results, but if to make the game sharper is the main interest in it, I don't think that Go needs that :)

Anyway, obviously there's no need to change the rules. Thanks again for your lights (sorry for my ignorance).


Scott Nichols    (2010-02-05 22:05:29)
Advanced games : Problems & solutions

If you could figure a way to automatically remove the player from the waiting list if he signs off. Of course some players stay signed on, even if they are not at computer. That solution eludes me I'm afraid.


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.


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-02-22 17:15:31)
Rating calculation

Maybe this will help: a simplification of the involved equation.
New elo= (a) x elo + (TER opponents avg.)/a
So you see a new rating is based on elo and ter. The variables (a) & (b) are simplified to remove non elo numberical values so that the expression is easier to see.
Hope this helps
Wayne


Pablo Schmid    (2010-02-24 18:46:11)
Conditional moves

Hello Thibault, I don't know if that proposition has been made in the past, but there are somes servers that use conditionnal moves, it's an useful tool to win time for both players on forced moves. Do you think it would be possible to put that fonction in ficgs?


Je profite au passage pour te demander ce que tu penses finalement du rčglement sur 3 fois la męme position.


Hannes Rada    (2010-02-24 19:41:25)
Conditionnal moves

That's what I would like to have since FICGS started ....


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-02-24 21:50:20)
Conditional moves

Conditional moves have been discussed several times and mainly in the following discussion where I tried to explain the main reasons why I'm not favorable to this :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=4360


About the threefold repetition rule (situational vs. positional), there is something to fix indeed but I can't do it right now, I'm just doing all that I can to have a large broadband at home, which is my priority for 10 years now... but that's just hell!


Hannes Rada    (2010-02-24 22:09:15)
Conditionnal moves

--------------------------------------
In many forced sequences, only one side may take advantage of conditional moves to save time, that's not fair and that's the point according to me
--------------------------------------

Thibault, that was your argument against conditionals almost 2 years ago.
However I did not understand and still do not understand this explanation.
I my opinion both players benefit from time saving conditionals.
However maybe you could add an option under player's preferences - "conditionals yes or no" and if both players agree than conditionals could be switchend on for that games.

FICGS is really a great server offering so many different features, other server don't, but missing conditionals is in my opinion a major deficit of this server.
(Some minor things could also be improved)


Iouri Basiliev    (2010-02-25 10:55:16)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)

Could someone explain to me the reason to play a game for monthes, when there is mate in 7 moves for example? Any engine will found it in a seconds. Any player above 1200 elo understand immediately...


Hannes Rada    (2010-02-25 13:50:31)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)

Dear Iouri

This is the so called Dead Man Defense(DMD) ....
There are various reasons to play that defense:

1.) Your opponent does not like you
2.) Your opponent does not find the 'resign checkbox'
3.) Your opponent does not want to risk his rating and therefore delays his loss until the next rating calculation period
4.) In good old correspondenc chess times, a player had to write down the words 'I resign' on a postcard - nowadays modern technolgy helps a lot - the player has only to tick a 'resign checkbox' and click a 'send-button' - but this seems task seems still to hard ....


Benjamin Block    (2010-02-25 14:07:21)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)

...

5.)Your opponent want you to lose on time. You maybe stop playing because it is too boring.
6.)Your opponent want you to lose on a blunder.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-02-25 14:56:37)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)

I couldn't say it better than you guys :)

Hi Iouri, if you want to stop the game, you may use the rule 11.5 : You may call the referee a first time, after one month, just call the referee again & the game should be adjudicated.

"11. 5. Adjudications

In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious.

If time control is superior to 1 day and if a player doesn't want to resign (or accept draw) and obviously last the game, his opponent may report to referee a first time. If the player takes 30 days more to finish the game, his opponent may call referee another time, then the game will be adjudicated. An analysis submitted by a player should contain sufficient information so that no doubt is possible. This may include a sequence of moves, but in some circumstances it may be sufficient to claim a win or a draw on the basis of material or positional advantage. Final decision belongs to referee."


Iouri Basiliev    (2010-02-25 17:17:37)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)

Thank you, guys! I got the point(s)!


Lazaro Munoz    (2010-02-26 05:07:19)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)

Hannes, you forgot the most important reason for the DMD, Dead Men make no moves! Your opponent is hoping you will kick the bucket before he runs out of time. In some correspondence organization does not work since death only brings on an adjudication, and with a mate in 7, you will be the winner before grass begins to grow over your opponent.


Garvin Gray    (2010-02-26 19:13:30)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)

I thought it was a rule on this site that as soon as a tablebase win appears it can be claimed.

I certainly remember this being discussed in the forum and being agreed to.


Iouri Basiliev    (2010-02-26 21:00:23)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)

It is mate in 7 but 8 pieses :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-02-27 00:14:28)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)

I can't remember such a rule, but this has been discussed for sure... It seems to me that we concluded that any player (so a player without engines as well) should be able to "see" the end of the game -particularly difficult endgames- if he does not last it for any DMD purpose.


Don Groves    (2010-02-27 01:49:27)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)

Reason #9: There are many players out there with zero integrity. Unfortunately, some of these players also find their way to FICGS...


Pablo Schmid    (2010-03-03 14:43:42)
Conditionnal moves

Hello Thibault, I think this feature might be useful for everybody: a chess board for the analysis where we can just play moves and why not put comments with the positions. I say that to be able to find ideas when I just have an internet page outside. What do you think?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-03 15:01:34)
Conditionnal moves

Hi Hannes (sorry for the delay).

Well players may save time thanks to conditional moves, but not at the same time and nothing guarantees that it will not be at the advantage of one player only during a particular game. Anyway, a conditional field exists in the database so there is some hope to see it one day, but it will be a big & complex work to make it coherent for the different games. Not for these months as there are other priorities, I'm afraid :/

But feel free to mention the other minor improvements, if I can do it within minutes, it will be done.


Garvin Gray    (2010-03-03 15:32:09)
Conditional moves

I have an improvement for this thread. Fix up the spelling of the title :P


Hannes Rada    (2010-03-03 18:54:05)
Conditionnal moves

Okay Thibault, I don't want to put pressure on you regarding the conditionals, or to take up to much of your time.
But here is one minor improvement (in my opinion).
Can the tournament pages show first the chess notation and then the chess diagram ? It is in my opinion more logic do present it in this way.
What do you think ?


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 21:30:50)
Conditional moves

Hi Hannes, you mean in such a page?

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000003&boards=1


Hannes Rada    (2010-03-13 21:45:46)
Conditional moves

Yes Thibault.
In these pages chess notation first and then the diagram seems to be more logical (for me)


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 Leităo, 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 !


Garvin Gray    (2010-03-19 08:34:38)
Blitz time controls

Hello all,

I was wondering what others thought about this. I have just finished a match with Scott Nichols at blitz time controls ie 40 moves in 2 hours followed by 40 moves in 2 hours etc.

In my opinion, the second time period would be improved if it was 20 moves in 1 hour. The classical time control for the last 100 years or so has been 40 moves in (insert time here) followed by 20 moves in (insert time here).

In my match with Scott, it was quite common for the games to go only 50 moves or so, which meant we had 2 hours available for just ten moves or so.


Scott Nichols    (2010-03-22 14:34:02)
Blitz time controls

In the European Individual Ch. just finished, the time controls were 90 minutes for 40 moves, and 30 minutes for the rest of the game with all moves starting from move one having an increment of 30 seconds per move. I like the "game in xx minutes" after the first time control. The way it is, if an ending is complicated at all the game can drag on for hours and hours.


Garvin Gray    (2010-03-22 14:42:00)
Blitz time controls

The Classical time controls now being used are
1) 40 moves in 2 hours, 20 moves in 1 hour followed by 15 mins + 30 seconds.

Also used sometimes is 2)

40 moves in 100 mins, 20 moves in 50 mins fb 15 mins, all with a 30 second increment from move one.

I think the second time control would be better here as it guarantees that each player has some time to make their move, considering slow internet connections and technical issues.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-24 19:30:09)
Blitz time controls

My point (if there's one) is that longer games like the current time control probably mean games of a better quality, the blitz time control is really long actually... so why not playing the lightning time control if you want faster games ? By the way there's no bad surprise with an increment at every move.


Garvin Gray    (2010-03-25 04:29:33)
Blitz time controls

Hello Thibault,

I am not asking for a significantly shorter time control. I am not proposing or asking for a shorter time control for moves 1-40. Moves 1 to 40 can stay at 40 moves in 2 hrs if you wish.

My request is for a change to the second time control from the current 40 moves in 2 hrs to 20 moves in 1 hr continuous.

Following others comments, I used examples of the time controls for major tournaments.

As I said in my first post, In my match with Scott, it was quite common for the games to go only 50 moves or so, which meant we had 2 hours available for just ten moves or so.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-25 10:57:09)
Blitz time controls

... that is not easy to predict.

Anyway, what about this :

- 20 moves / 1 hour time control all game long
- 40 moves / 2 hours, then 20 moves / 1 hour

I would even prefer the first one that is easier to read but IMO it is not so interesting. The 40 moves / 2 hours has the advantage to offer the possibility to explore very deeply the most interesting positions encountered...


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.


Don Groves    (2010-03-25 22:54:57)
Challenges

And also to remove the Challenges section from our My Games page.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-03-28 22:01:08)
Remove me from waitinglist

I need to be off the two chess special waiting list (thematic) and (unrated). Thanks.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-29 00:24:33)
Remove me from waitinglist

Done.

Greetings,
Thibault


Daniel Parmet    (2010-03-29 00:28:04)
Remove me from waitinglist

Thank you.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-31 09:10:44)
Bug in game 41452

You use the slow moves interface, right? Do you use several windows with several boards in your navigator? If so, it may happen (specified somewhere in the conditions or the Help section).


Don Groves    (2010-03-31 09:12:54)
Bug in game 41452

No, I use the fast moves for Go.


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-31 17:22:26)
Touch move option !

Of course you still can write a message to your opponent & offer a draw or resign after you choose the touch move option, but you will have to do all this before to play your move.

If you want to resign without playing a move, naturally you'll have to push the "Send" button after checking the box. I hope this will look obvious to everyone.

If (for chess) you touched a piece that you didn't want to move, of course you're not forced to play it, 3 solutions for "j'adoube" :

- Just go back to My games then choose your game again and play your move. This is the more secure option.
- Play an illegal that should be not accepted, the page will be reloaded.
- Reload the page by focusing the address of the page in your navigator then pushing "Enter" on your keyboard (do NOT use the reload function of your navigator that would re-send a previous form)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-31 20:30:54)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010

To the players who will participate to the next freestyle tournament, be sure to read the following discussion before to play :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8345

I recommend to practice this new option (touch move) by playing a few bullet bronze games before the tournament ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-31 22:03:34)
Improvement to watch games

It will be now much more convenient to follow bullet lightning, blitz & freestyle games (in other words fast games) with the viewer.. The top informations (name, tournament details) will be removed until the game ended.


Michel van der Kemp    (2010-04-03 16:58:45)
Weird technical problem

Thibault, thanks for organising this nice tournament. Lot of fun. I lost my first game against Xavier Pichelin, which I will totally accept, Xavier played excellent. However I do have a weird question.

About the game I receive this email:

[Event "FICGS__CHESS__FREESTYLE_CUP__000002"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2010.4.3"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Pichelin,Xavier"]
[Black "van der Kemp,Michel"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2405"]
[BlackElo "1921"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Be3 Bg4 16.Qd3 Rae8 17.Nd2 Re6 18.a4 Qh5 19.axb5 axb5 20.Qf1 Bh3 21.Bd1 Qf5 22.Qe2 c5 23.Nf3 Bf4 24.Qd2 Nxe3 25.fxe3 Bh6 26.Qf2 Rfe8 27.Bc2 Qh5 28.e4 Rf6 29.Bd1 Bg4 30.Rf1 g6 31.e5 Rf5 32.Ra5 cxd4 33.cxd4 Rc8 34.Ra3 Rc1 35.Qe2 Rb1 36.d5 Bh3 37.Qe4 Bxf1 38.Qxb1 Qh3 39.Qc2 Bc4 40.Be2 Rxf3 41.Rxf3 Bxd5 42.Bf1 Qg4 43.Rc3 Qd4+ 44.Qf2 Qxe5 45.Bg2 Bc4 46.Kh1 Bg5 47.h3 Kg7 48.Bf1 Bd5+ 49.Kh2 h5 50.Qe2 Qd6 51.Rd3 h4 52.Bg2 hxg3+ 53.Kh1 Bxg2+ 54.Kxg2 Qc6+ 55.Kxg3 Qc7+ 56.Kg2 Qc6+ 57.Rf3 f5 58.b3 Bf6 59.Qd3 1-0



Move sent : 2010.4.3 - 16:34:26
Move replied : 2010.4.3 - 16:34:55


Last move sent : g7-h7




WhiteELO : 2405 ... 2405
BlackELO : 1921 ... 1921


This email was generated automatically by http://www.ficgs.com/

It says last move send g7-h7. How did I actually lose this game if the server still received my move? The result of the game came as a little shock to me, because I thought I had about 10 seconds left when I send the move, and the server did receive it as well, and somehow registered it.

Anyway I should have been faster and accept my loss.


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!


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-05 00:58:06)
Advanced chess ratings calculation

For some reasons that I'll explain below, I updated the advanced chess (bullet, lightning, blitz, freestyle) rating calculation rules to the following :

"Performance = Opponent Current Rating if the game is drawn, + 350 if the game is won, -350 if the game is lost.

The following bonus / malus applied to White and to Black makes ratings fair, as it is not possible to force a player to take White or Black before a game :

(White) Performance = Performance - 50
(Black) Performance = Performance + 50

If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2400, his new rating his :

New Rating = ((8 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 10

Otherwise :

New Rating = ((9 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 10

The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is greater than 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player.

In case of a draw or loss against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Current Rating - 200. A player who wins a game cannot lose Elo points, a player who loses a game cannot win Elo points."

More details :

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


The rule that just changed is "If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2400, his new rating his : New Rating = ((8 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 10".

This rule will probably be updated again in a few months with a rating limit of 2200 instead of 2400, when advanced chess ratings will be more coherent with correspondence chess ratings.

The reasons are :

1) Advanced/freestyle chess is often neglected partly because players will likely lose some rating points (many strong players using Rybka 3-like engines still have a rating of 1800 or 2000, there are several reasons to this), the main point is probably the interface but I'm fixing it (e.g. the new touch-move option - see Preferences).

2) Chess engines are just stronger and stronger while the ratings do not increase with the previous rules, as a consequence players who just tried advanced chess once years ago shouldn't still top the rating list. It is of course a way for players to find their place quicker in the rating list & to incitate players to play more games as well.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-05 17:44:14)
Blitz time controls UPDATED

Hi Garvin!

OK, let's do it. I just updated the blitz time control to 1 hour + 1 hour / 20 moves.


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-04-07 19:53:55)
Replacement in rapid silver 18

Howdy players, I will give the 10 E points to the player who replaces me. BTW I have not moved. Thibault has agreed to the 10 E points
Thank you
Wayne


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.


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-04-11 22:01:50)
Blitz Games

They seem to be gaining in popularity. I offer a suggestion. After playing three bullet games I feel an improvement would be to highlight the move made for easier recognition. Other game servers have this feature. Is it difficult to implement Thibault ?
Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-11 22:59:12)
Blitz Games

You mean on the board? I must say I don't like this feature much...

It is true that the only way (until there) is to scroll to see all moves in text or to "mouse-over" the last move played by your opponent to see the last 10 moves played if you use the fast moves process. I'd like to find another way to display the move before but some screens are quite small.


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-04-11 23:53:12)
Blitz Games

Thibault, I do not follow you, and perhaps you dont understand my intent.
I am proposing that the last shot made on the board be highlighted. Example: white play's nb3. when that move is entered I would like to see the knight on c3 highlighted so that it can be quickly spotted. I think it very fair and useful Wayne


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-04-12 17:57:11)
Blitz Games

No, only one square would be highlighted, the current moved piece in it's new destination. This is the way I have seen it done on other site's, It makes playing blitz more enjoyable as your opponents move is quickly recognized ON the board.
I really like it. It wiuld be a very nice option. Everyone will use it once they see it :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-16 23:14:32)
Touch move option for Poker & Big Chess

Now the touch move option also works for Poker (fold, call, bet, raise & all in buttons) & Big Chess.


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    (2010-04-17 16:35:57)
The 42106 case, strange poker bug

For my personal records (if it happens again), a one time bug happened in game 42106 for a completely unknown reason...

The moves : 1.fold 1 2.check - 3.check 1 4.1 - 5.check 1 6.1 - 7.check 20 8.fold - 9.fold 1 10.check - 11.check 1 12.1 - 13.check - 14.*

Actually player White played more than 4 moves in a row after 13.check, which is impossible in theory.

Even more strange, when I corrected the game & replayed the 13.check, it was Black's turn so everything ok.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=42106


Benjamin Block    (2010-04-19 16:38:36)
RobboLito vs. Rybka 3

I prefer Rybka 3 in corr chess because i can only show 1 the best move with RobboLito:S. which make it really hard...


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-19 16:41:06)
Advanced chess ratings calculation

As advanced chess (not correspondence chess) ratings move too fast, I just updated the calculation rules :

If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2400, his new rating his :

New Rating = ((18 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 20

Otherwise :

New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-21 15:20:31)
Match Against Rybka Forum

About the rules :

Time control 20 days + 20 days / 10 moves at FICGS... for the games played at RybkaForum it is 24/48 hours per move in average & in relax mode, there will not be "losses on time"...

It seems to me that there is no other special rule, I just asked Vytron to confirm.


Don Groves    (2010-04-22 07:14:46)
Speeding up Poker games

Does a Poker player get an extra day on the clock for every move like in Chess or Go? If so, that could be a big reason why the games are so long.

One move in Poker is insignificant compared to one move in other games. Maybe a player's clock should only increase one for each hand completed.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-23 00:26:49)
Wider rating range tournaments

The problem is either it would ask a big update to make it automatic or an action from a tournament director each time... If I make an update, it should probably work for all class tournaments. This is the system used by IECG but I'm not sure if it is best, and what if several players share first place & so on... Ratings move faster than at IECG to avoid that and allow players to reach higher categories in a shorter time. Simple rules are often best IMO.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-24 17:53:33)
Bullet & lightning time controls

The bullet & lightning games are slowly but surely gaining in popularity, the next freestyle tournaments should help to continue this way...

Now that the touch-move option appeared at FICGS (see Preferences), maybe the bullet & lightning time controls should be faster to make it more different from each other and from blitz.

So far bullet is : 10 min. + 20 sec. / move , lightning : 30 min. + 1 min. / move

Maybe we could envisage this change :

Bullet : 5 min. + 15 seconds / move , lightning : 20 min. + 30 seconds / move

Any opinion?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-24 18:14:51)
Bullet & lightning time controls

Three possible options IMO :

1) Bullet : 5 min. + 15 seconds / move , lightning : 10 min. + 30 sec. / move
2) Bullet : 5 min. + 15 seconds / move , lightning : 20 min. + 30 sec. / move
3) Bullet : 5 min. + 15 seconds / move , lightning : 30 min. + 30 sec. / move

Maybe I hesitate between 1 & 3 finally...


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-25 02:30:48)
Bullet & lightning time controls

Finally and unless someone can convince me for another option, I think I'll make the changes to option 2 tomorrow :

Bullet : 5 min. + 15 seconds / move , lightning : 20 min. + 30 sec. / move

I think that's the good distance for lightning between bullet & blitz time controls.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-25 02:52:37)
FICGS

I understand you Wayne, I don't want to make such mistakes and that's why we talk so much about these changes in this forum :)

On entry fees for a higher class tournament, I agree on the main point of course, but some advantages had to be discussed. The success of this site is also money and money prizes in the future IMO so I prefer to discuss such ideas than to do nothing.

That was the first point. Then there are some other points that remain to be discussed IMO : 1) Maybe correspondence chess ratings should increase (in average) as engines become stronger. 2) Titles calculation rules should probably be harder as a consequence, maybe it should have been changed already.

Correspondence/Advanced chess is constantly evolving, our marks move fast, so rules may have to change. I don't think that FICGS can turn into a kind of Yahoo chess (I did not ever play there btw), the most important thing is the atmosphere and I know that if I make a mistake, someone will let me know very quickly as it happened once a few months ago. We all make that success in that way!


Mircea Hrubaru    (2010-04-25 13:51:18)
Anand vs. Topalov, world championship

We must credit our mate Dmitry Domanov for the 16...Qd6!? move (1/2-1/2 Stephenson, Andrew (2256) - Domanov, Dmitry (2202) / FICGS__CHESS__WCH_ROUND_ROBIN_FINAL__000003 (1), FICGS 2008 and 0-1 Agustin, Santos (2010) - Domanov, Dmitry (2181) / FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_09__000006 (1), FICGS 2009).


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-25 17:56:03)
Anand vs. Topalov, world championship

Wasn't this move played before?

So maybe Anand is following your games guys ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-25 18:36:33)
Ads gone?

Google ads were not so necessary on this part of the site anymore and it is not so good for its image so I removed it.

The ads are still visible on the other forums which receive more visitors... and I must say it is best like this :) Thanks!


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-27 11:11:51)
FICGS down, server HACKED!

Actually I could have restarted the server in its normal mode earlier but I was to be sure that I had found all files added by the hacker and moved all files of the other site that had a security breach (and some more admin things)... I had to be very careful but finally I did not even had to reinstall the server. All this was a good lesson for me on anti-hacking.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-27 18:27:38)
New bullet time control

Any feedback on the new bullet time control? (5 min. + 15 sec/move)

Do you think it should be even faster or is it ok? ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-02 15:39:35)
Speeding up Poker games

We could try to change the standard poker time control to e.g. 10 days + 12 hours per move (instead of 30 days + 1 day per move)... I'm not sure if this will be enough and if it will have bad effects, the fact is I do not find a better idea :/

All opinions are welcome...


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-06-05 16:20:30)
FICGS chess database

Hello all,

As a reminder the complete FICGS chess database is available here (or see the link in Search Games in the menu) :

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

Bullet, lightning & blitz games (including freestyle cup games) are no more included in this database to make it more coherent and of a better quality (too many losses on time because of connection problems or without any move played by one player)... This way bullet games are even more just for fun!


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2010-05-02 16:02:41)
Speeding up Poker games

Hello Thibault,

maybe you can create a new category (Rapid Poker) with "10 days + 12 hours per move"? Then we can test it.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2010-05-02 17:19:25)
Speeding up Poker games

There will be a problem for those players who can only move once a day. If they live on the "wrong" side of the world and / or they only can move between 5 and 6 o'clock of our time, 10d+12h will not work. If you only offer this time control they will not be able to play.


Ryan Cross    (2010-05-02 20:05:07)
Speeding up Poker games

One option that wouldn't be too drastic as far as changing the way the game is played, but I'm sure would take some effort to implement, is simply conditional moves.

You called a raise off the button with a hand that doesn't hit so you check. However many hours later your opponent bets, as you expect. However many hours after that you finally fold.

With something as simple as a 'check/fold' switch for the current betting round, three moves could happen in practically the time of one. Not every time, but enough to make a difference.

Taking it a step further, one could create a list of advanced conditional moves. If my opponent bets between x and y, raise z. If my opponent bets between a and b, call. If my opponent checks, bet d, if opponent bets, fold.

So on and so forth. I've seen conditional moves work quite well in correspondence chess games, and to some extent conditional moves already work well in real time online poker games.

After that, one could consider programming starting hand ranges to fold, call, raise on the button. Though it would be nice if that somehow took stack size into consideration. But I digress, that's a suggestion for another day.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-02 22:01:16)
Speeding up Poker games

Nice idea... well, definitely I'll have to implement these conditional moves, but I'm afraid that will not be enough to speed up these poker games.


Ryan Cross    (2010-05-02 22:20:58)
Speeding up Poker games

Well, some other random ideas: Decrease the amount of time available to take any single move, currently 60 days, to something like 10 days, 14 days, whatever.

Or, play to one point instead of three. Or simply best out of three.

Somewhat off topic, I notice that when one player scores a point, one player starts with 101 chips (100 in hand and one in pot) and the other with 99 chips (97 in hand, 2 in pot). Seems like a bug to me.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2010-05-03 00:22:51)
Speeding up Poker games

I like best of 5. I would not like to miss it.

I think small blinds could raise earlier: 20/2 35/4 50/8 65/16 80/32 100/64.

"there is a "bullet" time control for poker": That's true, but not an alternative to a tournament. I have tried it once. After more than 2 hours and (only!) 265 moves my opponent had to resign because he has to do other things. If I think that I played many poker games with more than 1000 moves ...

Conditional moves are too complicated for poker I think.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-03 01:15:13)
Speeding up Poker games

Bullet poker games should go faster with the recent changes...
(including touch move).

On Ryan suggestions :

> Decrease the amount of time available to take any single move, currently 60 days, to something like 10 days, 14 days, whatever.

I think that this time limit per move is fine... too much pressure is not good. And it would not solve the whole problem.

> Or, play to one point instead of three. Or simply best out of three.

The way blinds increase and the number of points is the best scheme so far for the balance "chancy factor vs. game duration" IMO.

> Somewhat off topic, I notice that when one player scores a point, one player starts with 101 chips (100 in hand and one in pot) and the other with 99 chips (97 in hand, 2 in pot). Seems like a bug to me.

Huwow... would be a real bug! could you tell me what game & what move you saw that?? (you can see the previous moves of a game in the game viewer page)

Thanks for the suggestions anyway!


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.


Hannes Rada    (2010-05-08 20:04:09)
How many games at once?

> still feel there should be a rule
> that mandates a shorter maximum time > between moves (no more than 7 days)

I am sure such a rule would cause many players to quit playing here.
Hey this is corr chess and not Blitz !
What is a reasonable duration for cc games ?
I had some games at the ICCF server which took more then 2 years.
Patience is one of the most important skills for a (cc) player.


Don Groves    (2010-05-09 05:01:36)
How many games at once?

Vacations take care of life getting too busy to play. The other stuff is a matter of opinion. Ours are different.

I have no problem with taking 10 days for a juicy decision, but some here take several days for almost every move! That becomes too much.

Another thing that happens is that when a new tournament begins, one player may let his clock go red before he starts to move in a game. Then he will play one move per day to avoid losing on time, but the other player must wait for several weeks before the game begins. Is this fair?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-09 14:48:45)
How many games at once?

Well, what are we talking about exactly? :) .. Do not worry Daniel, there will be no change change for chess or Go as I'm still convinced that the current rules are the best balanced ones for the most (and not too stressing), but there is probably something to do with the time control for poker... (see the "Speeding up Poker games" discussion)

The only thing we shouldn't change is this time limit per move of 60 days (of course if we have more than 60 days on the clock). When I see other online games on Facebook on whatever that force their users to connect every 8 hours or so, I'm just terrified.


Don Groves    (2010-05-09 22:43:13)
How many games at once?

Thib, the difference between 8 hours and 60 days is laughable. No one is advocating anything close to 8 hours, just something more reasonable than 60 days. I can see nothing wrong with 7 days, but if that's too short for some, then 14 days. If a person cannot make one move in each game every two weeks, they have too much on their plate.


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? :)


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2010-05-09 23:35:54)
How many games at once?

Mr Groves if you want faster games, in the Rybka forum they play games at one move per day, maybe you will not lose your precious time waiting for your opponent moves.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-10 12:15:16)
Big chess world championship

The very 1st Big Chess world championship (ever!) waiting list is open, the tournaments will start on july 1st, 2010.

Now it is time to promote again this incredible game where chess players may be quite lost during the first games (the value of the pieces may move quite fast), its complexity is probably somewhere between chess & Go...

Just let your chess engines on your chess games, you only need your brain on the 16x16 board, join the fun! :)


Don Groves    (2010-05-11 23:58:06)
A suggestion

It would be helpful because, given the choice of which game to move next, I would choose the one(s) in which my opponent is online. This enhances the possibility more moves happening quickly in that game.


Philip Roe    (2010-05-12 01:07:56)
A suggestion

Don, Somone who is not as nice as you might move against players who are not present, so as to put extra time on their clock.


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.


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-05-13 18:20:15)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Been giving a lot of thought to this post. At first I was opposed to it. I think primarily maybe I was influenced by my thinking " I climbed through the levels", so anyone can if they dedicate the effort as I did.
Now I am swayed to support Garvin Grey posting ideas.
I recognize very well that there are many players qualified to move up but find it frustrating to make headway.

It comes down to this. Chances are if they win a class tournament, they probably deserve to advance an level. If not competitive, they will not stay at that level. So anyhow I am posting as to what I believe the proposal #1 is in fact.


- Winners of any standard (class) or rapid tournament, whatever the game, may buy a ticket for 10 Epoints to enter the waiting list for the next tournament category according the following conditions :

* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.

* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.

* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.

* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].

* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints. That is a paste of your thread Thibault. If that is what you and Garvin want or close to it then I say why not ! Give it a go. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-17 20:16:52)
Big chess engine

Of course we do not need an engine, but it would be really interesting to see a program playing Big Chess IMO. It would reveal the real complexity of the game. I don't think it would ruin the fun as most Big Chess moves are equally playable in most cases....


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-20 15:28:19)
Late resignation

Hi Arno, best is to call the referee a first time (most often it is enough), see the rules :

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

It was not so easy to build rules that fit to everyone (centaurs & non-centaurs), so you may have to play a few moves yet, but not so many in loooong & obvious endgames.


Richard Doughty    (2010-05-21 08:09:13)
pawn promotions

is there an option to change pawn promotions from automatic queen while in touch move


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-06-02 18:26:28)
Incredible poker hand

Just look at this strange hand between Jason Repa & Nelson Bernal Varela... the community cards and player's ones are really amazing... Pair of aces, pair of queens and a straight flush appears in the community cards... quite rare. And only 12 chips in the pot.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=43092&move=1023

Any comment on this one? :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-06-02 18:28:31)
Incredible poker hand

Another interesting one, here Rolf Staggat vs. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff... when the Flush becomes Straight Flush against Full House... 170 chips this time.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=41893&move=373


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-06-04 19:59:41)
Anand vs. Topalov, world championship

True Lazaro... :)

(I moved the topic into this one)


Vincent Dups    (2010-06-07 20:42:32)
Problčme d'affichage

Bonjour,

Je suis sois Firefox 3.6.3 et sous Vista et lorsque j'ouvre mes parties pour répondre et envoyer mon coup l'échiquier est déformé et certaines pičces n'apparaissent pas, et j'ai ŕ la place ce message : [AD]2) window.location='/user_page.php?page=move_express&game=43811&flip=';">

Merci pour votre aide ŕ ce propos.
Je précise que j'ai le męme problčme sous IE.

Bien cordialement.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-06-07 20:58:08)
Problčme d'affichage

Bonjour Vincent, étrange je ne constate aucun problčme... je vois que vous avez joué déjŕ quelques coups donc cela est trčs récent ? Les navigateurs sont parfois capricieux, peut ętre faut-il faire le ménage dans le cache et recharger la page. Le navigateur a-t-il bien l'autorisation de charger toutes les images et d'exécuter les javascript (pour la procédure move_express en tout cas) ? L'un ou l'autre de ces paramčtres manquants peuvent provoquer ce genre de choses.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-06-14 22:26:02)
10 moves rule for Poker

An interesting case... a Poker holdem game finished after only 6 moves (6 played by each player)! The winner was surprised to see that he didn't win any rating point, indeed there's a rule at FICGS (11.6) that says : "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)"

Another reason for this rule is that any player who lose to another one in less than 10 moves is most probably overrated so he should lose some points but his opponent may not win points, so I think that this rule may be ok for poker as well (and I'm not sure if playing all-in each time deserves to win some points :)), but I'd prefer to read some other opinions anyway.

What do you think?


Francisco Gramajo    (2010-06-15 01:44:15)
10 moves rule for Poker

My oponent CALLED ALL-IN with better cards than me in three times.

He had top pair 1st.
Better pair
and A-K
<CR>
We are playing one to one poker (Heads Up) In the real life I saw many Heads Up matches end up in the 1st hand.
<CR>
This Rule must be voided for poker.


Don Groves    (2010-06-17 01:25:53)
10 moves rule for Poker

I agree with Francisco on this. The length of a poker match should be decided by the cards that are dealt and the players' betting decisions with those cards. To make an artificial limit opposes this basic idea.

Poker is not like Chess and Go where games normally never end in less than ten moves. In those games, the ten move rule makes sense for the cases of silent withdrawals and players who never even begin a game.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-06-17 01:50:33)
10 moves rule for Poker

I'm not sure, the temptation to try to cheat (well, in a certain measure of course, it would be harder above 2000 elo) may increase. Anyway, if players know the rules, it is quite easy to avoid this rare case, what do you think?


Garvin Gray    (2010-06-17 01:50:54)
10 moves rule for Poker

I also agree with not having the 10 move rule for poker. If players want to just keep going all in and lose in less than 10 moves, they should not be protected from losing rating points.

Having the knowledge that you could lose rating points regardless of the length of the game might deter some players from the all in practice described above.

Or, having the 10 move rule could serve as an encouragement to try going all in all the time as their rating is protected if they lose.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-06-17 02:01:55)
10 moves rule for Poker

Okay, a solution could be to keep this rule only if the game is lost on time or resigned... which was not the case here.


Garvin Gray    (2010-06-17 06:14:11)
10 moves rule for Poker

Only for lost on time.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-06-17 14:00:00)
10 moves rule for Poker

"Or, having the 10 move rule could serve as an encouragement to try going all in all the time as their rating is protected if they lose."

Their rating is NOT protected if they lose before the 10th move. This rule concerns the winner only.


Sophie Leclerc    (2010-06-18 02:58:26)
Great

HI..

First of all, I am sorry for being not there and the worst friend possible, Yugi is very angry at me, (Ouch on me, but I earn it. )


This rules is a great one,in order to lose in less then ten move, someone has to go all-in very quickly, and it won't happen often, that very aggressive players always get A-K, A-Q, AA, in whose cases, all-in on the first turn could be justified, but imprudent. Tought, the rule is a low limit.


Brittany Smith    (2010-06-29 00:42:14)
Speeding up Poker games

I've gotta say, the duration of poker games is rather tedious. ): Considering the varying time zones, there should be multiple options for time Controls, that I agree with. I also agree that maybe there should be more variation in the "best-ofs".
Instead of 60 days, how about 30 or 20? 25? I also think that conditional moves are much too complicated for poker. o:


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-06-29 12:28:42)
Speeding up Poker games

50 hands is the minimum to avoid a too high chancy factor, IMO. A few games are very long (longest almost 1650 moves played by each player), but that's necessary. We have to find another way... We will find, question of time!


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-07-06 17:55:40)
Speeding up Poker games

(thinking... thinking...)

okay I agree that the accumulated 100 days limit is not relevant for poker games, I just changed it to 60 days for poker holdem! That's a lot yet but thus players will always see their clock running (as 60 is also the time per move limit) which may have a psychological effect... Let's see how this work as a first step.


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 :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-07-27 00:12:45)
Layout improvement

I just added a "next / list" option in My games (the same one than "next" option in Preferences, but the change remains only during the session), which makes it easier to change the option - available only with the fast moves process.

In my opinion the "next" option is great when combined to the poker games filter... Then when you're done with poker, you may change to "list" and no filter to play your other games... I feel I save more time this way.

Any opinion ?


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    (2010-08-08 13:12:37)
Stay on Same Board

Hi Phil, ok now I see what you mean : "redirected to the viewer page after playing your move", yes it could be useful for Poker (in the fast moves process). Ok, I could add a checkbox somewhere so that when one play a move, the next window be the viewer (to see the new card or result)... Added to the wishlist.

I had some busy times these last weeks but there should be numerous updates at the end of the month.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-09 19:40:51)
Future Rating Question

In some cases, games are not taken in account in the rating calculation, e.g. if less than 10 moves are played (for the winner only).

Complete rules:

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

Feel free to ask if you have any doubt...


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-09 23:49:41)
Stay on Same Board

Lol Wayne! I know... sometimes I can make the changes within minutes, this one should be done soon but to highlight the squares for the 2nd previous move, I'll have to take some more time... The easiest things are usually done before the other ones, my bad :)


Andres E. Leon    (2010-08-11 00:41:41)
Future Rating Question

I am sorry to bother you, but I do not understand why the system does not take into account three of my last four games, in the moment to calculate my future rating. For example, the last game that I finished in the FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_A__000075 tournament was:

Game 39469

Last move : 1-0 2010 July 3 22:30:1

[Event "FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_A__000075"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2010.01.20"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Leon,Andres E."]
[Black "Faust,Dieter"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1904"]
[BlackElo "1980"]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 Ne7 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.Qg4 Kf8 8.Bd2 Qa5 9.a4 Nbc6 10.Nf3 c4 11.Be2 b5 12.O-O bxa4 13.Ra2 Ba6 14.Rfa1 Bb5 15.h4 h5 16.Qg5 a6 17.Bc1 Kg8 18.Qd2 Nf5 19.Bf1 Rh6 20.g3 Re8 21.Ba3 Rg6 22.Bh3 Rh6 23.Rb1 Rb8 24.Bxf5 exf5 25.Qe3 Nd8 26.Ne1 Ne6 27.Ng2 Rc8 28.Qf3 g6 29.Nf4 Nxf4 30.Qxf4 Rh7 31.Bd6 Rg7 32.e6 fxe6 33.Qh6 Qd8 34.Be5 Qf8 35.Re1 Rc6 36.R2a1 Kf7 37.Qxg7+ Qxg7 38.Bxg7 Kxg7 39.Kf1 Kf7 40.Ke2 Rb6 41.Rab1 Rc6 42.Kd2 Ke7 43.Kc1 Rc7 44.Kb2 Rc6 45.Ka3 Rc7 46.Re5 Kf6 47.Rbe1 Bd7 48.f3 Rc8 49.Ka2 Rg8 50.Rb1 Bb5 51.R5e1 Rc8 52.Rb4 Rg8 53.Rg1 Rb8 54.Ka3 Rb7 55.Rgb1 Rg7 56.Rg1 Rb7 57.R4b1 Rg7 58.Kb4 Rc7 59.Rh1 Rh7 60.Rh2 Rb7 61.Ka5 Rh7 62.Rg1 Ke7 63.g4 fxg4 64.fxg4 hxg4 65.Rxg4 Rh6 66.Rh1 Kd6 67.Rb1 Rh8 68.Rxg6 Rxh4 69.Rbg1 Rh2 70.R6g2 Rh3 71.Kb4 Rh6 72.Rg8 Rh2 73.R1g2 Rxg2 74.Rxg2 Be8 75.Ka5 Bb5 76.Kb6 Kd7 77.Kc5 Kc7 78.Rg7+ Bd7 79.Rh7 a3 80.Rh1 Be8 81.Ra1 Bb5 82.Rxa3 Kd7 83.Ra5 Ke7 84.Ra1 Kd7 85.Rh1 Kc7 86.Rh7+ Bd7 87.Rg7 a5 88.Rh7 1-0

Besides, I am playing the FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_13__000008 group of the WCH, and I already finished three games.

Game 45063 Leon - Leclerc
Game 45064 Piantadosi - Leon
Game 45065 Leon - Dsouza

In one of them less than 10 moves were played (Game 45063 Leon - Leclerc ). However, in the other two games more than 20 moves were played, but when I finished these two games they were not taken into account in my future rating. Some of these games, particularly the Game 39469, I like very much and I spend a lot of efforts. It is a bitter that it is not used in my rating. I am afraid that the system is not actualizing my future rating, Can you help me to understand what is happening?

Again, I apologise for this inconvenience and I appreciate any help, thank you very much.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-11 11:09:44)
Future Rating Question

No problem, it is always good to check from time to time if everything works fine :)

So, your current rating is now 2031.

1) Game 39469, win against TER 1980, more than 10 moves, the game counts! It is obvious when looking at the Opponents elo average in the Future rating : Games calculated : 1, Result : 100 %, Elo opponents : 1980

2) Game 45063 : less than 10 moves played.

3) Game 45064 : does not count, explained by the rule "The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is greater than 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player." <- see http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_chess

4) Game 45065 : same reason.


Of course you cannot win Elo points by beating opponents who are much weaker (even if you have to play them sometimes, e.g. in WCH tournaments)... That's the core of the Elo system.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-13 10:50:25)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6

One player did not play a single move yet, with a few days only at his clock, same in rapid SM 6...


Philip Roe    (2010-08-16 00:55:23)
Tournament entry conditions

Thibault,

Is it reasonable for someone to enter a new tournament when they have twenty four existing games and have not played a single move in any one of them?

This situation makes me hesitate to enter either B 00120 or Rapid B 00158.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-16 14:55:01)
Tournament entry conditions

Hello Philip, thanks for warning me... I just removed the player from the waiting lists & sent him a message about this. If it happens again, I'll make some replacements.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-19 01:40:04)
Speeding up Poker games

Hi Sebi, would be too easy IMO :/ I don't think that such a solution could go without any problem... We must absolutely avoid that any game be lost on time by playing one move per day just when the opponent sleeps or something like that.


Scott Nichols    (2010-08-20 23:10:33)
Speeding up Poker games

Maybe if you moved the fold button a couple of inches up so it would be by itself. Less chance of a mistake hitting it that way.


Scott Nichols    (2010-08-31 16:34:23)
Latest deletions of chat

On a little variation of this subject. Thib, I was wondering if you could have the chat refresh each time the page does. Sometimes people reply or challenge or whatever and unless we manually refresh or we get a move we don't see the chat until it is to late.


Sebastian Boehme    (2010-09-03 21:27:54)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6

Yes Garvin sorry for being not too precise. The guy hasn't made a move at all in these games.

Looking forward to maybe have a game with you again!


Hannes Rada    (2010-09-14 19:30:55)
Time control in GM 2 Tournament

Thibault, what happened with the time control in this tournament ?
Since the replacement there, we have only 30 days i.o. 40 days per 10 moves against Michael Aigner ??
Is this correct ?


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.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-19 00:17:31)
Corr. Chess Maxims

Our game was already a draw by my first draw offer on move 19. I offered a second draw on move 26 and the third and final draw which you accepted on move 38. You achieved zilch from an opening which has been known as a draw for 100 years. I could have offered a draw on move 4 and most people would accept it in that position.

Sorry but you have to prove your rating should be higher by playing real openings and outplaying the other person in them. Just stating well my rating is higher therefore you are never allowed to offer draws!!! is the most absurd logic I have ever heard.

Your own words on accepting the third draw offer were "You're right, this is a complete draw. Sorry for dragging it out."


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-19 00:57:47)
Corr. Chess Maxims

upon looking through my games I found only one instance where I went overboard on draw offers and my opponent asked me to stop at which point I did (it should also be noted I managed to lose the drawn position in the end though I was playing way too many games at once close 150).

Anyways, I know to some Corr ratings are the end all be all of life but to me they are the most meaningless rating I have. Even my blitz ratings are more meaningful. Because, corr is where I test ideas and see if they work or not. I'm never playing seriously and I really don't care about the results hence you see me in way more thematics and unrated events than rated events.

But I will say this, the difference in strength between a 1800 and 2100 is almost zilch. OTB that difference is HUGE. Corr it is meaningless. 80 pts? This difference is less zilch, you might as well be the same rating. So when you talk about "the right" to offer draws based on rating, I have to laugh at you. These are certainly unacceptable "maxims" and if you want maxims to be followed they have to be acceptable otherwise they will simply be ignored.

I played OTB two weekends ago against a player who outrated me by 400 pts. I was crushing him. In his lost position, he offered me 7! Draws. After I beat him, several players came up to me stated I should have called the TD over the repeated draw offers. Being a TD myself, I replied the ambiguity of the situation. It is his RIGHT to offer those draws. I was by no means forced to accept them (and did not). But there is a gray area in the rules that repeated draw offers (in the rule book it says LITERALLY every single move for 10 moves) the td could rule as distraction and issue nothing more than a warning. A second offense also the punishment is only a warning. ONLY on a third offense can the td actually do anything punitive.

So the real answer is, if you don't want a draw. Turn it down. If you don't want to be offered two draws, tell your opponent so. Each person is different and views their scenarios differently. But trying to make up a rule that no one will follow is beyond silly. I will offer a draw to someone whether they are 1000 pts above or below me if I think the position is drawn.


Paul Valle    (2010-09-19 01:36:36)
Suggestion

Something that I do:

If I suddenly realize that I'm lost to a tactical mating attack, I will play the position out till the bitter end.

You might say that I'm just wasting both mine and my opponents time, but I disagree. If your opponent has outplayed you, and you are mate in 5-10 moves to a tactical beauty... then in my book the honorable thing is to play it out. You owe it to the game and your opponent.

I'm not talking about K+Q vs. K, but about positions that could be given as a mating problem. By playing it out you also etch into your head.


kind regards, Paul


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.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-19 23:45:16)
Corr. Chess Maxims

Yep, I'm afraid you're a lost cause. No players cannot get away with whatever they want in tournaments read the rulebook dude. You are rating crazy. Do you not realize that for a person to improve they have to be playing beyond their rating? Ratings represent past performance. You need to judge a position based on its features not the person's playing its rating. Many positions reach draw positions early in the game as ours did when people play unambitiously. But I give up trying to convince you of your illogical ways.

Just know this: it is irrelevant whether you use the right to offer draw but it is important that you have it so your point is mute here as well.

A funny incident also happened a few weeks ago: two players kept offering each other draws every 2 moves, declining their opponent's draw then offering it themselves two moves later. It was funny because it was perpetual check and they both knew it. But everytime they offered a draw, the other one would decide maybe he'll mess up. Turn it down and offer it again about 2-3 moves later. By the end of the game each player had offered the other over 15 draws in the perpetual check scenario but the game managed to end decisively strangely.

And btw, your definition of respect and others will different. I certainly don't respect someone cause they've had more time than me to study and made a 2001 rating. I already explained I have no respect for Corr ratings whatsoever. I have also explained my rating does not represent my strength because I do not take it seriously. Do I respect people that have made a career of this? Of course. But I digress because here opinions will vary wildly and be to each their own. We have left the realm of facts. I just think it amusing to always remember that however good you are, there is always some one better. Or put even better, if you could buy a man for what he is actually worth and sell him for he thinks he's worth there would always be a huge profit. Ie there is always arrogance involved when you include ratings. A fun quote to conclude on: "First-class players lose to second-class players because second-class players sometimes play a first-class game." - Siegbert Tarrasch


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."


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-05 10:54:29)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Thibault must be impressed. The whole topic has moved away from the orginal discussion point, so that issue has dropped off the radar, meaning changes are not likely while it is not being discussed.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-13 17:25:44)
Lightning time control

Hi Garvin, I'm not favourable to this change for the following reasons:

1) This would be the 2nd change for this time control in a few months...
2) Bullet & lightning would not be different enough.

3) The freestyle time control has its reasons IMO : 30 mins. for the opening/database & key moves analysis, 15 sec. inc because longer would be too long, while the lightning time control is designed for better analysis during the whole game. A 30+15 time control would be great also but it would be one too much :/


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"


Sebastian Boehme    (2010-10-23 02:41:41)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

I would be interested in playing, in case such details as time control (especially how this shall get done on a forum software like Rybka forum, i.e. keeping track of the time used up for a move) and tournament mode are clarified in beforehand.

Cheers,

Sebi


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-10-24 22:57:48)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Jimmy I am following your progress. I continue my interest in the Tournament. We have discussed my thoughts via PM, but to review here are the things of concern to me. First I do not want to overload my chess obligations in Tournaments I am involved with at FICGS now. I have a hunch that a Start date at or shortly after the year will work out provided it is possible to have no more than one (1) game running at a time.
Other features of interest to a lesser degree are management/monitoring of matches to make sure that excessive time outs are infrequent. A player should not be allowed to go on vacation so to speak during a match. In the event of hardware problems a player should have to live with the timer obligations and not making a unfair match delay.
Player ratings could be considered in pairings. Somewhat like board seeds. Top rated sits at board #1 etc.
I think this can be sorted out easily. Your have excellent inputs from others such as Vytron etc regarding timer details. 2 days/move sounds good to me Jimmy.
So continue your good work, I would be proud to participate god willing.
Wayne


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-25 08:28:18)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Thanks Thibault, My hope is to finish the details within the next 2 weeks. No not a round-robin, because that would simply be to much and to long. So I have gone with Vytron idea of a type of Elimination/Knockout tournament that is currently being discuss. As you are good about getting tournaments formed if you can read the current discussion and give some feedback on here or the rybka forum I would be grateful! It is in the corr chess section on the rybka forum.

Here are some of the key points and some interesting ideas that are being thrown around.

As I know most of the FICGS players play a lot of games so I have made a system that you play a 2 game match per round (One white and One Black). This would usually be a bad idea because of CC high draw rates. But we are thinking of using a unique draw odds system. Thought to many this may sounds a little strange its actually a great idea to inspire fighting chess for both sides. The idea was given by FICGS player Gino Figlio

"The scoring system idea- to draw with white (0.4), draw with black (0.6), win with white (1.0), win with black (1.1), loss with white (-0.1), loss with black (0.0)"

Another thing we are working on is the pairing system. As of now the only idea is to use a swiss pairing system after the first round.

Time Control- Since this is going to be called a "World Blitz Correspondence Chess Championship" The time controls are going to be a little faster than normal corr chess. It will be 48hr per move. But there will be a bluff time in here to help AN critical positions. This is also being debated. Right now we are looking at something between 1 weeks to 2 weeks(168 hours to 336 hours).

I had announce on the Rybka Forum in the last couple of days that a prize fund was being offer. I haven't had all my sources comeback to me yet. But as of know the fund is $1500 USD. It could be more, but I'll make official amount known before the tournament will start. I would say the winners share will be between 500 to 750. It all depends on what info I get back. I'm going to try and make all the prizes reasonable. And try and make it for the top 8 or 10 players. Also the winner will be announced the "World Blitz Correspondence Chess Champion"

I will be trying to finalize the details of the tournament in a quick fashion so I can figure out if the players interested would want to play or not. The tournament will begin just after the new year. It will be flexiable so get all the players in and know who they are playing.

The final details are that we are working hard to make the Rybka Forum really to play this kind of tournament. There is a new sub forum that will be made to help with out the traffic that would be going on with all the games. There is almost plans on getting a clock system work out. As at these time controls that would be critical.

Thanks in advance for any feedback form Thibault de Vassal and any other FICGS player!

Jimmy


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-25 21:16:09)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Well, I still do not understand how a scoring system can exist in a knockout tournament... but let's take an example, what the tournament will look like if you have 16 players? Best is to do a complete simulation.

As I just posted on Rybkaforum, I suggest several double round-robin class tournaments of 5 players with a longer time control (on forums I suggest 10 days + 3 days per move). The whole tournament would be played in 1 round, with less stress for everyone as I really think that 30 days + 1 day/move is the fastest acceptable correspondence chess time control.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-26 19:38:21)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Thanks to Thibault, who has what given his input into the tournament. As to the last two replies. The tournament format is an on going process. But I think the time control that has been stated by myself in just the last few hours. Is pretty reasonable to have a blitz control. 25 days per side + 10 days after move 40. That would be 60 days total. So that would be within 2 months. To be honest even if you see the games I post on there. You see even if you don't have serious tournament conditions all games were very close to finishing within 30 to 60 days.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-29 05:21:56)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Just to let everyone know I've added a standing page and an unique commentary and recap page for fans and players a like a chance to look at all the game a little deeper. I'll invite any of the strong players to comment on the games as they go. As long as they don't give moves away that may affect the game. I thought this would add to unique style of the tournament.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-29 12:54:10)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

well to keep within a 2 month point I thought of 25 days a side with 10 more days after 40 moves. That seems pretty reasonable even with 2 games with the same person. As a interesting side note Kevin Plant has sent an email to ICCF GM Arno Nickle if he would have any interests in playing in this event. I doubt that there not many people who don't know who this very strong corr player is.


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-29 13:38:24)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Are the 10 days repeating, so after 80 moves the players receive another 10 days?

If not, then I can see major issues with players running out of time in long games, if for the only reason of time difference between countries around the world.

I would advise a time control of something like 14 days plus 2 days per move.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-29 13:58:51)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

I must say that 25 days a side with 10 more days after 40 moves is really frightening to me, even with a single game... but maybe I'm really slow. I agree with Garvin, but of course the nature of the tournament (6 rounds) is in question again then.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-29 14:00:52)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

so 10 days for every 20 moves after move 40?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-29 14:10:20)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

25 days for 40 moves is too fast, definitely... In my game at Rybkaforum (with SpiderG) I had to take 5 days (maybe more) for a single move sometimes, and unfortunately that was not always to analyze it.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-29 14:18:04)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

well I guess something like 25 days for 30 moves could be possible as only to think that most of the 30 moves could be opening book depending on which opening is choice. Then 10 to 15 days per 20 moves after that. I guess I should follow the time controls here a little closer


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-29 14:33:12)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

The rapid tournaments here use 30 days plus 1 day per move ie person starts with an initial 30 days, then for each move they receive an extra 1 day.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-29 14:33:16)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

I've trying to look at the other players games for the Rybka Forum match. I got the feeling that most players made there moves fairly quickly. I would say there are players who think that 5 days a moves isn't blitz time controls.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-29 14:38:24)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

The problem is: Sometimes (Scott knows it), it is possible to play a complete corr. game [more than 60 moves] in about 30 hours! But sometimes it takes 8 months... Believe me, if I chose 30 days + 1 day/move as the fast time control at FICGS, it is because faster was not possible. And that's why there is a WCH cycle every 6 to 8 months, no more.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-29 14:48:56)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

I see the flexiable of playing something like 30 days + 1 day/move. My intend was to try and make a tournament within say 60 to 70 as a max. But that probably means this is more a tournament for players that make a move 1 to 2 days at a time


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.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-29 14:58:17)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

I would agree with your assignments. I was thinking about 25 days to 30 moves as most of that is possibly opening then 10 to 15 days for 20 moves?


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-30 01:02:41)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Your right Daniel, some players will have games finish by then. By now I understand what is being talked about, by not having time on the end to have for the endgame. I'm thinking of some kind of adjustment like after the 30 move mark to have something like 15 days per 20 move after that so players don't get kill by the time


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-30 11:27:56)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

my user name is Thehug, The tournament will begin in January. Be prepare as the name subjects its going to be a Blitz Corr Tournament. So most players will make a move a day or over other day


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-30 21:32:50)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Jimmy, will you apply strict rules during the tournament? What happens if a player suddenly takes 2 days, then 3 days, then 4 days for each move? Will there be a flag applied by the forum software or by the tournament director?

As there may be obvious problems in both cases, I'm really curious to know how you'll handle it. Also will players have a few days of vacation?


Sebastian Boehme    (2010-10-31 20:11:04)
Creating an opening book

Hi Garvin,

Book making ia for example in my case always been a very time-intense and manually tuned process. I never do import any outside games to my book.

Guidelines on how to starting out in creating an opening book you can find (or probably have already found), here:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=11798

That site got some useful links

General rule of thumb, work on each system one by one. My favourite example: I as white play 1. e4 and Black replies 1....f5, so the Elephant Gambit arises.

Now I want to find good white moves for it, so I enable in my Book allow move adding and check my Correspondence and Playchess Games database for the replies of white. Also I see what major engines think about the moves offered by the database in say 1-2 minute analysis and what these engines themselves gotta offer. This way a reply to the elephant gambit (or maybe more) for move 2 of white can be found.
Also not in any case 1-2 minute analysis will be sufficient. You need to figure this out for yourself.

The less time intensive process: Create a database where you import games filtered by very well chosen criteria (for instance recent games i.e. 2008-2010). Then import the database games into a new empty book.

That's all I know about how it could be done.

Sebi


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-11-02 09:18:34)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Oh ok here is another Time Control proposal. 25 days per side to move 30 and 15 days per side for the next time control. Would move 30 be good to reach the time control? As most books should get you to move 20 or so and would you have enough time. If this blitz corr chess.


Garvin Gray    (2010-11-02 09:25:13)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

The issue is not whether extra time is added after move 30 or 40, that is kinda irrelevant compared to what appears to be a final 15 days after move 30/40. That is the biggest issue and something that needs to be solved before the tournament can go ahead until any reasonable conditions.

Either after move 30/40, there is a re-occuring amount of time just like from move 30 ie 30 moves in 25 days, followed by 30 moves in 25 days repeating, or like we use on here for rapids, 30 moves initial plus 1 move per day increment.

The final time period can not be guillotine for all the reasons previously discussed regarding time zones.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-11-02 09:46:20)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Oh ok I have talk about about 30 days+ 1day as an option. As talking to you two. You have given me a lot of input. I think you Gray are a pretty fast player by most measures so on avg oh long can your games go at this time control? I really don't mind corr games going 2 or 3 months or so. As Thib pointed out some games at this control can go 8 months which to be honest isn't an option. I think I heard Gray say once something about 14days + 2days per move. Would that be a blitz control?

Again one to point out there not going to be a flag or something for taking 4, 5 days. The times will go as usually.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-11-02 09:56:22)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !

@Jai Prakash: do not be too deceived, we all (or almost) know the connection issues, I lost many bullet games including in freestyle tournaments because of this... the aim is always to organize more freestyle tournaments, so you'll have your full chance early or lately, just like in the WCH cycles (the chancy factor is everywhere)!

@Garvin: let's continue to discuss it, the first tournament was played in 1 hour + 15 sec/move, I feel that the quality of engines improved enough so that the brain can take fully part of the game [less time to navigate into the game, more to understand the position], by the way everyone agrees that the book is more important than to have 64 cores (that was not true a few years ago)... an increment of 20 seconds would be better though, but it is no more 2 hours per game :/ .. in my opinion, if we have players enough like this time, a 7th round (or even a 8th) would bring more benefit than more time to find the best player, and I must say I was quite frustrated not to play a few players during the tour. :) Finally... with 6 rounds only, the best player won, most probably. All opinions are welcome here.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-11-02 10:05:38)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

I know most of the players that have said they would play usually move pretty fast.


Garvin Gray    (2010-11-02 10:28:10)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

At 30 days plus 1 days, I think about 3 months is a fair average.

I am not sure if I am a fast player or not. I do use most of my time across all games, but that does not mean I am looking at all games all the time.

For just a two game match, I would have no issues with 30 days plus 1 day increment and it would not feel fast to me.

14 days plus 2 days per move I think is a better time control for a few reasons.

It will let the organisers know for certain early who will lose their games on time ie two weeks from when the round starts, so decisions about whether to let them continue or kick those players out can be made earlier.

With a 2 day increment, it does give some opportunity for players to analyse for a bit of time in endgames.

If you are wanting to avoid unnecessary delays, the easiest way to it to have rule that as soon as a game reaches a 6 man tablebase position, the result will be declared.


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.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-11-02 10:50:48)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

I can always say you have a very honest opinion. I can bet even if you decide not to play. You will be watching with interest. I know players like Wayne Lowrance liked the idea of a little faster controls. Gino, Scott, and David Evans like to play a little bit faster controls. And they will make this a very strong tournament anyway. And yes the add one day per move looks to be the min. It will just be looking at the total time.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-11-06 03:44:55)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Well Thib it looks like a lot of people like the idea of doing 30days + 1day per move. That may open the door for you to play if you wanted to.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-11-06 15:08:49)
FREESTYLE CUP POKER

Hi all, yes I was to post something on that topic... I'm not sure if we have poker players enough, but it would be interesting to already know who would play such a "live" poker tournament with about the same format than the chess Freestyle -> 6 games (swiss system) played in 10 mins + 10 seconds per move, one game every 2 hours or so.

Of course the number of moves may vary from ~10 to ~1000, some games may be quite long but it's worth a try anyway :)


Xavier Pichelin    (2010-11-07 09:48:23)
FREESTYLE CUP POKER

Yes Thibault,
The game is long, or it is not possible for per game 5minutes + 5 secondes per moves? or 10 minutes + 10 secondes per 20 moves?


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2010-11-07 16:33:07)
FREESTYLE CUP POKER

I would like to play this tournament if I have time.

Maybe we can use 10 min and 20 sec per hand as a time control. Thibault, is that technically possible? I think "hand" is a better unit than "move".


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-11-07 17:00:31)
FREESTYLE CUP POKER

5 minutes + 5 seconds per move may be ok... I think I'll test it soon. I prefer moves as a hand may be very short or quite long.


Robert Mueller    (2010-11-10 19:31:47)
Email notification does not work

Since yesterday I am not receiving Email notifications for my opponent's moves any more. Does anybody else have the same problem?


Don Groves    (2010-11-21 08:32:16)
GO: Game 32800

The moves under discussion in this thread are fuseki, not joseki. Joseki are certain patterns of moves primarily used when fighting in corners. Fuseki are initial moves, literally "the scattering of the stones."


Rolf Staggat    (2010-11-24 13:03:46)
If you plan on playing in the WBCCC

Jimmy, what is WBCCC ?
For me, WBC is World Boxing Council.
A kind of correspondence boxing?
I am cruiser-weight, you have an opponent for me?
My first move is UPPERCUT!


Thibault Pillon    (2010-11-30 19:25:02)
GO: Game 32800

fuseki.info has a fuseki database with win/loss statistics for each move. UNfortunately the database is not very large


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    (2010-12-02 13:38:42)
Improvements to score Go games

New improvement in the scorer... now shapes in the center are also extrapolated, and you can check the extrapolated board below the given result

Finally, it should give quite correct results for most positions, even during the middlegame. (but you still have to remove dead groups)


Scott Nichols    (2010-12-12 00:20:51)
Who's the favorite in the WBCCC?

"IMO that for some reasons Wayne will play correspondence chess in this tournament while many others may play something between advanced chess and correspondence chess..." (Thibault) That is a brilliant quote Thib. It got me to thinking, I played corr. by mail back in the early 80's, no computers, we had to think and replay each game constantly. I reached a respectable rank. Now, with the machines, I think we take their play to much for granted. I mean, we think, this prog. is 3000+ rated, it has to be the best move, but in many many positions where sacrifice is involved, or complicated endgames, these machines don't have a clue. I think it is time to get back to playing "real" corr. chess again. Thanks Thib!


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-12-12 14:38:22)
Who's the favorite in the WBCCC?

That's what I say to myself each time I lose a game after having played a move too fast :) Computers are still really weak in some complex positions (also in the middle game) but for some reasons we trust it... At the same time we always try to play openings that allow such positions, so not everything is lost yet.

The 80's were a great period for correspondence chess indeed. A friend of mine became very strong while playing corr. chess only during these years.


Patrice Gosteli    (2010-12-13 15:49:25)
Improvements to score Go games

Salut Thibaut.
Je découvre ton site depuis peu, et j'adore.
Le go est pour moi le principal, mais je vais essayer d'apprendre le poker.
Je ne comprends pas '' the fast move mode'' ?
A+


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-12-13 18:52:48)
Improvements to score Go games

Salut Patrice! Merci, męme s'il y a encore beaucoup ŕ faire...

Le mode "fast move" nécessiterait une petite explication dans l'aide, en effet... On a le choix entre envoyer un coup en 1 étape (en visualisant la position finale avec javascript) avec le mode "fast moves" ou en 2 étapes (en visualisant la position finale en HTML uniquement) avec le mode "slow moves".

Si "slow moves" est indiqué dans la page My games, c'est que l'on est en mode "fast moves", mode par défaut pour les nouveaux joueurs. Dans ce mode on peut également envoyer le coup automatiquement (sans avoir ŕ presser le bouton Send) avec l'option "touch move" dans Preferences.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-12-13 23:14:40)
Chess positions too complex for engines

This topic may last a while but it could be interesting after all.

Why not trying to gather (and discuss) as many chess positions as possible that computers are still unable to solve with the best engines even working during days... It may help us to detect more weak points in the most recent engines.

Okay, I start with these ones:

Schuster-de Vassal : 1-0

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=36895&move=96

Peter played very well in this one but as far as I can remember this position was an easy draw... The plan was to keep the rook on the e column and White cannot progress. I knew that but at this moment, I had to play this move quickly and I made a stupid mistake: I trusted the engine... Rb8+?? 1-0 .. my comp was really a prehistoric one there but I wouldn't be surprised if the recent ones were still not able to avoid to play this Rb8+

The next position is less interesting but quite funny, and it looks like that the newest engines STILL do not understand it... Actually it shows +5.00 or even more while it is an EASY draw for any human player...

Utesch-de Vassal : 1/2-1/2

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=11345

Amazing, what do you think? :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-12-16 09:54:53)
Preparation in sicilian

Another game I remember, the typical win by preparation (I was absolutely not prepared in this variant yet) in a blitz game - Eros & Alberto made it well with this line during the 1st Freestyle tournament.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=15363

I don't remember what move is the point exactly at a first sight, somewhere around Qxe5 but Black did not expect what kind of endgame will happen after the next 20 moves, btw many are forced but the line may be too long for most engines. The game was lost already, and I'm not sure if engines choose the right way (wouldn't be a trap anymore)...


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-12-17 21:06:59)
7 players tournament with fee & prize

By the way Thib I've read a few threads here today about prizes and classes for tournaments. And how you would want to win a tournament to move up in a tournament class or that was the debate. With that thinking, I wonder if that is part of the reason. Why my tourney is as popular as it is. It gives some players of lesser rating a chance to play higher rated players. An as you said in your next line. My tournament will technically not be rated. Even tho ratings will be used for pairing purposes. With the system in place. I believe a lot of the lower rated players will get a chance to play players 200 rating points or higher at some point in the tournament. Anyway thanks for the explanation. Getting excited with less than 2 weeks to go before pairing and 3 weeks after that before the tournament is underway. I've had a couple more names to my list and was happy to hear kam was going to play.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-12-29 13:37:49)
WBCCC news

Form the letter I got. This is what I interpret it to be. First there will be a program that the players use. The program allows the players to play there games without having to look thought out the comments form the forum. As one player makes his move. It will go to the another player program ready to make his move next.

Now Dadi made the forum software so that when a move is made. That it will post the move in a thread form the present game between the two players.

So Gray I think Dadi maybe the one to create the games, but you will still be doing the pairings. I sent you his user name so the two of you can would on the other details so you can be the TD.


Gino Figlio    (2010-12-30 02:58:07)
WBCCC news

I doubt it will be XFCC based since the rybka forum does not support it as far as I know and the remote playing module will interact with the rybka forum to update the games.
I believe this is similar to the remoteschach.de setup where you have the option to send your moves from your computer via a remote program.


Peter Unger    (2011-01-03 00:26:00)
Private messages to the webmaster

I cant get to the following tournament - why - the accepted participants have no ELO 2300+
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_SM__000008
(type : rated round-robin, time : 30 days, increment : 1 day / move)

7 players, 6 game (1 game against each opponent)
entry fee : 0 , prize : 20 (E-Points)
elo : 2300+

POL Broniek, Mariusz Maciej 2106
SVK Gazi, Miroslav 2289
USA Nichols, Scott 2200


Scott Nichols    (2011-01-03 01:14:21)
Private messages to the webmaster

Either they were over 2300 when they signed up Peter, or as in my case I won a Rapid_M tourney and bought a ticket to move up for the price of 10 e-points.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-01-12 21:01:31)
Eros Riccio is the new FICGS chess champ

Congratulations to SM Eros Riccio who made it in the 4th FICGS correspondence chess championship, beating FICGS WCH Edward Kotlyanskiy 6.5-5.5

As he already won the candidates final match in the 5th FICGS chess WCH, we'll have the next final match "Eros Riccio vs. Eros Riccio" :) .. just joking, means that Eros just won the 5th FICGS championship as well... 2 titles at once, an amazing performance!

Sure that we'll need veeeery strong players to try to move the new FICGS king (who also won 2 FICGS freestyle cups) in the next WCH cycles! :)

Congrats also to Edward who was really near in this match, maybe the players will explain what happened in the only game that didn't finish into a draw... Finally many thanks to both players for a nice show!


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.


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-01-18 21:32:48)
Following the WBCCC games Round 1

The undertaking of the software was very good! I was ever impressive with not only the Xxcfplay client, but the software being used to post all the moves to the Rybka Forum. Once a move is made it makes it to the threads you see above in just about a minute or less. Considering the time they had I gave them a A++.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-01-30 21:07:31)
Eros on his win in the 4th chess WCH

Eros Riccio kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his win in the 4th FICGS chess WCH, and explained how one particular game influenced another one that he finally won:

- Hi Eros, first of all congratulations for your latest outstanding results at FICGS, you won the Freestyle tournament, now two chess championships in a row... When the privilege of the champion is to defend his title without playing the preliminary tournaments, you are involved in all championship cycles & a few regular tournaments, do you plan to avoid that anyone can even reach the championship final in the future? :-)

Thanks! I must admit that this is really a magic moment for me in chess... if you consider that despite my recent ICCF Grand Master Title, probably I will also soon win my third italian Correspondence Champion Title out of three participations in the Italian Final Tournaments. And now also this huge satisfaction of being the FICGS Champion! I look forward to seeing a new challenger soon, I wonder who he will be, but let me enjoy the next few months for now ;-)

- What are your impressions on the games? Did you have any strategy from the beginning to the end? Finally did it work or was there another factor? (without revealing your secrets, of course :))

The games in the opening were as I expected, all Najdorf Sicilians except one game where I played 1.d4. My goal was to win at least one game, so I tried different aggressive variations as White (6.Bg5, 6.f3, 6.Be3 and 6.h3) with the hope of catching Edward unprepared on at least one of these, but uff, he was very well prepared on each one of them! A curious thing is that my biggest chance of winning happened in a game where I had the Black pieces! So Edward had to take some risks in one of his games where he had Black (the games where he had White were already finished or all very drawish) he was forced to avoid an easy draw he had (the 6.h3 game) and eventually he lost that game. Happy of having reached my goal of winning at least one game, I accepted his draw offer in that other game (6.f3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Be3 Be7 9.Be2) where I had good winning chances.

- You probably noticed, like many correspondence chess players, that the hardware still fastly improves while chess engines are continuously getting stronger, particularly since that "supposed" clones of Rybka (some may be even stronger than Rybka herself) appeared in the race. Do you think that the rate of draws will be so high soon that it may definitely kill correspondence chess? Do you have any opinion on these new engines?

I think that despite the big improvement of Hardwares and engines, we are still very far (and we will still be in the next 5 years, hopefully) from a situation where all the games will most probably end in a draw. So I think we can enjoy correspondence chess for many more years in the future, even if of course the Draw percentage at the highest levels will be higher and higher.

- I remember that you were surprised to win your match against Alberto in the Candidates Final of the 5th cycle (the reason why you do not even have to defend your title this time), the WCH rules (particularly the co-existence of the round-robin tournament & knockout tournament) are obviously not well understood by all players, what do you think about this system and the tie in 8 games matches? Are there changes you'd like to see in the future?

Yes, I really was! We were both convinced that with all draws, the higher rated player would have won (Alberto was higher rated than me in that match). Anyway it was our fault, as we didn't read the rules carefully. I am not sure what changes could be done in the future... maybe this is anyway the best setup, no new ideas are coming to my mind right now.

- Do you have a few more words for Edward after these nice games? Maybe also for your future opponents? :)

It was a real pleasure for me to play him, not only for the interesting games we played, but also for the friendly chats we had during the exchanges of the moves. I hope to play him again in the future for a rematch.

- Thanks for your answers and congratulations again!

Welcome, and thanks ;-)

_________

It is very interesting to see that a even a player like Eros prefered to minimize the risks (avoiding mouse drops or whatever) as much as possible by accepting a draw in a game where he had winning chances. Correspondence chess is definitely not all about chess, that's probably the lesson.

Also it is reassuring to read that correspondence chess is NOT dead yet, nor soon :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-02 19:50:00)
Update for BigChess & Poker rating rules

Hi all, it was a long time there wasn't any update in rating rules.

First of all, as the number of results at Poker Holdem is quite high, I feel that a change should be tried so that ratings move less fast.

Case of a win (rating > 1999) : New Rating = ((39 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 40
Case of a win (rating < 2000) : New Rating = ((38 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 40

Case of a loss : New Rating = ((39 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 40

As for Big Chess, the ratings deflate because there isn't the same rule than in Poker or Advanced Chess, this is now fixed :

If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2000, his new rating his :

New Rating = ((18 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 20

Otherwise :

New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20

This rule may look strange from a mathematical point of view, but combined to the other rules that provoke deflation, it gives really good results IMHO. Let's see how it works here.


Josef Riha    (2011-02-04 08:21:04)
Creating an Opening book

Click on engine-tab and then enginematch. A dialogue appears. Chose engines you like and don't activate any book. Then click on button Opening DB and chose the one you want. This DB contains only opening moves.
You can create this by entering moves only with few opening moves and save in a DB you want.
For more info click the help-button.


Dmitri Mamrukov    (2011-02-10 08:45:13)
playchess.com

Anybody plays Advanced Chess on playchess.com? I use the standard interface that comes with my paid membership. But in the Engine Room I can't play such chess because I'm told that I can't taskswitch (otherwise, their anti-cheating mechanism would be triggered, even though it's not human chess at all). For that, I need to buy some ChessBase product like the Fritz interface or ChessBase. Is there any way to legally play Centaur games? Anybody tried doing it on 2 computers: on one to make moves (in the standard playchess.com interface) and on the other to analyze with your favorite engine? Thanks.


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.


Daniel Parmet    (2011-02-17 20:13:16)
request again tour

I think increment of 8 hours is a good idea. I find on average I lose 8 hours in my WBCCC game just cause of time difference. He moves literally 5minutes after I go to sleep.


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-02-19 06:08:56)
WBCCC Round 1 Update

B5- National12(Paul) vs Peter Marriot- And interesting B90 game. Were 9...Be7 was thought to be the beginning of his trouble. Of course white, push for the full point the whole game and Peter finally throw in the towel at move 48. Paul showed good form in this game. I would follow his games with interested gong forward.


Daniel Parmet    (2011-02-22 20:17:12)
Conditional Moves

I'm not asking Thib to program this. I am wondering if it is possible that someone else could have programmed such a thing already to work with the browser as an addon/plugin. I several opponents who move instantly (without a millisecond) inbetween the move is returned to me. It is such a fast move return that my browser instead of loading a new game comes back to the same one!


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-23 12:59:06)
Conditional Moves

Well, I often see poker players moving instantly or almost (half a second?!), but they do no use any plugin for sure... But sometimes you may have to play 2 consecutive moves at Poker, that looks like your case!

I don't think that such a plugin would be efficient or useful.


Garvin Gray    (2011-02-25 00:55:15)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

I really would like to see the idea of those who are provisionally rated playing in groups by themselves, while everyone is seeded normally.

There should only be two or three groups of provisionally rated players, especially if they are seeded in groups of 9 players.

A second possibility= remove the exemption for players around 2300 so that they have to qualify just like everyone else.

This might even reduce the number of stages by 1, shortening the whole cycle.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-26 22:44:09)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Okay, I'm really thinking about a solution but right now I'm not completely satisfied with this option of having these groups of provisionnaly rated players. I really think that it just moves & postpons the problem while losing some advantages, by the way many established ratings are still underestimated...

I would like to try to explain again my whole point of view on the current wch rules. The way I've been thinking this championship is purely statistical, the idea was to find the best chances to see ALL the best players in the final rounds about each 2 years. It worked quite well so far IMO, actually my main regret is not to be able to extend the knockout tournament of 1 round (we would have 16 players instead of 8), that's why it is not possible anyway to have less than 5 rounds for the whole cycle. Each one is 30 to 40 months long, it could be worse. So the whole cycle's aim is not only to find the best player of the cycle but to give chances enough as quickly as possible to the new underrated players for the next cycles!

On this point, I'm quite glad to see players like Wayne who made it the very hard way, starting from ELO 1400 (!) to reach 2540 in about 3 years only. The WCH cycle helped many other players to find their place quite quickly in the rating list, also over 2400, and I have no doubt that the best players of the round-robin cycle play the round-robin final. Usually none of these new underrated players play the RR final, they have less chances than 2200 ones to play the 2nd round because of the TER rule but they win some elo points during the 1st round. That is fair IMO, some logical improvements now protect the ratings of 2200-2300 players but I agree that it is still hard to cross certain rating ranges because ratings do not inflate the same way than advanced chess, Go or poker ones.

In summary, let's say that it is unfair that 2200 players play 1 or 2 underrated players + one player rated about 2000 who may be worth 2100 or 2200, 2300 & more... He will probably lose some rating points during round 1. However he has more chances to reach round 2 with few chances to win but more chances to get some/many elo points back.

I do not say that there is no "problem" with the current WCH rules set (there will always be border effects, whatever the rules) but my point is that I'm not sure that any change that will have heavy consequences will have good effects enough.

Finally, if the most is favourable to such a change, it looks more logical to me to forbid the provisionnaly rated players to enter the wch waiting list. By the way we will have less forfeits during round 1, so the quality of the results may be improved. What do you think?


Daniel Parmet    (2011-02-27 21:57:03)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

I disagree vehemently with the extension of the 2200 for the M group. The whole attraction of the FICGS world group is that its a chance to play these 2200s that I can never play otherwise. If you remove this chance, all you do is create a zone where the 2100s risk points and gain nothing. I'd have no reason to participate.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-28 21:02:18)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

@Garvin:

I suggest that all 2200+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M group at stage 1 OR that all 2100+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M group at stage 1 with the new rule that only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2 and still 1 for stage 3. This combined to another new rule that would allow new members declaring to use a chess engine (not so many so far, maybe 20%) when registering would have a provisional rating of 2000 would solve IMO this issue (2000-2100 players would lose less points to those strong provisionally rated players during the wch) and would help to somewhat inflate the ratings that would be a logical thing when seeing the whole correspondence chess standards at the other sites (some already use this 2000 prov. rating). The ratings may even deflate due to the 10 moves rule. Actually I think I would be very favourable to one of these changes.

@Jimmy:

Fortunately there are players like Garvin, Scott, Gino & others who really helped to build the FICGS rules :) On the numbers of players by rating range, it is quite different from a cycle to another, sometimes we have 2 M groups, sometimes there is no M group at all so I'm not sure if it would be representative. Still I'm not favourable at all to have groups of provisionally rated players.


Scott Nichols    (2011-02-28 23:04:11)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Wow, it's really hard to follow the rules, just to understand I mean. I would vote for two easy to make changes.

First, do not allow provisional rated players to enter. These players have a high drop out rate and there is no way to judge their strength. It wouldn't be that hard for players to just finish nine games. It would also say a lot for their commitment.

Second, I really think everybody should have to play all rounds. The chances of having a repeat champion would be far less. Getting to just move into the next round is a HUGE advantage.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-02 15:44:26)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Hi Garvin :)

The main point is IMO this suggestion:

"All 2100+, 2150+ or 2200+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) could play the M groups at stage 1 with the new rule that only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2, while the winners will qualify for stage 3 as before.

Combined to another new rule, that would allow new members declaring to use a chess engine (not so many so far, maybe 20%) when registering to get a provisional rating of 2000, it could solve this issue.

Indeed 2000-2100 players would lose less points to those strong provisionally rated players during the regular wch groups, while they keep more chances to qualify for round 2, and it would help to somewhat inflate the ratings that would be a logical thing when seeing the whole correspondence chess standards at the other sites (some already use this 2000 prov. rating).

The ratings may even deflate due to the 10 moves rule."


Garvin Gray    (2011-03-05 11:48:40)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

I do not think the proposed idea of TDV solves anything at all. Instead all it does is move the issue from the 2100's to the 2000's.

I am not in favour of this idea that a rating is dependant on whether a person declares if they are using a chess engine or not. What happens if they do not declare, then start using one? Are they kicked out of the tournament? How do you prove the issue?

I think that solution creates more issues than it solves.

More and more I am in favour of the idea from a couple of others than players need to have an established rating before being able to enter the WCH.


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


Garvin Gray    (2011-03-10 02:46:05)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

I think I understand the changes Daniel, so lets see how this goes.

The top eight rated players who have to nominate to play in this section participate in knockout matches (that is still the same).

Stage 1.

All players rated above 2150+ are placed in their own round robin groups, these groups are called Group M and Group N.

For players in the M group, the top two point scorers progress through to the round robin final.

The lowest point scorer from these groups is eliminated.

Those who finish from 3rd to second last just move to stage 2.

For players in the N group, only the winner qualifies for the round robin final and at most half the players from this group will qualify for stage 2, the others are eliminated.


Garvin Gray    (2011-03-10 02:51:35)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Daniel- Ah so this change basically means I can't play until I get to 2150. Gotcha.

Garvin- You can still play. You will start exactly as normal in the general round robin groups. It used to be that players rated over 2300 went straight through to groups on their own, now Thib has moved the rating cutoff to 2150.

For those under 2150, it should make it easier to qualify for the next stage.


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-03-11 21:49:16)
WBCCC Round 2 Pairings

Time has finally come for Round 2 to come and the long a waited pairings are out. Just for notes B=Board #

B1-Loboestepario (Gino Figilo) vs CumnorChessClub (Kevin E.Plant)

B2-Moz vs Sekos

B3-Mark Eldridge vs David Evans

B4-Stephanie vs Fulcrum2000

B5-NATIONAL12 vs Kamesh

B6-ppipper vs jitan

B7-Wayne Lowrance vs tomski1981

B8-Uly vs indrajit_sg

B9-Balabachi vs Sebastian Boehme

B10-Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein) vs Weirwindle

B11-donkasand vs Ruben Comes

B12-natmaku vs ralunger (Ramil Germanes)

B13-Scott Nichols vs Omprakash

B14-Keoki010 (George Clement) vs deka

B15-parmetd (Daniel Parmet)vs SpiderG (Peter Marriott)

B16-Banned for Life vs TheHug(Jimmy Huggins)

2nd game of Round 2

B1-CumnorChessClub (Kevin E.Plant) vs Moz

B2-jitan vs Loboestepario (Gino Figilo)

B3-Fulcrum2000 vs Mark Eldridge

B4-Kamesh vs Stephanie

B5-David Evans vs National12

B6-Sekos vs ppipper

B7-indrajit_sg vs Wayne Lowrance

B8-tomski1981 vs Uly

B9-Sebastian Boehme vs Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein)

B10-Weirwindle vs donkasand

B11-Ruben Comes vs Balabachi

B12-ralunger (Ramil Germanes) vs keoki010 (George Clement)

B13-Omparakash vs natmaku

B14-deka vs Scott Nichols

B15-TheHug (Jimmy Huggins) vs parmentd (Daniel Parmet)

B16-SpiderG (Peter Marriott) vs Banned for Life

I will post links in the next post. I still have to move the game threads over to the WBCCC Forum. Good Luck to everyone in Round 2! :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-15 14:08:19)
ChessVibes openings (get 10 issues free)

For correspondence chess fans who like to follow the openings theory, I just received an interesting offer from ChessVibes that I copy/paste here:
__________

Dear correspondence chess lovers,

First, we'd like to thank the administrator of this forum for giving us the opportunity to showcase our product which is especially interesting for this audience, we think. So, here we go:

Subscribe to ChessVibes Openings and get ten issues for free!

Which openings are hot in top level chess? Which are not? Receive the latest opening novelties right in your mailbox with ChessVibes Openings, a weekly PDF magazine (+ PGN!) covering the latest openings news, co-authored by International Masters Merijn van Delft and Robert Ris and published by ChessVibes since January 2009. If you subscribe and mention 'ficgs' in an email to us, you'll receive the last ten issues for free!

What is it?

Every issue consists of a PDF Magazine and the accompanying PGN file. The PDF consists of four pages (A4 size) with the following contents:

- What’s hot? A round-up of this week’s important opening developments, with statistics about the frequence and score of the week’s most important opening novelty (page 1)
- What’s not? Which openings are not recommended at the moment, according to the top players? And why not? (page 1)
Game of the week Each week you’ll find the theoretically most important game analysed by our two IMs, with a detailed survey of the opening phase (page 2).
- This week’s harvest Four more new important opening ideas from this week (page 3) revealed and described with explanation of the opening and early middlegame (page 3).
- It’s Your Move An interactive element: every week two exercises, of which the solutions/explanations will follow one week later. This will improve your understanding of certain opening, middlegame or even endgame themes even further.

Which opening variations have been discussed so far?
You can download an index in PDF here.

http://www.chessvibes.com/plaatjes/cvo/CVO_index_114.pdf

More info & subscribe: You can find more information about ChessVibes Openings, and subscribe, at:

http://www.chessvibes.com/openings/

By subscribing you would join several GMs and IMs, who have responded very positively to our relatively new chess magazine!

Best regards,

Peter Doggers
Editor-in-chief,
ChessVibes

P.S.
If you subscribe and mention 'ficgs' in an email to us at info {at} chessvibes.com, you'll receive the last ten issues for free!


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


William Taylor    (2011-03-30 19:04:59)
Active rating lists

Hi Thib,

The 'Active' rating lists currently filter out people who haven't connected to the server for 2 months. I think it would make more sense to filter people who haven't made a move in a game of that type for 2 months, as currently the lists contain people who are not active in that game type at all. For example, the poker list contains lots of people who have never played a game of poker on this site.

Will


Don Groves    (2011-03-31 03:30:35)
Active rating lists

I agree with William. In addition, I would like to see players who have never played any game after joining the site removed from all rating lists. Their presence tends to distort the lists.


Garvin Gray    (2011-04-02 19:56:04)
Conditional moves

I know this topic comes up infrequently, but I am wondering what are the arguments against conditional moves. On a few occasions recently I wish I could have used a conditional move, so I was wondering what are the cons for conditional moves.

I can think of a few cons, as well as pros.


Paul Valle    (2011-04-02 21:59:27)
Conditional moves

I don´t know how difficult it is to implement conditional moves (I´m sure Thib has a short list of pending improvements with priorities). If it´s easy - I vote for including it. I can´t really see any major problems with offering it. On gameknot you can enter a long sequence of moves and I´ve had a game go the first 15 conditional moves before my opponent deviated. If something similar was implemented here, it would cut the average playing time for any tournament significantly.


Daniel Parmet    (2011-04-02 22:46:52)
Conditional moves

I have a game going right now in which I really wish I had conditional moves.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-04-04 01:44:31)
Conditional moves

Hi guys, I understand your feeling, sorry about that... yes it would be a huge work to make conditional moves for chess or all games at FICGS, anyway I'm still not favourable to this for some reasons, eg. (from a previous discussion) "I think it's not completely fair and adds a (small) chancy factor to the game, so in this way I understand time abuse. (...) In many forced sequences, only one side may take advantage of conditional moves to save time, that's not fair (...) there are forced lines where only one player has no choice".


Don Groves    (2011-04-04 05:55:42)
Conditional moves

I agree Thib, particularly when a game is played in widely separated time zones. The conditional move could give one player several hours advantage on an opponent's clock while they sleep.


Daniel Parmet    (2011-04-04 07:33:36)
Conditional moves

if I may play devil's advocate... I believe it is precisely BECAUSE conditional moves are more fair that is why players want them. Now when a person is low on time or trying to extend the game into the next rating period they purposefully wait until the BEST hour in which to make a move to clip the most time off their opponent's clock. If conditional moves were in place, a person could sleep knowing that their forced response is already in the system for their sneaky opponent that just wants to flag them.


Don Groves    (2011-04-05 00:05:15)
Conditional moves

So it works both ways, then...


Scott Nichols    (2011-04-05 00:13:42)
Conditional moves

"if" moves used to be very good in the days of real "Postal Chess" where a move could take a month or two to receive. But these days where you can get a move and answer it in seconds if you want to, they (if moves) are not that big of deal. Certainly not worth the effort it would take to implement them. Also, there have been a few times where I wished I had not made that conditional move. Now I make it a practice to NEVER use them, even if available.


Don Groves    (2011-04-05 06:02:48)
Conditional moves

Good points, Scott.


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!


Peter Unger    (2011-04-19 23:34:25)
You can't enter this tournament

Why? There are players with 2145etc. in the waiting list?
See the following?

FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_SM__000008
(type : rated round-robin, time : 30 days, increment : 1 day / move)

7 players, 6 game (1 game against each opponent)
entry fee : 0 , prize : 20 (E-Points)
elo : 2300+


You can't enter this tournament :
Your chess rating : 2166 , is out of the restrictions.

Waiting list :

POL Broniek, Mariusz Maciej 2152
SVK Gazi, Miroslav 2272
USA Nichols, Scott 2184
DEU Wosch, Arkadiusz 2145
KAZ Alaguzov, Maxat 2415
PRT Pessoa, Francisco 2528


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.


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-04-29 18:36:20)
WBCCC-New stuff and Round 2 Update

B1-CumnorChessClub (Kevin E.Plant) vs Moz
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21180

Kevin makes an interesting choice here with 2.a4!? vs the Silicon Defense. Not exactly sure what he wanted out of the opening. I can only guess he wanted to mix it up here. Anyway, black equalizes fairly quickly and is better. But after 18.a5! He finds the best way to equalize and both agree to a draw.

B2-jitan vs Loboestepario (Gino Figilo)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21181-

The somewhat unknown Jitan has had a good tournament. And is given his ICCF SM opponent all he can handle. In a game that is still going. Gino is down a pawn, but it appears to be a draw and I would guess the game is about to finish. This was an interesting approach by Gino who gets in b5 and h5 very early in this game. And Jitan plays the most naturally looking sac. 13.Nbxd5! it looked like for a long time Gino was in trouble, but he has found enough resources IMO. A well played game by both players.

B3-Fulcrum2000 vs Mark Eldridge
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21182

This was a nice French game to watch. The novelty move was ..11.Na5, OTB I would like white in this game and I had a feeling that white possibly could have risked an attack, but this game came down to endgame play and White was able to outplay black in the end.

B4-Kamesh vs Stephanie
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21183-

In my opinion this is the most important game the round and it is reaching its fianlly stages. I believe Stephanie to be one of the top players in this event. She has been doing well, but Kam has played the near perfect opening and got her in trouble. If you remember my previous post you remember I talk about Stephanie was in time trouble. Which has not help the cause. The one move I enjoyed the most so far in this game was 36.Ra5!, this was a nice exchange sac. And its given Kam nice pass pawns on the Queen-side. I would guess this game will be over soon. It has been a nice game to watch.

B5-David Evans vs National12
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21184

A battle of the English Countryman here. :) This was the Open Defense of the Ruy. Form the comments I got, it seems that the opening was played about as perfectly as you can get. David posed some problems to Paul(National12), but it ends in a fairly easy draw. One finally note ..10.d4 IMO is a very difficult move to beat.

B6-ppipper vs jitan
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21168-

This is one of the finally 4 games still playing. What looks like to be a draw here. The white black has been dancing for a few moves now, but blacks back rank is weak. That equals a drawish game. :)
This game started out form B90 and so has a ton of theory.

B7-indrajit_sg vs Wayne Lowrance
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21186

I fairly quiet B90 game. I don't think white got much out of the opening. Well played by Wayne here.

B8-tomski1981 vs Uly
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21187

A battle of good friends here. IMO I thought white played the this Queens pawn opening passively. And so we had an early draw at move 26.

B9-Sebastian Boehme vs Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21188-

This is one of the 4 last games. And I have to say its been a good game. We had an interesting Sicilian position. I had thought black was in trouble. But after he tripled up on the d-file. Then got massive exchanges. He looks like its headed toward a draw.

B10-Weirwindle vs donkasand
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21189-

This was a nice positional Sicilian game. Although it ends in a draw. Its a must see game! Watching the drawing combo at the end is very beautiful. It starts with ..27.e4! and you can watch it form there.

B11-Ruben Comes vs Balabachi(William Fuller)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21190

Ruben opened up this rep with 3.h3!? and we ended up with a closed type of Sicilian. But his opponent stayed strong. Though out the game. Even if it looked like Ruben had some pressure. In the finally position.

B12-ralunger (Ramil Germanes) vs keoki010 (George Clement)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21191-

This game saw the Exchange variation in the Queen's gambit. It has a high rate rate. But to Ramil credit he manage to give George a couple of weak pawns in the endgame, but not enough for any real advantage.

B13-Omparakash vs natmaku
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21193-

I would have hoped for more in this game. As I'm a lover of the 6.Bc4 (Sozin) Sicilian. After 14.e5!? this forces unneeded exchanges. After which, the game looked like a draw. And that is how it ended.

B14-deka vs Scott Nichols
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21194

Usually the Exchange Slav is pretty drawish. And this game was no different. But both players did try to mount some kind of advance. Both had good posts on each others side of the board. But a drawish opening is a drawish opening.

B15-TheHug (Jimmy Huggins) vs parmentd
(Daniel Parmet)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21195

I tried my luck in an opening that was not something with e4. And it didn't go as well I had hoped, Daniel was able to get a equal position fairly quickly. In my try at making new theory in a very uncommon line vs the King's Indian Defense.

And finally we have this last game.

B16-SpiderG (Peter Marriott) vs Banned for Life
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21196

This would have promised to be a nice Larson Attack game. By alas Peter timed out in this game as well. I would have loved to seen this attacking game with both sides castled on opposite sides.

Well that would do it for my reports for this round. This was a great round, and the next promises to be great as well. I will post info for the next round after the last game is over with.

Any feedback is welcome!


Jai Prakash Singh    (2011-05-02 01:32:46)
Breaking Stereotypes

Hi Chess Friends,

Now watch GM Igor Smirnov's latest excellent chess video lesson "Breaking Stereotypes" [about exploiting White's Bg5 or Bb5 or Black's Bg4 or Bb4 moves] free (no registration required) only at

http://chessthinkingsystems.blogspot.com/


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


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-05-15 13:08:49)
WBCCC Round 3 links and more

Here are the links for Round 3. Plus I have a quick announcement. I have talked to Garvin and I'm in the running to consider adding a 2nd tournament to the WBCCC. Probably called the WBCCC Inv. -> Invitational. This will be more of the standard style of blitz tournament. Something like 14d+1d per move, I don't want to set exact time control yet, I will probably open this discussion up after WBCCC 1 is over. What details I will give is this. What over the prize is next year will split with the other tournament plus a plaque to the winner. My hope is to have another drawing card for the WBCCC and I know this will probably bring more top players in.

Anyway here are the links for you to follow the games you wish to watch this round.

As always we will start at the top boards and work are way down. This time I will just do both of each board at the same time.

B=Board

B1- CumnorChessClub (Kevin D. Plant) vs Fulcrum2000- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21828

B1- ppipper vs CumnorChessClub (Kevin D. Plant)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21814

B2- Kamesh vs ppipper- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21829

B2- Fulcrum2000 vs Kamesh- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21815

B3- jitan vs Sebastian Boehme- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21830

B3- National12 vs jitan- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21816

B4- Loboestepario (Gino Figilo) vs WeirwindleX- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21817

B4- David Evans vs Loboestepario (Gino Figilo)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21831

B5- Sebastian Boehme vs David Evans- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21818

B5- Weirwindle vs Banned for Life- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21832

B6- ralunger (Ramil Germanes) vs National12- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21833

B6- donkasand vs ralunger (Ramil Germanes)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21819

B7- tomski1981 vs donkasand- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21834

B7- parmetd (Daniel Parmet) vs tomski1981- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21820

B8- Banned for Life vs Ruben Comes- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21821

B8- indrajit_sg vs parmetd (Daniel Parmet)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21835

B9- Keoki010 (George Clement) vs Indrajit- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21822

B9- Mark Eldridge vs Balabachi- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21837

B10- Wayne Lowrance vs Stephanie- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21838

B10- Balabachi vs Wayne Lowrance- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21823

B11- StephanieX vs Mark_Eldridge- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21824

B11- Omprakash vs Keoki010 (George Clement)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21839

B12- natmaku vs Scott Nichols- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21825

B12- Ruben Comes vs deka- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21840

B13- deka vs Omprakash- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21826

B13- Scott Nichols vs Schachmatt (Matt O'Brien)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21841

B14- Schachmatt (Matt O'Brien) vs TheHug (Jimmy Huggins)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21827

B14- TheHug (Jimmy Huggins) vs natmaku http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21842

Before I get off, I would like to thank Thib for letting me ask his great players to play in my tournament. Best wishes to all and enjoy this next year!

Jimmy


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


Sebastian Boehme    (2011-06-08 02:45:02)
Improving visibility of draw offers

Hi guys,

have posted it in chat and thought I give it another shot here in forum too.

Sometimes players can maybe not see the draw offer, due to stress, playing the move quickly...
I know there is the little message box, like a letter below the game board that says "Draw has been offered".
But maybe there can be an improvement,i.e. a sort of colour....have seen it from other chess sites and there for example a red button
above the board has been implemented.

Or maybe some sort of red frame around the board in design could work it out. So in case of draw offerit gets visible.

I do not want to say players are too stupid to see a draw offer or anything like this, but maybe see it as a simplification for your eyes.

Just a wild idea, looking for comments, or not. ;)

Cheers,

Sebastian


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-20 15:56:48)
Time control for lightning games

Ok, I've made a first change, time control for blitz games is now 1 hour + 1 minute / move, let's see how it works.


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


Garvin Gray    (2011-08-10 04:25:32)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament

I vote for no anonymous players. Can I vote early and often on that one? :)

The time control needs to be long enough to make it a real centaur battle. Quite a few freestyles have been held where the time control has been short and it is just humans mainly putting in engine moves.

I think 60 mins plus 30 secs is fine, but would prefer 90 mins plus 30 secs.

If we did 60 plus 30, then running it over three days with 3 rounds per day would be better, in my opinion.

The biggest and number one issue is starting time.


Alvin Alcala    (2011-08-10 05:23:24)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament

60min+30sec per move is reasonable for me and two rounds per day. The time schedule will be critical as you know all of us are in different time zones.


William Taylor    (2011-08-24 13:33:12)
Comments anyone?

Thib - can you see who has removed messages? If so, perhaps you can caution people who remove them for no obvious reason, and remove their ability to do so or ban them from the site if necessary.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-09-23 21:31:12)
Find a game!

You mean Nxh1# or Nh1# ?

The first moves don't look really useful, at a first sight of course :)


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


Don Groves    (2011-09-30 09:56:18)
Feature request

Thib: In your spare time (ha ha) could you highlight the names on the "My games" page of opponents who are currently online. Then we would know which games to look at next. It can speed up games quite a bit to make moves in those games ahead of games in which the opponent may not be at his/her computer.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-09-30 22:07:12)
Feature request

Hi Don ;)

"Then we would know which games to look at next"... or not to look at next :) I'm not sure if so many players would take care of this feature (that was already discussed), or even if they would like to receive more moves to play.

I have a few other reasons not to implement this: size of names in the page, calculation time of the page...


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") ?


George Clement    (2011-10-10 17:27:48)
Opponents time

Tibault would it be possible on the "My games" page to post the opponents time left to make a move. You already have the time for the game owner.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-10-28 22:16:09)
4th FICGS freestyle cup

Hi all,

The 4th FICGS freestyle tournament may happen on december 3 & 4 (2011) - three rounds each day at 13:00, 15:00, 17:00 server time. The format should be the same (30 minutes + 15 seconds per move) than the previous one.

That's quite a good moment IMO, just before the start of the next championship cycle.

What do you think? Any suggestions?

Thank you,
Thibault


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-11-01 21:30:37)
Best poker hands (nov. 1st, 2011)

So far, we've had 2 royal straight flush...

Here is the top 50 of the best hands:


1. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=48259&move=509
2. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=46937&move=771
3. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=49350&move=623
4. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=46624&move=637
5. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=56107&move=440
6. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=50644&move=1331
7. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26299&move=1092
8. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=55390&move=490
9. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=52098&move=241
10. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=51966&move=672
11. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=50555&move=652
12. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=51963&move=532
13. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=44014&move=1035
14. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=50685&move=782
15. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=50389&move=764
16. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47962&move=896
17. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=51259&move=104
18. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=55175&move=34
19. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=51458&move=492
20. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=57131&move=128
21. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=43081&move=393
22. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=56765&move=87
23. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=46758&move=66
24. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=53084&move=746
25. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=59372&move=35
26. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=52398&move=1033
27. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=52269&move=324
28. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=52254&move=13
29. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=49334&move=261
30. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=57873&move=759
31. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=51962&move=586
32. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=42889&move=561
33. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=49503&move=64
34. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47224&move=223
35. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=59395&move=222
36. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=48277&move=489
37. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=57879&move=1018
38. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=51638&move=284
39. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=49335&move=53
40. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=55529&move=513
41. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=52389&move=584
42. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=37460&move=1118
43. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=56261&move=260
44. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=54006&move=308
45. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=58252&move=1662
46. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=46860&move=457
47. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=55442&move=353
48. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=55426&move=83
49. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=51469&move=326
50. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=51037&move=2034



Timothy Cookson    (2011-11-02 14:42:47)
Vacation Question

"-Timothy

A question for you Thibault, I have just started a 5 day vacation but my clocks are still going down.

--Garvin

Tim, questions like yours should be asked in the forum we can give more complete answers there.

--- Thibault

time per move clock is still running during vacation so that no move exceed 60 days..."

And what if I lose on time during a 5 day vacation?


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-11-02 15:30:56)
Vacation Question

You must have been warnt before that you take vacation days that you had only x days to play your move in the specified game.

Well, in this case the game should be lost... Feel free to send me a private message about the game.


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-11-28 10:38:22)
WBCCC 2 sign up and WBCCC 1 review

After an exciting WBCCC 1, Own Champion ppipper (José Sanz) wins with a finally score of 7.5 out 10. FICGS top players were in a tied for 2nd with Timothy Cookson, Sebastian Boehme, and Ruben Comes. Credit also has to go to David Evans who had ppipper as White in the last game. And went all out to beat him. In the end Jose pulled out the win with black. For those interested I highly recommend you read this article. About the champion talked about his tournament games.

http://www.chesscafe.com/chessok/chessok.htm

Now I wanted to go a head and open up the sign up for the 2nd edition of WBCCC and tell everyone about the improvements and add ons.

The first major improvement on WBCCC is that it will have a simple to use conditional move system. With our easy downloadable client we use. There is also going to be a 2nd tournament for those who prefer a little more time than own standard tournament of 30days per side. In the 2nd tournament that is going to be called Rybka Forum Grand Prix. Is going to be 30day for the first 40 moves and 30 days Sudden Death after that. So basically you get 30 more days for 40 moves on your clock. Now here is a few more things to know about the tournament. After each move, if you request it. You can have your move noticed to you by email. This is good for the busy person who doesn't check the game forums all the time. The other thing added to the tournament is that there will be a file on hand for everyone to check to see what sites everyone plays on it a head of time. This is good for guys who like to prepare for there opponent. As for other fun things offered. I finalize with chesspublishing.com that they will help for own best game per round and the winners will get there games analyzed by the top players there and will publish them on the forum. Which I can expand to here and the other forums I promote at. For some were scared of the time control, but in truth we only had 2 games time out, but this was because they left there games. Which was a disappointment, but 2 games over a whole tournament was very good! If you maybe interested, but are unsure about the time. I recommend talking to me and when can have a test game to see if you can handle it. Most know with in a week or 2 if they can do it or not. Thanks for the support of Thib and everyone that played this year and anyone that will try this next year!

Jimmy


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    (2011-12-13 10:09:29)
From Gambit Thematic Tournament

Thib,

Do you really mean f6 or d6 as black's second move?

Cheers,

Garvin


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    (2011-12-15 21:01:47)
Big chess art :)

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=55952&move=301&flip=1

Any other cool drawing?


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-16 12:06:21)
5 player double round robins

I think it could be trialled in one of the two sections we have atm. So all divisions in either standard or rapid moves to 5 player double round robin.

Could give some useful information.

Btw, changing the SM tourneys does nothing for me at this stage, which was one part of the reason for suggesting this change. It would also have to apply to the M class tournaments too.


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-27 08:52:26)
Achieving playing norms

Is there a table to see what it takes to get the titles?

Fide has tables for what it takes to qualify for different playing norms: http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=58&view=article

so I am wondering if there are similar ficgs tables.

Of most interest is at what average rating does the score move from 4.5/6 to 4/6 and so forth.


Steve Lim    (2012-01-01 03:02:55)
Unable to stay connected to FICGS

After logging in to FICGS, if I stay on any page for more than a few secs. I will not be able to click on any links (eg. submitting a move). If I click on anything, I will get the following error..

No data received
Unable to load the webpage because the server sent no data.

Can anyone shed some light on this problem? Thanks.


Don Groves    (2012-01-02 00:12:02)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

The rules allow a player who has entered a tournament to play in that tournament even if his/her rating drops below the minimum due to losing one or more games before the tournament begins. I agree that this is a good rule. However, if a player loses many games and drops more than 150 ELO (for example), maybe this rule should no longer apply to that player and he/her would be removed from that waiting list. This might prevent the situation described above.


Garvin Gray    (2012-01-02 02:05:43)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

I do not agree at all. I think there needs to be consequences for a person's actions, not just let off with no consequences, perhaps even get an advantage.

If there are mass time-outs, their rating should be returned to where it was (that is their correct playing standard), which means they can not enter the lower waiting list.

The idea that losing on time is part of the game only applies if the game was about 100 moves long and the game was short of time and someone used too much time on one or more moves.

But mass timing out of games is not a general part of the game at all. It is poor form and disrespectful to the site and the other opponents in the tournament and should be punished as such.

If they remain on the same rating, then they should certainly not be allowed to play in the event where they previously entered.

If a player has a legitimate reason for timing out so many games, they can take it up with the site administrator. That option always exists.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-02 14:08:37)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

Statistically playing 1 game in a tournament against an underrated player is not so much while losing 200 or 300 pts means a lot... And once again, quite often underrated players because of a mass forfeit will forfeit again! There are well known examples (very strong players rated 1900-2000) here. IMO it's the only way to prevent mass time outs!

I played at IECG and I was very disappointed to see games with an advantage simply cancelled after 30 moves or so, because of a time loss or just "forfeit". That is a non-sense to me. Rated games have to be rated!

So you suggest to simply punish players by not allowing them to play tournaments anymore (during 1 year or so)!? On the other hand, if players do not lose rating points what to do if a player has recurrent problems and has to resign his games once every year. Then many ratings will be hustled.

At last what will be a legitimate reason? It is so... so complex.


Don Groves    (2012-01-05 08:39:42)
Next Check box in browser

Salut, Thib -- When you implemented this feature, the My Games was updated every 30 seconds. But now, the My Games page updates whenever there is a move to make. So, is the Next Check box no longer useful, or is there another reason for keeping it?


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...


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-16 11:40:38)
Time control for lightning games

Hi all,

I've been told that 1h + 15 sec./move (freestyle cup time control) would be better for lightning games than 20 min + 30 sec./move

As I don't want to create another advanced chess category (no good name, not useful), I'd like to know how many people among players who tried it think that such a change would be a good thing.

As for me, I'm not so favourable to such a change, my point is: 1h + 15 sec. means that you'll have to wait for your opponent 1 hour before he plays his next move! That is quite long, particularly to win no point, and you could even lose the game if your opponent comes back just before the end... That's why I prefer 20 min + 30 sec. per move, that is in average as long as the freestyle time control.

Any opinion?


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-16 15:19:52)
Time control for lightning games

Right, 1h + 15 sec. was the 1st Freestyle Cup's time control. And yes this is about the lightning time control only.

Maybe 30 minutes + 15 sec. would be a good choice also so we have 3 choices :

1) 20 min + 30 sec./move
2) 30 min + 15 sec./move
3) 60 min + 15 sec./move

Which one would you prefer (and why?)


Alvin Alcala    (2012-01-17 10:26:08)
Time control for lightning games

I would go for:

60 min + 15 sec./move because it's the most popular time control for freestylers. Plus this time control more than compensate for the lack of hardware fire power to compete.

However, the current blitz time control is far too long, if you will observed the number of people who played the blitz time control is very few for the period of two years. So I would suggest to change this time control to 60 min + 15 sec./move for blitz and change the time control for lightning 30 min + 15 sec./move.

We can run a poll to see the choice of the other members.


Garvin Gray    (2012-01-17 13:22:41)
Time control for lightning games

I think for blitz a better time control would be 40 moves in 2 hours followed by 30 mins plus 30 secs per move (basically the zonal type time control).

For lightning I would prefer 60 mins plus 15 secs. Couldnt a time out factor be put in that if a move has not been made in 30 mins then the player loses? This would cover no shows.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-17 14:46:40)
Time control for lightning games

For Blitz 40 moves in 2 hours followed by 30 mins plus 30 secs per move is not possible... For now I can only set a time, an increment and a number of moves for the increment. What about 1 hour + 30 sec/move or 1 hour + 1 minute/move, that would be much faster already.

For lightning, IMO 20 min + 30 sec/move is still best but if other players prefer 1 hour + 15 sec/move or 30 minutes + 15 sec/move, I'll do the change.


Alvin Alcala    (2012-01-17 17:00:32)
Time control for lightning games

I agree changing the blitz timing as Thib suggested 1 hour + 30 sec/move for blitz and lightning to stay the same at 20 min + 30 sec/move. The most I'm concerned about it the current blitz time control which is too long, changing it is necessary.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-17 18:35:26)
Time control for lightning games

The time control of the first blitz games played here was 2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves, which is quite the same than current one.


Scott Nichols    (2012-01-17 21:48:55)
Time control for lightning games

Hmmm, I didn't remember it being that long, :) But, I definitely think it needs shortening, maybe 30 moves per hour, not sure.


Wayne Lowrance    (2012-01-17 21:58:10)
Time control for lightning games

OK Guys, here is my choice after reading all of the postings.
Blitz: 1 hr + 1 min/move
Lightning: 30 min +15 sec/move


Garvin Gray    (2012-01-18 09:09:05)
Time control for lightning games

1 hour plus 1 min per move from the start is ok by me for blitz


Garvin Gray    (2012-01-18 16:52:39)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize

And to add, I really am disappointed about the general direction this whole discussion has taken.

It was not my intention to create a tournament of this style when I asked for double round robin. It was my intention to get one of the standard or rapid's to change over to Double round robin, which has not occurred.

I am really starting to get the feeling that this site is starting to move away from the free part and is moving towards a paid site.

More and more tournaments are having entry fees attached to them, which is fine, but then if that is case then the free part of FICGS should be dropped.


Don Groves    (2012-01-31 07:35:34)
Server overload?

Lately I'm receiving email notifications of opponents moves several days after the move was made. Might as well turn them off...


Costantino Proietti    (2012-02-08 22:24:03)
annotated games

I don't see annotated games in Wikichess, but just an opening database with few annotations about early moves.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-09 09:56:26)
annotated games

It is possible to post moves until the end of the game in Wikichess (and to comment it). But you can post a game in the forum as well (see the Help section to see how to post a board).

If the game was played at FICGS you can comment it after the game finishes.


Don Groves    (2012-02-10 16:16:53)
annotated games

The Wikichess rules state:

"To add a complete game in Wikichess, just enter all moves and a commentary at the very last move, starting with "End of game : ", in example...

End of game : G. Kasparov - A. Karpov : 1/2-1/2 (Moscow)"

So it seems it is possible to add any game.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-12 19:47:17)
annotated games

That's not the right place IMO. The game would not be visible enough. See Wikichess, just follow the moves and enter the new moves if needed. That's quite long though, sorry it surely needs an update.

Why not posting it in the forum as well? We could see it more easily. Just enter [ PGN ] (without the spaces) followed by the complete game in Portable Game Notation format, then finish with [ /PGN ]


Costantino Proietti    (2012-02-12 21:41:15)
annotated games

Thanks again. I tried to enter the moves in Wikichess but the answer is "the move is incorrect"
Maybe I'm not yet over 2000?


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-12 21:58:53)
annotated games

What move did you enter? You have to enter it in PGN format.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-16 19:06:33)
Folding in Poker

Hmm, I didn't change anything... the color doesn't matter (it just means that it is probably not the best move), the button should work. Did you really try it?

Is it the same for other players?


Scott Nichols    (2012-02-21 18:48:24)
Folding in Poker

Another change I noticed (a big one) since I got out of the scene for a bit, is that the way the poker ratings are calculated. Did you change something Thib? They used to move up and down a lot faster. If you wanted to change the way the ratings were done then the "whole system" should have started from scratch. The old way, whoever happened to be on top or near the top, now has NO worry, they change so little they would have to lose dozens of games to just drop out of the top ten. At one point I was 2258 (highest ever), with this system nobody would have ever caught me. If you didn't change anything, then my apologies. If you did, then I think the whole system needs to be re-started.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-24 00:21:47)
Folding in Poker

Erratum, you all right! The last change for poker rules occured last year (february 2011):

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=9557

I just lost a poker game so 12 points:

WhiteELO : 2039 ... 2051
BlackELO : 2160 ... 2148

So, yes ratings move less fast than in january 2011 but it still moves fast enough IMO. If the most doesn't agree with this we can return to the old rating rule, I'm still not sure what is best.


Scott Nichols    (2012-02-24 03:49:19)
Folding in Poker

Sorry Thib, didn't mean to yell. That was why I had asked you if something had changed. The board moved around a lot quicker. Now it just SEEMS to never move from week to week or even month to month. I realize that when we first started the real strengths of the players were not known, maybe that is the reason. But you do admit you changed something, I would like to vote to change it back. Cheers, Scott


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-25 14:23:18)
Folding in Poker

Previous ratings shouldn't be "deleted" IMO. We try some things and we cannot delete everything that happened before each time. Anyway poker ratings will continue to move up & down as chance goes.

I still have no idea of what is more accurate, probably it doesn't mean much for poker... All I have is a feeling and I feel that the current rules may be better at 55/45 than the old ones, so I'll change it if the most want it.


Jimmy Huggins    (2012-02-27 07:01:43)
Folding in Poker

Not only that, but it could be a good measure of who really is the best poker player on the site. I live event is a lot more normal for me, you get a little more info form the player like how long it takes him to make his move.


Jimmy Huggins    (2012-02-28 06:16:59)
Folding in Poker

I played Scott in about an hour or so, I don't think its that bad. If it was the best of say just the best of 3 total, it would probably be better. Maybe its just me, I just have a hard time believing that it would take someone several days worth of time to consider the best move in poker, I bet at most its a few minutes. AND yes there are people who do it and I have seen them on everyday with not that many chess games.


Don Groves    (2012-02-29 04:24:06)
Folding in Poker

I agree that poker games are too slow here. Most moves should take seconds, not minutes.


Paul Campanella    (2012-03-05 20:37:13)
50+ Poker Games

Personally, I think that a person should be allowed to have more than 50 poker games running at once.

I think it's unfair for people to be banned from playing in new tournaments just because they have too many old games running due to the fact that some people take forever to make a move and others purposely will delay to make any more at all in a losing game.

What does everyone else think?


Paul Campanella    (2012-03-06 17:13:22)
50+ Poker Games

Keeping games running so long is a detrement to everyone!

For example, it is unfair to be denied admission to a new poker tournament just because a player has over 50 games running, when some of those games started over a year ago and people take forever to make moves or purposely delay moving in certain games due to the fear of losing rating points.

I have a fair proposal that I would like to make...

"If the poker game(s) started over one calendar year ago, then it should not count toward the 50 game limit".

Does anyone agree or disagree? Or perhaps someone has a better suggestion about the time frame? I am curious to know what people think about this.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2012-03-07 18:27:21)
50+ Poker Games

I like Paul's idea of special counting the number of running game. This eliminates 5 of my games.

But I hope, that the idea to estimate poker games, will not be implemented. That is not a solution of the problem.

In some of my games my opponent and I can move only once per day, because we have a different rhythm of life. My opponents are playing in the morning and I at night. So we are online rarely at the same time. Furthermore, my games often last longer than 1000 moves. Therefore, it is only natural that these games take a long time. I don't like that these games will be estimated after a year.


Don Groves    (2012-03-10 05:43:05)
Replaying games

Thib: In both Chess and Go, we can replay any game move by move. This is a very nice feature. However, if I try to replay a game of Poker, all I see are bets, checks, or folds, but not cards. Is it possible to add the cards that were dealt in each hand to the XML for Poker games?


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-10 16:57:02)
Replaying games

Hi Don, actually you can also replay poker games, see e.g.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=64299

Just click the double arrows that surround << move >>

Does it work?

So you can show me your AA series :) It happens sometimes (just like any other hand, but it is more remarkable for AA) but I would be surprised that it is related to the algorithm, it's most probably statistical.


Don Groves    (2012-03-11 08:31:18)
Replaying games

(1) I don't see <<move>> anywhere on the page.

(2) I could show if the cards were kept as part of the hand record ;-) In two days (maybe 250 deals max) I saw pocket aces about 8 times (more than 4 times the expected value) and read about many others in the chat during the same period. Of course that number could be statistical -- but very rare.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-12 18:05:14)
Replaying games

I mean the arrows around "move", not the ones around "Game 64299", don't you see it?

But actually you'd like to see both players cards after the game finishes, that's right? I'm not sure if most players would accept to show it but that's worth a discussion for sure!


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!


George Clement    (2012-03-19 17:52:20)
Slow tournament entries

Garvin, are you saying 3 days for each move?


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)?


Pablo Schmid    (2012-04-07 15:57:22)
Longest ficgs game of chess

Hello, just for curiosity, is it possible to know what is the longest ficgs game of chess in terms of moves numbers? What is the result?


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-18 18:40:04)
Slow tournament entries

I think the standard time control is wayyy too long and unnecessary. 10 moves in 20 days would seem more appropriate.


Michael Rogers    (2012-04-18 20:10:17)
Slow tournament entries

I would like to see optional faster time controls as George C. suggested. At GameKnot ( no engine use ) their monthly tournaments attract over 2000 players and the time is only 2 days per move, increasing to 3 days in the final. I suspect that many players here lose interest in a game when there are several weaks between moves.


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-19 15:16:13)
Slow tournament entries

We must no forget IMHO that playing correspondence chess here has absolutely nothing to do with playing chess at Gameknot...

Playing with one's real name is really not the same as playing with a casual name, the involvement is different. The rapid time control is really hard enough IMHO when analyzing 10+ games seriously. Time controls at ICCF are longer than our standard's one as far as I remember. Times have changed though, engines as well but not everyone can play 1 move in each game a day.

FICGS will never compete with Gameknot in the number of players or games played, but the quality of chess games may be higher in average.

Let's not try to fix a problem too quickly by creating another one. The main problem right now is that no games enough are starting each month, I'm working on!

If once this problem is fixed you still think that standard time control is too long then we can debate it and envisage a change of the time control or to create a new tournaments category.


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.


Scott Nichols    (2012-04-21 17:34:46)
LSS is the worst Corr server

I have decided to quit offering my opinion here, but this one I will answer. I was very surprised by this, as I have many games on LSS and have had some limited dealings with Dr. Paetzold and they have always been prompt and courteous. LSS offers a wide variety of tournaments including my favorite, 10 days with 1 day per move increment. This is much more my style, I have tried too many times to get something like that here, but to avail. I have just renewed my membership for five years on LSS. The only thing I'm sorry about Daniel is that we had a recent draw on there, but if I had waited a little longer, obviously I would have got the full point.


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-22 18:49:49)
Answer from Ortwin

Well, here is the answer from Dr. Ortwin Paetzold (LSS/IECG) that he asked me to post here. I'm glad to do it of course so that we can hear from both sides and make our own opinion with:

>>>>>>>>>>

Daniel Parmet is twisting the reality a bit. I take the right to quote my full answers, however as I do not have the permission to do so, I will not post the notes from Daniel to me, unless he quoted it here himself already.

Fact 1 is that Daniel has not read the rules of LSS or forgot about them. There is a function in LSS which lets the webmaster check this esp. in case of rule questions. Therefore he might not have known about the rule, however, when registering on LSS each player is asked to study the rules and to play according to them. I am sure, the same holds for FICGS and any other server.

Fact 2 is that on 4th April Daniel Parmet has lost a game on time by violating the 30-days-rule. The server automatically stopped the game and awarded the point to the opponent, independent from the position. The server also imposed the two week suspension to start a new tournament. The 30-days-rule was installed at IECG more than 10 years ago and I had included it into LSS right from the beginning. Daniel Parmet asked politely why the admin has cancelled his game (which I had not).

Fact 3 is that in my answer about the query why the game was finished, I have answered with reference to the rules:

“Your game was forfeited, because you did not move for 30 days. This is the maximum number of days to be used per individual move, independent of the total amount of time you have left. See the Rules and Usage Section under "Violation of Time Control". This is also the reason of your two-week-suspension. “

In his response Daniel Parmet called the LSS “a joke of a site”.

Fact 4 is that I answered to this insultation:

“Well, it is not my fault that you have not read the rules during the past five years you have played here! To be honest, this is impressing!”

I do not think this is more rude than insulting me/LSS because one has made a mistake!

Fact 5 is that I did not remove him from the waiting list of the LSS Anniversary 2012 as requested, because I thought that – once Daniel thinks reasonably about the case – he might want to continue, esp. as he wanted to continue all other games. Furthermore LSS has a feature where each player can remove himself from the waitinglist of this tournament. This all happened on 5th April! I then forgot about the matter.

Fact 6 is that on 19th April the LSS Anniverary groups were created including Daniel Parmet to one of the groups. As he was no longer suspended that time I missed that he still was on the waitinglist. I would otherwise have tried to get a replacement, which I did in other cases . When he claimed not to play in the anniversary on 20th April, I decided to remove him from all tournaments he was playing. As the tournaments were in an early stage (start date 15th Feb, Parmet finished only 3/10 and 1/12 games in them), I believe it makes less impact to withdraw a player then letting him influence the outcome, esp. as e.g. he would not use a potential qualification to the LSS WC Semi-Final or the Consolation Finals. I commented that action with the following message:

‘I have withdrawn you from this "joke of a site" (your own - wrong - words. It is not my fault that you have not read the rules!)

Thanks for playing here.’

The answer was unfriendly so I decided to cancel the membership permanently.

I would like to thank Thibault for the opportunity to express my view. I do not intend to comment anyfurther in this matter, as I think the two different versions are speaking for themselves.


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?


Scott Nichols    (2012-04-22 19:23:45)
LSS Move Rule

Exactly! I was going to say this same thing. Sometimes when a player decides to just quit playing, or whatever the reason, and they have 60-100 days on their clock, it takes THAT LONG to finally resolve the game. A "30-days" rule would be a big step in the right direction IMO. I think Thib has a "60-days" rule if I'm not mistaken though.


Scott Nichols    (2012-04-22 19:37:17)
LSS Move Rule

P.S. Game #57387 of mine is a great example of a frustrating game. It is a dead drawn position, but it could be played out for a long time. He can conceivably keep this going for another year getting 40 days for every 10 moves. It has been "40 DAYS" since his last move.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-22 19:41:26)
LSS move rule

I agree that such a rule would speed up many games, but it would be quite hard for many players & we may lose a a few ones, by accident or not... IMO rapid time control is fast enough (our 60 days rule does not really apply there) while standard time control suits for the others, the only problem is to have players enough to change the rating bands.


Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-22 19:43:08)
LSS is the worst Corr server

FICGS already has a rule like that in that its every 60 days here which is far more reasonable. And I have used that to great effect to beat a strong player it required 49 days of analyzing some tough lines to win. If at 30 days, I was forced to move, it would have been a draw.

Mr. Ortwin forgets to mention I didn't violate this rule. But then Ortwin has shown himself to be a very unreasonable character.


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-22 20:42:15)
LSS move rule

@ Scott : Definitely I don't agree with you on this point :) Finishing such a game that lasts near the end has no consequence or so few on the whole thing (including your rating that is calculated every 60 days), and theorically having a 60 days, 30 days or even 10 days move rule does not change anything to the fact that a player who wants to last a correspondence chess game can do it the same way, for the same duration... The main reason to the 60 days rule is that we are humans, with humans problems and that shouldn't (or as few as possible) interfer with our games.


Peter W. Anderson    (2012-04-22 21:27:28)
Slow tournament entries

That wasn't really my point, but as you rasie it, it is a combination of two factors that prevent you from playing stronger players outside of the WCH - the banding rules and your perfornmance. That is just fact.

My point was that it is possible to get good rating results against weaker players and it is practically possible to move up a category in months not years. Equally you should not fear playing in the WCH on the same basis. Win your group and then you will get plenty of strong opposition.

I accept that if someone is finding it hard to break through the top of one category then they will not get practice against much stronger players outside of the WCH. That is a disadvantage of the current banding rules, and might prove frustrating to some people.

However, the alternative has disadvantages. If you remove the banding you will end up playing not only stronger players but much weaker ones too.

Perhaps the best answer is to offer a mixture of both types of tournaments.


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-24 13:45:31)
Do the cards really matter?

In an attempt to get this conversation out of the chat bar and to here-

Bluffing on here is so much harder because everyone is playing many games at once, so you just move through each game and quite often do not even notice which opponent it is, or even something what has been played before.

So in all probability, it is almost impossible to remember if one of your individual opponent made a move on you 10 hands ago and is trying it again.

Or whether they have the nuts and are slow playing you, hoping to check raise.

I wonder if four handed poker would work on here? Might be worth a go between some who have records for playing quickly.


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.


Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-30 14:20:00)
Slow tournament entries

I think the players complaining about the time they have to wait for a move are really just impatient. The reality is most have picked correspondence chess because they want extra time to think about moves. If you do not want extra time, then go play OTB or ICC. The honest answer is that while a move returned every day is the norm for best players -- is not a requirement!


George Clement    (2012-04-30 18:12:41)
Slow tournament entries

I think Garvin hit the nail on the head. It is the unnecessary time wasted that is the problem. Noone is saying not to take all the time needed to make a move, but waiting until your time is about out and making just enough moves to get the new increment is a problem!


Scott Nichols    (2012-05-02 20:33:06)
Slow tournament entries

The WBCCC is very successful with a time control of game in 30 days with a 1 hour per move increment. We could easily play 6 games in a year.


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.


Don Groves    (2012-05-04 13:52:49)
Slow tournament entries

I wasn't suggesting conditionals, just making forced moves when they occur. That game could be several moves along if my opponent would just do that.


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...


Paul Campanella    (2012-05-11 04:59:09)
Playing poker for e-points

I personally think that playing poker for e-points should be allowed on FICGS.

It would make things more fun and might make players think twice about making foolish moves because actual money is on the line!

What does everyone else think?


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-05-11 14:06:30)
Playing poker for e-points

I personally agree with you Paul :)

The big problem is that I'd directly go to french prison :/ Unfortunately this is not authorized in France (yet - there is some hope but it will take time anyway)

So unless I move to another country this will not happen before a while...


Paul Campanella    (2012-05-15 14:07:37)
Faster Refresh Time

Here is an example of why I consider the 30 second refresh time to be bad...

Example: Pretend someone is playing 10 poker games on FICGS simultaneously.

Having the refresh time take so long is quite annoying due to the fact that nothing appears during the 30 second time interval, but after the 30 seconds are over... the page gets refreshed... then all 10 moves appear at once and it is difficult to manage.

Perhaps if we shorten the time to 15 seconds, it would end up being easier for everyone who is playing multiple games at once due to the fact that they can see their opponents moves as soon as they are made. 10 seconds is obviously too short of an amount of time to consider but I can't understand why the 15 second rule would be a problem for anyone trying to chat because it does not take 15 seconds to type a few words and hit the enter key.

If people still think that 15 seconds is too fast, then how about we make it 20 seconds? That could be an ideal amount of time to consider because it is faster than 15 but slower than 30 seconds.

What does everyone think?


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    (2012-05-19 15:31:54)
Advanced challenges, time out expiry

I think time has come to implement a time out expiry on advanced games challenges.

If an advanced game challenge has not been accepted by someone with 1 hour of its posting, that challenge expires and is automatically removed from the system.

The challenge would then need to be re-issued.

This would help prevent the issue of players accepting challenges many hours after it was posted and then waiting around for a time out.

It would also help to ensure that the challenger was around to accept their own challenge.


Garvin Gray    (2012-05-21 15:45:11)
Second match v Rybka Forum

Neel, Planning is only in its infancy and there are many hurdles to overcome.

So stay tuned.

Some of these hurdles include:

Interest from both sites?
Whether we use Rybka Forum's playing client?
If that will be available to all or just RF members?
What the time control will be?
Will players have to play their games on here as well as RF?
Whether conditional moves will be used?
How many players per team?
Is it possible to use the RF playing client, but have games transmitted live on both sites, so all members of both sites can follow the action as it happens?
Will chat be allowed in the games? This could be a sticking point as the two forums run very differently on this issue.
Who plays for which team?

And the list goes on.


Garvin Gray    (2012-05-27 08:36:57)
Second match v Rybka Forum

It has been confirmed that we can use xfccplay for all the games, if we wish.

Xfccplay is a playing client where players can make their moves and they are transmitted live to the Rybka Forum sub forum where these games will be shown live. Hopefully it will be possible to also show them here live.

To pursue using xfccplay further, I need to know if anyone who is considering playing would be not willing to play if the whole match is held using xfccplay, rather than making moves on here.

I certainly do want the second match to be very different to the first. To start with, that no games end with time outs.

Likely format:

Time control: 30 days initial plus 1 day increment.
Format: Each player plays two games against a single opponent
Number of players for each team: As many players as we can get for both teams
Board Order: By rating for those who have ratings on the site they are playing for. Others can be placed at captain’s discretion.


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    (2012-06-08 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


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-07-28 00:10:21)
FICGS IS BACK !!!!!!!!!

Finally............. Oh I missed it so much, so much.

I'll write the whole story below. I hope it's now all ok, about one hour of moves should be missing, the hour just before the hard drive crash.

Thanks for your feedback and again, my apologies to all for this long, too long, really too long delay........


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-08-18 13:16:50)
FICGS backup is now ok!

Well, simple things are quite complicated sometimes (so many limitations on Linux) but finally the backup [site + database] works fine now...

Now the server can bug, crash, explode, whatever... I can completely reinstall FICGS in a few hours from most situations. There should not be more than 59 minutes of moves lost in the process.

- Complete backup every hour on a distant storage space.
- Complete backup every week on another distant storage space.
- Multiple database backup on the server (case of other problems)
- Moves incrementally sent to my email every 12 hours.

So, definitely the recent break shouldn't happen again... I hope so.


Don Groves    (2012-08-19 09:39:13)
FICGS backup is now ok!

Great news, Thib! You only need the last hour's moves sent to your email, right?


Dmitri Mamrukov    (2012-08-19 23:12:08)
This is Russia :(

EURO: I would like to move from chess to politics. What do you think about the proclamations of Garry Kasparov, do you see the Russian political reality in a similar light?

KRAMNIK: I disagree with him. It seems to me that his political opinions are empty. Garry is too destructive for my liking. According to him, everything in Russia is wrong, Putin did everything wrong. But that is simply not true. I am convinced that if Kasparov wants to be in politics he needs to offer something positive too, something constructive. Even in the field of human rights protection in Russia there are a number of people doing a lot. Apart from criticising, they create something positive too, by helping some people. Garry’s approach to everything is just demagogic and destructive. I disagree with his opinion that the situation in Russia is as critical as he sees it. I go there often, my brother and my parents live there, so I think I have a pretty good insight. If you want to judge the current situation in Russia you must not take single aspects of it out of the general picture. It is the same as judging a position during a chess game – you need to bear in mind an entire chessboard.

Of course Russia is not a democracy on the same level as countries such as Germany or France, but you cannot judge today’s situation without taking in the historical context. Russia had never been a democratic country in the past, so that is why the transition is not easy. Nevertheless, nowadays eighty percent of the Russian population is not forced to fight for their existence, as they had to, some ten, fifteen years ago.

http://www.kramnik.com/eng/interviews/getinterview.aspx?id=178


Dmitri Mamrukov    (2012-08-20 03:15:06)
What happened to Boris Spassky?

There are no *paid brainwashed* liberals. Such agents just consciously do their political business (NGO - non-government organization).

Objectively, *any* info source reflects its master's interests. That's why it is useful to use critical thinking to filter info before accepting it at its face value.

Most people are content to be fed by the MSM (mainstream media). They don't think critically as that would involve too much thought, too much questioning. They would rather have convenient answers, so they can move on and get back to their lives, etc. Sheeple psychology. :)


David Ward    (2012-09-12 17:33:33)
Faster Refresh Time

I get the following report after clicking "No refresh" on the "My games" page, but I continue to get messages that Internet Explorer blocked a popup from www.ficgs.com.

"This page will refresh itself when you have a new move to play, then you'll see a (!) at the beginning of the page title.

If you do not see the clock below, your browser could not support Frames & Javascript or it could be turned off. In this case you will have to refresh the page manually.

This option is currently off.

Possible refresh delays for this session: no refresh, 5 sec, 10 sec, 30 sec. "


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-09-19 18:30:24)
Limit number of poker games

Yes, I'm thinking (not all day long) for years now about a good solution to reduce the poker time control... obviously I did not find something satisfying :(

I know that many members play often one move per day, this is a problem.


Don Groves    (2012-09-20 03:19:26)
Limit number of poker games

When two poker opponents are in far apart time zones, one move a day is about the maximum they can play. I vote for the blinds to increases after 25 moves.

The ratings in one or two games are not going to reflect skill anyway. Playing more games (shorter games) would do as good or better job of rating players.


Don Groves    (2012-09-21 05:06:44)
A radical idea?

Since not all Chess players seem to agree on the best set of "advanced" games, why not allow the players in a game to decide on their own game parameters? If Scott and Alvin want to play a 15 minute game with 5 seconds added per move, let them do that.

Only the ratings of the two players involved are affected, so it seems this idea would not interfere with ratings and could be popular.


Don Groves    (2012-09-23 12:44:57)
Limit number of poker games

My answer is to increase the blinds faster. As Thib says, this reduces the skill effect in games but I think more games played will make up for most of that. Plus there's the fun factor. As you say, those first 50 moves can be boring.

Some players here offset that by going all in often. But that also reduces the skill effect.


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    (2012-10-07 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    (2012-10-11 13:04:50)
for 2013 poker tourneys

Hello Jay,

Good idea, and anyway if we cannot deduct x hours from a clock (a game could be lost this way), maybe we can divide the amount of time on both clocks by 1.5 or 2 every 10 moves...

Maybe we have an idea there!

Let's dig it... Any opinion?


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-10-15 12:58:54)
for 2013 poker tourneys

The idea is to have less time to finish a poker game, particularly when we play many moves a day... But mathematically the 1 move per day problem will probably remain :/

Don is right, the longest poker game so far here is more than 3300 moves (probably more than 500 hands), it can take a while to play it.


Nick Burrows    (2012-11-25 11:50:37)
How do I stop the pop-up message boxes?

Hi, I find these very distracting. I can't see an option to remove them in preferences.
Thanks, Nick.


Don Groves    (2012-11-26 04:39:11)
How do I stop the pop-up message boxes?

If you mean the boxes that ask if you really want to make that move, switch your preference to fast moves.


Nick Burrows    (2012-11-28 19:13:12)
How do I stop the pop-up message boxes?

Well I was not completely removed from society as I had access to a house which was about 200 metres away. It was wonderful to live simply amongst nature, chopping wood & carrying water! Cold in winter once the stove went out, but a wonderful experience...


Wayne Lowrance    (2012-12-05 18:27:37)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

Robert Knighton. You dont understand me. I was saying it is unfair for the two strong player having to compete against a much weaker player. It would have cost him point 4 sure.
BTW I must say. I very much agree with Don Groves opinions he has stated. here. Chess is a very structure event. Touch & move example. Thib's rules are just wrong ! period.I have said with rules in place he has a very difficult task. I said I would support him in his decision. But if it were left up to me. I would simply state, Late and your out ! NO excuses. that is just the way it should be. Sorry if I am offending anyone, it certainly is NOT my intention
Wayne


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


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


Don Groves    (2013-01-04 03:46:21)
winning on time

I believe a game must last for 10 moves to be counted as a win. The quitter does get a loss however. If this is not correct, I'm sure Thibault will let us know ;-)


Frank Goodram    (2013-01-12 11:07:05)
How to amend rating?

If the opponent does not move for time and loses, to me anyway increases elo?


Garvin Gray    (2013-01-12 12:07:48)
How to amend rating?

Radimiro, If the game is longer than 10 moves, then yes you win on time and gain elo points. If the game is less than 10 moves, no points gained.


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    (2013-01-16 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)


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-01-16 02:23:00)
FICGS admin scam me

... continuation


devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] ... but according to FICGS rules & FR laws, that is obvious
(2013-01-16 02:16:55)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] Once again... yes, I can convert epoints...
(2013-01-16 02:16:25)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] condition in your answer since 2010
(2013-01-16 02:15:17)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] I didn't understand you???? is not even one word about your
(2013-01-16 02:14:41)


Horatiu Adrian Petrescu    (2013-01-16 02:29:53)
FICGS admin scam me

P.S why you remove the comment???


Horatiu Adrian Petrescu    (2013-01-16 13:31:54)
FICGS admin scam me

30 emails to me???? When ? Before or now???
You angry because I telling the truth ? The truth is disturbing, right?
I don't know if your site is legit or not with the condition that everybody can play for money and use soft here and not operate only with his brain ,like Garvin Gray which in several moves he defeated me twice.Greedy admin Thibault you must have an security system for those members who want play without machine ,only with their head.


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)


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-01-16 15:39:18)
FICGS admin scam me

That's nonsense Horatiu, since this site authorize computer chess, it is perfectly honest to play with machines, and of course I don't have to implement anything to avoid that...

About your money, you bought Epoints... You cannot ask for money just like this, you have to win silver/gold games to claim money prizes according to terms & conditions. You accepted this when registering.


Continuation of the chat:


devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] you just had to click the link...
(2013-01-16 14:18:23)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] the conditions are in the link
(2013-01-16 14:18:04)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] this is the right email! with correct date
(2013-01-16 14:17:39)


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-01-16 18:18:25)
FICGS admin scam me

About cheating on these websites, quite easy... just use a chess engine, copy its moves from one window/computer to another and do not play the best moves all times... playing the 2nd or 3rd best move should be enough to beat most human players...... and do not win in less than 50 moves. No program can detect it. And almost everyone would be able to do that.


Horatiu Adrian Petrescu    (2013-01-16 18:22:38)
FICGS admin scam me

Yes ,2 computers,but you didn't hear about that security system that can track every your move and can detect if you play with soft or not from another computer.That website ,playe4 using this system....stupido


Dmitriy Malish    (2013-01-16 19:22:36)
Progressive Chess

Progressive chess is a chess variant in which players, rather than just making one move per turn, play progressively longer series of moves. The game starts with White making one move, then Black makes two consecutive moves, White replies with three, Black makes four and so on.
A check must be escaped from on the first move of a series--if this cannot be done, it is checkmate and the game is lost.
En passant captures of pawns are allowed if the pawn in question moved two squares in one move, but no further, at some point during the last turn, but the capture must be made on the first move of a series.
If ten consecutive turns are played with no captures and no pawn moves, then the game is declared a draw unless one of the players can force a checkmate (this is the progressive chess equivalent of the fifty-move rule in orthodox chess).
If at any stage a player has no legal moves but is not in check, the game is a draw by progressive stalemate.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-03-13 13:12:49)
Announcement

Hi all,

The 5th FICGS freestyle tournament will happen on april 6 & 7 (2013) - three rounds each day at 13:00, 15:00, 17:00 server time. The format will be the same (30 minutes + 15 seconds per move) than for the previous edition.

Entry fee : 10 Epoints, prize : 100% Fees + 70 Epoints
Deadline : 2013 april 6 - 12:00 server time

This time, just like other players, IM, SM & GM will have to enter the waiting list by themselves (entry fee : 10 Epoints), but they will recover their Epoints if they play all rounds.

Best regards,
Thibault


Daniel Parmet    (2013-03-13 13:28:44)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

Not true Garvin. It is the same thing. Work will even allow you take half days off - no questions asked. Maybe we should move to 12 hour increments?


Roy Shapland    (2013-03-14 19:47:12)
Accept a draw

Thank you. Click move.


Garvin Gray    (2013-03-19 16:35:20)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

The easiest option is to increase the rapid time control to 40 moves initial and have no vacation.


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.


Garvin Gray    (2013-04-12 19:42:11)
FICGS__CHESS__FREESTYLE_CUP__000005

What I would like to see is that these are regularly held, perhaps one each quarter.

That way there is better promotion, more play and less issues, both in the running of the event and players knowledge of how this event works.

On the structure of the event, I would like to see a 20 second increment, instead of 15.

I found the 15 second increment quite often was just enough time to:

See position
Input into engine
See evals
Input move into game position
Make move on here.

An extra 5 seconds would make a lot of difference.


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.


Wilhelm Schuett    (2013-04-23 17:31:15)
Thematic tournaments?

It doesn't have to be Gambits all the time.
For example less played like in the third move of Ruy Lopez, Old Benoni, Modern Defence, 1.d4 e6 2.c4 with 2. ... Lb4+ or 2. ... b6, 1. ... Sc6, Old Indian, Morra Gambit , Ponziani.


Alvin Alcala    (2013-05-10 12:25:55)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

1. How many man-hours do you spend on your games particularly how many hours on your move? Do you spend countless hours over it?

2. What are the top 3 engines you find useful on your CC games.

Thanks and More power to you!


Eros Riccio    (2013-05-10 16:09:30)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

you know, Thib, I have always wondered why corr. chess is so easy for me. As I said, human chess is a completely different story, I feel like a beginner there, blundering at almost every move. But at corr. chess, with the help of the computer, things become extremely easy. I don't know why not everyone using a computter too is not nearly unbeatable as I am. maybe they use weak engines? Slow processors? Maybe they let their engine analyze the position only for a few minutes? I came to the conclusion that it must be something like that, otherwise everyone would play at GM Level by just analyzing for a decent amount of time with houdini on a fast processor. My conclusion is that I have more success than most other players because they don't take corr. chess too seriously, they probably have some better interests and only take corr. chess as a fun hobby.


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    (2013-05-11 16:56:56)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

Do you ever overrule the engine? ( I mean, have you ever made a move which was considered inferior by the engine. )

Are you willing to make moves suggested by opening books even if there valued less then optimal by the engine?


Eros Riccio    (2013-05-11 17:08:42)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

Garvin,
the speed of the pc is much more important for events with shorter time controls. The shorter the event, the fastest the pc is important. I don't know how short you mean with shorter, if you mean very much shorter, like freestyle games, 60 min + 15 sec, I did great there, while I have never tried time controls like 1 or a few days per move... I don't think I would do bad there too anyway.


Eros Riccio    (2013-05-11 17:32:04)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

Attila,
sometimes it happens that I play a move that is not the first suggestion of the (supposed) best engine. Anyway I usually use more than one engine for analysis and it may happen that they all suggest different best moves, so it's not always easy to say what is a best move, also because even if you analyze with one engine only it may change his best move if you give it more thinking time.
Anyway it happens very rarely that I play a move which is not in the top 3 houdini suggested moves.
As for the second question, yes, I would trust (not always of course) a good opening book, as if the book has a good score with that move it means that it contains games which led to wins. It also depends on the quality of those games, but a good quality book should contain high-level games, so why not trust it?


Garvin Gray    (2013-05-12 01:25:35)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

I was referring to a time control like 30 days initial plus 1 hour per move increment


Eros Riccio    (2013-05-12 01:55:59)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

Ok, I have never played that time control. I think that would be a little too fast for my tastes, as I am used to take some long pauses between the moves quite often.
That's one reason why I have never joined the WBCCC Tournaments on rybka forum, as they had that kind of time control.


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.


Mladen Jankovic    (2013-05-16 08:33:48)
PGN notation for forfeit, loss on time

There is no such notation in the standard. The standard specifies that a checkmate move should end with '#', instead of '+', as is standard here for other reasons. So if someone wins without checkmating it would be easy to understand what hapened.

You have another problem, any draw would, due to the mechanics of the site, be a draw accepted, as the server does not track 3-fold repetition and such (I might be mistaken).

You have another problem, as the moves are contained in a single line, while the standard specifies 255 character maximum (including newline), and recommends 80 character maximum, for compatibility with older software.

While I have not encountered any problems with that, and nobody so far complained, it still is a break from the standard.

The best place to look for how PGN should work is the standard itself: http://www6.chessclub.com/help/PGN-spec


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-05-19 20:59:05)
PGN notation for draw offers

Actually I have some regrets not to have stored all times for moves and so on. Quite too late now, I hope it's not so important at the end.


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    (2013-06-10 06:20:38)
Playing activity top 20 players

Well part of the problem is I don't see where it says I have these "tickets" to move up. I knew of the rule but had no awareness if I had ever actually won one to use.

The other part of the problem is the rating bands. By alternating rating bands between time controls, all the people over 2100 want to play 2100-2300 all the people over 2000 want to play 2000-2200 all the people over 2200 want to play only 2200-2400 or norm events. So effectively instead of 200 point bands you've create ONE HUNDRED point bands. The 2100-2300 band see only those rated 2100-2200.


Attila Ba    (2013-06-11 10:10:18)
Playing activity top 20 players

As to 'create your own site of you are not satisfied' I'm seriously considering setting up a big chess site of my own. I like the idea of engine free chess very much but I can't get a tournament running here for half a year or so.

My site is not fully working as yet but has fragments that work (you can sign up, modify your profile, create challenges, view the board and make moves on it etc.).

Should you have any comments on the design it has a forum.

you can find it here:

baatti.com


Michael Aigner    (2013-06-11 13:25:26)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

In my opinion there is no need to change the rules. As far as I understood some people see the normal use of vacation which is defined by the rules as abuse which in itself is a contradiction. Anybody (could) know the rules before starting a game.

I understand that it is kind of a little disadvantage when some people have to use their vacation for vacation or for emergencies while others use it for analyzing their games but that’s life.´
There are many other factors one could consider as unfair e.g. faster hardware, no family to care of, retiree, students versus people who have to work the whole day which have much more influence then this "abuse" of vacation time.

By the way, I think it is very hard to play “good” correspondence chess (in a complex position) by using just one day per move, so I am not unhappy if my opponent have to take one day of vacation to have the time to decide for a move to make.


Daniel Parmet    (2013-06-15 04:38:44)
Playing activity top 20 players

Typical trash response there Don.

I have *already* moved on to ICCF because it fit MY NEEDS. Did you even read this thread? This thread was something Garvin started to make players more active. I responded as player who chose to become INACTIVE to explain that decision. If this site does not change one bit, then fine by me... I have already discovered a site that fulfills my needs. On the other hand, if this site wants to IMPROVE - I want Thib to know I will come support him.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-21 19:48:27)
Playing activity top 20 players

@ Alvin: you mean Iccf events?! what are Fide rapid events if not games played in less than 1 day?

@ Robert: for 1v1 we have rapid silver tournaments, but there is a stake of 10 epoints (or it would be unrated for obvious reasons).

@ Scott: 10 days + 1 day/move does not seem very different from 30 days + 1 day/move, I doubt it can bring more players. Standard time control remain even more popular here. On large cash prizes, I agree for sure :) ...


Robert Knighton    (2013-06-24 14:59:21)
Playing activity top 20 players

20 days removed is a lot of time.

A tournament class which disallows vacation time would in itself be interesting.

combining the two would make for a very different tournament class.


Garvin Gray    (2013-07-01 13:35:39)
Wch cycles possible changes?

I guess no one else wants any changes.

Oh well I am proposing a small change in regards to the TER rule.

As it stands=

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.

I would like to see these reversed, so it is the rating at the end of the event that decides who goes through. The logic of this is based on the theory being used. The theory is that the reason for highest rating moves forward is that it helps to ensure that the next group is as strong as possible. Well surely then that the most current information is the best guide to strength of play, so in my opinion the TER criteria should change to reflect this.

So the new rule would read:

The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In the case of equality, the player with the highest rating when the next stage begins will be qualify. Should their ratings be equal, then the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage.


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...


Ilmars Cirulis    (2013-07-31 14:31:28)
Thematic tournaments?

<< Sorry Dann, I tried to include this FEN in a PGN in the discussion but it doesn't work well :/ >> (Thibault)

I included it as PGN. At first try I started it from FEN (after 5th move), but then I thought that all moves from start position are better.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-08-27 12:59:26)
New FICGS software?

What new moving system are you talking about, Sam? Maybe you tried the "fast moves" interface!?


Garvin Gray    (2013-08-31 09:27:36)
New my games feature requested

I would like to see an additional heading item added to the my games page.

Currently I have a heap of games going. Some of them are class time control and some are rapid time control.

I think it would improve the site and make 'things' much easier if in the space between each tournament games, a new heading was added telling you either:

1) The actual name of the tournament those particular games belong to
or
2) Just a listing of class or rapid.

Because currently a game says 10 days remaining, but 10 days and 8 moves to the time control in a class event is different to having 10 days remaining in a rapid. This would then make it easier to prioritise games.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-09-04 00:46:10)
Withdraw from a waiting list?

Hello Joerg,

I can do it manually... but not systematically.

I removed your name from the list!


Paul Campanella    (2013-09-15 13:08:39)
Active players list

How about the player gets removed from the active list if they do not play a game within a period of 3 months?


Garvin Gray    (2013-09-20 09:23:43)
Active players list

Paul, an issue with is, how do you define playing a game? Do you mean having a game that has finished, just starting, or have made a move?

I think a person should have games in progress and be making moves to be considered active.

A person can log into a site (any site) but not actually be active. They are called lurkers.


Wayne Lowrance    (2013-09-25 07:18:15)
My tournament activity

PS please remove me from all aactivity. TKU Wayne


Paul Campanella    (2013-10-01 00:13:12)
Poker for e-points?

It would also make the poker games more interesting because it would most likely make people think twice before making crazy and/or foolish moves in the game.


Sebastian Boehme    (2013-10-06 11:54:52)
Tablebases and no-engines tournaments

Engines do calculate moves within a game, tablebases already have these moves available, but where calculated before by some super computers.
In my understanding tablebases should be forbidden in non-engine chess then too.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-10-08 11:57:05)
Kasparov candidate for FIDE president

Is Kasparov back in the chess world?

"Six winning moves" is his program and obviously money is the key.

Do you think he has a chance to unseat 18-year incumbent Kirsan Ilyumzhinov in this 2014 election?

http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4011444/kasparov-for-president--2014-fide-campaign-081013.aspx


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    (2013-10-20 12:50:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Was attempting to find the thread on allowing players to enter the next section up by winning the lower section.

Time for a review of this practice I think now that it has been going for a year or so.

I think it has had some benefits, I certainly have benefited from it ie have helped moved me up the rating list faster than otherwise would have occurred, I have noticed a couple of large issues.

In some groups, the waiting lists are taking much longer to form when two players from a lower rating group have entered early.

For instance a 2300+ group can be showing players with ratings of 2150 or so. This is possible when two players buy their ticket after winning a lower division and then their rating drops. This situation has occurred.

From then on for that group to form, it requires another 5 2300 players to join the group. That is a long and tedious process.

I think the rules on the upgrade ticket process need to be re-written to as follows:

A player, who has won the lower division, can only use the higher division ticket, once five or more places have been filled in that group.

The purpose of this rule change should hopefully show to keep 'strong' players that if they get in quick they can get a group going full of players of the ratings they want.

The market can then choose by entering quickly and watching the rating lists.

With the current situation of difficulty getting divisions started due to the number of wch groups started at the same time, some changes are required.

I think this rule is one area that needs to be reviewed urgently.


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    (2013-12-22 09:17:43)
Withdrawal from all standard time events

I thought I would bring this topic up to let everyone know.

After a few years here, I have decided that it is almost certain that I will no longer be entering standard time control events on this site until the time control changes.

I find that most players in that time control just waste the time provided and are able to play faster, but choose to run their time down, and then make 8 moves in 10 days, then wait another 30 days before making another 8 moves in 10 days, or similar behaviour.

Sorry Thibault, but I have better things to do in my life than have my life wasted like this.

If you want me to return to standard time control events, change the time control.

This means I will only be playing in rapid time control events, which is a much better time control.


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.


Josef Riha    (2013-12-24 09:38:06)
Withdrawal from all standard time events

Hello Garvin, in unrated tournaments the same problem exists.

But another one is this: After a few moves they wait until timeout or resign also in a winning position. I found this very unrespectful and boring.

I can name this persons too.


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 22:22:27)
FICGS World Chess Championship results

Hi Thib

What I did was go into one of the 1st round group and look at the date the first game started. Prompted by your question I have checked and I can see that this is not quite right as some games started sooner - perhaps the date on the games is when the 1st move is played rather than when the game is created.

I will go through more 1st round games and make the date more accurate and update the document tomorrow (or perhaps you have an easier way or getting the dates?)


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.


Don Groves    (2014-01-24 03:51:05)
Withdrawal from all standard time events

IMHO, the answer to this problem is to not allow any player to enter a new tournament if that player still has more than X ongoing tournaments. The determination of X remains to be resolved. It needs to be low enough to eliminate players from entering a new tournament and then not making any moves until their clock runs low. This is completely unfair to the other players!


Garvin Gray    (2014-01-24 06:26:31)
Withdrawal from all standard time events

Don: From my experience I am not sure the issue discussed in this thread really comes from game overload, as in having committed to too many games.

In fact on this site it would be difficult to commit to too many games :o.

Of course if a person has committed themselves to too many games across a number of sites, nothing can be done about that on here with a number cap.

So for this site alone, a game cap I don't think is required. The issue is the time control.

A curiosity- in one of the games to which I am complaining about, where I believe my opponent is 'gaming' the time control, the opponent has just past the time control, but now in a curiosity of the time control, it shows that I have 57 days for 10 moves and my opponent 43 days for 10 moves.

So in spite of having taken about a less 80 less days during the whole game, for this time I receive no credit for this due to the 59 day limit.

Seems like there really is no benefit to getting on with your games on here and the site administrator wants to endorse this behaviour. Certainty does not want to put anything in place to stop it.


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2014-01-24 15:33:08)
Withdrawal from all standard time events

Garvin the time control here is even faster than in ICCF (50 days for 10 moves) so the problem is not the t/c but the players abusing it, as you have stated. Why you want to penalize those who find satisfactory the system for the culprit of some rotten fruits?


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-02-08 16:11:32)
Standard time control abusers

Changing the time control will not avoid the ways to abuse it... And we can always complexify rules (e.g. vacation) but it will always be possible to use it to gain time on difficult moves. All this reminds me the way we are governed in France, with the well known no-results...

Finally, I must say that you often had very good ideas for this site (even if many cannot be used yet because we have no players enough) but I think that your view on time controls is really subjective, probably most of us are really ok with the current rules and we can observe alternatives (iccf, wbccc, other sites).


George Clement    (2014-02-10 20:26:55)
Standard time control abusers

Thib, I for one agree with Garvin. Currently I believe the reason that no new m or sm tours have started in months is because of the time control abuse. There is no way it should take a modern computer and analyst 30 days to come up with 10 moves. They wait 30 days play 10 fast moves and are gone for 30 days again. It's one of the main reason play on this site is going down. n'est ce pas?


George Clement    (2014-02-10 20:37:01)
Withdrawal from all standard time events

I agree with Garvin that this would be a great standard time control.

"
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. "

Why don't we try it? Thib what say you?


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.


Scott Nichols    (2014-02-15 15:42:10)
Standard time control abusers

I share your sentiments Garvin. I have, and still am playing many of these guys. It seems that they want to win points by extending the game as long as possible and hope to win by the other player either quits, gives gup chess, or dies. Another problem is players who reach a dead lost position, even one move before mate and then just quit moving altogether.


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.


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.


Josef Riha    (2014-03-02 10:21:48)
Standard time control abusers

As I said earlier in this thread, look at chesshere.com. There are no tournament classes here.

You have three possibilities to play a game in CC:

1.) Start your own game and decide the time control and elo-range of your opponent or enter a game at the game list.

2.) If you are a teammember the teamcaptain assigns an opponent to you.

3.) You can apply a Championship with different elo-classes.

In all cases the time control range is mostly between 3 or 7 days. No extra days are added after a move.

If an opponent ran out of time you can remain your opponent to do a move or finish the game immediately. After each game your elopoints are updated and you can see your success (or failure).


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-03-03 11:22:35)
Class A, class M & class SM closed

Hello all,

Waiting lists for chess class A, class M & class SM tournaments are temporarily closed as an experiment, following the discussion in the thread:

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=11507


My sincere apologies to players who entered it already, but anyway you all know that class & rapid tournaments are difficult to start for 2 years now, so we're working on different ways to improve the situation.

Of course, you can send me an email if you want to remove your name from these waiting lists.


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 22:26:32)
Standard time control abusers

I have long ago stated my opinion that, if a player cannot make one move per week (or maybe 10 days) in each game they are playing, then that person is playing too many games. I have come up against the same problems Garvin is talking about many times and invariably players who do this are playing 30 or more games at the same time. My solution is to restrict the number of tournaments a player can enter. No player can enter a new tournament if he/she has more than two tournaments already running.


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.


Timofey Denisov    (2014-03-11 03:41:27)
Standard time control abusers

Don Groves, I have reason: "Finalgening" endgames, for sample. It takes very much time :( And this process makes engine very slow, so if I finalgening endgame in one game, I not make moves in all games...


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).


Timofey Denisov    (2014-03-15 18:15:43)
Standard time control abusers

If player not make move after 20 days (vacation days not counting in these 20), then his clock will run 2x times faster until he will make move. After he make move, clock will work as usual.


Garvin Gray    (2014-03-16 08:39:10)
Standard time control abusers

So what prevents a player doing these two measures to get around the rule:

1) Putting themselves on one day vacation as allowed on here.
2) Making one move after 19 days, and then sitting on the position again till day 35.

Game would just advance one move.


Timofey Denisov    (2014-03-16 11:41:12)
Standard time control abusers

1) not working. Because vacation days just skipping in count, so clock will gain double speed in 21th day (if player took 1-day vacation).

2) Yes... maybe do more? Maybe decline 50-move rule on 6- or even 7- pieces in "normal chess"? (because exist tablebases for these endgames, and players just do moves from database), and next is do adjudgement in 6- pieces positions? Result can be gained from chessok.com, for sample. Or if 7-pieces position you can gain result from latest version Aquarium (licensed, pirated copy can't access to tablebases).


Michael Sayers    (2014-04-19 17:05:02)
remove from non-started tournaments

Is it possible for a player to have himself removed from the waiting list of tournaments which have not begun if he might not be able to complete the obligations and if he doesn't make this mistake again?

(specifically

FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_B__000205,

FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_C__000210,

FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_B__000217,

FICGS__CHESS__NO_ENGINES_TOURNAMENT__000071,

and

FICGS__CHESS__UNRATED_TOURNAMENT__000037

- these are many!!!).

Much appreciated if possible :)


Michael S.


Michael Sayers    (2014-04-19 17:05:55)
remove from non-started tournaments

I am hoping to have myself removed from those lists, with apologies for having entered too many!

Michael S.


Michael Sayers    (2014-04-19 20:40:44)
Standard time control abusers

I want to offer a general apology to my opponents here re. my late start in deployment of moves by maybe 20 days in some games. Since then, I have moved promptly (within the day) of each move received.

This isn't the only venue where I play chess and I was a bit overwhelmed. Then I decided I had an obligation toward my fellow players to follow through reliably with the games.

As to players taking the maximum possible number of days to complete a game, in any system there are unreliable persons, abusers, et c., and when the rules become so numerous and strict as to prevent this then there is no remedy when a decent person needs a little flexibility - intense discomfort caused by some is replaced by slight and persistent discomfort for everybody, and probably no one wants that scenario.


Michael S.


Michael Sayers    (2014-04-19 20:45:06)
remove from non-started tournaments

If the games in one or more, or even all the tournaments, initiated before I can be removed this is fine, but hopefully I can be removed prior to the start of the tournaments.

Michael S.


Michael Sayers    (2014-04-20 09:23:00)
remove from non-started tournaments

A previous post on the subject mentioned to email to the site director about removals. Maybe someone here knows where to locate the email address? I tried and failed to locate it.

Michael S.


Michael Sayers    (2014-04-20 16:30:34)
remove from non-started tournaments

I found the email and sent the missive.

Wishing everyone here a happy holiday weekend!


Michael S.


Garvin Gray    (2014-04-21 04:18:03)
Standard time control abusers

Hello Michael,

Players starting games 'late' is not unusual. I think we have all done it through a combination of factors.

The issue that has been discussed here does not seem to be something that you are even close to doing, which is in the standard time control, wait until your clock gets down to 5 days, then make 10 moves to make the time control, then wait another 35 days and then make another 10 moves and keep repeating this behaviour.


Garvin Gray    (2014-04-21 04:23:35)
Reduction in max days available? (move)

Currently ficgs has a rule that states: 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.

I think that 60 days is way too long a time period as a maximum limit and would propose that this be halved to 30 days.

This means a player has to play one move in each of their games every 30 days. This does not seem anywhere near onerous to me.


Michael Sayers    (2014-04-21 09:41:12)
Standard time control abusers

Hi Garvin,

Then maybe the solution is reduced maximum time on the clock? "Rapid" could be 10 days +1 day per move, 10 days maximum time available, or there could be no set maximum time, e.g. "rapid" requires a move in 24 hours or forfeit, "standard" requires a move in 72 hours or forfeit. What will happen though is a replacement of some players who always take the maximum time available and those few persons inducing most of the annoyance here (Pareto's principle) - this will be replaced with some players doing a tremendous amount of forfeits.

I'm not sure which is preferred (I don't know which I would prefer to encounter!).



M.


George Clement    (2014-04-21 17:30:07)
Reduction in max days available? (move)

I'll go along with that. Even better would be 20 days!


Timofey Denisov    (2014-04-21 18:33:54)
Reduction in max days available? (move)

40 days, same as in ICCF. 20 days too little if I want finalgening position.


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.


Michael Sayers    (2014-04-21 18:45:39)
Standard time control abusers

Hi Timofey,

These are just ideas off the top of my head. I don't know what a solution would be to the issues mentioned in the thread. FYI, I don't work for ficgs and am just a fellow member commenting on things :)

Real cc needs three days per move + no big delays except in rare instances (and maybe a courteous message would help, such as "I hope you don't mind but I need a few more days here to figure out what to do", et c.). Courtsey and sincere communication make a lot of things much smoother!


All The Best,
Michael


Garvin Gray    (2014-04-22 07:19:49)
Reduction in max days available? (move)

Timofey: Is there a reason why you would choose 40 days instead of 30 days other than- that is how iccf does it?

The rapid time control is the main time control on here and it is 30 days, so that should be the maximum number of days with no move.


Timofey Denisov    (2014-04-22 08:41:34)
Reduction in max days available? (move)

Finalgening position takes many time... maybe after 20 days doubles clock, same as in ICCF. But time forfeit fixes only after 40 days without move, not 30.


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2014-04-22 18:44:31)
Reduction in max days available? (move)

Garvin, what happens if I want to take a 30 day vacation period? Do I lose the game?


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-04-23 00:10:17)
Reduction in max days available? (move)

Tano-Urayoán is right, changing this limit means changing many things here, while bringing more stress to many players (that I wanted to avoid with this rule)... btw this will not solve the DMD problem.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-04-23 00:19:10)
Standard time control abusers

A problem with starting with only 10 days is players who may start a new tournament late.

Garvin, I must say I sometimes play this way myself when I have few time during a few weeks... I play easiest moves while delaying hard ones, then I concentrate on these difficult games during a short period and play several moves... Everyone may have his reasons.


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.


David Fierry Fraillon    (2014-04-23 09:34:42)
Standard time control abusers

Just to precise my point :

- Evoluting rules is a good thing and the fact in implies evoluting cheats is also a good thing ( :-) )
- Allowing one day vacation should be authorized vhen too many moves to play

--> If there is a proof (IP connection or date when vacation are taken in my ''6 players case'') we must consider that we are not in a possible case of correspondance chess.
I am sure it does not happen that often.


Michael Sayers    (2014-04-23 09:37:40)
Standard time control abusers

I'm not defending the 29 day delay yet the move every two days isn't abnormal for cc chess. M.S.


David Fierry Fraillon    (2014-04-23 13:20:16)
Standard time control abusers

okidoki ...
Reasons for ban can be fuzzy i do agree, and i think not in a ''fair play spirit''.
I should have spoken about withdrawal or something else ... whatever i am intersting in playing chess and i always intend to play my Pech's game normally.
It can even be fun to play like that : the challenge is to win by time !!! :-)

In fact i wanted to pointed out that there is maybe different ways than changing rules to avoid time abusers. It's been a long time that i did not seriously play chess, and i am not an expert in cc ... but i am thinking that the actual time rules (combined to the moves interface) are simply really good ...
As a server manager you can find out material evidence of time abusing ( even if it is not as simple as i say ) and a cheater will always find a way to cheat on new rules.


Garvin Gray    (2014-04-23 15:28:34)
Reduction in max days available? (move)

This is not an attempt to solve the DMD issue, but was just a realisation looking through the rules and my games that 60 days is way too long.

Since 30 days seems to be too short for the rest of the responders, I will agree to 40 if that helps get the number of days shortened.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-04-27 19:07:11)
remove from non-started tournaments

Yes, you found the right way :)

As a reminder, the email is : info [arobase] ficgs [dot] com


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-04-27 19:13:49)
Reduction in max days available? (move)

If this is not about the DMD issue, why to increase the level of stress of all players and the number of time forfeits?! If one player from time to time has to play his move on the 39st day instead of the 59st one, he'll probably have some reasons to take the difference for his next move. There was very few (probably a few ones but I can't remember any) complaints on this point during these last... 8 years (damn, already!)


Garvin Gray    (2014-04-29 09:28:37)
Reduction in max days available? (move)

Just before anyone decides to say that I am complaining, or criticising Thibault too much. Or that I am dominating the issue too much (just anticipating some of the comebacks now :) )

I have given others a chance to either agree or disagree with either Thibault or myself, or even to give a different pov/analysis.

I do have a reply to Thibault's reply, but I do feel it is only proper to wait till others have had a decent chance to reply, lest I be accused like I was in another thread of attempting to abuse and dominate the site admin to force my own opinion.


Garvin Gray    (2014-04-29 09:35:01)
Reduction in max days available? (move)

Thib, each sport, should review its rules and conducts every once in a while to see if it is operating to best of its ability for the maximum enjoyment of the membership.

When looking through the rules and thinking about some of the issues here, I noticed that we do have the 60 day maximum play rule, which seems extra-ordinarily long.

That type of time (2 months) is a throwback to the days of email or even postal play, and in my opinion, is way to long for acceptable server play.

I still believe 30 days is the right time frame, but others have proposed 40 and so I am happy to abide by the majority if it gets the time shortened.

What I am concerned about and possibly trying to achieve a little bit, is that it is not acceptable for players to allow their games just to remain in limbo for an unlimited amount of time.

If a person can not make one move in each of their games on this site in 40 days, then perhaps they should be reviewing their participation. It is not fair on their opponents who have to wait around for them and it is not good for the site as a whole which needs games finishing for accurate and reliable ratings.


Costantino Proietti    (2014-05-07 11:07:59)
Reduction in max days available? (move)

I agree with 30 days for any move time limit.
When I played postal chess in ASIGC I was addicted waiting my opponents moves so every day I was looking for new letters. I think the stressed player is that player as kind of me that want to carry on a game without waste of time, not the player that ignores a game as the rules allow this behaviour.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-05-13 22:43:02)
Reduction in max days available? (move)

In my opinion this time limit by move does not really impact the duration of the game, I really don't see any objective (while I understand subjective ones, of course) reason why it should be reduced. Anyway, as I said before, the whole balance of the rules here -particularly vacation- depend on this one so the whole thing should be rethinked.


Garvin Gray    (2014-07-05 04:33:02)
Call referee button, response time

This comes from the chat bar.

Currently a player has thirty days to make a move when their opponent has used the call referee button.

An opponent will usually only hit the button in situations of forced mate (DMD) and are seeking that the game be adjudicated in their favour.

I stated that the time period is too long.

Thibault responded that not all players play at the same rhythm.

This is irrelevant in my opinion. The issue is quite simple. One player in the game has hit the call referee button.

In these situations, the rules can quite easily be changed to state that after the call referee button has been hit and the other player contacted, the other player has a maximum seven days to make a move.


Garvin Gray    (2014-07-08 17:04:32)
FICGS WCh results summary updated

Thib, I know you are going to defend the status quo on everything. That is what you do. You do it on everything, so I have pretty much lost interest in trying to change or improve things around here.

The site with either live or die as is. I am finishing up my games and then seeing what happens. My participation is coming to an end. I am finding it has stagnated overall in terms of site progression, ideas and overall administration.

It has become stale for ideas and the format is dead. Time to move on me thinks.


Nick Burrows    (2014-08-25 13:11:47)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

Here is a heads up, so you can avoid the same mistake I made.
I saw there was an available "gold" chess match against a player I thought I could beat, so I bought the required e-points and began the match. My opponent then played no moves and lost on time. I asked to cash-out my winnings. Thibault pointed out a rule in the small print that allows himself to claim the money that I had won.

I then asked for a refund of my money. Thibault refuses, because he is greedy and wants to earn 200 Euros for doing F*ck all. Now my money is trapped inside Ficgs.

*Buyer beware*


Garvin Gray    (2014-08-28 12:39:55)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

So Nick, just to clarify what happened if this two game match:

Player A (opponent) enters Gold Waiting List

Player B (Yourself) joins Gold Waiting List sometime later.

The two games start.

Both games time out with no moves being made in either game and you never heard anything from Player A.

Is that correct?

I do have an opinion, or a couple of opinion on what I think should occur here, but it is dependant on the timeline of events. So I want to get them in the right order before stating my opinion.


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.


Nick Burrows    (2014-08-31 14:40:39)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

If the conditions that FICGS operates under were explicit, why would any player ever buy e-points?
Pay 100 euros for a match that you may get to play after a long wait of many months. If you get an opponent, but he doesn't play moves; Ficgs keeps his 100 Euros. At no time can the e-points you bought be converted to cash unless you enter the above process, and win, when Ficgs will take 25% of your winnings.

Like a bad joke isn't it!

Perhaps a better business model would be one that gave attractive and fair conditions to the players; so that rather than stripping bare every victim you trick into the system, you have take less money from each player but with many, many more participants?


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.


Nick Burrows    (2014-09-08 23:17:04)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

Accepting a challenge just took 60 days with no moves. I will probably have to wait 3 months; just to wait for a player I can't beat accept the challenge.


Peter W. Anderson    (2014-09-22 18:12:09)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?

I noticed that in one of the Big Chess world champs there was a game that was 280 moves long. I was wondering if this was the longest. Does anyone know of any longer ones?


Garvin Gray    (2014-11-01 22:51:23)
July 1 2014 Fide laws of chess

There was no context other than a very simple request. With the new rules now in operation, I was asking where do we find a copy or further information on what changes have taken place for this event that flow on from the changes to the laws.

The areas I was mainly concerned with are in relation to:

5 consecutive repetition of moves and 75 moves without a pawn move or capture. The arbiter can now step and force the draw, there does not need to be a player claim.

So will the server be updated to match this? There are quite a few other changes as well where current server practices do not match the new rules.

But as I said, it is your responsibility to make sure that the competition complies with the new rules if you advertise that your tournament follows the fide laws of chess where possible.

The reason for my stance is a very simple one. Over the years, on almost every single occassion, when I have made suggestions or recommendations to you, you have gone in the opposite direction in pretty much 100 percent of cases. Or even when you have claimed to 'agree' with my recommendation, you have then given the trial period such a short time to make it practically worthless.

The last saga in relation with Nick Burrows said to me that, except for the wch, I will no longer be playing on this site.

I can tell you directly, your handling of that issue lost you a long time member.

On the format of the wch, if I actually thought this format was fair and even gave me a shot of winning it, rather than being so heavily biased in favour of Eros Riccio winning it every time, to the point of being fixed, then I would use that as sole motivation to win it.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-11-02 14:19:06)
July 1 2014 Fide laws of chess

About repetition and number of moves without a pawn move or capture, FICGS rules already specify that it does not apply here so there is no change to make.

The rest of your message explains the context I was talking about. But we don't have to agree on anything: As I explained when FICGS started and many times after that, I wanted to make it (particularly the championship cycle) different from what already exists (and closer to previous FIDE cycle). Obviously, you prefer the other way, that's not a big deal, and there is ICCF or LSS. I would have been ok to make a cup cycle if we had players enough but that's definitely not the case. What to add? There are many reasons why FICGS has quite few members (real names to start...) but there are well known advantages to this. Otherwise there are chess.com, gameknot, so many sites full of players. Finally, complaining players are probably the most important ones here because they constantly bring ideas. There was many many improvements in the first years and it did not go against the coherence of the site. Your cup cycle idea does not even go against the coherence of the original idea of the site, only the context is wrong here. Changing the WCH cycle for a ICCF-like one would be the worst thing to do in this point of view. But that's only a point of view.


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.


Garvin Gray    (2015-01-11 05:13:18)
Class GM 3 and Rapid SM 12 entry rules

You can move Herbert Kruse down to his correct division since Class GM 3 is not open at this stage.

He would then be in his correct division and it would be the highest division available at this stage.


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-01-11 20:49:12)
Class GM 3 and Rapid SM 12 entry rules

I can do this, but should I move anyone from any rating list to another for any reason? I never did until now (as far as I remember), so I prefer not to. Herbert can enter any other rating list if he wishes.


Angus James    (2015-05-01 14:38:48)
Problems with FICGS automated email?

My opponent made a move on 27.04.15 but I didn't receive an automated email telling me until 30.04.15, 3 days later. Has anyone else experienced any issues with delayed FICGS automated notifications recently? Thanks


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-05-04 23:59:05)
Thematic tournaments?

New thematic tournament: Noteboom variation (after move 4).


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-07-05 14:22:20)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Thanks for the article Alvin, I read it entirely. My feeling is still about the same than Pablo's: This is deeply changing the game. Doesn't it mean restarting from zero while at the end (which may be not so far), the same problem will appear again... maybe slightly weaker, but still?

On the other hand, I concede that I made a (less) deep change in the rules when I started FICGS, by not adopting the 50 moves rule, so I'm still hesitating.

My position would be first to wait and see what ICCF will decide on this point, meanwhile I'll try to have more opinions here on this.


Pablo Schmid    (2015-07-06 00:03:04)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

If we think about the stalemate logic, 2 knight vs 1 knight would be a draw by repetition or move limit if there is no stalemate or knight exchange. But can one bishop or one knight + king force a stalemate vs king alone? Anyway this is not chess anymore, many endings would be artificially become lost, for example king vs king + pawn, pawn a c f h vs queen, and many 1 piece vs 1 piece + pawn.


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 ˝–˝
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


Jan Ohlin    (2015-07-10 20:47:49)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

But white can´t find the winning plan / move and yet rewarded with an extra score. Meanwhile Black defends quite well but get no additional bonus for his skills. If we compare with football, then Italy had hardly been able to become world champions, just as Tigran Petrosjan never would have been in chess.


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


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.


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.


Scott Nichols    (2015-10-19 21:03:30)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

10 days plus one day per move is my preferred time control.


Jose Carrizo    (2015-10-20 01:45:23)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Very interesting proposal! 32 games = lots of fun. And 30 days plus 3 days per move seems reasonable.


Clodomiro Ortiz    (2015-10-21 09:47:50)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I agree with the ten days+one day per move format,but if considered too rapid i suggest a 20 days+one day per move time control..as you know, several players tend to extent games almost endlessly when fall into unfavorable positions,,


Jan Ohlin    (2015-10-23 12:09:23)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Should there be any sense of self-torture like this should it be ten days+one day per move format which makes it difficult for people to use computers in full. I hope...


Timofey Denisov    (2015-10-23 12:22:09)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

10 days start + 3 days for move, I think :)


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.


Herbert Kruse    (2015-11-15 19:43:01)
repetition wrong in ficgs

i just had a game drawn, but it was wrong, because only 2 times the same side was on the move

i am angry!


Herbert Kruse    (2015-11-15 19:53:42)
repetition wrong in ficgs

wikipedia

the threefold repetition rule (also known as repetition of position) states that a player can claim a draw if the same position occurs three times, or will occur after their next move, with the same player to move.


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.


Firhan Firhansyah    (2015-11-19 01:02:25)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I like a tournament with short time control about 1 - 3 days per move. And i more like with big prizes


Herbert Kruse    (2015-12-14 10:04:54)
repetition wrong in ficgs

ok, i will test it now, i make a move and have 3 times the same position, but antonov has to move now, before i was my turn 2 times


Dann Corbit    (2016-01-07 22:20:18)
Thematic tournaments?

May as well advance one full move to get variety. Everyone will respond:
3. .. Nf6
followed by:
4. Bb2

That is quite an interesting opening and much more rarely played than the standard
1. b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 e3 d5


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.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2016-01-20 23:30:37)
Emails from FICGS

Answers in forums and game results. (I have unsubscribe from new moves in games.)


Garvin Gray    (2016-01-23 23:37:06)
Emails from FICGS

I think I might have not received last couple of emails about moves from opponents


Garvin Gray    (2016-01-26 23:31:39)
Emails from FICGS

Just got an email for a move.


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-01-27 00:38:13)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Ok, I agree with that.

Here is a first try for FICGS cup rules:

"FICGS world cup championship is a multi stages tournament. All players who entered the waiting list are involved in single round-robin tournaments (2 stages or more will probably be necessary). All games during the whole cycle are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. As a reminder, the use of chess engines (Stockfish, Houdini, Rybka...) is allowed and encouraged in cup tournaments. Norms are possible according to FICGS general rules.

Round-robin tournaments are groups of 5 to 33 players (most probably 7 to 13). The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In case of equality, the player with most wins (and if necessary the player with the lowest tournament entry rating, then the lowest current rating) among the best scores, is declared winner and qualified for the next stage if any. Groups are built grading all players by rating and distributing them to obtain similar elo averages. There will be no replacements in these tournaments.

In the case of a withdrawal, the games won't be rated if a player warns the referee before the tournament starts and at most 15 days after a new stage started but the first one."


Anything to add?


Garvin Gray    (2016-01-27 03:38:32)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I think I have a different view on a couple of points, based in part in relation to the feedback I read to comments about TER.

Also, it comes from how I view the structure of the first stage, which is only a few groups and large numbers in each group ie 6 groups of 11 players, rather than 11 groups of 6 players.
========================================

FICGS world cup championship is a two stages tournament. All players who entered the waiting list are involved in single round-robin tournaments.

All games during the whole cycle are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. As a reminder, the use of chess engines (Stockfish, Houdini, Rybka...) is allowed and encouraged in cup tournaments.
Norms are possible according to FICGS general rules.

Round-robin tournaments are groups of 5 to 33 players (most probably 7 to 13). The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. If there is a tie for first place in a group, each player advances to the second stage.
Groups are built grading all players by rating and distributing them to obtain similar elo averages. There will be no replacements in these tournaments.

=======================================

Effects- with only a small number of groups, and ties for first progressing, it is possible the second stage final could have 7,8,9 or 13 players. That will be determined.

But what I see is the main factor is that with large groups and ties going through, is all the players know they have to make a decent score to advance from the start. A good TER will not get the job done.

Also, if the scores at the top of a group are close, there is more incentive for players to attempt to get a score from their games as being the only one to advance knocks out everyone else, without any complaints about TER rules.

An entry limit will need to be put on when the final stage is double round robin. If there are six qualifiers to the final stage, then it should be DRR. 7 players in the final would make 12 games. Is that too much?


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.


George Jempty    (2016-02-12 06:14:07)
Stockfish 7, Komodo 9.2 or 9.3

I use Komodo 9.3 until I get to an ending, then I switch to Stockfish7. Don't know about the others, the only other I would consider is Houdini4, though probably not for correspondence but rather "quick" (30 seconds/move) analysis of complete games, as its supposed to be particularly good at blitz and therefore quickly finding tactics


George Jempty    (2016-02-12 13:12:38)
Thematic tournaments?

Actually Anand was White in that O'Kelly game -- Morozevich was Black. And anyway it transposed into a Paulsen by move 6.


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.


Scott Nichols    (2016-02-26 23:26:02)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

If the match wasn't played and he wants a refund, he should get a refund. Sometimes the tournaments take a long time to start so there should be a "withdraw" button to all events. Sometimes a person's situation changes and he can't play, so he should be able to withdraw instead of being paired and not be able to play any moves. This is bad for both players.


Garvin Gray    (2016-04-01 01:14:32)
Get rid of the new 'advert' button

There has been a new button appear just below the game board, offering suggestions like- would you like to play GM Riccio? Take Back?

I want this removed, or the option to be able to remove it. It is a distraction to the game board, and also the idea that now take backs are allowed is not on.

Get rid of it.


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


David Fierry Fraillon    (2016-05-11 21:46:12)
Bugs after the server crash

Tournament FICGS_CLASSE_A_000170
- i 'm also finding that strange 7 days increment ina ally my games, for both player

The good news :
-that over day increment seems to be a constant
-no moves lost
-As you said the more than 100 days bug does not exist after playing one move

i played one move : it looks to be a good move :-)


Ilmars Cirulis    (2016-05-27 13:24:37)
Random position from Traxler with Bxf7+

Black had to "cooperate": a non-optimal 11th move (probably mistake) and maybe few others too to reach this position.

But anything else is real. :P


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-05-28 00:16:29)
Bugs after the server crash

No, everyone got 7 extra days and players expected to move got 4 more days... so this is possible if you played your move yesterday.


George Jempty    (2016-09-09 17:56:01)
Player of the Year

The game I am the most proud of the past 12 months is http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=89124 a draw against Ortiz in the first tournament mentioned above. I got a poor position with a poor opening and around move 30 was down around 0.6 to 0.7.

I took all 45 days of my vacation before December 31st and devoted almost all my analysis to this one game, with a new 8-core, 32 GB RAM machine, as well as buying Komodo 9.3 (I'm now up to 10.1). Ortiz did not play so accurately and by move 45 the engine evaluated me as completely even in a few lines but they were complicated and I was much lower on time than my opponent.

However I found a forcing line of about a dozen moves that the engine thought was inferior, but I knew was a dead drawn ending: R+2P vs. R+3P all on the same side of the board, with me also having a sufficiently active rook. So I went for this simpler solution which also let me gain time on the clock as I'd analyzed everything out beforehand. Finally after about a dozen moves in the ending Ortiz offered the draw.


George Jempty    (2016-09-13 14:41:12)
Missing chat

I once accidentally deleted a comment the first time ever I clicked on the triangle -- I did not realize the purpose was to delete. Rather I thought it would "expand" a chat topic. This was probably close to a year ago. In the meantime yes I primarily delete my own comments. However recently Duenas decided to post comments about an ongoing game of his with Cirulis, which to me just seems inappropriate for chat as there is a message box for each move of a game, as well as private messages. Those comments bumped a bunch of other comments possibly relevant to the whole FICGS community off the front page, so I deleted them.

I'm sorry if you Mr. Brodie if you think this makes me a cretin, but I'm just trying to keep the chat relevant to *everybody* on FICGS, not just two players, and in any case I think you rather over-state your case: "illegal hacking", references to "justice", etc. -- it's just a chat board. In any case what you are suggesting is a "policy" issue, but I think there is a "technical" issue too. And that is, once you click on the triangle you get a popup box with one button (an "alert") instead of two buttons (a "confirm"). A confirm would allow you to undo the delete, for instance if you accidentally clicked the triangle. Thib if you are reading this I am a web developer with nearly 20 years experience and could quite easily implement this, as I know you have a lot of other priorities.


George Jempty    (2016-09-20 15:46:07)
Failed to receive email

I failed to receive an email for Sorbi's 25th move in the following game: http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=move_express&game=93675

Thought I should report it in case it's an issue for anybody else


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.


Herbert Kruse    (2016-11-30 15:53:22)
Future penalties for games lost on time

11. 5. Adjudications

In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious.

If time control is superior to 1 day and if a player doesn't want to resign (or accept draw) and obviously last the game, his opponent may report to referee a first time. If the player takes 30 days more to finish the game, his opponent may call referee another time, then the game will be adjudicated. An analysis submitted by a player should contain sufficient information so that no doubt is possible. This may include a sequence of moves, but in some circumstances it may be sufficient to claim a win or a draw on the basis of material or positional advantage. Final decision belongs to referee.


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 ...


Scott Nichols    (2017-01-07 15:20:42)
Defeating Draw Death

Maybe some new ideas can be shared here. Here is one, 2 players play a 2 game or even more game match where Black gives up the f7 Pawn. Or a set of the first 6 moves very wild in nature and then each player will have to play the same first six moves. They alternate colors of course, :)


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    (2017-01-11 15:38:14)
Defeating Draw Death

The wild 6 first moves idea should be possible with thematic tournaments... Maybe the f7 pawn is possible this way as well. Why not... Scott's 2nd idea reminds me the silver thematic chess (now Traxler).

Jan, I did not miss your ideas in the chat on wins / draws... It may be very interesting and funny to try but it changes really everything, the game is not the same according to me, and the code should be rewritten in good part. And well, isn't it a question of taste before everything? As for me, I'm quite sure I would play it like atomic chess, then would come back to the original game.


Pablo Schmid    (2017-01-19 22:38:48)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

And it could be the occasion for Thibault to see own Black would do at elite level in the line e4 Nh6 d4 Ng8 (not sure of the moves exactly but Thibault invented a thematic in this one where the Black side is rewarded for a draw)


Herbert Kruse    (2017-01-22 19:57:43)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

my last idea:

lets play many more games against each opp and there cannot be the same position from move 3 on


Stanislas Gounant    (2022-11-23 20:17:39)
I did not win a game since 3 years

The problem with the starting positions in FICGS thematic tournaments, one of the player can open the position and it will be draw. Some years ago, someone show me a youtube video about a game played on TCEC between leela chess zero and Stockfish.
https://tcec-chess.com/#div=sf&game=61&season=15
The engines start to play at move 7, white had more space and black can't open the position


Garvin Gray    (2017-01-25 01:02:13)
Adjudications & 7 pieces tablebases

Thibault. On this forum, we have agreed that a player can claim for a position to be adjudicated as a win/draw when the 6 piece position is displayed on the board.

The reason for this is that the all 6 piece positions have been solved and can be freely confirmed by anyone, such as using shredderchess.com

ICCF has now moved quite a while ago to allowing 6 piece claims as well.

7 piece claims are still not allowed as all positions have not been solved, and the positions that have, are not freely available to the general public (from my understanding).


Garvin Gray    (2017-01-25 09:18:35)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I have read the formatted rules. The only difference between what is in this thread and what is in the entry conditions is how ties for first will be broken.

If you read back through this thread, I said:

Garvin- For the second stage (finals)= I know this might be a bit controversial, but I think the TER rule should be dropped and those who tie for first should progress. Since we have seven groups (this was based on this discussion at the time- Garvin insert 25/1/17), that should mean at the most eleven players in the final.

This will have the by-product in the round robin games of everyone knowing that if they can finish outright first, they knockout everyone from their group immediately.

--------------------

And we continued discussing the rules and it was agreed to remove the TER and other 'tie' rules have those who finish equal first all progress.

So that rule needs to be changed.

As quite a few of the entrants will not have seen this thread, or any of the other discussions, perhaps a slight explanation for round one of how this event is different to the FICGS world champs would be helpful to 'sell' the event.

As in. For the FICGS World Chess Cup, The Highest Rated Player will be seed 1 and placed in Group A, Second Highest Rated Player will be seed 2 and placed in Group B and so forth for seed 3, seed 4 etc till all players have been allocated to their respective groups.

All players start from the first round and there is no knockout stage.


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-04-23 15:11:50)
Thematic with lowest chances of draw

Pablo said it all...

Thanks for these advices Peter! To be more accurate, we may discuss the full lines added to the opening names from now... One move can change everything :)

I'm particularly interested in important King's gambit lines for this first edition. The maddest, shortest, non-linear line from engines point of view but still theorical may be the best :-) (yes, not so easy to find) Maybe one with the queen to be trapped, that produced numerous incredible games...


Daniel Parmet    (2017-07-01 07:48:12)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I know this thread is old but I feel Garvin made an amazing point that got lost:

"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."

I haven't played actively since 2010 for exactly this reason. I did play over 470 games though but found that I was permanently locked into this rating band despite being far beyond the skill level of this rating band solely because I was never allowed to play stronger players. So I moved on to ICCF where I easily was able to compete against 2370+ players all the time.


Steven DuCharme    (2017-05-30 13:18:24)
Most Embarrassing Loss Ever...

White(me)g3 h3 Rb4 Rd4 Qb8 Kg4 Black g5 h6 Qa5 Kf6 Last move of game was B8(Q).

Resignation immediately followed. Ego crushing for me and a lesson for all.


Garvin Gray    (2017-09-24 15:45:27)
WCh and other ramblings

I think it will be a case of Eros will keep defending the title until he is defeated.

This is not an uncommon situation in a lot of sports where a champion has a long unbeaten streak. Whilst they have some desire to move on to other things, voluntarily ending a many year streak by non participation can feel like all those years wasted.

Therefore, quite often what happens is that the next champion either supersedes the reigning champion because the new champion because they advanced the playing standard, or because the current champion rested on their laurels whilst the competition advanced.


Garvin Gray    (2017-10-01 06:36:44)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Quick observation from beginning of final round. Players are not stuffing around and taking forever with their opening moves.

Knowing they have 16 games to play and a time control of 30 days plus 1 day per move, players seem to be getting through the opening phase quickly, to get as much extra time on their clock in all their games as possible.


Herbert Kruse    (2017-10-22 14:13:40)
Adjudications & 7 pieces tablebases

i like the truth, so i like:

no 50 moves rule here, because if its won it should be won

but if a tablebase can tell the truth all should be used at once


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-11-15 17:10:55)
7 pieces tablebases

Wow, fascinating informations from 7 pieces tablebases in here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase

More than 540 moves are necessary to checkmate in some situations!

It would only take 1 To for 7p Syzygy Endgame Tablebases while Lomonosov takes 140 To


Herbert Kruse    (2017-11-25 21:43:23)
The older rating lists

make shorter time per move, maybe 12 hours


Timofey Denisov    (2017-12-08 21:03:17)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

And UCI protocol don't require "per se" alpha-beta search algorythm. Engine can send to analysis NOTHING, and respond only MOVE with any score.


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    (2017-12-09 21:51:51)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

Although, with one minute for one correspondence game move... no engine is any help.


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.


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.


Daniel Parmet    (2017-12-24 18:51:20)
Monte Carlo Analysis

I thought the whole idea of IDEA was a human thought merge of computer analysis through MCA?

I had the thought about using MCA with chess engines as the brain nearly 5 years ago at work. My boss loved the idea and tasked me with it. However, I have no coding skills so my ability was limited to what was available which was extremely limited at the time.

The best way to think of MCA is to accept that we don't know what move is best (hence why Alphazero didn't have or want an opening book or games database). From here now, it's like trying to predict what's best and what will come from flipping a coin 5 million times. You know in a coin scenario that it is 50%. But what about the stock market? A lottery ticket? A game of black jack? Or Chess? Each individual decision could yield 50.1% in favor and by MCA you will find it. It will create a tree that shows a RANGE of your worst possibilities to best on a probalistic manner. The most common use is for wealth management investing.

As for how to change off the Fritz engine, I don't know. I could never figure that out (though I only have the Fritz 13 gui). I guess I was hoping this feature would be improved over time. Perhaps now due to Alphazero, it will be.


Steven DuCharme    (2018-01-06 03:46:12)
My New Chess Rule

You may not move a non-pawn onto your foe's side of the board until all your non-pawns have moved.


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 :)


Kym Farnik    (2018-01-15 07:11:04)
Conditional chess moves (again)

Hi
I've used a site in the past with conditional moves. VERY handy!
Especially for forced moves or obvious moves.

For those against the idea - you don't have to use the feature :)

It would speed up games for those that want to use it.

I'm a software developer with PHP experience and would be happy to help implement the feature!
(Yes, putting my money where my mouth is so to speak)

Thanks!


Herbert Kruse    (2018-01-15 12:21:57)
Conditional chess moves (again)

i like that idea :)


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.


Kym Farnik    (2018-01-16 03:01:46)
Conditional chess moves (again)

@Thibault ... my offer to assist development is real.
1. Design a prototype UI (probably JS tool to do up to maybe 3 lines of conditionals)
2. Feedback from members
3. Review design
4. Implement and deploy to test site
5. TEST !!
6. Rinse repeat 4/5 until happy
7. Deploy beta
8. Feedback and tune as needed
9. Go live


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!


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-17 02:04:09)
Conditional chess moves (again)

Many thanks for this nice proposal Kym! By the way, I have no doubt that you could do much better than me (and with more time).

Well, as you understood FICGS has become a big complex (& quite old) thing that is not easy to shake. Each time I think about conditional moves, the more problems I identify (chess 960, draw offers, messages & so on)

Let's give us a few weeks to think about it. Not a way to throw it away, but I really need time for now to work on apps popularity.


Kym Farnik    (2018-01-17 02:06:39)
Conditional chess moves (again)

Thanks for the consideration. I understand your priorities.


Kym Farnik    (2018-01-17 02:35:24)
Spice up chess? More members

OTB and online chess have moved to faster format games.
The use of rapid, blitz, bullet, and even Armageddon (tie break) games are very common.

An idea to get more involved... 'Super rapid' say 10 days + 12hours / move

Thoughts?


Garvin Gray    (2018-01-17 03:45:40)
Conditional chess moves (again)

Problems to identify and solutions:

As a starting point for the games:

Conditional moves would be restricted to the classical chess style. We have to start somewhere and this is the tried and tested format and most well known. So there are already sites out there using conditional moves in classical chess.

As for draw offers. If a player wants to offer a draw, the linear conditional move line stops at that move. They have to input their move and the draw offer by ticking the box.

Then the move passes to player B with the draw offer and they have to accept or decline the draw offer and play their move.

And then play resumes as normal with linear conditional moves.

This is how linear conditional moves worked when I ran the WBCCC events.

I am not sure what you mean by messages?


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-17 04:41:22)
Conditional chess moves (again)

Yes, of course, way to go... I only mean: to keep coherence may be not easy and it adds some work at the end.

By messages I mean that it can be frustrating to play several moves without seeing any reply.


Kym Farnik    (2018-01-17 04:44:57)
Conditional chess moves (again)

Messages to the opponent.

On a technical note, I would envision a JavaScript too that would allow:
1. The move
2. Conditional Move Line 1 and response Moves ...
Maybe more than one conditional lines

The whole web transaction, Move + Conditionals + messages are validated client side via the JS.
Then the transaction is re-validated on the server (to stop hacking).
The whole transaction is accepted or not.


Garvin Gray    (2018-01-17 12:57:54)
Conditional chess moves (again)

Kym: Point 2- regarding whether to allow more than one line of conditional moves.

I think it is important to introduce a concept now called project scope. What this means is setting the outer limits of the project and also what are the main aims, or purpose of the project.

Anything that is outside of these aims, is outside of the project scope and is rejected.

As was stated by yourself in the first post:

I've used a site in the past with conditional moves. VERY handy!
Especially for forced moves or obvious moves.

For those against the idea - you don't have to use the feature :)

It would speed up games for those that want to use it.

And then Herbert Kruse said- I like that idea.

So that gives a very good idea of what the project scope is, or the reason for allowing conditional moves- to allow players to make forced moves or obvious moves through conditional moves.

An issue that already occurs in correspondence chess is players either resigning by mistake, move slips, or other mistakes.

Introducing conditional moves will increase the possibility of this occurring. This is why the number of conditional moves must be kept to a minimum, hence why I believe the requirement for linear conditional moves.

This also makes it much easier to deal with draw offers.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-20 01:15:06)
New feature : picture of the game

As you may have seen in the "move_express" page or "viewer" page, it is now possible to generate a picture of a game (available for chess, big chess & Go, not poker holdem).

The picture is also "attached" to the public viewer page, eg. http://www.ficgs.com/game_98779.html when you share the url.


It is particularly convenient to share a game result or a position (just add the move number in the url) in your favourite social networks...

Any feedback is welcome, if you have any suggestion :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-20 20:30:32)
Names updated (the accents issue)

Hi all,

Finally, I just removed all special characters (accents & others) from first names, last names, names in the games & names in the forum, names in games discussions...

This is a very strange issue since the last server update (following the last server crash), as several characters sets/encodings were used and I did not find a way to make it compatible.

To be continued...


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-21 17:06:34)
Conditional chess moves (again)

Now I'm to integrate chess.js & chessboard.js in some parts of the site to remove the flash chess board... one issue with conditional moves would be that FICGS rules are slightly different from FIDE rules: no 50/60 moves rule here. Anyway, to be continued.


Kym Farnik    (2018-01-21 23:14:50)
Conditional chess moves (again)

One way to do 50 move rule is to have a small engine on the server the checks the position.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-21 23:55:52)
Conditional chess moves (again)

Sure, it's feasible but the idea was to not implement this rule :) (correspondence chess is quite different from otb chess after all)


Kym Farnik    (2018-01-22 00:12:09)
Conditional chess moves (again)

50 move rule is so rare - it is not a big issue


Garvin Gray    (2018-01-22 01:06:01)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments

The penalties have to be similar to players who are caught using engines at otb tournaments.

Loss of all games in the tournament ie they are kicked out of the tournament and then further sanctions are applied.

But working out how the person used engine assistance is the key question?

Most would say, oh the player choose the top or second ranked engine move almost all of the time. But most decent players would do that anyways.

So that is not a good enough standard. And so that then needs a new test.

It is personally one of the reasons why I did not speak in favour of the event.


Garvin Gray    (2018-01-22 01:08:34)
Conditional chess moves (again)

The rules of the site already permit players to claim 6 man tablebase positions, when they appear on the board, as either a win or draw, even if the position is above 50 moves.

That rule is standard across all webserver sites.

Also, even though a position might say mate in 75 and the claim is granted, this does not mean it is outside of the 50 move rule as there maybe a capture or pawn move between the initial position and mate.


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    (2018-01-25 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    (2018-01-26 20:12:35)
3D board in login page

Well, finally I moved it to another page, less used...

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


Kym Farnik    (2018-02-16 10:07:33)
FICGS Android APP beta version

I used the app for moves today. Simple and easy!


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-03-14 23:12:38)
A few questions to Nelson Bernal Varela

Nelson Bernal Varela is an early FICGS correspondence chess player, now rated 2277 but also rated 2359 at ICCF (Correspondence Chess Master - CCM).

Last but not least, and as all poker holdem players here probably noticed, he is also our ranked #1 for years, who just reached an outstanding poker rating of 2382, while number two is now rated "only" 2212. A good occasion to ask him a few questions, that he kindly accepted to answer.

-----------------------

- Hello Nelson! You are the 2nd most active player at FICGS for years now. Everyone here probably noticed your incredible results in poker tournaments. "Correspondence poker holdem" was probably a strange idea as it is very unusual and very different from "Internet poker". What's your opinion on this and on the presence of a card game (played without money) at FICGS?


NBV: There are more important things than money and one of those is HONOR; It is honorable to be a chess master, international master, grandmaster, world chess champion at ICCF and at FICGS and to be number one in the ranking. It is honorable to be a FICGS world champion at Go and to be first in the ranking, it is honorable to be poker world champion at FICGS poker and in my case, it is an honor to be number one at poker here at FICGS during the last years, understanding that our general level of play has improved remarkably. None of these activities produces money, but to achieve any of the mentioned titles, it is necessary to have extraordinary abilities.

When I was about 18 years old, I had the opportunity to meet a person with immense material wealth, we spent whole evenings playing chess and then I told him my perceptions about each movement of the game. He thanked me for my chess explanations and paid me with good money. That wealthy man in his turn told me about life and recommended that I should always be proud of the gifts I had, since he knew, with all the money he had and being able to hire the best grandmasters in the world, that it could hardly come at the level of chess master. That person told me that the intellect can be turned into money whenever you want.

Now, by playing poker without money at FICGS, I understood that it was my extraordinary and wonderful opportunity to study-learn-perfect and test my poker theories without costing me a single dollar. In FICGS there is no money, but thanks to the knowledge I gained playing poker in FICGS, today I can go after the money in online poker rooms and probably in OTB poker tournaments. I am studying the possibility of becoming a professional poker player.


- The understanding of your opponent's behaviour is usually quite important at Poker. Do you manage to establish some profiles while playing so many simultaneous hands & games? Did you build any method?


NBV: Today I am sure that the most important thing to raise, and keep raising my level in poker, has been to build a psychological profile of mine, to get to know Nelson Bernal Varela in depth and above all to understand me, accept me, love me and be work every day eliminating my technical errors, strategic, psychological that make me play badly. I am aware that in poker I can play perfectly and still lose, what I can not forgive me is playing badly, which is why I work hard correcting my wrong decisions.

Of course, there is a space in my brain where I have built a psychological profile of each contender, that profile I have been able to elaborate with all the information that is provided to me in each hand we play. The way each of us plays, gives reliable information about our personality.

About my method I can write the following: A few years ago, I created a table in excel, where I had all the games with each contender, I identified them with the FICGS numeration and each movement in each hand (preflop, flop, turn, river ) it I was writing and studying; I started to add technical-psychological variables that seemed important to me, resulting in 20 variables that I had to qualify in each movement. With the passage of time and my effort, I no longer needed the excel table and I did not use it again (it was exhausting and time consuming) because I was assimilating things faster and with greater depth. Today I can say that I evaluate these 20 variables in a natural way, as if I was breathing and that when I am at a poker table, online or real, after a few minutes I get the psychological profile of the table and each of my opponents. In the pocket of my shirt I keep a small paper with the list of variables, periodically reread it and I wonder if I should modify, remove or add something.


- You won 1007 poker games, and lost only 380, with a ratio usually going from 57% to 80% according to your best opponents. Undoubtly you know the mathematics hidden behind poker but that may not explain everything. How did you learn to play?


NBV: Mathematics is an ingredient in poker, in the same way that my psychological aspects and of my opponents (I recommend reading-studying about four times the book “The Poker mindset” of Ian Taylor and Matthew Hilger), it is vital to understand the Law of Large Numbers. Next I make a list of topics that I consider important to raise the level of poker; compete with EV+ cards, you have to know the small ball theory of Negreanu (but not apply it, hahaha) you have to always look at the texture of the board, you have to evaluate your reality and your future, also that of your opponents (act and power), the position to talk is important, the stack, the personality of the table, know who has the panic button on. All these and other variables must be evaluated in the few seconds they have to make a move and the only important thing is to make the right decision according to the circumstances. There is a good list of poker books to read... it is mandatory to have read about 15 poker books.


- As for me, I may be wrong but I can't imagine that you reached such a rating without special techniques & maybe by optimizing it in some ways... Of course, "rating management" is not a problem, and it is only one thing with a limited impact, but maybe you have some other secrets? What about this "+1" technique that I noticed in many of our games, if this is not a secret? :)


NBV: In these years I have used different techniques that I had to read, study, learn, repeat, modify, invent and sometimes eliminate. Poker is a sport that seems easy, with time one manages to understand that it has an amazing complexity, today I consider poker to be as complex as chess and I study them in a "similar" way. As an example, I have tried to create "openings in poker"; based only on probabilities I invented something that I called mirror theory and another "opening" that I called opposite outs. I am fascinated by mathematics and from the mathematical perspective they are perfect "theories-openings", but I have lost tournaments and a lot of money for applying such theories in mistaken emotional moments. In poker it is important to never lose sight of the Law of Large Numbers and be aware that this LAW likes to make fun of each one of us... I am working on giving an emotional nuance to my theories "mirror" and "opposite outs". There are moments when perfect mathematics becomes an unforgivable psychological error...

For the last few months I have modified my way of playing and my results have improved; Today it must be much more difficult to win a game me, thanks to small and imperceptible adjustments that of course only I know, because I have followed my mistakes-successes-evolution in the game over several years.


- Isn't it too frustrating for you to play heads up only (here at least) ? Of course it is a way to improve this important technical case but we know that many complexities come with 3 to 8 players on the table, which is the most common case in professional poker tournaments.


NBV: Currently I spend little time every day playing heads-up in FICGS, thanks to the fact that I have the profile of each contender. The 4-5 hours that I study poker daily, include practice in micro limits in cash tables of 6 players and tournaments in tables of 8-9 players. I think I'm covering the whole range of possibilities, experiencing game situations between 1 and 8 contenders.


- What do you think about computer analysis in poker? Do you think it could make a difference here just like the way we play advanced chess?


NBV: I think the algorithms are ready to be written in machine language and the question is where are those algorithms? Well, in the brains of the best players in the world and in their games compiled in huge databases. But programming language can be accelerated with artificial intelligence brains, making A.I. studying databases of the best professionals, playing with itself millions of games and building an invincible TACTIC-STRATEGIC SYSTEM, similar to chess software and GO... I think preflop and flop play would be very similar between humans and artificial intelligence, but on the turn and on the river artificial intelligence would take considerable advantage, but in the short time the level of human poker would rise because artificial intelligence would teach us to play poker, this event that would diminish the profits of the professionals. It will always be said in favor of poker that because it is an incomplete game of information, to make computer algorithms are quite complicated, but despite that, I am sure that artificial intelligence will far surpass the best human poker player. It is possible that an artificial intelligence that plays a perfect poker already exists, but unlike GO and chess, poker does produce a lot of money. Due to the money factor, in today's world, it is very difficult that there is a Prometheus willing to steal fire from the gods and give it to mankind...


- How would you describe your relation to games in general?


NBV: I can summarize it in one of the first chess books I had the fortune to read, by the great Danish master Bent Larsen, "I play to win"


- When did you start to play chess & poker? Do you play other games?


NBV: My first contact with chess was at the age of nine, it was love at first sight and until death separates us; I must confess that for some years we have been separated, due to my stupidity and my erroneous decisions. I have always been self-taught in any subject, my method is to buy about 10 to 15 books of the subject that interests me and I read them thoroughly, sometimes 3 or 4 times; already with that information in my head and thanks to the constant practice, I build MY SYSTEM (Nimzowitch) according to my personality, my dreams, my desires, my anguish, my fears... I was youth champion of Bogotá, for 4 years , my OTB level was strong, but I had to abandon chess because I had to work and survive; Being an athlete in Colombia is an absolutely difficult thing, but being a chess player is extremely complicated since there is no support or respect from society and you can not live by chess, because it does not produce money.

I met poker in 2009 in FICGS, at that time I was in a terrible emotional situation, trying to get away from a relationship with a woman that I should never approach and where I wasted valuable time and energy. In that context, looking for my thoughts to be occupied, I ended up playing the FICGS C-24 poker tournament and tied the first place with three more players; I kept playing, without understanding what was happening with the cards and obviously, losing, until in 2010 I won the FICGS D-21 tournament with perfect score, 6 out of 6. I had already bought-read my first beginner book: Poker for Dummies of Harroch and Krieger, but my poker was coarse, wild, street, intuitive, amateur, without dedication or study. In the background of this paragraph, the affection and gratitude that I have for FICGS is condensed, a place where I have been able to build-practice-study-test MY SYSTEM in poker.

I play Backgammon, I do not care that it may sound pretentious-petulant, but I have a very strong level and I have not read my first book yet. Hahaha. Any year I register as a participant in the world championship and I will cause disgust to more than one professional. Hahaha. Unlike chess and poker, backgammon does not cause me stress, on the contrary, I feel a lot of joy and pleasure when I play backgammon. I feel something similar with math, reading and music. It's true and I'm proud, I've always been a NERD.


- We all know how difficult it is to reach a number 1 rank but it is even more difficult to keep it during a long time. What is your motivation? Do you have more goals to achieve (chess & other games included) ?


NBV: My motivation in any activity I undertake in my life is to do it with absolute passion (passion is everything you would do to get a breath of air, in the second before dying by drowning or suffocation).

I have several goals to accomplish before December 2021; In the ICCF correspondence chess I must reach the 2400 elo and get the titles of International Master, SIM and Grand Master, also perform outstanding performances in world championships. In FICGS Chess I must complete my Master and International Master titles and overcome the 2450 elo, also snatch the title from our eternal champion Eros Riccio. You're warned Eros, hahaha. On the LSS site where I also play, www.chess-server.net I want to be a world champion.

In POKER I find myself playing micro limits bets in several online sites; in June 2018 I hope I have built some bankroll. In July of 2018 I must be evaluating my poker to know if my immediate goal is to become a professional poker player, that would completely change my chess goals and I would have to dedicate myself to OTB poker. At the moment I study and practice poker every day, about 4-5 hours a day. At this moment my poker is full of errors that I am eliminating one by one. MY SYSTEM needs to win and raise money in the micro limits, so that it can succeed in professional poker.
In chess OTB I should become a great master, but that topic should be left as a goal for after 2021. I could achieve the record of being the oldest human in getting the title of Grand Master OTB. Hahaha.

In backgammon I would like to play some important tournaments in USA and Europe and maybe to be OTB world champion, but at the moment I do not have clarity on how to do it. I must mature that idea.
I hope they invent immortality before I die and that I have enough money to buy it, because time is what I need to realize all these and other dreams...


- Finally, playing so many games on several websites (obviously with serious ambitions in each game & place) may look quite inhuman and exhausting, does your body or brain say "stop" sometimes? Do you train by melting sports and brain games just like Kasparov did in the past?


NBV: It's true, it takes willpower and a lot of resistance to sustain the pace that I carry. To take care of my body, I am doing daily exercise for 60 to 90 minutes, including routines of strength, elasticity, speed and endurance. I also practice table tennis to preserve the agility of my body. I'm also divorced and I do not have a girlfriend... Hahaha


- By curiosity, do you consider playing Go in the future, even after... 2021? (which would surely be an enormous charge more, but the game is really interesting)


I have a kind of commitment with the best Colombian GO player, exchange of classes, he makes me a competitive player of GO and I turn him into a competitive player of backgammon. But the truth is that I do not have time... it could be after 2021...


- Do you confirm that you are not (entirely or partly) AlphaZero or any kind of A.I. (yet) ? :-)


NBV: Hahaha, of course I would like to be a real centaur, human with machine power, I do not care what physical form I should adopt. I offer myself publicly as a guinea pig in projects of technological singularity. Hahaha


- Many thanks for your detailed and instructive (impressive as well) answers! My best wishes of luck in all your games and future tournaments.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2018-03-15 17:53:50)
A few questions to Nelson Bernal Varela

Offtopic question about poker (on FICGS):

Is it possible to make some faster time control, for example, +1 day after completed hand instead of single move?
Like in chess - Standard and Rapid.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-03-30 20:19:27)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Hello Herbert,

I think you may misunderstand what Garvin said there: "The simple explanation is that I had the white rook on h3 instead of h2" ... probably meaning that the analysis was based on the wrong position at one time or another / since one or several moves.

Let's wait the end of the tournament. Of course, losses on time are always bad in such tournaments, but it can happen for many reasons.


William Taylor    (2018-04-01 18:42:20)
Poll: renaming the Queen as Dragon

Not sure how sexist it is, or to whom. Yes, the King is the most important piece, but the Queen is by far the most powerful. It seems more sexist to remove women from the game entirely by renaming the Queen.


William Taylor    (2018-04-01 23:06:04)
Poll: renaming the Queen as Dragon

On a related note, I have just moved to Paris, and had my first Domino's pizza here today, only to discover that it did not come with the traditional garlic & herb dip. I hope this is just another Frenchman playing an April Fool's joke on me, and that the dip will be back tomorrow, but who knows?


Steven DuCharme    (2018-04-03 20:27:40)
Daily Chess World Championship

I have chosen to move on. Piece out.


Aniruddha Duttagupta    (2018-04-07 07:43:58)
unable to play my move!

In game 102995 I can't play my move as Black.Any move played by me is shown as INVALID MOVE by the server!What to do???


Aniruddha Duttagupta    (2018-04-07 12:07:17)
unable to play my move!

Now I have observed that there are mismatch in the moves played in the game and recorded in the server.Will Mr Thibault kindly look into the matter urgently so that I can move in the game??


Ilmars Cirulis    (2018-04-07 16:40:39)
unable to play my move!

<< Incorrect move : 7. ...Ng1, from player black. >>


Aniruddha Duttagupta    (2018-04-07 17:15:38)
unable to play my move!

But the game actually continued 7...0-0 8.Nge2 Rb8 9.bxc5 dxc5 10.0-0 b6 11.f4 the server allowed all these moves but now not permitting Black playing his 11th move.What is the solution?


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-04-07 20:01:26)
unable to play my move!

Hello Aniruddha, well that's the first time I see that strange bug. I don't understand yet how it happened but you probably entered it (meaning Ng4 I guess) in the text field rather than clicking the pieces.

I'll investigate to avoid this in the future. Meanwhile & unfortunately, according to the rules, this game must be declared as a win for your opponent. Very sorry about that.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2018-04-07 20:27:44)
unable to play my move!

A bit wtf about rules. :O


Ilmars Cirulis    (2018-04-07 20:29:08)
unable to play my move!

Maybe refunding rating points?

Like "you lost to software bug, so there's your compensation".


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-04-07 20:51:10)
unable to play my move!

That could seem to be a fair solution at a first sight, but of course that would create ways to "save" lost games (and/or complexify rules quite a lot).

This kind of cases is well specified in the rules, it is also up to the players to check their moves to avoid such situations (that could be much more complicate according to the situation).


Aniruddha Duttagupta    (2018-04-07 20:53:38)
unable to play my move!

Dear Mr Thibault,
First time this thing happened to me.I will be careful but kindly see non occurance of this type of software bug further.I lost some rating points unnecesarily in a game which was equal.Definitely it hurts!


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-04-07 21:01:35)
unable to play my move!

I understand but the way I coded the moves verification more than a decade ago, it is unlikely that all cases can be fixed :/ Fortunately, problems are rare now, but I recommend to click the pieces rather than using the text field to avoid it.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2018-04-07 21:47:11)
unable to play my move!

<< That could seem to be a fair solution at a first sight, but of course that would create ways to "save" lost games (and/or complexify rules quite a lot). >>

Even better, you get testers for free. :P


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-04-09 03:44:13)
unable to play my move!

Hello again Aniruddha,

While talking with another player about this strange case, an important question raised: what was the 7th move you intended to play? 7. ... Ng4 as I suggested, 7. ...O-O as the game showed, or another one?

And just to be sure, how did you make the move? What did you type if you used the text field? (or did you click the pieces?) Many thanks for your answers.


Aniruddha Duttagupta    (2018-04-09 16:36:15)
unable to play my move!

Dear Mr Thibault, I am sure I played 7...0-0 as the game showed.Ng4 was my intended move after White played 11.f4.But my move was not permitted by the server.I am sure I used the text field.But now I click the pieces as I play my moves on my mobile.I wonder if my 7th move was wrong how the game continued upto 11th move of White!


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-04-09 17:30:02)
unable to play my move!

So, for your 7th move you typed "0-0" or "7...0-0" ? (with zero-zero, not O-O) Sorry, I have to be absolutely sure to be able to reproduce exactly what happened.

Thank you again.


Aniruddha Duttagupta    (2018-04-09 19:47:59)
unable to play my move!

I feel I had written e8-g8 for the move.
I had never typed 0-0 for kingside castling.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-04-14 01:14:32)
unable to play my move!

Finally, after some investigation & tests I was able to reproduce the situation & find what most probably happened...

I think that the move you entered was e1-g1 (instead of e8-g8), this is the only one that was able to produce Ng1.

The bug is now fixed, it will not happen again but unfortunately, the rules prevail in this situation as the move was illegal.

My apologies anyway for this unexpected bug.

My best wishes,
Thibault


William Taylor    (2018-06-02 14:31:46)
Order games load in

Hi Thib,

Currently when we make a move in a game, another loads automatically afterwards which may or may not be of the same type. Personally I like to make moves in all of my Go games (for example), followed by all of my big chess games, rather than switching between games. What do you think about changing the algorithm which determines which game loads next to facilitate this?

Cheers,

Will


Steven DuCharme    (2018-06-25 19:53:46)
I Own Chess

Decree #1 - All players will count to ten or more before each move. Thank you


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!


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    (2018-08-14 20:04:00)
poker reflection time

Another recurrent topic, which is quite logical as some games are very very long... One hand consist in a variable number of "moves", that may cause strange things with clocks, but I agree that the time control should be different, I just did not find a fine one yet. Actually, playing poker by correspondence is a very unusual thing.


Rotom Monotua    (2018-08-16 14:36:55)
7 pieces tablebases

Just a question. Are the tablebases considering the 50 moves rule?
Should a game which is according to the tablebases won (e.g. win in 120 moves" still won if the 50 move rule would settle a draw?


Ilmars Cirulis    (2018-08-16 17:53:30)
How to pass in the game?

Entering "pass" as move should do it, I believe.


Wilhelm Schuett    (2018-08-17 03:41:56)
How to pass in the game?

You mean writing "pass" as move. thx


Christoph Schroeder    (2018-08-17 17:37:38)
7 pieces tablebases

According to the ICCF rules, a game is won if the tablebase gives it as a win - no matter how many moves to mate are necessary.

The 50 moves rule was designed to stop playing on forever without making any winning tries. It is a logical development to set it out of order in these cases where a forced win can be proven.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-08-21 00:15:26)
poker reflection time

First of all, games that last 5 years are quite rare, fortunately :) And believe me, any intermediate time control playable in less than one day would be a nightmare for the players, it is way too long, it could last 12 hours or more! (the dead man defence could find its place)

Also, the reason why the most do not play bullet/blitz games here is mainly that this is a correspondence chess website first, and most players always have a few moves to play... On the contrary, the FICGS chess trainer app is quite successful on Facebook because most users of this app do not play at FICGS.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2018-08-21 11:26:20)
poker reflection time

Or just use "increment : 1 day / hand)" instead of "1 day / move".


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-08-21 22:22:42)
poker reflection time

Unfortunately, the choice of "best of three" would have consequences on ratings (less accurate, more variable), as you can guess.

The 1 day / hand option could be confusing and may be dangerous at it would bring strange effects as one could lose a game on time when having 2 or 3 days on clock because of a few moves played at night. This would not affect fast players, but many players are quite slow for various reasons.


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?


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.


Zack Stephen    (2018-10-30 13:14:19)
World Championship Tie-breaks

agree with William, eros can draw these matches with his eyes closed at this point, he can easily be champion for the foreseeable future unless a format change is made.

Some other ideas for consideration: Force specific opening thematics in the final (ie each has to play black/white of a kings gambit, or other speculative openings

Don't provide the +1 day for each move. Make the games a set amount of time say 45 days for 60 moves

Make each side play BIG, random, or other variants as tie breaker until a winner is determined


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-10-31 03:04:21)
World Championship Tie-breaks

Well, the 1 day per move rule has several reasons to remain (including avoiding more forfeits/losses on time), and coherence is really important IMO. I do not agree that Eros cannot be beaten (I couldn't do it by myself though ^^), I trust Murphy's law :) I see several reasons to all these consecutive victories, Eros explained many by himself, and I don't think it's enough to change the format, by the way we now have the CUP format for all players who prefer other parameters (thanks Garvin!).

As for Twitch & other good ideas like this, truth is that there should have been many Freestyle tournaments these last years but I couldn't organize it anymore and still can't at the moment :/ But most important is that despite of computers supremacy in correspondence chess, now Go & poker holdem, I'm convinced that the best years of FICGS are to come, and it will bring more competition, new champions & good things. Let's wait & see!


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-12-26 01:58:04)
This site is now...

Like last year at the same time, I know that... the Alexa rank moved a lot this year and it will do it again within months. No worries, it is under control & it will be better soon. Just wait and see :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-12-26 02:05:53)
poker: not enough chips to pay BB

In many ways, FICGS built its own rules (sometimes intentionally but not always), in this case I cannot remember well but I may have thought that it is a bit unfair to lose the last chips without any fight, after all the situation is hard enough there :) But you're right & maybe I could have moved the chips in the next round, most probably I did not think about that.


Jing Huang    (2019-01-28 09:25:28)
I cannot make move in my Go games

Anyone else having the same issue?


William Taylor    (2019-01-28 16:18:43)
I cannot make move in my Go games

Yep.


Thibault de Vassal    (2019-01-28 19:56:45)
I cannot make move in my Go games

Yes, sorry about that. I tried to fix a bug but created another one.

Is it ok now?


William Taylor    (2019-01-28 19:59:03)
I cannot make move in my Go games

Yep - cheers!


Jing Huang    (2019-01-29 07:39:18)
I cannot make move in my Go games

Yes, thanks!


Ilmars Cirulis    (2019-02-13 14:15:25)
Advice for correspondence chess players

Some variation of MultiPV, it seems. The second best move.


Kym Farnik    (2019-02-16 03:15:40)
Advice for correspondence chess players

Looking at more than the 'best' move can find a better (strategic) move.

I.e. better end game chances etc.


Fred de la Foret    (2019-02-22 18:27:31)
Best Opening Move?

In your opinion, which is best for chess engine players, 1. d4 or 1. e4 . CCGM Hans Berliner argued that 1. d4 was the better.


Thibault de Vassal    (2019-02-22 21:18:32)
Best Opening Move?

Still hard to say. In my opinion, only databases & statistics can "answer" this question.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2019-02-22 22:02:19)
Best Opening Move?

1.c4


Ilmars Cirulis    (2019-02-23 09:35:35)
Advice for correspondence chess players

"The engine ignores the best move found so far and uses its full power to search for an alternative (the next best move)."


Fred de la Foret    (2019-02-23 20:12:55)
Best Opening Move?

The English ( 1. c4 ) is considered less popular as best opening move to 1. Nf3, though the English is played by many OTB Masters.


Nelson Bernal Varela    (2019-03-01 04:52:25)
Best Opening Move?

1.e4


Thibault de Vassal    (2019-03-01 20:08:18)
Best Opening Move?

It seems that AlphaZero prefers 1.d4 or 1.c4 ... I guess he has good reasons :)


Steven DuCharme    (2019-05-23 01:40:02)
New rating system

Start at 10K. Draws don't affect ratings. Ratings adjust via formula 250 - number of loser's moves. Combined adjustment is neitral. No floor or ceiling. ur welcome


Zeljko Cirovic    (2020-01-16 12:36:22)
IECG chess-server.net

STILL NOT START...FICGS__CHESS__KING_SUPERTOURNAMENT__000006
(type : unrated round-robin, time : 30 days, increment : 1 day / move)


Deadline : 2019 september 1st
Thematic chess, first moves : e4 e5 f4


Christoph Schroeder    (2020-01-28 23:00:27)
Waiting lists

Enabling to remove oneself from a waiting list should be given a higher priority.
Recently, I "played" a go tournament where all 6 opponents were non-starters. The high percentage of non-starters (not only in go but also in poker and chess) could AND SHOULD drastically be reduced by creating a possibility to step down before the tornament starts.


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. They’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, “A 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).” 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, “The 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.” Wow, let’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 let’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 (let’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 that’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 event… and with the draw rate North of 90% in a 12-13 game event that means you are likely to win 1 game on average… 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 that’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 let’s look at the World Championship then shall we? Let’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 one’s rating is becoming hard. And one’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 ICCF’s proposal’s outlined “21 players that could have obtained a GM norm.” 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. Let’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 game’s conclusion this was the case). Yes, that’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 one’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 player’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 issues… 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 haven’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 games… 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+ him… 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 “giant” 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 that’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.


Wilhelm Schuett    (2020-06-18 01:11:45)
Game 122565

In Game 122565 i have made several moves but my clock stayed a4 1 day. No day was added after my last moves. In my other games there was added one day after each move.


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-06-18 11:04:12)
Game 122565

Hello Wilhelm,

Exactly, time control there is 40 days + 40 days each 10 moves (at move 10, 20, 30 and so on).


Steven DuCharme    (2020-07-29 03:56:24)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?

Longest by time or # of moves?


Stanislas Gounant    (2020-09-15 01:54:17)
Stockfish 12, neural network

On Larsen openning, SF 11 find theoretical moves, not SF 12.


Garvin Gray    (2020-09-15 03:42:27)
bullet corrospondence

Bullet advanced chess: time:
0 day, 00:05:00, increment : 0 day, 00:00:15 / move)

So five minutes initial time, plus 15 seconds per move from move one till the end of the game.


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-09-16 01:42:24)
Stockfish 12, neural network

By the way, if SF 11 finds these theoretical moves, it can find it kind of "luckily"... it does not mean with certainty that it finds it "better".


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.


Dariusz Fraczek    (2020-12-12 16:57:21)
Cannot make a move

After selecting a game I am on move, blank page is displayed (only menu bar) - no board, no game data. Games where my opponents are on move are displayed correctly and I can change game id and go to a game I am on move, but it is in read only mode. Checked on different browsers (Chrome and Opera) and different PCs. Some hours ago there was no problem.


Daniel Parmet    (2020-12-12 18:01:32)
What happened to all the players?

Here I quote LSS rule:
"Dear Chessfriends,

in the past there have been many complaints about games where one player started moving slowly esp in a lost position, partially using the 30-day-per-individual-move rule to its extreme. To my opinion, this is not a good attitude of sportsmanship.

I have therefore developed a measure against this. Depending on the position, the used time of reflection and the ratings of both players, the server can detect such games with a high probability. Actually, the delay of games is already part of the LSS Rules, but was not in effect so far.

Effective 1st October, 2020, such games will now be stopped by the server and the delaying player will be suspended for 3 weeks to start new tournaments. Further penalties might be introduced, if required.

The algorithm will not be revealed to avoid misuse and it might be due to change without notice.

Best wishes
Ortwin Pätzold"


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2020-12-12 18:40:37)
Cannot make a move

I have the same problem as Dariusz.


Dariusz Fraczek    (2020-12-13 07:44:37)
Cannot make a move

The workaround is to check "Fast moves" in Preferences.


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-12-13 12:30:07)
Cannot make a move

Indeed, I just fixed it.

Sorry for the inconvenience.


Dariusz Fraczek    (2020-12-13 20:24:26)
Cannot make a move

Fine, thank you.


Daniel Parmet    (2020-12-17 03:26:33)
Repeated draw offers

Not sure there is any downside at all to what Garvin is proposing. That said, I don't really find draw offers annoying. I did just win a game where I got a draw every ten moves for all 90 moves of the game before he resigned.


Stephane Legrand    (2020-12-22 21:05:43)
Repeated draw offers

I find draw offers annoying when a player offers draw at every move...
I would keep that player's name! I don't play tournament with this player anymore...


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-12-24 00:45:57)
FAIR PLAY

Well, if your opponent does not use engines (and thinks you're not using engines as well) there is some hope yet after a certain move :)


Ewald Gossmann    (2021-01-04 14:27:01)
K+B vs. K

I think all chessplayers know that this position is a draw. But in the game 125428 my oponent continues making move after move. I have already offered a draw, but no reaction.


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    (2021-03-29 01:20:13)
Poker Rating

It is not a question of "fault". It is a rule, nothing more. And yes, it does make sense in poker as well, exactly the same way (and it is possible to checkmate in less than 10 moves).


Vadrya Pokshtya    (2022-02-17 08:52:23)
Grand Dice Chess

Hello,
I am the author and inventor of chess variants. My chess variants are published on chessvariants.com and some of them can be played on Game Courier.
I would like to present to you a variant of chess with dice that I invented relatively recently and which can already be played on two sites on the Internet.

Grand Dice Chess
The Rules

The game uses a 12x12 board.

Each player has:

4 Kings
24 Pawns
8 Knights
8 Bishops
8 Rooks
4 Queens

White and black occupy the 1st-6th and 7th-12th ranks, respectively, as shown in the diagram.
Unfortunately I can't post an image here, but you can always find it here:

https://granddicechess.blogspot.com/2022/01/grand-dice-chess.html
https://www.chess.com/blog/Pokshtya/grand-dice-chess-battle
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-variants/grand-dice-chess

White starts the game first.
The game uses four dice.
Opponents make moves alternately, throwing 4 dice. The piece to move is determined by a die:
1 = pawn, 2 = knight, 3 = bishop, 4 = rook, 5 = queen and 6 = king.

The player makes four moves at the same time based on the indications of the dice and has the right to refuse (pass) any move that does not suit him, unless it is a pawn move. Unlike in regular dice chess it's allowable to pass moves. And this rule was already applied about a thousand years ago in old variant of Shatranj (Shatranj al-Mustatîla or Oblong Chess), the Arabic pre-decessor of modern chess. However it's not allowed to pass on pawn-moves, except when they are blocked.

Chess pieces move across the board as they do in ordinary chess - according to the standard rules of move and capture.
The only minor exception is for a pawn that is not allowed to move forward two squares from its starting position.
Upon reaching the last rank, the pawn can be promoted to any piece except the king and itself.
There is no castling, check and checkmate in the game.
The goal of the game is to capture four enemy kings.

The first test tournament was held on the site http://abstractgames.ru/index.php
The tournament is attended by 10 people and I received the most positive feedback from them.
The game has proven itself so well that regular tournaments have already been launched.
Yesterday the game was added to Dagaz server https://games.dtco.ru/map
And it's a great place to test the game in person, as registering on the site is very easy and doesn't require any personal information.

The game turned out to be extremely interesting and exciting, replete with puzzling combinations. Surprisingly, with this size of the board and the number of pieces, the average game lasts no more than 30 turns.


Christoph Schroeder    (2021-04-03 12:51:26)
Poker Rating

I really don't get the point of disallowing the rating of short games. It is like saying: "If a football team scores a goal within the first 5 minutes, the game result is cancelled (how dare they score so quickly?)."

In chess: What is the justification for handling a blundering of a piece at move nine (game not rated) differently from blundering a piece at move 11 (game rated)?

In poker, Herberts example shows the whole absurdity of the rule. If you are playing a maniac, such games can happen. What is the reason for not rating these games?


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.


Christoph Schroeder    (2021-04-06 08:53:31)
Poker Rating

In OTB chess I once lost a tournament game in 10 moves, blundering a winning combination by my opponent. Was my resignation at move 10 non-sportsmanlike?

The reason for losing quickly is most probably a lack of skill or an oversight by one player. Both things happen every day and are part of the game. No reason not to rate the game.

The consequence of this rule is outright ridiculous: a player who has the chance to mate his opponent before move 10, would have to refrain from mating and intentially play weaker moves, hoping that his opponent will resign only after move 10. I think noone really wants to see games like that.


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.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2021-04-11 13:54:18)
Poker Rating

Imo, the 10 move rule doesn't make sense for poker. It should be turned off (for poker only).


Ilmars Cirulis    (2021-04-11 17:55:56)
Poker Rating

Dunno, but it makes a bit more sense for chess (not sure if enough, and mostly I don't care as all my games are more than 10 moves anyway).

Poker has this option to go all-in which is legit move and sometimes can cause legit games that are less than 10 moves short. (If a player is crazy enough.)


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)


Don Groves    (2021-04-14 05:38:21)
Poker Rating

I recently had a Go tournament in which all six of my opponents failed to make even one move. Shouldn't this affect their ratings?


Don Groves    (2021-04-14 19:46:39)
Poker Rating

Yet fewer than ten moves were made.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-15 14:39:10)
Poker Rating

Any player who forfeits without a good reason should lose some points IMO (maybe more or maybe less than a regular lost game, but here it is equal at the moment)... but should a player who wins such a game be rewarded when he played 0, 1 or 5 moves? I don't think so. If it was the case, it would be much easier to manipulate ratings.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-16 14:35:19)
Poker Rating

To graduate a %-rated according to the number of moves played would not be a bad idea... why not.


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.


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-05-17 23:24:20)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended

Garvin, that thread (13002) was about FICGS Wch, not FICGS Cup... I added the possibility only of double round robin in Wch because I was not sure it was necessary in every stages (obviously it finds more sense in a round robin final than in stage 1), but anyway I could make it more accurate.

But indeed I just saw it was specified in FICGS Cup rules: "There will be double round-robin tournaments in case of groups of less than 7 players." ... fact is I can't remember when it was added but I guess I could have forgotten to apply it. Usually I read the rules again & again while making pairings, so I may have been negligent here. My apologies to all participants...

Thanks Garvin for pointing it out.

I'll come back on changes soon, it is a pity not to be able to gather more opinions so I'll have to make a move anyway.


Misha Allport    (2021-05-26 16:36:51)
Waiting List Expiration.

Are there time limits for waiting lists? Are they removed for lack of interest/non-participation?


Steven DuCharme    (2021-05-29 03:27:20)
ATTENTION USA PLAYERS

USA inmate D38967 awaits your move via jpay.com ...ENJOY


Herbert Kruse    (2021-06-13 23:03:42)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?

FIDE Laws of Chess:

5.1 The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent's king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was legal.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-06-15 15:36:44)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?

The checkmated player should resign to end the game (and to see it deleted from his list, that is more convenient anyway)

All FIDE chess rules apply at FICGS when there is no FICGS rule. Many rules here are different from FIDE (starting from 50 moves rule)... that is even more true about Big Chess.


Herbert Kruse    (2021-06-15 17:15:38)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?

Your own rules say:

"Big chess

Introduction

The object of the game is to checkmate the opponent. This occurs when no further move can prevent the king from being captured.

Rules are the same than in western chess, except castling is not possible"


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-06-30 01:11:05)
Withdrawal from Standard Tournament

Hello Misha, your name has been removed (a few days ago already). My best wishes


Don Groves    (2021-07-09 04:42:13)
Confused

In Game 129751, the last move was Re4 but the pgn shows Ne4. What happened?


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-07-09 12:33:43)
Confused

Hi Don,

Quite strange, I just checked: moves 38 and 46 are both Re4 in both PGN & game viewer.

Do you confirm it is ok?


Christoph Schroeder    (2021-07-18 13:00:19)
3 times repetition not recognized ??

Indeed, after my next move the repetition was recognized.


Paul Brand Lyard    (2021-07-18 21:19:39)
Chess engines levels from 1985 to 2020

Lc0 27.0 is a very nice engine to play,with Shredder, and the SF12 nuue is great.
So,the new "21 one moves#" played on 2020, on engine SF11 nuue
by
" The Sandra Lyard13061975 Inventor Annapurna'chess,and chess player", Stockfish11.


Don Groves    (2021-07-26 02:18:24)
Another error.

In game 129344 the last move for White is Kg2, but the King is still on G1!


Juri Eintalu    (2021-09-27 16:29:57)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess

I am new on FICGS and I do not understand how to accept a draw offering in chess. I accepted a draw, but after about 12 hours, my clock is still running and the draw is not fixed. I do not want to accept a draw together with making a move, as in the OTB game making a move means rejecting the draw.


Juri Eintalu    (2021-09-28 04:26:24)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess

Eintalu - Osipov
https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=132155

I really do not know whether it was a bug. I found from the Forum some old remarks that make a move to accept a draw. Also, I had programs working in my computer.


Juri Eintalu    (2021-10-04 17:37:27)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess

Now, I am pretty sure that to accept a draw on FICGS correspondence chess, one has to make a move, accept a draw, and then send the move together with the acceptance. Only then the system recognizes that the draw has been accepted. The last move is not shown in the final record, it is fictive. It is weird and confusing for the beginners on FICGS. Unfortunately, in the rules, this feature has not been explained.


Juri Eintalu    (2021-10-05 21:38:49)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess

Dear Thibault de Vassal, the other possibility is to add some informative remarks to the Rules or FAQ. This is a problem for the beginners on FICGS. There is also some probability of making a fictive and stupid move but somehow failing to accept a draw.


Garvin Gray    (2021-10-06 06:13:15)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess

Unfortunately I can not recall the exact procedure for what happens when someone offers a draw and you want to accept.

It has been a while since I have been offered a draw and have chosen to accept.

But, yes, when offered a draw, when you go to that game, under the board, it should show 'accept draw' and then you tick that box.

Then you get a confirm option box 'idiot warning' type box, and say yes. And then the draw is confirmed.

There should be no need to input a move if you are accepting the draw.


Juri Eintalu    (2021-10-06 12:35:34)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess

Garvin Gray, Here, I have accepted a draw in two games. In both cases, the procedure described by you worked neither on my PC nor on my mobile phone. I do not remember, but perhaps the warning box did not appear at all. In both cases, to access that confirmation box, I did the following: I marked the draw as accepted, then I made a move and then I confirmed it.


Garvin Gray    (2021-10-06 17:24:43)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess

Interestingly, I was just offered a draw.

I received the draw offer, got the pop up box for the draw offer, ticked the accept draw offer and then sent my acceptance.

Game over.

I had none of the issues described here where I had to send a move.


Juri Eintalu    (2021-10-06 18:54:56)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess

Now, as a new user on FICGS, I have a new problem. I do not know how to block another user whose aggressive comments I really do not want to read or respond to.

The system of accepting a draw can be tested, of course, if 2 staff members of FICGS play 4 unrated games with each other, proposing a draw on the 4. move. First, whether checking the "Accept" box is sufficient; Second, whether my claim is true that it is possible to check the "Accept", make a move and send it - to achieve acceptance of a draw.

Possibly, there are some time-out problems with the promised pop-up window.

I really do not respond ever again to GG-s empty etc comments.


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-10-21 00:29:15)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess

A first explanation to your problem with draw offers is that you use the "slow moves" process... not many players still use it. I think that this bug is not appearing in the "fast moves" process.


Juri Eintalu    (2021-10-21 16:33:26)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess

You are right. I am using the "slow moves". I thought it is reasonable in correspondence chess. I shall try some other regime. Thank you.


Juri Eintalu    (2021-10-30 20:30:34)
Big Chess theory?

I mean, the knight must change the colour of the square every move. It is the most essential thing about the knight in chess.


Juri Eintalu    (2021-11-11 10:18:58)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess

So, now I am using the Fast Moves option. I was offered a draw. On my smartphone, I noticed "Accepted". Then, below the box for messages, I pressed "Send". No draw. I accepted again, but now I pressed the bottom "Send" which is right below the chessboard. Success. I did not have to make a move to accept a draw.


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-02-18 21:34:17)
Grand Dice Chess

Looks like tough! :) Very different from Big Chess... 30 moves only in average is quite surprising.


Vadrya Pokshtya    (2022-02-19 06:11:11)
Grand Dice Chess

Thank you, Mr. Thibault!
This was facilitated by reducing the distance between the two armies to zero. Each move is a roll of 4 dice or a movement of four pieces. As soon as the pawn chain is opened, events develop at lightning speed. It is also interesting that the right of the first move is not an advantage here for the beginning side. The first games in the test tournament on one of the Russian gaming sites showed this. The balance of white and black victories is kept strictly around 50%. The game turned out to be one of the most strategic among all dice chess variants.
You can try playing against the AI ​​here

https://glukkazan.github.io/checkmate/grand-dice-chess.htm?fbclid=IwAR1Tt6sFmrK8KYRxwPPZJnrGujGss7to2jzdV8GxSons7Pmjdk7udHoJ0PA

This is a direct link to the game with the bot. Registration is not required. The bot is very weak but perfect for understanding the game.
Mr. Thibault, I would be glad if you would consider the possibility of holding a test tournament on your site. It would be interesting to see how many people would take part and what would be their opinion about the game. In any case, everyone would get an unforgettable experience.
Since I am doing this for the game and not for the money, you are free to dispose of Grand Dice Chess as you see fit on your site.
Thank you!


Jan Talek    (2022-02-28 19:01:04)
FICGS support to Ukraine

I see there are many different opinions regarding flags. If it is such problematic issue let's remove flags on the website for the time of war.


Daniel Parmet    (2022-03-01 18:29:14)
FICGS support to Ukraine

Definitely stop the clocks. ICCF Stopped them to April 29th which I think is absolutely the right move.


Paul Brand Lyard    (2022-03-01 22:01:59)
Stockfish 14 is out

Official first Victory vs Stocfish 14 NUEE on 2022-01-14th, under 58 moves for posterity.

Sandra Lyard- Stocfish14 on Lichess.org


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-03-02 19:50:53)
Russian flag replaced

I understand your point but it seems to be more complicated... At tennis, in example, Elina Svitolina (UKR) didn't want to play Anastasia Potapova (RUS) yesterday, but federation of tennis "removed" russian flag for individual players... the match finally happened (Svitolina won 6-2 6-1 by the way). All russians I know do not support this war, so I think it is a good sign of support from them to join this idea, kind of support for peace.

If any russian player is pro-Poutine or supports this war, of course he can talk to me and ask for his flag (not meaning he'll get it).


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-03-02 19:54:37)
FICGS support to Ukraine

Clocks for ukrainian players in activity have been stopped yesterday (45 days of special "vacation", can be renewed if necessary).

I don't hold any of this against russian players as well. As I said in the other post:

"(...) At tennis, in example, Elina Svitolina (UKR) didn't want to play Anastasia Potapova (RUS) yesterday, but federation of tennis "removed" russian flag for individual players... the match finally happened (Svitolina won 6-2 6-1 by the way). All russians I know do not support this war, so I think it is a good sign of support from them to join this idea, kind of support for peace.

If any russian player is pro-Poutine or supports this war, of course he can talk to me and ask for his flag (not meaning he'll get it)."


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-04-26 22:50:40)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

Yes, I made that stupid mistake to mix the 60 days / move & the 100 days max accumulated time in my mind... as a consequence, even that 2nd period of 45 days vacation more for Alexey did not help. As soon as I saw that result, I added some time to his other games. I'm now working on a script that will solve this very special case for our ukrainian friends (because these dramatic circumstances may last), in other words, I'll have to shift the last move time, possibly again & again.

Of course this result will be canceled within hours, by the way I specified in terms & conditions (soon uploaded) that such human intervention like this may only happen in case of war.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-05-11 01:41:05)
Carlos Alcaraz y el ajedrez :)

Approximative translation ^^


Q. One of the most unknown aspects of you is that you like to take a nap and play chess before games. Can you explain it to me?

A. That's right. I was caught on camera at the Next Gen in Milan and in Rio I also slept because rest is important and even more so in such an intense week in which it rained and the games were delayed. Recovery was key and naps before games are for me. And chess helps me because you are focused, your head works...

Q. How does chess specifically help you to practice tennis?

A. It helps me to be faster mentally, to observe plays, to see the movement you want to make, the strategy... To be focused all the time. In chess, like tennis, you get lost for a moment and the game is already mixed up. In this aspect they are two quite similar disciplines.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-05-15 16:39:20)
19th Go championship final match

Hello everyone,

The 19th Go championship final match just started... late, really late. It did not start before because the challenger obviously stopped to play at FICGS and lost games without making a move (cancelling his qualification), but when reading the rules again, I realized that nothing prevented to make a replacement by the 2nd best score.

Consequently Paul Dao (CAN) is the challenger in 19th & 20th Go championships. Of course he will not have to play the 20th final match if he wins the 19th...

(better late than never, sorry for the delay)


German Denegri    (2022-07-09 21:27:21)
Cancel vacations

hello

how can cancel my vacations, i see i dont can move, i did it becouse i had little time in one game....


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-07-17 02:24:11)
Cancel vacations

This is not a simple matter at all actually... cause any player making any move then would provoke changes that are matter to discuss.


Herbert Kruse    (2022-08-03 05:52:20)
poker reflection time

u get 12 hours per move at first und if its at 5 days left, u get 24 hours, so time is not a problem


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-08-11 04:06:49)
poker reflection time

Not really, but it does not bring so much improvement (there will be players whose rhythm will take about the same total time at the end - if I understood well) while it complexifies the understanding of the time added per move, IMHO.


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.


Herbert Kruse    (2022-08-18 22:25:46)
poker reflection time

if you want meaningful, u go with 12 hours per move, but Thib doesnt want this, because of wins by time


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...


Jan Zidu    (2022-09-19 03:37:50)
Repeated draw offers

In any case, I would introduce a rule that each player has the right to offer the opponent a draw repeatedly, but may not do so more than once every 10 moves. If the player follows this rule, he must not be sanctioned in any way. Does the introduction of such a rule present any problem?


Misha Allport    (2022-10-03 16:58:26)
Number of moves affect the ratng result?

If I am playing a stronger player(+600 points).do the number of moves I make in a loss affect my new rating?(i.e. do I lose fewer points being defeated in 60 moves as opposed to being beaten in 10 moves)?


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-10-03 22:03:58)
Number of moves affect the ratng result?

Hmm no, I don't think so. (not the same in case of a win indeed)


Misha Allport    (2022-10-03 22:16:56)
Number of moves affect the ratng result?

I am referring to a LOSS to a superior player ranked 600+ points ahead of me.


Misha Allport    (2022-10-03 22:21:52)
Number of moves affect the ratng result?

If it has no effect, then the quality of play by the loser is unimportant. Scholar Mate=120 moves. Is that right?


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-10-03 22:36:19)
Number of moves affect the ratng result?

Yes, I understood about the 600+ points. Yes as well to the last question even if I'm not sure what you mean by "Scholar Mate=120 moves".


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.


Scott Ligon    (2022-10-07 01:20:05)
Threefold repetition

I don't think you have to claim the draw. When threefold repetition occurs (after you submit your next move), I believe the site software will automatically declare the game a draw. In a recent game of mine, that's what happened. I got the email notification that the game was a draw almost immediately after submitting the move that resulted in the third repetition, too quickly for my opponent to have accepted my draw offer. Maybe the draw offer is necessary for the draw to happen, I don't know about that, but if it automatically recognizes the repetition I see no reason why it would matter whether there was a draw offer.

As for when / if the arbiter should act in positions that seem obviously drawn, I don't know how that's handled and I have nothing to say about that.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-10-07 02:58:17)
Threefold repetition

Hello Patrycja,

Sorry for the delay, I just saw the email indeed... As Scott says, you have to play the move anyway before to claim a draw (if the site does not recognize it automatically). It seems to me that's how work most chess websites.


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.

> The only way to claim a draw after a threefold repetition is to play the move.


2. Why can't I stop my clock when I make such a claim? See art. 9.5 of FIDE's Laws of Chess.

> FICGS offers (mainly) correspondence chess, that is not OTB chess, and some FIDE laws do not apply here.


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.

> FICGS is an automatic place, mainly. Games continue even if the referee has to take action later.


4. Why doesn't the referee take action? Is there a referee at all?

> There is one. But he may take some time... the forum & chat are good alternatives to get answers to any question.


Misha Allport    (2022-10-07 13:30:21)
Number of moves affect the ratng result?

What is the answer to my question? Yes or no.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-10-07 21:08:53)
Number of moves affect the ratng result?

The answer to your first question is no.


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-10-09 01:55:57)
Threefold repetition

Oh ok then... Anyway there are indeed several violations of FIDE rules at FICGS. The first one (the 50 moves rule does not apply) because I found it interesting to try it & to make it different when I created the website. It is specified in the terms & conditions (if you read it).

The other ones exist probably because either I didn't care or know, either because it was technically convenient.

Consequently, I agree with you on this point but it works like this for more than 16 years now and I don't aim to change it until FICGS goes into other hands (that will probably happen one day) for many technical reasons.

About your game, you will have to play that move, just like any other player has to do in such situation. This will prove you agreeded the draw.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2022-10-28 01:45:20)
What about this position?

If white to move, it's win for them.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-11-22 02:31:19)
I did not win a game since 3 years

Voilà un débat qui pourrait être intéressant...

Stanislas' message in english:

"I've been playing on this computer-assisted site for 15 years. Fifteen years ago to win a game you had to use several analysis programs depending on the game phases. I seem to remember that Hiarcs was better in the final than the other programs. Until a few years ago, it was possible to find fortresses that resisted the onslaught of the adversary, even when my program told me that I had lost. But it's been 3 years since I only won against players who played without the help of the computer or who made a mistake when playing their move. What I would like is that a solution be found to restore interest in the game by correspondence."


Scott Ligon    (2022-11-22 15:10:32)
I did not win a game since 3 years

In that case you'd need some way to address the possibility that a player could always draw their two game match by mirroring the moves their opponent plays in one game to the other game.


Scott Ligon    (2022-11-22 16:00:33)
I did not win a game since 3 years

Even the idea of having preset pools of starting positions isn't necessary. Going off my previous post, the first player selects any starting position they like (has to be a position that can be reached in an actual game of chess, so let's say the first player gives a sequence of opening moves that results in the position). First player wants to pick a position right on the border between win and draw, but they don't even need to stipulate which side is playing for the win, because a chess engine can run a quick search and determine that automatically. So the first player submits an opening sequence of moves, the FICGS server runs a quick evaluation with Stockfish or whatever just to decide which side has advantage, and the second player chooses between playing the advantaged side for a win or the disadvantaged side for a draw.


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.


Scott Ligon    (2022-11-25 17:10:39)
I did not win a game since 3 years

What does it even mean to have an advantage? Engine analysis has changed my perspective on this issue. From a human perspective, we can say that white has an advantage at the start of the game, and the statistics support this. At the highest levels of human chess white wins more often than black, but it's more often a draw. So white has a slight advantage.

From the perspective of correspondence chess with modern engines, the advantage is shown to be an illusion. It's just a draw. The engine evaluation at the start might be +0.15 or whatever, but if both sides are using an engine and there's no severe time constraint, it doesn't mean anything. By move 20 or so of a competently played correspondence game the engine analysis will have converged to 0.00 and it will stay there for the rest of the game.

In the final analysis, there's no such thing as a slight advantage. Every position is either a forced checkmate for one side or the other, or it's a draw. Even modern engines haven't pushed things that far, but they're strong enough to obliterate our human concept of an advantage.


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2023-02-05 20:53:53)
Advertising a win or a draw with 7th or

You found the right way (email or any way to contact webmaster)...

As of January 2023, rule is :

"11. 5. Adjudications

In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious.

If time control is superior to 1 day and if a player doesn't want to resign (or accept draw) and obviously last the game, his opponent may report to referee a first time. If the player takes 30 days more to finish the game, his opponent may call referee another time, then the game will be adjudicated. An analysis submitted by a player should contain sufficient information so that no doubt is possible. This may include a sequence of moves, but in some circumstances it may be sufficient to claim a win or a draw on the basis of material or positional advantage. Final decision belongs to referee."


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?


Ilmars Cirulis    (2023-06-03 02:21:04)
GUI for Big Chess?

Also, Winboard is not going to accept Big Chess games copied from FICGS because it only knows stadard notation (for example, Nj4 etc.).

When I tried doing some analysis, I just copied FEN of Big Chess starting position (but FEN of some other position also works) and then I was free to move pieces around.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2023-06-03 02:37:55)
GUI for Big Chess?

And now you can move pieces around. But don't ask me about making variations, because Winboard's idea of that is awful. :(


Juri Eintalu    (2023-08-09 22:29:42)
FIDE BANS KARJAKIN

I have not made any political posts on the Forum.
Quite to the contrary: I have criticized politicizing sports.

I am shocked by the answers I received from Garvin Gray and Thibault de Vassal. I do not think their comments exemplify a civilized discussion. The problem is that they are not arbitrary chess players but chess organizers. I conclude that rational discussion with those who support politicizing chess is impossible.

I had already forgotten the FICGS server, but now I have received a notification that someone has commented on my old post.

Bogoljub Teverovski announces on 09 August 2023:

"A self-ban of karjakin continues"

No hints have been made about what event he is talking about—no references, links, or explanations.

I can only understand that Bogoljub regards the FIDE ban on Karjakin as a Karjakin's SELF-ban.

Let me add that 1 e2-e4 is the initial move of the Queen's gambit, and 1 Ng1-f3 is the most popular opening in checkers.

I am logging out from the FICGS not to receive any notifications anymore.


A. T. S. Broekhuizen    (2023-09-02 07:39:02)
Next thematic tournament

Smyslov Nimzo-Indian: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 a5 5. a3 Bxd2+ 6. Nbxd2 O-O 7. e3 d6 8. Nb1 b6 9. Nc3 Bb7 10. Bd3

The knight manoeuvre on moves 8 and 9 is unexplored.


Juri Eintalu    (2023-11-15 21:44:51)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations

Dear Herbert Kruse

My Public Appeal is about the sports sanctions, particularly about the chess sanctions, in the context of the Ukraine/Russia war and the more recent Israel/Palestine war.

My position is that it is wrong to politicise sports and, therefore, it was wrong to impose chess sanctions on Russia and Ukraine. The chess sanctions imposed on Russia and Ukraine should be lifted.

However, if these sanctions remain in force and politicising sports is regarded as a new normal, I think similar sanctions should be imposed on all countries that have seriously violated the international conventions.

Since October 2023, Israel has committed serious war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip (and elsewhere too).

Therefore, I suggest that if the chess sanctions imposed on Russia and Belarus will not be removed, then similar sanctions should be imposed on Israel.

For example, Israel should be excluded from the International Correspondence Chess Federation membership.

I explained all these points in my Public Appeal.

In your replies, you have actually not addressed my arguments presented in the Public Appeal.

First, you started to talk about the Jews in Germany. But the word "Jew(s)" appeared only once in my Public Appeal - to declare that the sanctions should be imposed on the states or the citizens of states and not based on ethnicity:

"As far as the Jews are concerned, collective punishment must not be applied to them. No one may be accused or discriminated against based on their nationality."

Finally, you started to talk about Israel's right to self-defence. Again, this distorts the content of my Public Appeal. I have nowhere and never denied Israel's right to self-defence. However, from the right to self-defence, it in no way follows that one has a right to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Unnecessarily killing a large number of unarmed civilians is a war crime, and it cannot be justified by referring to self-defence or the war crimes the other side has earlier committed.

Unfortunately, I cannot continue discussing this with you, as you have systematically ignored the content of my Public Appeal.


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2023-11-17 21:18:54)
Battle of Kings

I agree.

What were (how many moves approximately) the longest & shortest games you played until there?


Vadrya Pokshtya    (2023-11-17 21:36:46)
Battle of Kings

On average, a game lasts 70-80 moves. This is provided that the players understand what they are doing. Otherwise the game may end quickly.
Since, unlike ordinary chess, the board does not become empty as events develop on the board, but on the contrary, the evolution of chess pieces pushes towards the collapse of the entire system, its finitude is obvious. The spawning process cannot last forever - everything is limited by the 8x8 chessboard.


Timothy Cookson    (2023-11-24 01:40:53)
Referee Adjudication

At what point should I ask for an adjudication by tablebase?

Is there a rule for 5-6-7 man syzygy positions? It is a 167DTM position and it does not draw by 50 move rule.


Thibault de Vassal    (2023-11-25 23:15:04)
Referee Adjudication

The later is best :)

Do not forget that 50 moves rule does NOT apply at FICGS.

If there is a checkmate to come, according to the rules: after you ask, your opponent still gets 30 days to play a few moves more. Not everyone uses tablebases and some may want to see how it ends...




There are 438 results for move in wikichess.


Francisco Pessoa    (2528)
e4

King's Pawn Game refers to any chess opening where White opens with 1.e4, the most popular of the twenty possible opening moves. Since nearly all of these openings have names of their own, the term "King's Pawn Game", unlike Queen's Pawn Game is rarely used to describe the opening of the game.

King's Pawn Games are further classified by whether Black responds with 1...e5 or not.

Openings beginning with 1.e4 e5 are called Double King's Pawn Games (or Openings), Symmetrical King's Pawn Games (or Openings), or Open Games—these terms are equivalent. Openings where Black responds to 1.e4 with a move other than 1...e5 are called Asymmetrical King's Pawn Games (or Openings) or Semi-open Games.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 57%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Mark Noble, Francisco Pessoa


Thibault de Vassal    (2522)
d4

Queen's Pawn Game refer to any chess opening which starts with 1.d4, the second most popular opening move, but is now usually used to describe openings where White opens with 1.d4 but does not follow through with an early pawn advance to c4. Some of these openings have individual names as well.

In the 1800s and early 1900s, 1.e4 was by far the most common opening move by White, while the different openings starting with 1.d4 were considered somewhat unusual and therefore classed together as "Queen's Pawn Game".

As the merits of 1.d4 started to be explored it was the Queen's Gambit which was played most often; more popular than all other 1.d4 openings combined. The term "Queen's Pawn Game" was then narrowed down to any opening with 1.d4 which was not a Queen's Gambit. Eventually, through the efforts of the hypermodernists, the various Indian Defences, such as the King's Indian, Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian, became more popular, and as these openings were named, the term "Queen's Pawn Game" narrowed further.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 58%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


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)
Nf3

The Réti Opening (also called the King's Knight Opening) is a chess opening characterized by the opening move 1.Nf3

It is named after Richard Réti, a Czechoslovakian chess player who used it to defeat the world champion José Raúl Capablanca in 1924.

According to ChessBase, out of the twenty possible opening moves, 1.Nf3 ranks third in popularity. It develops the knight to a good square and prepares for a quick castling. White maintains flexibility by not committing to a particular central pawn structure, while waiting to see what Black will do. The slight drawback to the move is that it blocks the f-pawn. This is not a problem if White does not intend to move it in the near future, but it rules out the possibility of playing systems with f3 and Nge2, which is a fairly popular setup against the King's Indian.

Usually 1.Nf3 will transpose into an opening with 1.d4, such as the King's Indian or the Queen's Gambit. If White follows up with an early c4 a transposition to the English Opening may be reached. Even the Sicilian Defense may be reached if the game opens 1.Nf3 c5 2.e4.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 57%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5

The open game is a fight for center squares : d4 and d5 are already under control, and the probable next moves 2.Nf3 or 2.Nc3, then 2. ... Nc6 or 2. ... Nf6 will take control of e4 and e5 squares as well.

Games are often more tactical than in Sicilian opening (1.e4 c5), and requires more calculation than deep strategy. Furthermore, black chances to win are lower than in Sicilian, so I avoid to play it against computers or at correspondence chess.

According to Chessbase and correspondence chess statistics, 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 e5 f4

King's gambit was the most popular opening in the 19th century. White offers a pawn to divert Black's e-pawn and build a full center with d2-d4. In order to hold the extra pawn, Black will have to spend time weakening his kingside with moves like g7-g5. It is now rarely seen at the master level, it being generally thought that Black can obtain a reasonable position either by giving back the gambitted pawn at a later time or holding on to it and consolidating defensively.

Black must decide whether or not to accept the gambit. Since White cannot easily regain the pawn if Black accepts, the King's Gambit Accepted is the most common.

According to Chessbase and correspondence chess statistics, white chances are about 54%

============

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 d5 c4

The Queen's Gambit is one of the oldest known chess openings, as Lucena wrote about it in 1497 and it is mentioned in an earlier manuscript in Göttingen. During the early period of modern chess queen pawn openings were not in fashion, and the Queen's Gambit did not become common until the 1873 tournament in Vienna.

As Steinitz and Tarrasch developed chess theory and increased the appreciation of positional play, the Queen's Gambit grew more popular. It reached its peak popularity in the 1920s and 1930s, and was played in 32 out of 34 games in the 1934 World Chess Championship.

Since then Black has increasingly moved away from symmetrical openings, tending to use the Indian defences to combat queen pawn openings. The Queen's Gambit is still frequently played, however, and it remains an important part of many grandmasters' opening repertoires.

With 2.c4, White threatens to exchange a wing pawn (the c-pawn) for a center pawn (Black's d-pawn) and dominate the center with e2-e4. This is not a true gambit since if Black accepts the pawn he cannot expect to keep it.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Sebastien Marez    (2377)
d4 d5 c4 c6

The Slav is one of the primary defenses to the Queen's Gambit. Although it was analyzed as early as 1590, it wasn't until the 1920s that it started to be explored extensively. Many masters of Slavic descent helped develop the theory of this opening, including Alapin, Alekhine, Bogoljubov, and Vidmar.

The Slav received an exhaustive test during the two Alekhine–Euwe World Championship matches in 1935 and 1937. Played by 11 of the first 13 world champions, this defense was particularly favored by Euwe, Botvinnik, and Smyslov. More recently the Slav has been adopted by Anand, Ivanchuk, Lautier, Short, and other top grandmasters. Today the theory of the Slav is very extensive and well developed.

Black faces three major problems in many variations of the Queen's Gambit Declined (QGD).

- Development of the Black queen bishop is difficult, as it is often blocked by ...e6.

- The pawn structure offers White targets, especially the possibility of a minority attack on the queenside in the Exchange variation of the QGD.

- White often plays Bg5 to pin the black king knight on f6 against the black queen, and unpinning it is awkward for Black.

The Slav addresses all of these problems. Black's queen bishop is unblocked, the pawn structure remains balanced, and the move Bg5 is not yet threatening as the unmoved black pawn on e7 prevents the pin. Also, if Black later takes the gambit pawn with ...dxc4, the support provided by the pawn on c6 allows ...b5 which may threaten to keep the gambit pawn or to drive away a white piece that has captured it, gaining Black a tempo for queenside expansion.

On the other side, Black usually won't be able to develop the queen bishop without first giving up the center with ...dxc4, and moving this bishop may leave the Black queenside weak. White will try to dominate the center with e2-e4.

According to Chessbase, Black chances are about 43%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Sebastien Marez


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6

This is the second most played line in Sicilian. Reached commonly after 2. ... Nc6, logically the best move. The play is probably easier for Black than in 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 variation, but it is much harder to win against a same level player who plays Sicilian Sveshnikov. In my opinion, one should use this opening only to obtain a draw against a stronger player, and to save energy.

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange, Thibault de Vassal


David Grosdemange    (1912)
e4 e5 f4 d5

this move was considered as a refutation of the king's gambit by gm siegbert tarrasch .
this counter gambit tries to give initiative to black .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 f4 exf4

The acceptation of the king's gambit seems to be the best move. It is now rarely seen at the master level, it being generally thought that Black can obtain a reasonable position either by giving back the gambitted pawn at a later time or holding on to it and consolidating defensively.

According to Chessbase, black chances are about 51%

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange, Thibault de Vassal


Tryfon Gavriel    (2164)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4

By far the most popular move, in order to take the control of the d4-square.

The change in pawn structure after cxd4 has a profound effect on the plans for both sides. Black in the Siclian defence will often aim to exploit the semi-open c file.
============

Contributors : Julien Coll, Tryfon Gavriel


Alan Vera    (1454)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3

a natural move, defending the e-pawn and developing one knight.

============

Contributors : Julien Coll, Alan Vera


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


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
f4

Bird's Opening is named after the 19th century English master, Henry Bird.

According to ChessBase, in master level chess, out of the twenty possible opening moves, 1.f4 ranks seventh in popularity. It is much less popular than 1.c4 (the English Opening) mainly because 1.f4 weakens the king's position slightly.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


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

The most common move, played by 3 players out of 4, even more at a master level. The idea behind is quite the same as in Queen's gambit, giving space to white and controlling center. The c-file could be opened for rooks early in some variants, and the knight Nb1 now could jump to his most designated square c3.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 58%

============

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

This natural move increases pressure on d5 square. According to me, it's a more logical decision than Nf3, which is the most played move nowadays, probably because it offers a larger choice of continuations.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 57%

============

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)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6

Since White's third move 3.Nf3, a move commonly played to avoid the Nimzo-Indian Defence, does not threaten to occupy the centre with 4.e4, Black has the option of playing 3...b6, called Queen's Indian Defense.

The play in the Queen's Indian is similar to that of the Nimzo-Indian. The opening is considered a hypermodern one, since Black does not strive to occupy the centre with his pawns immediately. Instead he intends to fianchetto his queen's bishop and put pressure on the e4-square in order to prevent White from occupying that square. With the White centre restrained Black intends to attack it. As in most other hypermodern openings, White will attempt to solidify his centre, prove that it is strong, not weak, and use his advantage in space to crush Black.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 d5

This move transposes in queen's gambit lines. Not much more to say about it. See the queen's gambit openings.

According to Chessbase, black chances are about 43%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4

The Italian Game is a chess opening, or more accurately a family of chess openings, characterized by this move.

The openings arising from the Italian Game are among the oldest recorded openings and the sequence of moves is known as the Épine Dorsale. The Giuoco Piano (Italian: "quiet game") was played by the Portuguese Damiano at the beginning of the 15th century, and the Italian Greco at the beginning of the 16th century. The Italian Game received its name because of Greco's work, while Damiano has the misfortune to have his name attached to the Damiano Defense, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6?, a line he rightly condemned. The Two Knights Defense was analyzed by Giulio Cesare Polerio (c.1550–c.1610) in 1580.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 52%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
g3

The King's Indian Attack (KIA) can be reached by different routes (usually by 1.e4, 1.Nf3 or 1.g3). Often the KIA is reached via 1.e4 followed by d3, Nd2, Ngf3, g3, Bg2, and 0-0, an example being 1.e4 e6 2.d3 (this is possible against almost any opening move -- 1...c6, 1...c5, etc.) d5 3.Nd2 followed by Ngf3, etc.

Since the KIA is a closed, strategic opening choice, many 1.e4 players prefer to play sharper, more open variations. When played after 1.e4, the KIA is most often used against the semi-open defences where Black responds asymmetrically to e4, such as the French Defence, Sicilian Defence, Caro-Kann Defence, etc. The KIA is less often played against 1.e4 e5, where most White players prefer to play more aggressive lines such as the Ruy Lopez.

The King's Indian attack is considered to be one of the most solid opening choices for White, but not very aggressive. It is similar to the King's Indian Defense with colors reversed. White's plan is usually to either push the d and e pawns up a rank as the game progresses in order to bind the opponent. If Black castles king-side, White often follows up with h4 and a king-side pawn storm, placing his king at h1 if needed. If Black castles queen-side, White can move his knight to c4 and attack on the queen-side.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 55%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 b4

The gambit is named after Captain William Davies Evans, the first player known to have employed it. The first game with the opening is considered to be Evans - McDonnell, London 1827, although in that game a slightly different move order was tried (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. O-O d6 and only now 5. b4). The gambit became very popular shortly after that, being employed a number of times in the series of games between McDonnell and Louis de la Bourdonnais in 1834. Players such as Adolf Anderssen, Paul Morphy and Mikhail Chigorin subsequently took it up. It was out of favour for much of the 20th century, although John Nunn and Jan Timman played some games with it in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and in the 1990s Garry Kasparov used it in a few of his games (notably a famous 25-move win against Viswanathan Anand in Riga, 1995), which prompted a brief revival of interest in it.

The Evans Gambit is basically an aggressive variant of the Giuoco Piano, which normally continues with the positional moves 4. c3 or 4. d3. The idea behind the move 4. b4 is to give up a pawn in order to secure a strong centre and bear down on Black's weak-point, f7. Ideas based on Ba3, preventing black from castling, are also often in the air. The most obvious and most usual way for Black to meet the gambit is to accept it with 4... Bxb4, after which White plays 5. c3 and Black usually follows up with 5... Ba5 (5... Be7 and, less often 5... Bc5 and 5... Bd6 are also played). White usually follows up with 6. d4.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Julien Coll    (1400)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3

This flexible move keeps open White's options, compared to other well-known continuations like 6.f3: moreover, White sets a little typical trap.

============

Contributors : Julien Coll


Julien Coll    (1400)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 f3

Here begins the Yugoslav Attack, a very rich way of fighting against the big dragon. Usually White castles queenside and launches a strong attack by pushing his g (g4) and h-pawns (h4-h5) and exchanging the dark-squared bishops (Qd2-Bh6), whereas Black has counterplay with an attack against White's long castle thanks to the c-file, manoeuvres like ...Nc6-e5-c4, pawn pushes like ...b5-b4, ...a5-a4. This kind of game is rarely annoying and very often plenty of sacrifices (ex. sacrifices of the quality in c3 (for Black) and in h5 (for White) are both typical) White should be careful with the g4-square if he plans to castle queenside quickly for an exciting game. Move order is quite important here.

============

Contributors : Julien Coll


Julien Coll    (1400)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 Qd2


The problem of this move is that the g4-square isn't controlled any more! So it permits...
============

Contributors : Julien Coll


David Grosdemange    (1912)
e4 e6 d4 d5 e5

this move is an alternative of Nc3 . this position scores 53% for white .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


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


David Grosdemange    (1912)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5

this is the most played move on this position . black don't protect his e5 pawn , so white take it .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


David Grosdemange    (1912)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 d6 Nf3

the most logical move .
then white scores 56% .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


Gino Figlio    (2454)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6

The definition of the Najdorf from other Sicilians, a good move taking control of the b5 square, and preparing b5, this opening named after the Argentinian GM Miguel Najdorf who poularized the opening, but he did not create it as is often the case with so many modern openings. A6 is also designed to play e5 without white being able to reply with Bb5+
============

Contributors : Steven Hanly, Andrew Stephenson, Gino Figlio


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

The most common move. Players who fear Morra gambit (particularly in rapid play) could have transposed in another variant with 2. ... e6

============

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)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3 dxc3

The Morra gambit accepted. (the most common move)

"The best way to refute a gambit is to accept it".

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


David Grosdemange    (1912)
e4 Nf6 e5 Nd5

the only logical move .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


David Grosdemange    (1912)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5

The main and the most logical move. White keeps his centre and gains a space advantage.

============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid, David Grosdemange


Larry Wolfley    (2133)
e4 c5 Nf3 a6 c3

White plays as in the c3 (Alapin) Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.c3) and will try to show that Black's a6 move is not that usefull.

============

Contributors : Larry Wolfley


Larry Wolfley    (2133)
e4 c5 Nf3 a6 c4

White plays for a Maroczy bind. White will play d4 if possible in the next few moves, and after ..cxd4 Nxd4 the so-called Maroczy bind pawn structure will have arisen.

============

Contributors : Larry Wolfley


Pablo Schmid    (1700)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6

This move is generally played to reach the Sicilian Taimanov or the Sicilian Kan(Paulsen).
The advantage of e6 is to keep options open for the bishop of the dark squares. But it as somes disadvantages too: The sicilian with c3 or b3 is stronger here compared to 2..d6 or 2..Nc6 because e6 limits Black's options.
============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid


Pablo Schmid    (1700)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4

The standard open sicilan move.

============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid


David Grosdemange    (1912)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 c3

this anti-sicilian is better against this black move ...e6 .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


David Grosdemange    (1912)
e4 c5 Nf3 g6

this interesting move is played to avoid some anti-sicilian like b3,Fb5 . it can transpose into dragon variations .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


David Grosdemange    (1912)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 g6

this move enters the accelerated dragon variation .
black will put his king's bishop in fianchetto , and prepare d5 .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


Pablo Schmid    (1700)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 g6 c4

This move prepare the Maroczy Bind. Maybe the best way to play for White here.
============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid


David Grosdemange    (1912)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 g6 c4 Nf6

the normal move .
black attacks the white e4 pawn .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


David Grosdemange    (1912)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 g6 Nc3

this move is a correct alternative to the maroczy bind .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3

The most common move. The knight comes to his best square and prepares e4 pawn advance.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 58%

============

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


David Grosdemange    (1912)
Nf3 c5

this move allows white to enter in a sicilian game with 1)e4 , or in an english opening with 2)c4 .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 f4

The four pawns attack is a sharp line in which White tries to overrun Black with his center pawns. Such a strategy entails considerable risk, and analysis constantly shifts back and forth as to its validity. The pawn on f4 prevents Black's usual e5 break, but Black can get counterplay with a c5 break instead. The main line four pawns position can also be reached from a Sicilian move order.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 61% , but correspondence chess statistics give no more than 51%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 Bg5

The Trompowski attack is named after the one-time Brazilian champion Octavio Siqueiro F. Trompowski (1897–1984) who played it in the 1930s and 1940s.

With the second move, White is intending to exchange his bishop for Black's knight inflicting doubled pawns upon Black in the process. This is not a lethal threat, Black can choose to fall in with White's plan.

After 1.d4 Nf6, the Trompowski is a popular alternative to the more common 2.c4 and 2.Nf3 lines. By playing 2.Bg5, White avoids the immense opening theory of various Indian Defences like the Queen's Indian and the King's Indian. Some of the grandmasters who often play the Trompowski are Julian Hodgson and Antoaneta Stefanova.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 56%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Yeturu Aahlad    (2017)
c4 e5

Normal move which fights for the center. In practice this is a reversed Sicilian. Black eyes d4-square and takes on the kingside. White plans queenside attack while black has play on the kingside.

============

Contributors : Larry Wolfley, Kostis Megalios, Lauri Lahnasalo, Yeturu Aahlad


Pablo Schmid    (1700)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Ndb5

The best reply. White gains a tempo by threatening Nd6+. Other moves shouldn't give a problem to Black.

============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid


David Grosdemange    (1912)
c4 c5

the symmetrical english .
if blacks plays too long symmetrical , white can keep a little advantage with the advance to play first . but black can isn't forced to continue playing symmetrical .

this move is sometimes used by sicilian players , because it can transpose into a maroczy bind .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


Larry Wolfley    (2133)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 c5

This will transpose to the Modern Benoni when White plays d5.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 is the normal move order that reaches the Modern Benoni.


============

Contributors : Larry Wolfley


David Grosdemange    (1912)
e4 c5 Nf3 g6 d4 cxd4 Qxd4

this move is possible because black hasn't played Nc6 . so the queen attacks the h8 rook .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


David Grosdemange    (1912)
e4 Nf6 e5 Nd5 d4 d6 Nf3 Bg4 Be2

the most logical move .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


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 Nf6 e5 Nd5 d4 d6 Nf3 Bg4 Be2 e6

This is still the (old)main move.

============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid


Pablo Schmid    (1700)
e4 Nf6 e5 Nd5 c4

This move is quite popular.

============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid


Pablo Schmid    (1700)
e4 Nf6 Nc3 d5 e5

The only testing move. Now Black have three choices: 3..d4!?, 3..Ne4 or 3..Nd7.

============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid


Thibault de Vassal    (2425)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6

The main move. Black doesn't fear the "loss" of the e5 pawn : 3.Bxc6 dxc6! 4.Nxe5?! because of ..Qd4! with equallity at worst.

Morphy Defence, by far the most commonly played Black third move which "puts the question" to the white bishop. White has only two good options, 4.Bxc6 or 4.Ba4. The main point to 3...a6 is that after the common retreat 4.Ba4, Black will have the possibility of breaking the pin on his queen knight by playing ...b5. In fact, White must take some care to not fall into the Noah's Ark Trap in which Black traps White's king bishop on the b3-square with a ...a6, ...b5, and ...c4 pawn advance on the queenside.

============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid, Thibault de Vassal


Pablo Schmid    (1700)
f4 e5 fxe5 d6 Nf3

This move isn't different of exd6 after the next moves...

============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 Nc6 Bg5

Richter-Rauzer opening, caracterized by last move 6.Bg5, was introduced by the German Master, Kurt Richter. The idea was to force an immediate 6....e6 or risk doubled king-pawns. At this point, Vsevolod Rauzer contributed the move, 7.Qd2. Here, White has an advantage in space and development is nearly complete while Black has a better pawn structure.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Ilmars Cirulis    (2261)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5

This was known as a "Duffer's move" by Tarrash but has been used throughout history by several notable chess personalities.
============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid, Bradley Gooding, Roger Whitman
Steinitz, Fischer, and I consider this to be White's best chance to get an advantage.


David Grosdemange    (1912)
e4 e5 f4 d6

a simple move , declining the king's gambit .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


Graham Cridland    (1692)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nc6 Nc3

The main move. White defends e4 (which sooner or later will need it), develops naturally, and controls d5.

============

Contributors : Graham Cridland


Graham Cridland    (1692)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nc6 Nc3 Qc7

Black has two main choices here, the text move and ...a6. In either case, White can either ignore the move order and proceed with development (the main lines), or attempt to take advantage of the difference. In the case of ...Qc7, this generally means Ponomariov's pet line 6 Ndb5 Qb8 7 Be3!?, using the b5 square before it is covered to inconvenience Black in his development.

Otherwise, we enter the major Paulsen/Taimanov variations (and Black will generally play ...a6 to rule out Ndb5 ideas).
============

Contributors : Graham Cridland


Graham Cridland    (1692)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nc6 Nc3 a6

Black's secondary option (after ...Qc7, probably the main line) is this move. White also has an independent option here (6 Nxc6), and can also choose the main lines.

============

Contributors : Graham Cridland


Graham Cridland    (1692)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nc6 Nc3 Qc7 Ndb5 Qb8 Be3

Other moves allow black to play ...a6 without fear, and the position is likely to transpose back to the main lines.

============

Contributors : Graham Cridland


Graham Cridland    (1692)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nc6 Nc3 Qc7 Ndb5 Qb8 Be3 a6 Bb6 axb5 Nxb5 Bb4+

This is the move approved by theory, although there are a couple of other possibilities, based on removing the Rook from view of the fork:

10 ...Ra5, 10...Ra4.

============

Contributors : Graham Cridland


Rémi Marois    (1500)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Qd2

The most popular move. The object is to challenge black's idea to take the b2 pawn.

============

Contributors : Rémi Marois


Rémi Marois    (1500)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bc4

This move as been popularised by the world chess champion Bobby Fischer. Before Fischer, we use to think that the Bishop was misplaced on the a2-g8 diagonal after 6... e6. This variation introduces many sacrifical themes.

============

Contributors : Rémi Marois


Rémi Marois    (1500)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bc4 e6 Bb3

The object of this move is to reduce black's choices and to eliminate the idea of Nxe4 Nxe4 d5.

============

Contributors : Rémi Marois


Larry Wolfley    (2133)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 f3

This often just transposes to the English Attack (6.Be3 and then 7.f3 is more common). With this move order White avoids lines that arise from 6.Be3 Ng4.

On the other hand, White allows Black an additional option of 7..Qb6 here.

============

Contributors : Rémi Marois, Larry Wolfley


Tim Bredernitz    (1100)
e4 e5 Qh5

This is called the Parham Attack. It's used commonly in lower scholastic tournaments. If used against a player who has the ability to see multiple moves ahead, however, the early over-development of the Queen will result in either the loss of the white Queen, or the loss of a tempo. The move is deceiving, because white is actually putting the e5 pawn under attack. If black counters by attacking the queen with 2. ... g6?, they lose a rook a rook to 3.Qxe5+. The most effective way to counter against this attack is to protect the e5 pawn. After the King pawn is protected, white's queen is left overdeveloped and subject to attack. Overall, the Parham Attack is only effective against beginning chess players.


============

Contributors : Tim Bredernitz


Pablo Schmid    (1700)
e4 e5 Qh5 Nf6

With this move, Black ignores the threat of Qxe5+ to gain somes tempo.
============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid


Pablo Schmid    (1700)
e4 e5 Qh5 Nf6 Qxe5

It's too late to change the plan, White had to think before playing that queen's move.

============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid


Michael Keuchen    (1993)
e4 e5 Qh5 Nc6

The defensive move.

============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid, Michael Keuchen


Adrian Tan    (1700)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6

The Ruy Lopez exchange, White gives up the advantage of the bishop pair, but gains compensation by damaging black's pawn structure.

White has a long range plan of creating an endgame where he is able to profit from a king side majority while Black is unable to due to the doubled pawn on the Queen's side.

Traditionally, this opening has not being very popular at the top level, but Fischer had some success with it in the 60s.

Note: White doesn't actually win the e pawn with this move because dxc6 Nxe5 Qd4 recovers the pawn.

============

Contributors : Tim Bredernitz, Adrian Tan


David Grosdemange    (1912)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 Nxe5

It now looks like white has succeeded in trading a bishop for a knight and a pawn, along with control of the center. There is, however, a great equalizer for this attack. Qd4.

* taking the e-pawn is a good black move . white will lose the pawn , and there no more compensation for the pair of bishops .

============

Contributors : Tim Bredernitz, David Grosdemange


Normajean Yates    (1858)
f4 e6 g4 Qh4

The fastest possible checkmate in chess.

Logically, but not idiomatically, *one* of the fastest checkmates in chess; because this is only *one* of the four mates on black's second move:

1. f(3/4) e(6/5) 2.g4 Qh4#, and the same with white's two moves transposed i.e. 1.g4 e(6/5) 2.f(3/4) Qh4#; making for 8 shortest mates :)

============

Contributors : Tim Bredernitz, Normajean Yates


David Grosdemange    (1912)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 O-O

the favourite move of fischer .
here , white really threatens the e5-pawn . (Nxe5 Qd4 Nf3 Qxe4 Te1 +-)

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


Pablo Schmid    (1700)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 d6 d4

The best move, it keeps the pressure in the center.

============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid


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


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


Sandor Porkolab    (2269)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qa5

The Queen feel good here - after white move d4 - pinning the Knight on c3.
============
Nf3 is also an option

Contributors : David Grosdemange, Sandor Porkolab


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 c5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5

White plays an early Bb5, usually with the intention of trading it for the c6-knight and giving Black doubled pawns. Blacks most usual continuation is to quickly developed by 3...g6, although moves like 3...Qc7, 3...Qb6 and 3...e6 are also possible.


============

Contributors : Amir Bagheri


Roger Weber    (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 d6 d4 Bg4

A good move to keep control of the center and counter white's advancement of the queen's pawn.

============

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 f5 e4

The Staunton Gambit, named after Howard Staunton. Though once a feared line, the Staunton Gambit only scores around 50% today, and accordingly is rarely played in high-level games. A number of gambit lines with g4 are also possible, including Korchnoi's 2.h3!? intending g4!? on the next move.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Joshua Draeger    (1500)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 O-O Bg4 h3

============

Contributors : Adrian Tan, Joshua Draeger
why waste a move like this...you know that if the bishop wants to take your knight he already will. Try something better to create some development!


Mike Hoogland    (1760)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 d4

An old move, played before Fischer's 0-0. After the pawn exchange, White creates a favourable endgame pawn structure, given his 4-3 pawn majority on the Kingside. Black is unable to exploit his Queenside majority because of the doubled pawn. However in practise, Black is able to to create sufficient counterplay with his bishop pair to hold the balance.

============

Actually, I think this is a bad move. After 0-0 black will have to defend the pawn on e5. 6. Nxe5, Qd4. 7. Nf3, Qxe4 does not work anymore for black, because white can play his rook to e1 and win the queen (the queen is pinned).

Therefore, black usually defends the pawn with f6. f6 is not very useful however, and black would rather have made another move, if he could have done so. Qd6 and Qf6 are also good moves that defend the pawn on e5. However, after 6. d4, exd4 7. Qxd4, Qxd4 black will have lost a tempo in comparison to this variant.

Contributors : Adrian Tan, Mike Hoogland


Alex Savu    (1350)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 d5 exd5 Nxd5 Nxf7

The "Fried Liver" or "Fegatello" attack. By sacrificing his knight on f7, white causes the knight on d5 to become pinned. The next few moves revolve around exploiting this pin (for white) or defending the material advantage (for black). - Alex Savu
============

Contributors : Adrian Tan, Alex Savu


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 d5 exd5 Nxd5 Nxf7 Kxf7 Qf3 Ke6 Nc3 Ncb4

The best move possible. I believe Nce7 is slighty worse.
============

Contributors : Adrian Tan, Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Benjamin Aldag    (1822)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5

The beginning of the end ! Black has no moveoptions and the Qf6-Move is a MUST and not a can.

The following comment is by me (Benjamin Aldag):

The Kings Gambit was good to play in the early 80s. But with comming of good and fast computers, the Kings Gambit is researched move for move in all lines. If both players play the best moves, all white can reach is a draw. But the point is, white has the chance, to do more wrong in the opening, than black. Ok, there are some kiddy-tricks by white, but if black want an equal game, he will get it. Now letz take a look to the latvian,- the Kings Gambit with a tempo down. If the Kings Gambit is bad, why should the Latvian Gambit good for black with a tempo down ? The only way for black is to hope, that the white player isn't prepared for this gambit. There are many traps, but the basics of these traps are easy to see. Black is from beginning on under big pressure and has no dynamic play. In nearly all lines of the Latvian Gambit, black has only forced moves. From now on, i will give to all moves in all lines my commentary. Ok.... i'am not a GM, IM, or FM, but i think i know the Latvian Gambit really good.
============

Contributors : Benjamin Aldag


Benjamin Aldag    (1822)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4

Nc4:

This move in good too. The better move is d2-d4, but you must know a hand full lines in the d4-line, to crush the blacks position while sleeping ;-) For beginners its better to play Nc4, because you will get an easy and advantage game.

============

Contributors : Benjamin Aldag


Sophie Leclerc    (1242)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 g4


A coorect move, Likein the king gambit, White make it difficult for black to regain the pawn and treath to push g5.

Blakc must do something about it very soon.
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Adam Goodwin    (1225)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1

Protects the e4-pawn and forces black's next move.
============

Contributors : Dirk Jan Van Dijl, Adam Goodwin


Bruno Bragato    (1500)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nd2

The Tarrasch Variation is named after Siegbert Tarrasch. This move was particularly popular during the late 1970s and early 1980s when Anatoly Karpov used it to great effect. It is still played today by players seeking a small, safe advantage.

The move differs from 3.Nc3 in several respects: it doesn't block the path of White's c pawn, which means he can play c3 at some stage to support the d4 pawn; and it avoids the Winawer Variation because 3...Bb4 can be met with 4.c3 when Black has wasted a move (he has to retreat his bishop).
============

Contributors : Dirk Jan Van Dijl, Bruno Bragato


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

A provocating move I didn't see before SM Wladyslav Krol played it at several occasions in FICGS tournaments. (Game 864, Game 876, Game 1750)

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2424)
e4 c5 f4 d5 Nf3 dxe4 Ng5 Nf6 Bc4

The move that definitely sets fire to the position.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Mark Carroll    (1700)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3 dxc3 Nxc3 Nc6 Nf3


This move order does not allow black to try and complicate things with moves such as Ne5.
============

Contributors : Mark Carroll


Mark Carroll    (1700)
g3 d5 Nf3 Nf6 Bg2 e6 O-O

These first few moves for white are known as the Barcza System. It allows for flexible play in the center.

============

Contributors : Mark Carroll


Mark Carroll    (1700)
g3 d5 Nf3 Nf6 Bg2 e6 O-O Be7 d3 c5 Nbd2 Nc6 e4 b6 e5 Nd7 Re1 Qc7 Qe2 Bb7 h4 O-O-O a3 h6 h5

This move stops black from being able to play g5, which would begin a good attack for him.

============

Contributors : Mark Carroll


Mark Carroll    (1700)
c4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 e4 d5 e5 Ne4 Nf3 Be7 Qc2 Ng5 Nxg5 Bxg5 cxd5 exd5 d4 Be7 Be3 O-O O-O-O Nc6 a3 Na5 Bd3 h6 Qe2

This is not the best move for white. In this position, both sides should attempt a pawn storm and all out attack on the other side's king. For white, f4 would be a better alternative as it gives him an advantage in his attack. Qe2 wastes time and allows black to go ahead with his counterattack.
============

Contributors : Mark Carroll


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:

G. Gunderarms Move. Black follows the gambit-style and white must be prepared in this variantion. But with a good preperation, white is playing for the full point (in my opinion). Black prepares d7-d5.


============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Benjamin Aldag


Benjamin Aldag    (1822)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4 fxe4 Nc3 Qf7

Qf7:

G. Gunderarms Move. Black follows the gambit-style and white must be prepared in this variantion. But with a good preperation, white is playing for the full point (in my opinion). Black prepares d7-d5.
============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Benjamin Aldag


Benjamin Aldag    (1822)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4 fxe4 Nc3 Qf7 Ne3

Ne3:

The best move, which defends the point d5. An alternative is the safety d2-d4.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Benjamin Aldag


Benjamin Aldag    (1822)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4 fxe4 Nc3 Qf7 Ne3 c6

c6:

Black still want to play d7-d5 and the c6 move is preparing it. White has now the choice between Nxe4 and d2-d3. The best move for white is in my opinion d2-d3, known as the Budowskys-Line.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Benjamin Aldag


Benjamin Aldag    (1822)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4 fxe4 Nc3 Qf7 Ne3 c6 Nxe4

Nxe4?:

This move is not really bad, but d2-d3 is better. Black has for his pawn-sacrafice a long initiative. And that's why, i prefer d2-d3 instead of Nxe4.
============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Benjamin Aldag


Benjamin Aldag    (1822)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4 fxe4 Nc3 Qf7 Ne3 c6 Nxe4 d5 Ng5

How can i describe the past moves of this game with one word ? Hmmm....it's GAMING ! White is playing with his opponent like a cat with a mice. Just count the queenmoves of black, and you will understand me. Let us remember some opening rules:

1. Don't move to early the queen.
2. Don't move with the same figure in the opening twice or more times.
3. Don't open the pawnshield of your king (f-pawn etc.).
4. Develope your figures fast and with one move.

Now......we can see,- Black did in the opening all wrong, what a chessplayer can do wrong in the opening. In the Latvian Gambit, White will kill Black with a headshot !

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Benjamin Aldag


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


Dirk Ghysens    (2187)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Bb4 e5 h6 Bd2

Lasker's move; Black is now forced to exchange on c3.

============

Contributors : Dirk Ghysens


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
h4

Terry Godat :

As bad as this move is, it does not appear to be any worse than 1.g4. The latter,however, has a following and some literature to its dubious credit. 1.h4 has never been popular.,


Yugi Inving :

This move doesn't really look good. it is an irregular opening so it has to be answer with an irregular opening. It is not an error, just the fact that the white are skipping a turn and begin an attack on G7.

============

Contributors : Terry Godat, Yugi Inving


Terry Godat    (2155)
d4 f5 h3

============

Contributors : Terry Godat

This move intends 3.g4!? and introduces the so-called Korchnoi Gambit.


Thibault de Vassal    (2522)
h4 e5

Next move h5 doesn't try to develop the rook even if the black accept it, they will just taske advantage of it. Maybe try a4 (hypermodern) and wait Black's reaction in the center.

============

Contributors : Terry Godat, Yugi Inving, Thibault de Vassal


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)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qd6 d4 Nf6 Nf3 a6

While normally a prophylactic move such as a6 is considered to be an "amateurish" type move, it is very thematic in the Qd6 line of the Scandinavian. This move prepares Nc6 while preventing the bishop pin at b5 and also prepares for an advance of the b-pawn in the case of Bc4.

============

Contributors : Ron Keyston


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


Ron Keyston    (1522)
d4 d5 c4 e5 dxe5 d4 e3 Bb4+ Bd2 dxe3 fxe3

While the isolated, doubled pawns look very weak and ugly, this is likely White's best move at this point.

============

Contributors : Ron Keyston


Ron Keyston    (1522)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Be3 a6 f3 b5 g4 h6 Qd2 Nbd7

A solid development move.

============

Contributors : Sebastian Boehme


Dirk Ghysens    (2187)
e4 e5 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qe3 Nf6 Nc3 Bb4 Bd2 O-O O-O-O Re8 Bc4 Na5

A move which was first suggested by Keres.

============

Contributors : Dirk Ghysens


Ilmars Cirulis    (1299)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Bc4

Most funny 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

After that move black can force draw!
============

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+ 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 Kf1 Qe7 Nxh8 d5 exd5 Nd4 h3 Bg3 c3 Nf5 Na3 Bd7 Qb3 O-O-O d6

After that move black can again get draw!
============

Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis


Thibault de Vassal    (2425)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kf1 Qe7 Nxh8 d5 exd5 Nd4 h3 Bg3 c3 Nf5 d6 Nxd6

Dubious move ? .. I prefer 11. ...cxd6

============

Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis, Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2425)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kf1 Qe7 Nxh8 d5 exd5 Nd4 h3 Bg3 c3 Nf5 d6 cxd6 Bf7+ Kf8 d3 Qd8

What's the purpose of that move ??

============

Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis, Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2425)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kxf2 Nxe4 Kg1 Qh4

Best move.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2425)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kf1 Qe7 Nxh8 d5 exd5 Nd4 h3 Bg3 c3 Nf5 d6 cxd6 Bf7+ Kd8 Qb3 Kc7 Na3 Bd7 Qc4 Kb6

Probably not the best move.

============

Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis, Thibault de Vassal


Ilmars Cirulis    (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kf1 Qe7 Nxh8 d5 exd5 Nd4 h3 Bg3 c3 Nf5 d6 cxd6 Bf7+ Kd8 Qb3 Kc7 Qc4 Kb8 Na3

This move order looks better!
============

Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis


Ingo Schwarz    (1824)
e4 c5 Bc4

An idea, which I have tested in some tournament games. I often played Bc4 in other Sicilian systems, so I asked me, why not play it as soon as possible.

This move works against d5 and sometimes a Bxf7+ combination is possible like in other openings with sharp play.

============

Contributors : Ingo Schwarz


Peter Marriott    (1816)
e4 c5 Bc4 e6

IMO, this is the best move after 1.e4 c5 2. Bc4. It threatens to play ...d5, chasing away the bishop.
============

Contributors : Ingo Schwarz, Peter Marriott


Ivan Gonzalez    (2411)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Bb4 e5 c5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 Ne7 Qg4 O-O Bd3 Nbc6 Qh5 Nf5


This is bad move
============

Contributors : Ivan Gonzalez


Torsten Opas    (1541)
e4 c6 Nf3 d5

Zucketort gambit declined - Caro Kann

Essentially the Caro-Kann with the moves jostled around. White will want early castling, or possibly early tactical tricks. Black will be aiming for an influence in the centre of the board.

Chessbase considers this a 56% win for white

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Ilmars Cirulis    (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kxf2 Nxe4 Ke3 Qe7 Nxh8 Qg5 Kxe4 Qf4+ Kd3 d5 Bxd5 Bf5+ Ke2 Nd4+ Ke1 Nxc2+ Qxc2 Bxc2 Bxb7 Ke7

This move and following one is my error of input.
============

Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis


Ilmars Cirulis    (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kxf2 Nxe4 Ke3 Qh4 g3 Nxg3 hxg3 Qd4 Kf3 O-O Rh4 e4 Rxe4 Ne5 Rxe5 Qxe5 Nc3 Qd4

Move of George Stibal.

============

Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis


Telmo Escobar    (2086)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 Bf5 Nc3 e6 Nh4 Bg6 Nxg6 hxg6 a3 Nbd7 g3 Be7 f4 dxc4 Bxc4 O-O e4 b5 Be2 b4 axb4 Bxb4 Bf3 Qb6 O-O


White is much better, Topalov-Kramnik, WCh Elista RUS 2006 (9), 1-0 in 39 moves.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Max Rau-Chaplin    (1600)
e4 d5 exd5 Nf6 d4

3 d4. is the standard move in this position. Rather than attempting to hold its over-extended doubled pawn White plays for a strong center and easy development. From here there are two popular variations, 3 NxF6(main line) and the sharper portugese variation 3 BG4

============

Contributors : Max Rau-Chaplin


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 Rc7 Rxd6 Qa1

This should be the salvage for Black! Next black move will be Rc3!

============

Contributors : Wolfgang Utesch


Thibault de Vassal    (2471)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Bc5 c3 O-O d4 Bb6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 d6 Qd3 Bd7 Nbd2 a6 Bxc6 Bxc6 Rfe1 Re8 a4 Ba7 b4 b5 axb5 axb5 Ra5 exd4 cxd4 Bb6 Rxa8 Bxa8 Bxf6 Qxf6 Qxb5 Re7 Qd3 Bb7 Re3 Qf4 Qb5 Qg4 h3 Qf4 g3 Qf6 Kg2 Re6 d5 Re7 Re2 Qa1 Qc4 Ba6 b5 Bb7 Qd3 Qd1 Re1 Qa4 Rb1 Qa7 Nh4 Bc8 f4 Bd7 Nhf3 Re8 g4 Qa4 Kg3 f6 f5 Rb8 Qc3 Kf8 h4 Re8 Kf4 Re7 Nc4 Qa2 Nfd2 Qa7 Nxb6 Qxb6 Qe3 Qa5 b6 cxb6 Rxb6 Be8 Nf3 Qa7 g5 fxg5+ hxg5 hxg5+ Nxg5 Qa2 Nf3 g5+ Nxg5 Qh2+

Only move.

============

Contributors : 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+ Nxg5 Qh2+ Qg3 Qd2+ Kg4 Qd1+ Kh3 Qf1+ Qg2 Qxg2+ Kxg2 Rg7 Rxd6 Rxg5+ Kf3 Rg1 Kf4 Ba4

This is the best move!

============

Contributors : Wolfgang Utesch


Thibault de Vassal    (2522)
e4 e6 d4 f5

The 'Kingston Defence' is characterised by the opening moves:

1.e4 e6
2.d4 f5

It can also be reached after the transposition of moves 1.d4 f5 2.e4 e6 — a form of Staunton Gambit Declined.

The first record of the defence being played is Schiffers-Chigorin, 1880. The first record of a win by Black is the 1892 victory of Elson over Emanuel Lasker. It remains obscure, but has considerable surprise value.

The Kingston Defence shares a weakness with the French Defence — in the form of the constrained queen's bishop -- and a strength with the Dutch Defence — namely the early thrust of the f-pawn, which often supports a knight on e4. (These French and Dutch similarities led to the first, uncomfortable name for the defence: Frutch.) White's decision at move three tends to define the nature of the game that follows.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3



============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

A good waiting move. White is likely to play Nf3 at some point. (An immediate 4.f4 admits that Black has determined the closed nature of the game.)


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5



============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

The obvious freeing move, but it will disturb very weak players of White. If 5.dc then 5.. Ng6 and Black can target both of White's advanced pawns with natural moves such as ..Nc6, ..Qa5+ and ..Qc7.


Thibault de Vassal    (2522)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bd3

This aggressive but natural developing move elicits a very sharp response from Black.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson, Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2522)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bd3 Nc6 Bxf5

Black's fifth move now hits two pieces simultaneously.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson, Thibault de Vassal


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bd3 Nc6 Bxf5 Qf6 Qd3 Nxd4 Bxh7 Ne7 Be3

Black must defend or move the Knight.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


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


Miguel Pires    (2143)
e4 e5 Bb5

This is the "Portuguese Oppening". I can´'t cal this move bad, i think is a normal move. With this oppening you can have very interesting and sharp games. :)

============

Contributors : Miguel Pires


Miguel Pires    (2143)
e4 e5 Bb5 c6 Ba4

The only move. Retreact the bishop is bad

============

Contributors : Miguel Pires


Miguel Pires    (2143)
e4 e5 Bb5 c6 Ba4 Nf6 Nc3

For some of the stronger players in Portugal the best move.

============

Contributors : Miguel Pires


Miguel Pires    (2143)
e4 e5 Bb5 c6 Ba4 Nf6 Qe2 Bc5 Nf3 d5 exd5

Only whay to play, any other move is bad. Now black as to decide what to do, but the game is hard!!!!!!!

============

Contributors : Miguel Pires


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 Nc3 d5 exd5 exd5 Nf3

A simple developing move, waiting to see what Black has in mind.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 Nc3 d5 exd5 exd5 Nf3 Be7 Ne5 Nf6 Bg5 O-O Bd3

Another good developing move.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Kieran Child    (1600)
Nf3 d5 e4

Zucketort gambit (/tennison gambit/chicago gambit)

Essentially the Budapest gambit for white, but without the pawn on the c file having moved (this could be seen as an advantage or a disadvantage.) White looks for early attacks on f7 in typically tactical lines.

Chessbase considers this a 47% win for white

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


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 dxe4 Ng5

The obvious continuation perceived from the moment white played e4. White aims for early attacks on f7, and this move also threatens to regain the pawn. If black defends the pawn, the attack on f7 will look to be exploited, if black aims for natural development and prevention of an early tactical trick, he will be ok.

Chessbase considers this 49% win for white

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
Nf3 d5 e4 dxe4 Ng5 f5

A seemingly harmless move, but one that significantly weakens e6, allowing for an early f7 tactic. If white doesn't take the opportunity immedietly, e5 is possible, kicking back the white knight and giving black a good game a pawn up.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
Nf3 d5 e4 dxe4 Ng5 f5 Bc4 Nh6

The only move which seeks to directly protect f7, but a blunder, and a move that shows black's reluctance to gambit a pawn back.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
Nf3 d5 e4 dxe4 Ng5 f5 Bc4 Nh6 Nxh7

White takes out the last defender of the g6 square, and prepares the potentially game-winning move of Qh5+

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
Nf3 d5 e4 d4 Bc4

An aggressive reply to black's premature pawn push. White prepares for quick castling and hits the f7 square. By controlling d5, this move also makes the d4 pawn look vulnerable.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
Nf3 Nf6 Nc3

Reti - Van Geet

A hypermodern move and one that refuses to confirm central pawn structure. However, after blocking the f pawn, this block of the c pawn can be considered weak and restrictive. If black plays d5 and c5, he can often get a good game.

ChessBase considers this a 49% win for white - lower than the average opening.
============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
Nf3 Nf6 b4

Santasiere's folly

A move so named because, when it was first played by Anthony Santasiere, he commented "oh dear, I meant to play it to b3!" Like the Sokolsky though, it is seen by many as more than a Basmanesque joke. White will aim to play a further b5, Bb2 and a4, gaining much queenside space and restricting the development of black's queenside rook and knight. Black will aim to prevent this queenside space with quick counter attacks on the queenside.

ChessBase considers this 55% win for white

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Nc6 Qh5+ g6 Nxg6 Nf6 Qh4 hxg6

The most aggressive and risky move. Few draws emerge from this position. Black's aim is to get white's queen into the corner and out of the way so he can launch a mating attack on the white king, something he's willing to sacrifice the rook for. Taking the rook is sound though, as all of black's attacks can be easily seen off.

============

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)
g4 d5 Bg2 Bxg4 c4 Nf6 cxd5

Wins back the pawn, but probably not the best move. White completely loses any momentum, which is the key feature of the fritz gambit.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nc3

Less common than Nf3, but just as good. This move gives white total central domination, and hits the b5 square, weakening the c4 pawn for the inevitable bishop re-capture.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Terry Godat    (2036)
e4 e5 f4 Nf6

Wade defence

While looking tactically sharp, this move offers black few chances, and blocks off the queen's path to h4. If white transposes this with Nc3 into the vienna gambit, or Bc4 into the greco gambit, black should be ok. But if white plays fxe5 then Nf3, black's knight looks very out of position.

Chessbase considers this a 42% win for black.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child, Terry Godat

I have played this move often in blitz games and rarely had much trouble equalizing. Fischer got little if any advantage against Wade.


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)
h4 e5 Rh3 d5 Re3 Nc6 d4 e4 c4 Nf6

A standard move, it develops the knight, and appears to defend d5 and e4.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
h4 e5 Rh3 d5 Re3 Nc6 d4 e4 c4 Nf6 cxd5

Ok, I'll admit it, I'm a bit peeved with the fact I can't play f3 or Bg5, but this move sets another trap for the player who isn't concentrating.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
h4 e5 Rh3 d5 Re3 Nc6 d4 e4 c4 Nf6 cxd5 Nxd5

And black falls into it, the knight actually never defended d5 as it was overloaded on e4, this move allows Rxe4

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
h4 d5 h5 e5 h6 gxh6 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nf6

The best move. White will recapture the pawn on h6, but black won't lose any more material than that.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
h4 d5 h5 e5 h6 gxh6 d4 exd4 Qxd4 f6

The most common move, and yet another blunder. Often played by those who were confused by white's opening, and think they can hog the pawn advantage.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
Nf3 d5 e4 dxe4 Ng5 Nf6 Nc3

Postpones the f7 attack one move, this knight's priority isn't the attack on e4 though. It intends to attack c7 later.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
Nf3 d5 e4 dxe4 Ng5 Nf6 Nc3 Bf5 Bc4 e6 f3 exf3 Qxf3

The only correct move.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Toon Pepermans    (1992)
d4 e5

Englund gambit (/Charlick gambit)

Black's aim is to avoid closed systems and castle early, though nowadays this move is rarely seen without the follow up trap. In case the multiple follow up traps appeal to anyone reading this, remember that this opening is never seen at grandmaster level, emphasising its hideous unsoundness.

-K.Child

===========
1. d4 e5
{The Seccond best first move gambit in Chess. The authority is GM Stefan Bücker, who wrote one of the bibles of unorthodox openings, with his book "Englund Gambit" (1988). He has touched upon the opening in later collumns both at chesscafe.com and in his magazine; Kaissiber. The conclusion seems to be that White is better with acurate play, but OTB White usually avoids those main lines.}

2. dxe5 Nc6
(2... d6 "Hartlaub-Gambit")

3. Nf3 Qe7
(3... f6 "Soller Gambit")
(3... Nge7 "Zilbermints Gambit")
{Now White can chose between several playable lines:}

A) 4. Bf4 {Grob Variation}
B) 4. Qd5 {Stockholm Variation}
C) 4. Nc3
D) 4. e4

-P.Valle, 5th Nov 2010

============

Contributors : Kieran Child, Paul Valle, Toon Pepermans


Kieran Child    (1600)
d4 e5 dxe5 Nc6

An understandable move. Black attacks the e5 pawn and stakes a claim for the centre.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
d4 e5 dxe5 Nc6 Nf3

The best move really. Develops a piece and deals with the only threat.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
d4 e5 dxe5 Nc6 Nf3 Qe7 Bf4 Qb4+

Frees up the bishop, hits f4 and b2 and gives a check. The best move by far.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
e4 e5 Bc4 Nf6

Berlin defence

The standard reply. Black develops normally and will aim to play Nc6 and Bc5 and castle for a typical open game. This move does justify white's early bishop move though, as he can now play d3 and get a middlegame with two active bishops.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Nicolas Vedovotto    (2039)
Na3

The Durkin

Named after American master, Robert Dirkin, who probably would have known better than to play it anyway. This is a very strange place to develop the knight. If white wanted the knight to exert central control, Nc3 is better. If his aim is to keep the c pawn flexible, the English, or even the Saragossa is preferable. White's aim will be to move this knight yet again, probably to c4. Black is fine developing normally.

Chessbase considers this a 54% win for white.



============

Contributors : Kieran Child, Peter Marriott, Nicolas Vedovotto


Kieran Child    (1600)
Na3 e5 Nb5

The most common move on my database, but I can't see any reason why. The knight will just track back to c3 with white two tempi down.

============

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


Kieran Child    (1600)
Nf3 Nf6 b4 e5

I'll call this idea the "Rebaudo variation" because, in all my time playing this opening, he's the first person to play it against me, and I actually think it looks quite good. Black threatens to stop any hope white had of queenside space by capturing the pawn on b4. This move is also more forceful than the common e6 as b5 now falls foul to e4 and black has the advantage.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
e4 e5 d4 Qh4 Qd3 d5

A nice move, and black has avoided any white tricks. This seems to give equality.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
e4 e5 d4 Qh4 Nc3 exd4

Black ignores the fact that his moves should always mean that an attack on his exposed queen isn't possible. This doesn't.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 Be3 cxd4 Bxd4 N8c6 c3 Nd5 Bc4

Develops the Bishop, but otherwise not much to recommend this move.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nf3

This is probably White's best move, preparing an eventual Ne5. It places White's knight on its best square, and it avoids committing White's light-squared bishop.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nf3 Be7 c4

This could be White's strongest move. It may not seem obvious now, but if Black castles kingside, then White pressurises d5 with Nc3 and Qb3, which also bears down on b7 and the black king on g8.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Kieran Child    (1600)
Nf3 g5 Nxg5 e5 d4

Sharp, and the move that is favoured in longplay games. It probably needs more analysis than I could provide though.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 Nc6

Probably the most "correct" move. Depending on white's response, black either clutches on to his pawn advantage or gains a good position.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 c3 Nf6 d4 exd4

Most common move at club level. Black assumes he has won a pawn after an exchange on d4. While he can sometimes be confronted with a lack of spacial allowance after e5, this isn't too bad for black.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 c4 c5 Be3 cxd4 Bxd4 Nbc6 Nf3 Ng6 a3

White seems completely lost. This move is entirely unthematic.

============

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

But this natural move blunts the assault.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Ilmars Cirulis    (1349)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Bc4 fxe4 Nxe5 Qg5 d4 Qxg2 Qh5+ g6 Bf7+ Kd8 Bxg6 Qxh1+ Ke2 Qxc1 Nf7+ Ke8 Nxh8+ Kd8

That move is typing error! :( Sorry!
============

Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis


Thibault de Vassal    (2514)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O Nc6 d5 Ne7 b4

The move that frightened Kasparov ?!

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Bg5 c5

The standard freeing move.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 Bd3 fxe4 Bxe4 Nf6 Bg5 d5 Bd3 c5 c3 Nc6

Continuing his development with natural moves.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 c3 Nbc6 Bc4

Presumably intending d5, but it doesn't look a flexible enough move.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 c3 Nbc6 Bc4 cxd4 cxd4 Ng6

Enabling the dark-squared bishop to move off its starting square.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 c3 Nbc6 Bc4 cxd4 cxd4 Ng6 O-O a6 a3 b5 Be2 Bb7 Be3 Be7 Nc3 Rc8

A good aggressive move. Black has no immediate need to castle.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bc4

Not a great move. White does not need to provoke Black to play ..d5.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bc4 Nf6 Nf3

A standard developing move.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bc4 Nf6 Nf3 d5 Bb3 Qe7+ Ne5 Nc6

..Be6 is probably better, but this blunt move is the most agressive.

============

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

The only move! Fritz rates the position after this as 0.00, whereas the next best move (..0-0-0) gets a 0.87 rating.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 Bd3 fxe4 Bxe4 Nf6 Bg5 d5 Bf3

This line of the Kingston Defence seems to have no merit. It blocks the knight from its natural f3 square, and it even blocks the Queen's diagonal move to the kingside. Fritz rates the position about 0.09.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 Bd3 fxe4 Bxe4 Nf6 Bg5 d5 Bf3 c5

Black's moves are natural and developing.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 Bd3 fxe4 Bxe4 Nf6 Bg5 d5 Bf3 c5 Ne2 Nc6 c3 Be7 Nd2 O-O O-O

The obvious move.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 Bd3 fxe4 Bxe4 Nf6 Bg5 d5 Bf3 c5 Ne2 Nc6 c3 Be7 Nd2 O-O O-O Bd7 Re1 Rc8 Nb3 cxd4

..b6 was the correct move.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 g4

A new idea in the Advance variation, perhaps conceived in the belief that new, passive-looking defences like the Kingston Defence need to be walloped immediately. But it seems unsound. According to Fritz, White loses his 0.55 advantage immediately with this move.


============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 g4 fxg4

Fritz advises ..Nbc6 instead, but thismove allows Black to stick to the thematic moves and pawn structure of the Kingston Defence.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 g4 fxg4 Qxg4 c5 Be3 cxd4 Bxd4 Nbc6

Best. It develops and attacks simultaneously. Chess is won by making moves that achieve two or more positive objectives simultaneously.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nc3 d5 Qh5+

Seems to be seeking a quick refutation of the Kingston Defence. But the move is not as premature as it looks.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nc3 d5 Qh5+ g6 Qe2+ Be7 Bg5 Kf7 Qe5 Nf6

The only move

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nc3 d5 Qh5+ g6 Qe2+ Be7 Bg5 Kf7 Qe5 Nf6 Bxf6 Bxf6 Qxd5+

The only move. Will White be able to hang onto the pawn advantage?

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nc3 d5 Qh5+ g6 Qe2+ Be7 Bg5 Kf7 Qe5 Nf6 Bxf6 Bxf6 Qxd5+ Kg7 O-O-O

The only move to keep up maximum pressure

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nc3 d5 Qh5+ g6 Qe2+ Be7 Bg5 Kf7 Qe5 Nf6 Bxf6 Bxf6 Qxd5+ Kg7 O-O-O c6 Qf3 Be6

Fritz rates this as +0.75 for White, so Black still has work to do from this position. However in an Internet game (March 2007), Black actually played ...Bxd4, and after White's Qf4 (+1.06), Black quickly collapsed after a string of inaccurate moves.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 c3 Nbc6 Bd3 Ng6 Be3

White throws away most of his advantage with this move. 0-0 and h4 are both better.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 c3 Nbc6 Bd3 Ng6 Be3 cxd4 cxd4 Bb4+

Fritz prefers ..d6 to this, but I like this simple move's adherence to basic opening principles.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 c3 Nbc6 Bd3 Ng6 Be3 cxd4 cxd4 Bb4+ Nc3 O-O O-O a6 a3

Although White seems to be copying Black, this move is not bad.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 c3 Nbc6 Bd3 Ng6 Be3 cxd4 cxd4 Bb4+ Nc3 O-O O-O a6 a3 Bxc3

A poor move by Black, achieving a position rated by Fritz as +0.87. A restreat of ..Be7 instead would achieve +0.41.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 c3 Nbc6 Bd3 Ng6 Be3 cxd4 cxd4 Bb4+ Nc3 O-O O-O a6 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 b5

Fritz doesn't like Black's position (+0.91), but this move is highly thematic in the Advance variation of the Kingston Defence.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 c3 Nbc6 Bd3 Ng6 Be3 cxd4 cxd4 Bb4+ Nc3 O-O O-O a6 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 b5 Ng5 h6 Nh3 Qh4 Qf3 Bb7 Qe2

White chickens out, regretting his previous move.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bd3 Nc6 Ne2 d5 c4 Nb4

White's move gives Black the chance to get his queenside pawn structure sorted out with a later ..c6. Fritz says +0.34.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bd3 Nc6 Ne2 d5 c4 Nb4 O-O

He should have done this the previous move.

============

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 Bxf6 Qxf6 cxd5 Bd7 Nbc3 O-O-O a4 a6 Rfe1 Bd6 Qc4 Rde8 b4

The only move to preserve some advantage for White. We're on +0.34.

============

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 Bxf6 Qxf6 cxd5 Bd7 Nbc3 O-O-O a4 a6 Rfe1 Bd6 Qc4 Rde8 b4 Kd8 b5 a5

Any other move is lethal.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nh3 c5

Black plays this thematic move, which doesn't make even Fritz's Top 8 list of moves.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nh3 c5 Nf4 cxd4

Much the best move, resulting in near-equality (+0.06).

============

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 Ra7 a4 Bg4 Qf3

obviously a typo (Qd3 was intended), ignore this (I don't know how to delete a move)

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2048)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O Nc6 d5 Ne7 b4 Nh5 Re1 h6 Nd2 Nf4 Bf1 f5 c5


critical for an evaluation of the slow move 10...h6

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Thibault de Vassal    (2522)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kf1 Qe7 Nxh8 d5 exd5 Nd4 Be2 Bh4 d3 Nxe2

Dubious in my opinion. Why to help White ? This move can wait...

============

Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis, Thibault de Vassal


Ulrich Imbeck    (1342)
h4 g6 h5 Bg7 d4 Nf6 h6

============

Contributors : Yugi Inving, Ulrich Imbeck

Now 0-0 become a reall weak move, and the black bishop is no longer on his best place. Black is in trouble.


Thibault de Vassal    (2522)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kf1 Qe7 Nxh8 d5 exd5 Nd4 Be2 Bh4 d3 Qf8

What about this move, Ilmars ? :)

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Yugi Inving    (0980)
h4 h5

The reall move to fight agaisn't an irregular beginning is an irregular beginning also.

============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Yugi Inving    (0980)
h4 c5 e3

Really good move, i pray for the white. but i know they are in trouble. but it is not the end.

============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nf3 Be7 Bd3 d5 Ne5 Nf6 Bg5 O-O

Simplest and best. Despite White's sub-optimal moves, we shouldn't think Black has achieved equality yet. Fritz rates the position around +0.50.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Ilmars Cirulis    (1299)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bg5 Be6 O-O-O+ Nbd7 Nf3 Bd6 Nb5 Ke7 h3

Sorry, that move is input error. :/
============

Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nc3

White is still ahead after this move, but it just seems a shotgun approach. Black was likely to play ..a6 soon anyway, rendering Nc3 fairly pointless.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nc3 a6 Nf3 c5

Fritz does not like this move at all, rating it +1.06 to White, assuming he plays dxc5. But it is thematic.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nc3 a6 Nf3 c5 Bg5 cxd4 Nxd4 Qa5

Black now has fluid movement for his pieces, but Fritz still rates this as +0.53 if white plays f4.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nc3 a6 Nf3 c5 Bg5 cxd4 Nxd4 Qa5 Bd2 Qxe5+ Nde2 N8c6 g3 b5 Bg2 Bb7 O-O Ng6 Re1 Qc7 Nf4 Bc5

Objectively a poor move -- Fritz rates this as virtual equality. But Black's position has shifted from very passive tohighly aggressive. Some Whites may get scared here.

============

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

A terrible move, perhaps somehow believing he could brew up a kingside attack. Nbd2 was mandatory here.

============

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

Another very poor move. White has fallen apart. Two minor pieces have yet to move off their starting squares.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Yugi Inving    (0980)
h4 h6

wow, i dont think i know this move, but it seem a lot good.

============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Telmo Escobar    (2055)
e3

Yugi Inving:
wow there this is an so-so oppening.
white want to be black... but they dont want to decide in which sort of game we go in.

Telmo Escobar:
this move is to be -eventually- followed by b2-b3, so Black has to be careful despite the slow appearance of the initial move.

============

Contributors : Yugi Inving, 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

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


Kostis Megalios    (1400)
d4 d5 Nc3

Developing a knight and defending e4-square.
This move is not very good, because it blocks the c pawn and white can't fight for the center by playing c4.

============

Contributors : June Lorena, Kostis Megalios


Mike Hoogland    (1764)
d3

I have seen this move twince. it is a very good move for people that want to play whit black but dont have them.

I play this opening a lot when I want to get an initial passive game.


============

Contributors : Yugi Inving, Jose Fernández Bueno, Mike Hoogland


Dirk Ghysens    (2245)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 b4 Bxb4 c3 Ba5 d4 exd4 O-O d3 Qb3 Qf6 e5 Qg6 Re1 Nge7 Ba3 b5 Qxb5 Rb8 Qa4 Bb6 Nbd2 Bb7 Ne4 Qf5 Bxd3 Qh5 Nf6+ gxf6 exf6 Rg8 Rad1 Qh3

19... Qh3!! and White's combination does not work; it's a draw after 20.Bf1 (only move) Qf5 21.Bd3 etc.

============

Contributors : Dirk Ghysens


Graham Cridland    (1406)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Be7 Qf3 Qc7 O-O-O Nbd7 g4 b5 Bxf6 Nxf6 g5 Nd7

This pawn offer is the only way to effectively follow up on the kingside. After other moves, Black gets time to pressure the e4-pawn.
============

Contributors : Graham Cridland


Graham Cridland    (1406)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Be7 Qf3 Qc7 O-O-O Nbd7 g4 b5 Bxf6 Nxf6 g5 Nd7 f5


This pawn offer is the only way to effectively follow up on the kingside. After other moves, Black gets time to pressure the e4-pawn.
============

Contributors : Graham Cridland


Thibault de Vassal    (2512)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Bxf7 Ke7 Bc4 Rf8 Nc3 Na5

Maybe the only saving move...

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Gabriel Lewertowski    (1700)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Qh4

A very tricky move, and if White is unprepared, it can come as a bit of a shock. White needs to sacrifice a pawn to reach a better position.

============

Contributors : Gabriel Lewertowski


Gabriel Lewertowski    (1700)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Qh4 Nc3 Bb4 Be2

Protecting the e4 pawn by 6. Qd3 is an awkward move, so sacrificing the pawn is the most logical step.

============

Contributors : Gabriel Lewertowski


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


Kieran Child    (1397)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Nc6 Qh5+ g6 Nxg6 Nf6 Qh4 Rg8 Nxf8 Rg4 Qh6

Most common move, but white should really be prepared to give back the knight

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1397)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Nc6 Qh5+ g6 Nxg6 Nf6 Qh4 Rg8 Nxf8 Rg4 Qh6 Rxe4+ Kd1

The most common move pretty much loses by force

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1397)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Nc6 Qh5+ g6 Nxg6 Nf6 Qh4 Rg8 Nxf8 Rg4 Qh6 Rxe4+ Kd1 Ng4 Qh5+ Kxf8 Qxf5+ Kg7

key move!

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Sandor Porkolab    (2269)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qa5 d4 Nf6 Nf3 Bg4 h3 Bh5 g4 Bg6

Only move

============

Contributors : Sandor Porkolab


Ilmars Cirulis    (1522)
b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nc6 Bxg7

IMO Nc6 was not the best move

============

Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis


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

An interesting gambit: white must play very accurate moves to avoid an early dangerous attack...

============

Contributors : Sebastiano Paulesu


Sebastiano Paulesu    (1969)
e4 d5 exd5 Nf6 c4 e6 dxe6 Nc6 exf7+

White, certainly, can play simply Nf3 and so transpose in the lines of the Icelandic gambit.
But this move can't be wrong...

============

Contributors : Sebastiano Paulesu


Sebastiano Paulesu    (1969)
e4 d5 exd5 Nf6 c4 e6 dxe6 Nc6 exf7+ Kxf7 Nf3

This naturally move is not the best for white.

============

Contributors : Sebastiano Paulesu


Sebastiano Paulesu    (1969)
e4 d5 exd5 Nf6 c4 e6 dxe6 Nc6 exf7+ Kxf7 Nf3 Bg4 Be2 Bxf3

This move is very important for the Black's plan.

============

Contributors : Sebastiano Paulesu


Benjamin Block    (1660)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Bd3


============

Contributors : Joel Mazo

This move ensures that White will be able to play c4 and achieve a Maroczy Bind position., Benjamin Block


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


Mike Hoogland    (1760)
d4 f5 g3 Nf6 Bg2 e6

More solid than g6. After this move, black most commonly plays the stonewall, with d5 and c6, or attacks the centre with d6-e5.

============

Contributors : Mike Hoogland


Mike Hoogland    (1760)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Qxd4 Nxd4 Bd7

A very useful move. Black prepares castling long and retains the possibility of playing c5. The immidiate c5 chases away the white knight, but weakens the d5 square. White can then develop accordingly and try to take advantage of this weakness.

They say develop knights before bishops, because the bishop often does not know yet where to go. In this case the bishop knows better where to go than the knight. It only has one good square, because on g4 it can be chased away by the useful move f3. The knight on the other hand could go to d7, f6 or even h6.

Black's bishop pair, his control over d5, the fact that his pawn structure has no weaknesses and the weakness of the white pawn on e4 give black an edge.

============

Contributors : Mike Hoogland


Ilmars Cirulis    (1543)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 f4

This move is the more aggressive attempt, compared to Nf3.

============

Contributors : Sebastian Boehme


Yugi Inving    (0914)
d4 e6 h3 Nf6 f3 d5 Bf4 c5 Nc3 Nc6 Nb5 e5 Bxe5 Nxe5 dxe5 a6 Nd6+


This move prouved to me that i was playing vs a noob.
============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Yugi Inving    (0914)
d4 e6 h3 Nf6 f3 d5 Bf4 c5 Nc3 Nc6 Nb5 e5 Bxe5 Nxe5 dxe5 a6 Nd6+ Bxd6 exf6 Qxf6 c3 Bg3+ Kd2

He is forced to move there.

============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Telmo Escobar    (2055)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Be2 a6 O-O Nbd7 f4 b5 Bf3 Bb7 e5 Bxf3 Nxf3 b4 exf6 bxc3 fxg7 Bxg7 b3 Qb6+ Kh1 Nf6 f5 e5 Bg5 Qc6 Qe1 h6 Bh4 O-O Rd1 Rfe8


Gligoric-Simagin, Alekhine Memorial 1963. The position is about equal, although Black has some weaknesses that make his position more difficult to deal with. In this kind of situations Gligoric was a true grandmaster and he eventually won the game (1-0 in 56 moves)

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2055)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Be2 a6 O-O Nbd7 f4 b5 Bf3 Bb7 e5 Bxf3 Nxf3 b4 exf6 bxc3 f5 Qb6+ Kh1 cxb2 Bxb2 Qxb2 fxe6 fxe6 f7+ Kd8 Nd4 Nc5 Nxe6+

Not so briliant because this move only draws, while White has winning prospects with 19.Rb1!

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2055)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Be2 a6 O-O Nbd7 f4 b5 Bf3 Bb7 e5 Bxf3 Nxf3 b4 exf6 bxc3 f5 Qb6+ Kh1 cxb2 Bxb2 Qxb2 fxe6 fxe6 f7+ Kd8 Nd4 Nc5 Rb1 Qxa2 Qf3 d5 c4 Qxc4 Qe3 Rc8 Rbc1 Qb4 Nxe6+ Kd7 Nf4 Qe4 Qh3+ Kc7 Ne6+ Kb8 Rb1+ Nb7 Qb3 d4 Rf4 Qc6 Rxd4 Be7 Rc4 Qd7 Qg3+ Ka7 Qe3+ Kb8 Qf4+ Ka7 Qf2+ Kb8 Rxc8+ Rxc8 f8 Bf8 Nf8 Qd3 Qb2 Qb5 Qa1 Qd3 Ne6 Qc3 Qa6


and draw after 43...Qc1+ 44.Qf1 Qxf1+ 45.Rxf1 g6. For some reason now the site doesn't accept the move "43...Qc1+" (nor "43...Qc1").
============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2055)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Be2 a6 O-O Nbd7 f4 b5 Bf3 Bb7 e5 Bxf3 Nxf3 b4 exf6 bxc3 f5 Qb6+ Kh1 cxb2 Bxb2 Qxb2 fxe6 fxe6 f7+ Kd8 Nd4 Nc5 Rb1 Qxa2 Qf3 d5 Qh3 Kd7 Nxe6 Nxe6 Rb7+ Kc6 Rfb1 Qxb1+


Only move (24...Nc5 25.R1b6 mate).
============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2055)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 Nf3

{after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5} Now it's an English opening {another move order to reach this position is 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4}.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2055)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 e3


{after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5} Another way of avoiding the Indo-Benoni. Not adviced when you are a strong grandmaster playing another strong grandmaster, as this move goes into a variation of the Tarrasch (or Semi-Tarrasch) defence where Black has little trouble to equalise.

But, for you or me, this move is psychologically good as if prevents the opponent to reach the kind of position he's looking for.
============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Timothy Mason    (1600)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Bg5 dxc4 e4 b5 e5 h6 Bh4 b4


============

Contributors : Timothy Mason i think that this is a good move



Kostis Megalios    (1400)
d4 d5 e3

This move is quite a passive one for white. Usually it's played by players who are afraid of gambiting the c pawn right away and they try to support the c4 pawn push.
============

Contributors : Yugi Inving, Kostis Megalios


Jose Fernández Bueno    (1769)
Nf3 d5 d3

This move encourage black to attack, but white can play an important tactic them with g3 and after, Bg2.

============

Contributors : Jose Fernández Bueno


Terry Godat    (2088)
e4 f5

This is Inving gambit. this gambit is the most dengerous weapon to use for black, as it can turn on the face because of Qh5+ the inving Gambit accepted have only four variant possible, After Fxe5. 2... g6, 2... h5 2... Nf6 and 2.. Kf7
the gambit can also be refused with , Nc3, Nf3, d3, f3, g3... or white can play the Advence Inving Gambit Variant (AIGV).

This gambit is not a bad move tough it's is -0.37 for Rybka. ( This opening has no name, i just name it like that for fun) it can also be an inversed From gambit.
============
This gambit, the Fred, is completely unjustified, except as a joke.
Contributors : Yugi Inving, Terry Godat


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


Julien Coll    (1672)
c4 e5 Nc3 Nf6 Nf3 Nc6 g3 Bb4 Bg2

The most principled move (and perhaps the better one): W doesn't fear B's threat Bxc3 and continues developing his pieces.

============

Contributors : Julien Coll


Sebastian Boehme    (1800)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 Bb5+ Bd7 Bxd7+ Qxd7 d4

A nice positional move.

============

Contributors : Sebastian Boehme


Sebastian Boehme    (1800)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 Bb5+ Bd7 Bxd7+ Qxd7 d4 cxd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qd3

Queen has moved a few times, but the arising positions give white a slight advantage.

============

Contributors : Sebastian Boehme


Terry Godat    (2036)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nc3



============

Contributors : Terry Godat

Because of Black's response, this move is not very popular, but I believe it may be as good as 3.Nf3.


Yugi Inving    (0914)
e4 c5 Nc3 Nc6 Nf3


============

This a really ugly game i have played, it counts 43 moves, it is a good games from the scicilien but still my 11 move was not good.
Contributors : Yugi Inving


Yugi Inving    (0914)
e4 c5 Nc3 Nc6 Nf3 Nf6 d3 d5 e5 d4


This a move to attack this Knight on c3 while ignoring the attack on my Knight f6
============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Yugi Inving    (0914)
e4 c5 Nc3 Nc6 Nf3 Nf6 d3 d5 e5 d4 Nb5



============
This move is logical but quickly punished by Qa5+
Contributors : Yugi Inving


Yugi Inving    (0914)
e4 c5 Nc3 Nc6 Nf3 Nf6 d3 d5 e5 d4 Nb5 Qa5+ Bd2 Qxb5 Rb1 Ng4 c4 Qa6 Be2 Ngxe5 O-O Nxf3+ Bxf3 Qa3



============

I just give a queen to my opponent, but he was not so strong, so i could get the game back whit some intelligents moves.
Contributors : Yugi Inving


Yugi Inving    (0914)
e4 c5 Nc3 Nc6 Nf3 Nf6 d3 d5 e5 d4 Nb5 Qa5+ Bd2 Qxb5 Rb1 Ng4 c4 Qa6 Be2 Ngxe5 O-O Nxf3+ Bxf3 Qa3 bxa3 Kd7 Re1 f6 h3 Kd6 Bf4+ e5 Bd2 g5 Qe2 Bg7 Qe4

============
I do not have the choice, I must prevent Qd4+
so Ne7 will be my next move.

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Yugi Inving    (0914)
e4 c5 Nc3 Nc6 Nf3 Nf6 d3 d5 e5 d4 Nb5 Qa5+ Bd2 Qxb5 Rb1 Ng4 c4 Qa6 Be2 Ngxe5 O-O Nxf3+ Bxf3 Qa3 bxa3 Kd7 Re1 f6 h3 Kd6 Bf4+ e5 Bd2 g5 Qe2 Bg7 Qe4 Ne7 a4 Rb8 a5 h6 a6 b6 Bh5

Planing to move B on cases, f7 and then d5. like I would take that bishop.

============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Yugi Inving    (0914)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 b3 Qe5+ Ne2 Qxa1 Nec3 Be6


In order to prevent whit play, they will try to put their knight on b3, This move prevent it.

castling and try to exchange the second rook for the queen will take a considerable amout of time.
============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Yugi Inving    (0914)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 b3 Qe5+ Ne2 Qxa1 Nec3 Be6 d4 Nf6 Bd3 Nbd7 Qe2 c6 Bd2 O-O-O O-O Nb6 Na3 Qxf1+

This sacrifice remove an important pieces, Two rook are far better then a queen.

============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Telmo Escobar    (2043)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 O-O c3

prepare to move d4 (Marshall Atack)

============

Contributors : Francisco Guisado, Telmo Escobar


Arne Sigvald Engř    (1800)
Nf3 Nf6 g3 g6 Bg2 Bg7 O-O O-O c4



============

Contributors : Arne Sigvald Engř

A very active move aimed at blocking black in his attempts to establish a pawn center.


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 f3 Bg7

The correct move. Now White hardly has anything better than 7.Be3, so going into main variation 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 f3 Qb6

Achtung! This move is recommended in one of the editions of the Yugoslav Enciclopedia of Chess Openings, even evaluating this position as favouring Black (!). The idea is, apparently, that White is deprived of the natural reply 7.Be3, so Black has (apparently!) the initiative. Let us see why this is wrong.
============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Ng4 Bb5 Nc6

Only move, as 7...Bd7?? loses to 8.Qxg4.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Ng4 Bb5 Nc6 Nxc6 bxc6 Bxc6+ Bd7 Bxa8 Nxe3 fxe3 Qxa8

A critical position. In order to understand why a single tempo will be decisive for the evaluation of the position, it's advisable to remember that Siegbert Tarrasch postulated that "two bishops plus a rook are better than two rooks plus a knight". According my oddly uneven experience of near forty years of tournament play, during which I lost to many patzers but beat many masters -and a few grandmasters- as well, I think Tarrasch's axiom is correct most of the time. Indeed, *as most players seem to not know about Tarrasch's axiom*, one of my dirty tricks has been to look for these positions, when my adversary think he -one exchange up- is better, but I -one exchange down- usually know better.

In this position, both Black bishops seem to have excellent prospects and, should my dark bishop be already at g7, I'd be sure that Black has winning prospects.

But it's White turn to move, and...

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


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


This move has little independent meaning, as Black can enter the main lines if he so wants, yet some White players may have some spetial in mind as we shall see.
============

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

Black is positionally brilliant as he has two bishops and his adversary has weakened his pawn structure. Yet now Black has to stand alert, as his next move, if based only upon "general considerations", could be his last move as well...
============

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


Telmo Escobar    (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 Bc4 Ng4 Bb5+ Kf8 O-O Nxe3 fxe3 Nc6 Bc4 Ne5

Only move.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Mark Hailes    (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6 Nge2

Now If black takes the knight on c3 white can recapture with the other knight avoiding doubled c pawns. However, black will most likely avoid this exchange and then the e2 knight will have to move again before the white light squared bishop can get out.

============

Contributors : Mark Hailes


Mark Hailes    (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6 Bd3 Bb7

Black controls the long diagonal and attacks the pawn on g2. White would have liked to play Nge2 on the next move, but now that is a pawn sacrifice.
============

Contributors : Mark Hailes


Yugi Inving    (1280)
d4 Nf6 Nf3 d5 Nc3 Nc6 e3 g6 Bd3 Bg7 Bd2


This move finishes white's development.
============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Paul Brand Lyard    (1777)
Nh3

1/Played by French amateur chess player Charles Amar in the 1930s, this opening is also known as the Drunken Knight Opening, or the Ammonia Opening (NH3 is the chemical formula of the ammonia).

There is no particular interest in choosing to play NH3, and it is therefore considered as an irregular opening. It prepares for kingside castling, but so would NF3...


2/Here is the "Sodium Attack", an very rarely opening played in profssional tournaments,the interest of this
Non-orthodoxe opening,is to control cells g5
and f4 in One also move... to prépare the attack on column f, with bishop on c1 at thé 3th.move, and to prépare the casting, so of course!

Paul,Emma& Sandra Brand-Lyard. 2021/07/24th.


============

Contributors : Benjamin Block, Normajean Yates, Florian Cafiero, PaulSandra Brand-Lyard
aka "The Sandra Lyard13061975-03081997 Inventor
Chess variants Annapurna' séries.


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


Benjamin Block    (1397)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 O-O Nf6 d3 d6 Bg5

Don´t looks like a bad move but it is.
============

Contributors : Benjamin Block


Benjamin Block    (1397)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 O-O Nf6 d3 d6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 g5 Bg3 h5

Maybe the best move.

============

Contributors : Benjamin Block


Benjamin Block    (1397)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 O-O Nf6 d3 d6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 g5 Bg3 h5 Nxg5 h4 Nxf7 hxg3

!! Just so cool move.

============

Contributors : Benjamin Block


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!


Graham Cridland    (1438)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 b5 e5

White's best move, putting the question to Black as to how to avoid losing a piece.

============

Contributors : Graham Cridland


Arnab Sengupta    (1700)
d4 d6 e4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Nf3 Bg7 Bc4 O-O O-O Nxe4 Nxe4

well there were other possibilities like Bxf7+ Rxf7, Nxe4.......but i liked this move.
============

Contributors : Arnab Sengupta


Sebastian Boehme    (1999)
h3 d5

One of many good possibilities against this rather passive move by white.

============

Contributors : Sebastian Boehme


Sebastian Boehme    (1999)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e5 Nb3 Be6 f3 Be7 Qd2

This move is paving the road for a sharp game, because of the different ways white and black mostly castle here.

============

Contributors : Sebastian Boehme


Joeri Ramon    (1758)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 c5


move from Opocensky czech player

============

Contributors : Joeri Ramon


Premraj Natarajan    (1800)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Qd2 Qxb2 Rb1 Qa3 e5 dxe5

This one is a transposition move so it can be achieved even after playing h6 and divert white's bishop.

============

Contributors : Premraj Natarajan


Paul Brand Lyard    (1400)
a4

============

Contributors : Benjamin Block, Ruddy Franco, Kostis Megalios, Paul Brand Lyard

This opening is the Ware" opening A4
Mr. Ware, US champion in his time, had
won very much games in tournaments with his
rarely,amazing opening....
What do you play after one a opening a4?
Best move isn' t it to play pawn e5 for blacks?
Blacks to play.

Nota bene

Mr.Paul-emmanuel Brand FRA, Aka
"The Sandra LyardVers13061975",
Inventor Annapurna' chess séries variants said
about this Non- orthodoxe, rarely uses in tournaments by players,afer a long time to try and studied this,that was a precious opening because she can create an big surprise attack on column A,for the oponnent after only twelve moves....

Thé " Meadow Hay" Ware opening' is most strongest than WE believe...2021 July 20th.
Paul,Emma&Sandra Brand-Lyard.


Normajean Yates    (1858)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Nc6 Qh5+ g6 Nxg6 Nf6 Qh3 hxg6 Qxh8 Qe7 Nc3

Any thoughts on this line? Someone played this [8. Nc3] against me at another correspondence-chess site, and I am ie Black is already in serious trouble after 8. Nc3 fxe4 9. Be2 Nd4 10. O-O. I don't see any counterattack by black!

I mean latvian-fraser is supposed to be in crisis, but is the old main line [ie until black's 7th move] so bad? Or did I blunder? No, I didn't blunder - except by choosing this line [or, except by playing the latvian ;) ]

PS: I (black) managed to win that game because it was no-engines and white got overconfident, but that's another story :) ] For the curious, here is *that* story:

NN v Normajeanyates
chess.com corr no-engines 2008
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Nc6 4. Qh5+ g6 5. Nxg6 Nf6 6. Qh3 hxg6 7. Qxh8 Qe7 8. Nc3 fxe4 9. Be2 Nd4 10. O-O Nxc2 11. Rb1 Nd4 12. d3 Nxe2+ 13. Nxe2 exd3 14. Nf4 Kf7 15. Nxd3 Bg7 16. Qh4 Qe4 17. Qxe4 Nxe4 18. Be3 d6 19. Rfe1 Bf5 20. Red1 Re8 21. Rbc1 c5 22. b3 Nc3 23. Rd2 Bxd3 24. Rxd3 Ne2+ 25. Kf1 Nxc1 26. Rxd6 Nxa2 27. Bxc5 Bf8 28. Rd7+ Ke6 29. Rc7 Bxc5 30. Rxc5 Rd8 31. Ke2 Rd5 32. Rc7 Rb5 33. Rg7 Kf6 34. Rd7 Rxb3 35. Rd2 Nc3+ 0-1

============

Contributors : Normajean Yates


Kostis Megalios    (1400)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5

This move is known to be slightly worse than Bf5, but, it's been played by quite a few strong Grandmasters.
============

Contributors : Kostis Megalios


Kostis Megalios    (1400)
c4 e5 Nc3 Nc6

Normal developing move.
============

Contributors : Kostis Megalios


Jean-Michel Ratna    (1844)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qa5 d4 c6


More flexible move.
============

Contributors : Jean-Michel Ratna


Normajean Yates    (1946)
e4 e5 f4 Qh4+ g3 Qe7

This strange-looking move, where black blocks its own b1-Bishop, is nevertheless probably the best! The point of course is to maintain pressure on the e-file as well d1-h4 diagonal. The '4.fxe5 d6!' continuation illustrates this.

============

Contributors : Normajean Yates


Sophie Leclerc    (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 f6 Nxe5 Ne7

This move is simple too. Ne7 take control of both d5 and f5 sqaure, it also control g6 square which just save from a little Qh5+

As for, Qh5+ g6, The queen is attacked, and you lose the knight

Refuting this is not an easy task. And blakc does have well hidden compensation for the pawn. this opening is gived the rating as the halloween gambit.

Black can not come up with many plans, depending where the knight woulg go, Nf3 just mean you have lost a tempo, Nd3 prevent d4, and Nc4 will cause black to play d5 right away, since they don't want a knight on e3.

the f6 pawn can serve later, in attack, with the moves, g5, -h5 g4- h4.

Black has a little initiative, he must not lose to win the game.

============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 f6 Nxe5 Ne7 Qh5+

A very bad move. It just give away a knight. no too shaby. We will see why.

============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 f6 Nxe5 Ne7 Qh5+ g6

Because the king can't move and Ng6 fails to Nxg6, We must and we should play g6. it attacks the queen. Black should still carefull, White as a trap for you
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


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

The only move.
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 f6 Nxe5 Ne7 Qh5+ g6 Bc4 Bg7 Bf7+ Kf8 Qf3 fxe5

This one of the worse move black can play here.

============

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 fxe5 Qh5 Ke7 Qxe5 Kf7 Bc4 d5 Bxd5+ Kg6 h4 h5 Bxb7 Bxb7

after this move black gets mated quickly after 10.Qf5+ Kh6 11.d4+ g5 12.Qf7!.

============

Contributors : Normajean Yates


Dan Geana    (1921)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Ndb5 d6 Bg5 a6 Na3 b5 Nd5 Be7 Bxf6 Bxf6 c3 O-O Nc2 Rb8 h4

Move of Kasparov

============

Contributors : Dan Geana


Kostis Megalios    (1400)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 b5

A somewhat strange looking move which is usually used only as a surprise weapon.
============

Contributors : Kostis Megalios


Kostis Megalios    (1400)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 Bf5 h4

A really aggressive move which is quite popular in club play and especially in blitz games as white now is not able to play e6.
============

Contributors : Kostis Megalios


Normajean Yates    (1975)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Qd2 Qxb2 Rb1 Qa3 e5 h6 Bh4 dxe5 fxe5 Nd5

Rybka 3 opening book line. According to the author Jeroen Noomen:

"In 2007 the Poisoned Pawn variation of the Sicilian Najdorf was experiencing a crisis. White players found out that after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 the old move 10.e5!? was not so easy for black and they scored a few impressive victories. The Poisoned Pawn finally refuted? Not really! After 10.e5!? h6 11.Bh4 dxe5 12.fxe5 black has a move that gives him full equality: 12... Nd5!
"


============

Contributors : Normajean Yates


Sophie Leclerc    (1242)
e4 e5 f4 f6 fxe5 Nc6

The only Good move, as taking the pawn back will result in losing a rook for pawn.
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1525)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 f3 O-O Qd2 Nc6 Bc4 Bd7 O-O-O Rc8 Bb3 Ne5 Kb1 Nc4 Bxc4 Rxc4 g4 b5 b3 b4

We should keep going with this move now, that we are on it.


The dragon is an opening so violent that we must not be scared of sacrifices.

============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1242)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 g4 g6 g5 Ne4


A correct knight move, the knight will place himself at d6 then at f5 since the square f5 is a beautiful out post.
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1242)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 g4 g6 g5 Ne4 d3

Not the best move. Black will have to play Nd6 anyway.
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1242)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 g4 g6 g5 Ne4 d3 Nd6 fxg6


This move surrender the f5 outpost and open the h-file for black. Not so good.
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1242)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 g4 g6 g5 Ne4 d3 Nd6 fxg6 hxg6 Bg2 Nc6 Nc3

An normal move, developping the knight, but delaying an castle, tought castling is not so attrayant here.
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1242)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 g4 g6 g5 Ne4 d3 Nd6 fxg6 hxg6 Bg2 Nc6 Nc3 Nf5

Whit this move, black has now an important treath. the knight manaver f5-d4 and c6-b4 and taking on c2, the classical forks to take a rook.

Of course, White can do something to this treath right away.
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1242)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 g4 g6 g5 Ne4 d3 Nd6 fxg6 hxg6 Bg2 Nc6 Nc3 Nf5 Nf3 d6


This move help black to finished their developpement and to find an attack since they are behind in both material and developpement.


============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1242)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 g4 g6 g5 Ne4 d3 Nd6 fxg6 hxg6 Bg2 Nc6 Nc3 Nf5 Nf3 d6 Bd2 Bg7

A good move too. It prepare kingside castle even if it is dangerous.

============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1242)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 g4 g6 g5 Ne4 d3 Nd6 fxg6 hxg6 Bg2 Nc6 Nc3 Nf5 Nf3 d6 Bd2 Bg7 h4

If Qe2, and Nc6-d4 bring back the queen to her start square or wins a rook for the knight.

Tought, h4 isn't the best possible move, The problably wat to stop black from castling.

============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1242)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 g4 g6 g5 Ne4 d3 Nd6 fxg6 hxg6 Bg2 Nc6 Nc3 Nf5 Nf3 d6 Bd2 Bg7 h4 Qd7 Qe2 Ncd4 Qd1 Qe6+ Kf1 Qf7


The queen take a fine semi-open file.

This prevent Nxd4 as the move in question will cost white a rook.
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1242)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 g4 g6 g5 Ne4 d3 Nd6 fxg6 hxg6 Bg2 Nc6 Nc3 Nf5 Nf3 d6 Bd2 Bg7 h4 Qd7 Qe2 Ncd4 Qd1 Qe6+ Kf1 Qf7 Nxd4

Whiten will now get hit by a fork with Ng3+, the f pawn will be pined! so he'll have to move the king.

============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1242)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 g4 g6 g5 Ne4 d3 Nd6 fxg6 hxg6 Bg2 Nc6 Nc3 Nf5 Nf3 d6 Bd2 Bg7 h4 Qd7 Qe2 Ncd4 Qd1 Qe6+ Kf1 Qf7 Nxd4 Ng3+ Kg1


The only good move, Ke1 just lose the game.
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1242)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 g4 g6 g5 Ne4 d3 Nd6 fxg6 hxg6 Bg2 Nc6 Nc3 Nf5 Nf3 d6 Bd2 Bg7 h4 Qd7 Qe2 Ncd4 Qd1 Qe6+ Kf1 Qf7 Nxd4 Ng3+ Kg1 Bxd4 Qf3 Nxh1 Qxf7+ Kxf7 Bxh1 c6 Rb1


A losing move. Just a waste of time.
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Reto Bhunjun    (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 h6


Rarely played move
============

Contributors : Reto Bhunjun


Sandor Porkolab    (1476)
e4 e6 d4 d5 e5 b6

An interesting sideline (instead of the Mainline 3...c5) Black intention with b6 move is to change the light square bishops - by playing ...Ba6 later on - removing an active piece from the table.

Notable games:
GM Ulibin - GM Rustemov 2004 0-1
GM Ganguy - GM Berkes 2002 1/2-1/2
GM Ye Jiangchuan - GM Ivanchuk 2001 1/2-1/2
GM Khalifman - GM N. Short 2001 0-1
GM Baklan - GM Vaganian 1999 0-1
GM Shabalov - GM Seirawan 1999 0-1


============

Contributors : Sandor Porkolab


Sandor Porkolab    (1476)
e4 e6 d4 d5 e5 b6 c3 Qd7 a4 Nc6

5...Nc6!? best move

============

Contributors : Sandor Porkolab


Sandor Porkolab    (1476)
e4 e6 d4 d5 e5 b6 c3 Qd7 Nf3 Ne7 Bd3 Ba6

6...Ba6 Here is the meaning of the earlier 4...b6 move - giving way to the c8 Bishop to a6 to go for the Bishop exchange. It is a good plan for black to remove the light square Bishops from the table - deactivating an active white bishop for a passive black bishop.

Options for white:

A, 7.0-0 castling

B, 7.Bxa6 go for the Bishop exchange

============

Contributors : Sandor Porkolab


Sandor Porkolab    (1476)
e4 e6 d4 d5 e5 b6 c3 Qd7 Nf3 Ne7 Bd3 Ba6 Bxa6 Nxa6

7.Nxa6 - the white square bishops removed from the table. Now black having a safe/defendable position.

============

Contributors : Sandor Porkolab


Sandor Porkolab    (1476)
e4 e6 d4 d5 e5 b6 c3 Qd7 Nf3 Ba6

5...Ba6 not the best move here. The f1 white Bishop not moved yet - white can capture directly the a6 Bishop and losing a potential tempo. Black move ...Ba6 should commence only after the f1 Bishop moved to e2 or d3.

============

Contributors : Sandor Porkolab


Sophie Leclerc    (1242)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 Nxe5

I present all of you, the terrible, the great and the most scary of all gambit, the halloween gambit, a very good move.

============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


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


It is noteworthy that (compared with the correct defence 21...Rf7! 22.Rg3+ Kh8) White has won a move here.
============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


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

Typical Anand, this is in practice a strong move, as now 29.Bxf5 meets the sardonic 29...e4! with an unsavory pin. White could anyway enter that line, as 30.Rb3 with the idea of R3-b1 seems to be OK. In time trouble, Grischuk couldn´t possibly see that escape.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


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


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 Be7 Be2 h5 Rb3 Qa4 Nxf6+ Bxf6 c4 Bh4+


Probably best as White is forced to put a pawn at g3, an ugly move (in certain cases he would be happy to use the square h3 for future attacking purposes) and also a weakness.
============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Sebastian Boehme    (2129)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e5 Nb3 Be6 f3 Be7 Qd2 O-O O-O-O Nbd7

A quite commonly tried move by black.

============

Contributors : Sebastian Boehme


Sebastian Boehme    (2129)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e5 Nb3 Be6 f3 Be7 Qd2 O-O O-O-O Nbd7 g4 b5 g5 b4 Ne2

Not necessarily the best move, but an acceptable choice amongst others.

============

Contributors : Sebastian Boehme


Sophie Leclerc    (1573)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 f3 h5

A new variation, Yugi variation, ( no, I don,t who got the idea), but black decide to delay castle and make this usefull move as this move gain even more control over the g4 square, it will be harder for white to continue with his pawn storm.

Black may want to play Bd7 and Nc6 before this move,

Can this be a good dragon variation. of course black may not castle at all.


right after making this strange, the play will normaly continue by white playing on kingside and black on the queen side. His king may go to the d7 square in order to find safety and connect his rook.
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1573)
f4 d6 Nf3 Nc6 c4 Nf6

The new yugi attack take position after Nc3, he take seiorus claim on d5 and e5 square when we let him play this.

Move strange would be to fianchetto both bishop.

============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sebastian Boehme    (2175)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 a3 Nc6

Avoids falling into the trap of taking on b2 and then losing the queen. Is considered a solid development move.

============

Contributors : Sebastian Boehme


Normajean Yates    (1967)
e4 e5 f4 Qf6 Nf3 Qxf4

exf4 is just an inferior move... and bring nothing...

On the king knight gambit, Qf6 is also an inferior move..
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc, Normajean Yates


Sophie Leclerc    (1573)
e4 e5 f4 Qf6 Nf3 Qxf4 Nc3 Bb4


Trying to remove the guard on e4
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1573)
e4 e5 f4 Qf6 Nf3 Qxf4 Nc3 Bb4 Bc4 Bxc3


Now the guardian of e4 is removed and black treat Qxe4 check, killing the attack
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1573)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 Be7 Bc4 Bh4+ Kf1

By far the best move, as the bishop is attacked, black has to spend another tiempo to developpe the king knight.

While with g3, white take enerous risk for nothing.

============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Lauri Lahnasalo    (1600)
c4 e5 Nf3

Gives yet another twist to this position which was english - sicilian reversed and now has the flavour of Alekhine defense reversed.

Maybe not white's best move but very interesting.There is lot of a chess game ahead.

============

Contributors : Lauri Lahnasalo


Lauri Lahnasalo    (1600)
c4 e5 Nf3 e4 Nd4

Only move.

============

Contributors : Lauri Lahnasalo


Lauri Lahnasalo    (1600)
c4 e5 Nf3 e4 Nd4 Nc6 Nc2 Nf6

Most blacks tries in theory have consisted of this move.

============

Contributors : Lauri Lahnasalo


Lauri Lahnasalo    (1600)
c4 e5 Nf3 e4 Nd4 Nc6 Nc2 d5 cxd5 Qxd5

Only move.

============

Contributors : Lauri Lahnasalo


Lauri Lahnasalo    (1600)
c4 e5 Nf3 e4 Nd4 Nc6 Nc2 d5 cxd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qe5 d3 exd3

Move to fight for a advantage.

============

Contributors : Lauri Lahnasalo


Alex Savu    (1350)
d4 e5 dxe5 Nc6 Nf3 Nge7

Zilbermints variation. Black aims to post the knight at g6 and recapture the pawn on e5. Not as bad as it might seem. White has tried a number of different moves at this point.

============

Contributors : Alex Savu


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4

It may feel appriopriate to move a pawn like this. not on both wings.

============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 b6


The move continue of game I played, in the Club d'échecs de sherbrooke, an free game with a friend, Alexandre Allard-dos-Santos. So this will be the game Leclerc-Allard_Dos_santos

He tought this was a benko. since we played a benko.
Also the conitnuation of a game on Uchess. agaisn't a 2000 rated anonymous player.
============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier 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


A weak move.
============

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

A good move, attcking the knight who lack space.

============

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

not really, the best move, but okay. here, on oif the best.

============

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


there is little to do now. white is too active for any serious move, black lack any counter play.
============

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 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 Nxg8 Nb5 axb5 cxb5 Rd6

A really bad move. Kc8 was better, but still losing.

============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 b6 g3 Bb7 bxc5 bxc5 Bg2 e6

still a good move, it can transpose, as Nc6 / Nd7 , and Nf6 are played in any order possible.

============

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 b6 g3 Bb7 bxc5 bxc5 Bg2 e6 Na3 Qf6 Rb1 Be4 d3 Bc6 Ne5

Black developpement is so slow, mate would be possible whitout the knight on b8 and the bishop by Qa4 and Qd7, hoverer, we need this move.
Black is gone by now, as, he need to do Bd7, giving up his rook, to live.
============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 b6 g3 Bb7 bxc5 bxc5 Bg2 e6 Na3 Qf6 Rb1 Be4 d3 Bc6 Ne5 Bxg2 Rxb8+

A reall good move, the rook cannot be taken, but it still is going bad for black.

============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 Nf6 bxc5

A logical move, now white will continue his plan of undermining the black's centre, who is now, only made of the d4-pawn.

============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 Nf6 bxc5 e6 Ba3


Bb2 is logical, but quite passive, the texte move, contain an attack on Bf8, and try to prevent castling.
============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 Nf6 bxc5 e6 Ba3 Nc6 g3 Qa5

A correct move, Who only reason is to recover the pawn and gsin better developpement.

White will look bad if he do nothing about it.

============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 Nf6 bxc5 e6 Ba3 Nc6 g3 Qa5 Qb3

A good move, and maybe the best one, one of those move, you got to know before playing the gambit, anywhere, you can't rely on computer...

Same truth for many gambits, knowing theory helps.

============

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)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 Nf6 bxc5 e6 Ba3 Nc6 g3 Qa5 Qb3 Bxc5 Qb5 Qxb5 cxb5 Nb4 Bxb4 Bxb4 Nxd4 O-O Nc3 Rd8 e3 e5 fxe5 Ng4 Rc1 Nxe5 Be2 Bh3 Kf2 Rd6 Ne4 Rd7 Rc2 Re7 Rb1 Ba5 Rbc1 Rd8 Kg1 Bb6 Nc5 Rd6 Bf1 Bg4 Bg2 h5 h3 Bd7 Be4 Bxh3 Nxb7 Rxd4 exd4 Bxd4+ Kh2 Ng4+ Kxh3 Rxe4 Nd6 Re2 d3

the only move.

After Nf2, White should go for Kg2. as other move as poor.

============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 Nf6 bxc5 e6 Ba3 Nc6 g3 Qa5 Qb3 Bxc5 Qb5 Qxb5 cxb5 Nb4 Bxb4 Bxb4 Nxd4 O-O Nc3 Rd8 e3 e5 fxe5 Ng4 Rc1 Nxe5 Be2 Bh3 Kf2 Rd6 Ne4 Rd7 Rc2 Re7 Rb1 Ba5 Rbc1 Rd8 Kg1 Bb6 Nc5 Rd6 Bf1 Bg4 Bg2 h5 h3 Bd7 Be4 Bxh3 Nxb7 Rxd4 exd4 Bxd4+ Kh2 Ng4+ Kxh3 Rxe4 Nd6 Re2 d3 Re3 Nf5 Rxd3 Nxd4 Rxd4 Rc8+ Kh7 R8c7


Now the game consist of a lot of rook move, in the goal of exchanging the black rook, after white, black's game is gone.
============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 Nf6 bxc5 e6 Ba3 Nc6 g3 Qa5 Qb3 Bxc5 Qb5 Qxb5 cxb5 Nb4 Bxb4 Bxb4 Nxd4 O-O Nc3 Rd8 e3 e5 fxe5 Ng4 Rc1 Nxe5 Be2 Bh3 Kf2 Rd6 Ne4 Rd7 Rc2 Re7 Rb1 Ba5 Rbc1 Rd8 Kg1 Bb6 Nc5 Rd6 Bf1 Bg4 Bg2 h5 h3 Bd7 Be4 Bxh3 Nxb7 Rxd4 exd4 Bxd4+ Kh2 Ng4+ Kxh3 Rxe4 Nd6 Re2 d3 Re3 Nf5 Rxd3 Nxd4 Rxd4 Rc8+ Kh7 R8c7 Ra4 R1c2 f6 R7c4 Ra5 Rb4 Ra3 Rb3 Ra4 a3 g5 Rc6 Kg6 Kg2 h4 gxh4 gxh4 Ra6 Rxa6 bxa6 Ne5 Rb7 Nc6


And black resign, while making this move, as he tought, after, Rc7, the a-pawn was failing.

The end of a game. AudreyxSophie-Zsiracki on Redhotpawn
============

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 c5 c4 d4 b4 cxb4 a3 e6 Bb2 Nc6 axb4 Bxb4 e3 e5 Nxe5 Nxe5 Bxd4

Thye only good move, as the knight is pinned on the g7-pawn, moving it, cost a rook. so, basicly, black lost a pawn, but retain some compensation.


Maybe not all of them.

============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Gregory Kohut    (1592)
Nf3 c6 e4 d5 Nc3

Caro-Kann: Two knights variation

A move which may look weak, but one which has stood the test of time and has no hard refutation. Similar to the Mexican defense for black, this c3 knight will often be active, travelling to g3 and then attacking g7 later in many games. Black should resist the urge to force this manoeuvre and instead try to bolster the centre with a quick e6 and kingside development.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Peter Marriott    (1982)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 f3 b5 a3

This move is calmer than g4. White has many options now, he can play Qd2 and castle queenside, and still has the option of a pawn storm on the kingside with g4 h4 etc.

============

Contributors : Peter Marriott


Niklas Hallqvist    (1438)
d4 e6 Nf3 c5

Of the common moves in the preceding position, c5 is the one with the best statistics, at 42% (i.e. good for black), according to TWIC's tournament database (110406).

============

Contributors : Niklas Hallqvist


William Taylor    (2110)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O b5 Bb3 Bb7

The first move of the Arkhangelsk Variation, named after the Russian city of Arkhangelsk where many of its originial practitioners hail from. This is a combative and slightly offbeat line, but has been championed by several strong Grandmasters, such as Beliavsky, Malaniuk and Mikhalchishin.

============

Contributors : William Taylor


William Taylor    (2110)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O b5 Bb3 Bb7 Re1 Bc5 c3 d6

The main move, though castling is also possible.

============

Contributors : William Taylor


William Taylor    (2110)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O b5 Bb3 Bb7 Re1 Bc5 c3 d6 d4 Bb6 Bg5

One of the main moves, the other being Be3. This pin can be extremely annoying for black, but it seems like he has found a strong antidote in this instance.

============

Contributors : William Taylor


William Taylor    (2110)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O b5 Bb3 Bb7 Re1 Bc5 c3 d6 d4 Bb6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 g5 Bg3 O-O

Although black's kingside pawn structure looks a little weakened, practice has shown that black gets excellent play in this position. His two bishops look strong, he has a solid foothold in the centre, and he is ready to commence active operations on the kingside with moves like Nh5.

============

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


William Taylor    (2110)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O b5 Bb3 Bb7 c3 Nxe4

The most principled way, though other moves (e.g. d6) may be possible.

============

Contributors : William Taylor


Telmo Escobar    (1847)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nd2 Nf6 e5 Nfd7 c3 c5 Bd3 Nc6 Ne2 cxd4 cxd4 f6 exf6 Qxf6 O-O e5

Black inferior development means this move is too risky

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Patrick Satonnet    (1833)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 exf5 e4 Ne5 Nf6 Be2 d6 Bh5 Ke7 Nf7 Qe8

============

Contributors : Patrick Satonnet

For me,better to avoid queen exchange in the line Nxh8 Qxh5 Qxh5 Nxh5 g4 Nf6 with unclar avantage for white.

The plan is development, with 4 options : d3, d4, Nc3 and oo.

The real decision is the choice bitween d3 and d4, and eventually the exact momment for the 2 other moves.

If other moves aren't winning in line, oo is better move, no waste of time and no irreversible decision..


Paul Brand Lyard    (1900)
e4 c5 f4 d5 e5 Nc6 Bb5 Qb6 Bxc6 Qxc6 Nf3 h5 d3 Nh6 O-O Nf5 Nc3 e6

============

Contributors : Paul Brand Lyard

e6 is it the stongest move?


Paul Brand Lyard    (1777)
c4 c5 Nc3 d6 Nf3 Bd7 d4 a6 dxc5 Nc6

============

Contributors : Piotr Wiaderek, Paul Brand Lyard

Play knight on c6 is it really the best move to play here,
or to capture the white pawn c5 with the black pawn d6 now is the better and stongest attack,
to get the control of cells b4 and d4, ans qu'on the advantage opening position?


Paul Brand Lyard    (1777)
e4 e6 d4 g6 h4 Bg7 h5 g5 h6 Bxh6 Rxh6 Nxh6 Qh5 Qf6 Bxg5 Qxd4 Qxh6 Qxb2

============

Contributors : Janusz Swiatek, Paul Brand Lyard

Queen on b2 is an very good move,and the trap on the castle is now irreversible.
Played by Janusz Swiatek vs me.
Congratulations.






FICGS : move ,   Wikipedia : move ,   Dmoz : move ,   Google : move ,   Yahoo : move




Chess is so inspiring that I do not believe a good player is capable of having an evil thought during the game. (Wilhelm Steinitz)

Chess is played with the mind and not with the hands ! (Renaud and Kahn)

I am the best player in the world and I am here to prove it. (Bobby Fischer)




Back to FICGS , Wikichess





[Chess forum] [Rating lists] [Countries] [Chess openings] [Legal informations] [Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]