piece
FICGS - Search results for piece
There are 231 results for piece in the forum.
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 (2006-04-15 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. (?)
Glen D. Shields (2006-04-16 12:15:33)
A Couple More Suggestions!
Thank you Thibault for your prompt response to my suggestions. Here's another one that you may not be able to do easily. Can you add an option to make the board a little bit larger? And maybe eventually give us chess piece choices or board color choice? My eyesight plays tricks on me as I get older and bt experimenting with the colors, sizes and piece choices it sometimes helps. Just a suggestion! None are big ones. Thanks!
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.
Glen D. Shields (2006-04-16 12:33:44)
Comparisons
Hello Thibault - first thanks for creating this server. I'm happy to see so many members joined up so quickly.
I just started on Ortwin's server (IECG) yesterday. Too early to compare, though one initial item I like better on Ortwin's server is that I can
easily change board colors and chess pieces there. Would like the board a little larger (or maybe be adjustable) on both sites. Easier for old eyes!
Two items I like much better here than at ICCF are the time rules (ICCF's are much too long) and the tournament sign-up procedure. I can not sign up for an ICCF tournament on-line. I have to do so by printing a form and mailing a check to my NF. A old process for a modern method of play!
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)
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)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-29 23:07:25)
Value of the pieces...
That's exactly what I was thinking about before allowing you to exchange your bishop against two pawns... Actually, I've no idea about it :)
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-05-29 23:44:30)
Value of the pieces...
A bishop against two pawns - never if it is not mate. You have two open lines and I lack an important piece.
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.
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-06-19 15:18:50)
Chess is a drawn game!
Hi,
with perfect play on both sides, chess is allways a drawn game - even 1.e4 or 1.d4 (or any others). I'm really sure!
The ways to come into theoretical drawn endings are just too many (for the defender).
But who is playing perfect?
Still waiting for the 32-pieces ending tool ;-), Wolfgang
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.
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-24 17:36:05)
Thanks Glen
Thanks for these sharp remarks and this piece of correspondence chess story. That's very interesting discussing...
I make good notes of what you said about correspondence chess servers !
About what Dinesh said... he just invented Chess Cyber Sex :))))
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...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-11 17:44:05)
Big chess name
There are probably other chess variants called 'Big Chess'. I remember another one on a big board with many pieces and start positions decided by both players, putting pieces on their half board... Anyway, this variant looks strange to me.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-15 00:24:12)
Chess databases
Hi Miguel.
Really ? Looks strange to me... So what about 6-pieces tablebases ?
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-09-30 23:06:46)
Suggestion...
Hi, Thibault. What about new feature - theoretical matches. Example. One [A] think - in the line white wins, another [B] - it's drawish. [A] plays 6 games with white pieces against [B]. I'm OK to wait a year or two. :D For example, I think - 6.e4 is drawish. :D :D Yes, I know. I am thinking too much. :D
Cirulis
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-10-02 20:40:30)
Hi again, Thibault!
What do you think about WC article 2689? I think - it is possible refutation of Traxler counterattack. White has slow, but sure win - piece again two pawns. Refute me if I am wrong, please! (:
Cirulis
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-19 23:07:16)
Re: Mate in 292 moves
Can't the pawns strike other pieces, rooks, bishops... ?!
Gino Figlio (2006-10-20 07:56:02)
too many pawn captures for white
4 white pawns are still in their original post. There are however 3 doubled pawns. The minimum number of pawn captures to achieve this would be 7, but black has only lost 4 pieces(2 rooks and 2 bishops); therefore the position is illegal.
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?
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-11-15 16:40:51)
Nice endgame, too! :)
Ok, I will look for clear win!
For me that endgame is easier than another one. Here black has only one piece instead of two. :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-15 21:30:40)
New chessboards
Ok, some new chessboards (default big & giant) are really awful :)
I've just added two sets : "Graphics" is nice and quite big, "Phantom" is... big only !
If you know places on internet where one can download nice free pictures (gif format) for each chess pieces, please send me your links...
Thanks in advance.
Lionel Vidal (2006-11-21 13:47:55)
Komi vs handicap
IMO, Thibault is quite right: it would make no sense to increase Komi instead of playing with handicap stones.
To give points or to give stones is not the same: the very nature of handicap stones is pedagogic, that is to help *both* players to improve. Go strategy is complex, but can often been seen as a delicate balance between power (thickness) and territory (points). Handicap stones are put on Hoshi on purpose: to help the weaker player to build and use thickness, the most difficult concept to master compare to territory, where a beginner can actually count concrete points (or so he believes at first :-)
Playing at 9 handicap stones, or giving, say, 100 points komi is not the same and never will be: the weaker player has no chance with such a komi, because he will have no anchor to help his stones live and will probably be completely destroyed... but much worse, he cannot improve his play easily because he'll never be in a position where he could *try* to think strategically.
IMO, true go is not non-handicap go, but
a fair game where the tactical and strategic true nature of the game is preserved. How could we say that, for instance, Dosaku 'Go Saint' games are not true go, when he was at least one stone stronger than all his fellow pro players, giving them Black (no komi at that time) or one,two stones?
The beauty of handicap go is that IMO it *is* still true go :-) You can compare to chess where giving a piece, say a N as Lasker used to do, change the strategic nature of the game through a controlled exchange policy.
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
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-12-05 00:06:30)
It's sad...
... that I don't have board and enough pieces for analysis. :D :D
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!
Kieran Child (2007-01-13 12:05:50)
ooh
That's a very very nice idea. I would suggest an immediate split in it between "pawn-dominant endings" and "piece dominant endings" then further splits for the type of pieces on the board and the opponent's material. If you stick to an advantage rule (like, white always has the greater points value) then it doesn't sound too hard. I would very much like to see this.
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
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?
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)
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 (2007-02-17 13:41:03)
Tablebases 7 pieces
I've read that Nalimov ending tablebases 7-pieces should be completed in 2012 ...
Quite impressive, it should enlighten many interesting endgames.
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 ?
Marc Lacrosse (2007-02-24 21:22:11)
not so simple ...
"I think Kasparov is the best for his aggressivity, Capablanca for his semplicity, and Alechine for his tattics."
This is way too simple...
Remember Kasparov drawing game after game for recovering after Karpov led by 5-0 in their match ...
Capablanca's play was full of tactics (I would better say full of sophisticated ways to avoid tactics - which _is_ tactics at a supreme degree).
Alekhine's tactics were most of the time allowed by too weak opposition. Among great tactical geniuses far stronger than Alekhine in this field I would cite Bronstein, Tal, Spassky, Nezmetdinov, Fischer, Shirov, Kasparov, Topalov ...
But there are also :
- Positional geniuses : Morphy, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Petrosian, and an entire class above them all Karpov, Ivanchuk, Kramnik.
- Opening prep geniuses : Botvinnik, Fischer, Kasparov
- Endgame geniuses : Rubinstein, Karpov, Korchnoi...
Well a difficult question because all top class players had several masterpieces in any of these fields ...
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.
Samy Ould Ahmed (2007-03-04 12:47:22)
My im impressions in inglish :)
Playing with black pieces is really a nightmare for me in advanced chess lol
Lionel Vidal (2007-03-27 19:42:35)
Xiangqi
The fact that xiangqi is the most played game in china (much more played than Go!) is enough to make it the most played game in the world :-)
But apart from asian countries, you can find many players in the USA, and even in France, where the 2005 world championship was held!
Computers are quite good at xiangqi (the best program is french!) but not good enough yet for the very best players: the game-tree complexity of xiangqi is half way between chess and shogi, but the evaluation functions in xiangqi have specific problems (roughly speaking, the relative values of the pieces evolve much more than in chess during a game). Anyway I agree than in a few years, humans will probably loose in tournament time.
Jason Repa (2007-04-07 04:45:25)
Double RR Tournaments
Double RR tournaments are a good idea and makes things fair. It is a big advantage to have the White pieces in a Corr. game.
Jason Repa (2007-04-21 10:35:27)
WCH Rules
Achim Mueller wrote: "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 completely logical. The higher rated player will tend to be the stronger of the group, especially if he isn't outscored by the lower rated player, so it's obvious that if you have to choose between two that are equal in points, you take the one that is more likely to be stronger. Can you think of a better and more fair way to choose between the two?
Also, I disagree with your comments about how someone "can easily play on draw". This is completely wrong. Even with the Black pieces, games can be and are won all the time, even at the very highest level of chess. Top GM's constantly are winning with black, and what is arguably considered the top computer in the world "Hydra" was defeated more than once by a garden-variety GM who had the black pieces. Regardless of color and regardless of rating, chess is a game of skill and if you need a win against a certain opponent, the onus is on you to draw on all of your resources, including choosing the type of oppening that will not lend itself to an easy draw. A weak player who doesn't understand these concepts will have no chance in subsequent rounds in a tournament anyway and shouldn't worry about advancing.
My experience is proof also. I had the black pieces against a significantly higher rated opponent in my WCH group and I beat him to secure my advancement.
Achim Mueller (2007-04-21 14:50:38)
Some answers
1) If the "higher rating" rule is best practise, as some players here do state, why isn't it used at _any_ FIDE tournaments? They have everything from SB, direct result, more wins, more wins with black pieces, but never ever used rating.
2) Even if it may not that easy to play for a draw ... I guess besides the fact that you get half a point as a gift it's also undoubtfull an advantage at least in correspondence chess to _know_ that a draw will help you, if you are the better rated player.
And this is definitely true in a tournament with only 4 players where there is only one qualifier.
Nonetheless you have all the right to use every rule you like. And as long as a player participates he "accepts" theses rules. That's what I also do, though I didn't know before that we are only 4 players and though I wasn't aware of this certain rule before.
But I also have all the rights to make future decisions regarding playing a qualifier here depending on the rules.
Ciao
acepoint
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-15 15:14:59)
Fighting against Tablebases
Hello Wolfgang, please remind me (here or in our games) the game you're talking about. Quite strange that shredderchess tablebases did not give the same result than yours.
Anyway, if your opponent does not have 6-pieces tablebases and his engines and instinct say +0,70, it may be hard for him to trust you :)
Best, Thibault
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-05-15 16:23:04)
Fighting against Tablebases
#3724 :
I would be surprised at any engine, which cannot see the mate (in 37) after few seconds (with installed 5-pieces Tablebases)!
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.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-05-15 20:46:59)
Tablebases 5-pieces
Thibault: Not about, but accurate mate in 37!
What is wrong with your installation - I'm not longer wondering, why you can't win against me! ;)
Don Burden (2007-05-17 00:45:25)
Fighting against Tablebases
Needing over a terabyte of disk space, I doubt if anyone actually has the 6 piece tablebase installed on their computer, though a position can be queried at:
http://www.shredderchess.com/online-chess/online-databases/endgame-database.html
BTW, I've played endgames here where I had to play the game out to checkmate where my opponent had just a king and a few locked pawns, while I had an advantage of a queen, rook, and several extra pawns.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-15 17:12:39)
Online chess today
A few links to discussions at TCCMB (The Correspondence Chess Message Board) on chess servers nowadays, future of ICCF, correspondence chess [once more] and so on...
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=105.0
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=109.0
In the second discussion I tried to answer on the future of correspondence chess & chess engines :
1) Like the 'tour de France', it is impossible to organize a "bicycle race" at chess without doping today IMO. Also there are so many 'products' : Various books, databases, engines, human help.. so it seems to me that it is a non-sense to try to make it like an OTB tournament. Online chess is "motorcycle races" & freestyle, nothing else.
2) The ratio of wins does not decrease much in computer games & advanced chess (blitz), and correspondence chess games will never be all drawn IMO. We just have to follow the horizon line... Engines still have difficulties when there are 32 pieces on the board... Make the position more and more complex & critical, play Benoni structures, East indians and English openings... There will probably be more and more draws but when looking at CC 2500+ games, the ratio is still quite good. The problem at CC is mainly the style of play with humans 'humanly' trying to remain in known positions where they can win and can't lose.
'The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy', 'Opportunities multiply as they are seized' (Sun Tzu)
A solution is to make rules that motivate players to avoid draws, particularly when playing against a higher rated opponent. (ie. the rule for FICGS 8-games matches)
3) We feel that engines play almost perfect chess because of our poor human's level of play (I should say ratings)... But engines & computers have to improve a lot yet - not obvious they can do it in a more or less near future -, the horizon line is not so far, each version of Rybka wins about 30 elo points... We'll see engines at level 3200, 3300 maybe much more... (4000 ?)
4) If too many players have their CC rating between 2750-2800 in future, we can make new rules : Ratings wouldn't be calculated on the basis of each game, but on the basis of ie. 8-games matches... Then strategy would be more important & we would see rating gaps again between the best players...
Finally if I'm completely wrong, play Big Chess ;D
Graham Cridland (2007-06-15 19:29:51)
Incidentally...
Perhaps I just have a tiny database (I do), but I think ...0-0-0 may have been a novelty in that position. Most players, it appears, follow Anand-Lautier, Biel 1997, with possibly some advantage for White.
...0-0-0 looks very natural, and seems to make the best of White's slightly disarranged pieces.
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... :)
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-16 07:52:47)
Dead Man's Defense
Nobody has to install 6-pieces-endings on his own computer today. You can just have a look at internet site:
http://www.shredderchess.com/online-chess/online-databases/endgame-database.html
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.
Alexander Shalamanov (2007-06-20 16:34:00)
Hello Thibault and all!
First of all, thanx for letting me defend the colours of FICGS Team. Oh, no, no spies on the parts the Russian players in our team. We will play fair and at our strongest. And I want to warn you that the IGAME team is really pretty strong and made of tough titled Russian players: GM, IM or GM, although they didn't feel like exposing their correct data or rating. You know, they feel they can win that match, on the one hand, and want to obtain some advantage in case we underestimate their chess strength, on the other hand. After all, honesty is not their best feature, alas. So be on guard, folks! The foe is at our gateway! Lol! Anyways, I want this match to be a fair play one and run with the ICCF motto: Amici sumus! (We are friends!). Good luck to anyone and interesting and exciting games to you! Remember, this match is a good point to win new friends over the globe behind the game of correspondence chess! Play at your strongest but bear in mind your match opponents are likely your partners in chess masterpieces than bitterest enemies. Be happy and have a fine day!
Andrey Sumets (2007-06-21 09:34:40)
Alex
Don't worry, be happy:)
I think it makes no difference what handle or what rating had been indicated by any of our players. If you gonna play chess - do it!
Honest or not quite honest - anyway you play against pieces!
Best wishes in forthcoming battle! (sorry for my imperfective English)
Ivan Pljusnin (2007-08-13 16:59:33)
2 Thibault, Sergey
"Is "pig" offensive in your opinion ? :)"
Some IGAME players call me "bio-appendage of Fritz", and I am proud of it. Fritz is the greatest! He will tear to pieces everybody!
Frankly speaking, I am not worthy to be His bio-appendage like all other mortals. So I don't mind somebody calling me His pig-headed fan. For me it's rather a compliment. :-)
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?
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.
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
Hannes Rada (2007-09-15 20:01:39)
Surprise, Surprise
Thibault or David :-)
As far as I remember: several years ago I received a challenge for a 2 game match at the chessfriend server from a movie director where he mentioned some of these video-links.
(I had to decline the match offer, because I had too much games at the same time)
I really liked the dull ambience of the clips. I am also a big fan of Stanley Kubrick and I consider his Clockwork Orange a masterpiece.
The trailer of the PSI - Movie looks really good and interesting.
What kind of movies are these ?
Public Domain movies :-)
Or commercial movies produced to earn big money :-)
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 :)
Hannes Rada (2007-09-18 22:15:53)
Good improvements
Thanks alot - I like these improvements.
However, as I can see this is no real drag and drop.
When I click on the piece it disappears until it reaches it destination square. Is this behaviour correct ?
Maybe because I've no Javascript enabled ??
Where can I check this ?
Quite cool - indication of the remaining time in hour, minutes and seconds :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-20 20:39:56)
chessfriend
As far as I can remember, this way to break the tie was used in most Chessfriend round-robin money tournaments. I have no doubt that some players would have sacrificed their ratings for more chances to win cash prizes... Highest rated players were attracted anyway because they were invited.
About my match, I was simply glad to get these 4 draws easily with the black pieces, it gave me more time to try to win with White (I was in time trouble at this moment). GM Farit Balabaev is a strong correspondence chess player, even if I lose the match, I have no regret about it. Surely I won't play my FICGS WCH games less seriously than my IECG WCH ones :) .. By the way I still hope to play the first candidates final against Gino or Peter :p
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.
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 ? :)
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 ;-)
Philip Roe (2007-10-15 16:56:55)
Chess 960 masterpieces
Have there been any games of chess 960 played, of a quality that would justify them being included in an anthology of great games? If so, I would like to see some.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-15 17:39:41)
Chess 960 masterpieces
After a small investigation, I can only suppose yes.. but chess 960 obviously still needs someone to highlight them :)
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 : ?
Edwin Dabbaghyan (2007-10-25 00:57:27)
freestyle on FICGS
Hello all :)
I am a bit confused in here...I see two freestyle tours, one "cup" and one "go" freestyle... what are the differences?
and I would like to write my view about the freestyle time control, as it was an issue on the forum I guess... I think we can have two forms of freestyle tours here: one 30+15 with more rounds every time, and one with absolutely longer time controls, like 90+30 with fewer rounds... . A knockout freestyle tournament is also very exciting with 30+15 time controls, in each round best of 3 games goes to next round, and in the third round the player with white pieces has less time, say 10 minutes less.
I hope freestyle tours will be more popular and successful on this server, I like here :)
regards
Edwin
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-02 20:55:37)
Videogames & the future of Board Games
Quite funny to see the same discussion on GoDiscussions.com and ChessDiscussion.com forums :
http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=457
http://www.godiscussions.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4644
<<
Apparently, two years ago there was a major exhibition sponsored by the Asia Society in American museums called "Asian Games: The Art of Contest." I have been fortunate enough to get a copy of the exhibition book. I found a quote there that I would like you to comment on:
“We hope that this exhibition, in addition to persuading visitors of the historical importance of games, will also stimulate an interest in playing board games. As computer gamers sit in solitary oblivion frantically pressing buttons to manipulate images on screens, it is worth considering how such games could have succeeded, to a large extent, in eclipsing real board games. The answer may be that they have appropriated much of the best of traditional board games. But it is also worth pointing out that the appeal of most electronic games is ephemeral. Ask a teenager if he still plays the same game he played two years ago, and the answer will inevitably be no. We can predict with confidence that twenty years from now, of the electronic games currently in fashion, it is only those versions of classic board games—chess, weiqi/go and perhaps backgammon—that will still enjoy widespread popularity.
Does the future of chess, weiqi and backgammon, then, lie solely in electronic media? We hope not. However convenient it may be to play chess or weiqi on the internet, nothing can replace the face-to-face social interaction of real games playing—and indeed the attraction of such games as spectacle. It is no coincidence that there is a trend now among jaded electronic games players to return to board games. This renewed interest undoubtedly reflects the need to compete with a real (as opposed to real-time) person. But there may be another reason for this development. The physical satisfaction of holding a well-crafted gaming piece or die, or of hearing the sonorous click of the pieces as they are placed on the board, does not exist in an electronic universe. No culture better understood the aesthetics of games than the Japanese, whose go, sugoroku, and shogi boards were not only objects of exquisite beauty, but were also designed to enhance the sound of piece struck against board. If, in addition to stimulating more research on Asian games, this exhibition prompts some of its visitors to take up chess, xiangqi, or weiqi—or even better, to work out the rules of liubo—then we will be entirely satisfied.”
Colin Mackenzie and Irving Finkel, “Preface”, Asian Games: The Art of Contest (Asia Society), p. 17
>>
Interesting !
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 (2007-12-14 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
William Taylor (2007-12-18 12:28:27)
Atomic
Implement atomic ches...
Ok, so it's not very similar to classical chess, but it's great fun! When there is a capture, all pieces (but not pawns) within a 1-square radius (including the capturing and captured pieces) blow up. The aim is to blow up your opponent's king. There are very few draws, but white does seem to have an advantage.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-19 18:08:38)
High level performance
Right, many congratulations to Marius, at least for beating Marc (who made a good tournament too) with the Black pieces !
And congrats to Dinesh for "submitting" new great quotes with an interesting Nietszche-like written style to FICGS files :)) (if you agree, of course)
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.
Yugi Inving (2007-12-21 01:35:19)
3 vs 3
I had just had this idea.
this varient of chess have an hexagonal board whit three players playing all for themselves, (no alliance is permitted ). is also have at least six new piece and some new rules or power accorded to some piece.
i will decribe it clearly an other time.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-21 02:20:25)
Lincoln's chess variant
What's very interesting in Lincoln's chess variant is to incite to sacrifice, but not to give all pieces (consequently the value of the pieces is quite hard to know), which is very different of suicide chess. To be continued :)
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.
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.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-03 06:15:39)
Game 17894
Hi Wolfgang I looked at this game last week - a nice game but I am not sure how complicated it is now ....rooks are generally better than bishops and it does help to have a king near the action!! Its like having an extra piece.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-03 09:28:38)
From??
Completely lost for black imo its madness to throw away a pawn like this at cc - I suppose there might be some way to grovel for a draw after 4..Nf6 black will probably get his pawn back unless white plays e3 and d4 when he has the hole on e4 has a kind of compensation. After 4..g5 can put up more of a fight with 5...Nc6 at least white doesnt get quite such a massive a massive centre All black has are some tactical tricks and a temporary lead in development once white avoids these and gets his pieces out of the box its dire for black. The last GM to play this as black (Kotronias) got a completely lost position although he won the game! On the other hand 1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white .... if everyone would reply with the From I would play nothing else but f4!!!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-06 12:10:33)
Strictly for the birds
Thanks for the link for the games they are nice. Obviously playing the From or the approach adopted by black in these games is not an accurate response! Better to play like Of course 1f4 does not lose or lead to a worse gane for white - it just allows black to get equality very quickly and easily. The "waste" is that white has the first move and a lead in development and chances for an advantage. 1 f4 doesnt develop any piece (except the king!) and is a bit committal and slightly weakening of the king side.
I would like to show with analysis exactly what I mean. Black has many good systems here is one. 1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 g6 3 g3 (e3 is the other way to play more on that) Bg7 4 Bg2 Nf6 already black is equal IMO. GM Jakubiec (2524) played this position 3 times last year as white against Rozentalis (2581), Bartel(2608) and Kadziolka (2295) and won all 3 games! He would 0-0 play Q-h4 and g4 f5 and roll them over! In every game black got an advantage in the opening and lost but at cc thats not going to happen. In each game it was easy to see blacks mistakes and to see the right move to maintain an advantage for black.
The other set up for white is to play 3 e3 (instead of g3)Bg7 4 Be2 (4 c4 is interesting)Nf6 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3 and now after c5 its level but I would rather play black. Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta. These Dutch reversed attacks can be scary to face otb but they are harmless at cc. Conclusion: 1 f4 is a dangerous move otb especially where the opponent is not expecting it but against an accurate cc player it does not offer any hope of an opening advantage - its a waste if the goal is to get some opening advantage - its productive if the goal is to gain experience and insight into f4 for use in real chess.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-06 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
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 (2008-05-08 03:13:22)
Pavasovic vs Baklan
This game was played a couple weeks ago in the 2008 European Individual Championship in Plovdiv.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1491774
It's hard to believe a GM would play this in a real game. It's an old cheapo line of the Tarrasch French where White gives up two pieces, then dangles a third, for an attack. Black's defense is simple and intuitive. He gives back one piece to diffuse the attack and wins a relatively simply endgame. I first came across this when someone tried it against me in a bullet game on playchess.com. Even at bullet time controls I was able to come up with 13...Ndxe5 (not too difficult to find) and consolidate the material advantage.
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
Michael Aigner (2008-08-02 17:13:22)
The future of chess
A game between two unlimited intellect would proceed as follows.
They sit down at the chess-board,draw the colors,and then survey the
pieces for a moment.Then either
(1)A says I resign or
(2)B says I resign or
(3)A says I offer a draw,and B replies,I accept.
(C.E.Shannon)
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!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-21 02:49:33)
Game 5
Wow, Anand is now leading 3.5 - 1.5 after only 5 games and 2 wins with the Black pieces, a real surprise...
GM Kramnik (2772) - GM Anand (2783) [D49]
WCh Bonn GER (5), 20.10.2008
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 a6 9.e4 c5 10.e5 cxd4 11.Nxb5 axb5 12.exf6 gxf6 13.0-0 Qb6 14.Qe2 Bb7 15.Bxb5 Rg8 16.Bf4 Bd6 17.Bg3 f5 18.Rfc1 f4 19.Bh4 Be7 20.a4 Bxh4 21.Nxh4 Ke7 22.Ra3 Rac8 23.Rxc8 Rxc8 24.Ra1 Qc5 25.Qg4 Qe5 26.Nf3 Qf6 27.Re1 Rc5 28.b4 Rc3 29.Nxd4 Qxd4 30.Rd1 Nf6 31.Rxd4 Nxg4 32.Rd7+ Kf6 33.Rxb7 Rc1+ 34.Bf1 Ne3 35.fxe3 fxe3 0-1
Arne Sigvald Engo (2008-10-28 11:01:31)
Big Chess Board
Does anybody know where to procure board & pieces for BigChess ?
Normajean Yates (2008-10-29 18:15:45)
oh that is easy...
just stick white paper on the borders and write down the coordinates.
Or simply draw a picture of a big 16x16 board with coordinates etc - maybe in many pieces - print it out, stick it on cardboard or a spare table...
Normajean Yates (2008-10-31 03:17:50)
replies to thibault's question..
1. No, computers cannot yet. Not even near. Afaik not even 'strongly conjectured to be a white win' or 'strongly conjectured draw' (3x3 chess has been strongly solved - it is not really a game because there is no suitable starting position - but there are complete tablebases for every legal placement of chess pieces on a 3x3 board. I posted the links in a forum thread a few months ago...)
2. Why this variant is special -
if you think about it, 5x5 chess is the smallest notrivial *natural* contraction of 8x8 chess.
Plus - or that is why - it was thought of many decades ago - as far as I remember, when Martin Gardner mentioned it about 25 years ago in his column 'mathematical games' in the USA-based science magazine 'Scientific American', he was merely mentioning it, he hadn't invented it...
I am waiting for one bigchess opponent to time out before going on 15-day chess-leave -- [she (Nicola) would have timed out on 27 Oct but it got extended because of the 7-day addition to clocks owing to server change] --- then I plan to find out the current state of 5x5 - whether some university etc. is researching it, etc. If there are results that indicate forced draw (or win) then I agree that there is not much point in doing it here...
Normajean Yates (2008-10-31 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..
Philip Roe (2008-10-31 13:24:41)
Chess extensions
There seem to be many ways to extend chess. Most proposals, like yours Normajean, combine the powers of existing pieces. There may be other ways.
I saw it pointed out somewhere that if you put a piece somewhere near the middle of the board, at the center of a 5x5 patch of squares ,the N can go to any square in the patch not covered by a R or B. It was suggested that this might have been the reasoning of the original inventor. This makes even more sense if you consider that under medieval rules the K+Q covered a 3x3 patch.
Along these lines, consider a 7x7 patch and let the new piece go to any square not covered by an existing piece. Such a piece might be interesting. It would cover up to 16 pieces and be a formidable long-range weapon, but perhaps rather helpless at close quarters.
In designing an initial position, I would want to take into account the possibility of early interactions. In regular chess the placing makes such
possibilities as the pinning of Nc3 by Bb4 possible. Proponents of FischerRandom call this kind of thing
hackneyed, but I find most FR positions sterile because the game has no initial shape.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-31 20:37:59)
10x10 "super" chess
The 10x10 variant seems much more funny but it is not so far from 8x8 chess. Ok, let's say that 5x5 chess is a "natural" variant, but I see no real interest to play it yet as the first 5x5 chess engine will be probably invincible :/
16x16 big chess is too long but IMO the great interest is that the pieces are the same and it is far enough from computer chess (unlike chess 960)... But it is not played enough yet and the more tournament categories, the more variants (..whatever), the less players in each one. This site is firstly dedicated to competition, unlike some other sites that offer tens of variants and it is not compatible IMO :/ .. Big chess & chess 960 + all unrated categories are a lot of chess tournaments already, maybe too many.
Normajean Yates (2008-10-31 23:07:40)
small correction + apology to philip..
When I mistakenly said Philip Roe's 7x7 chess -- I meant just what Philip meant - i.e. some variant (10x10?) with two of those pices which can move only to those squares of the 7x7 patch they are at the centre of where it couldn't move were it a 'normal' chess piece. Sorry for the mistake.. and for the correct but perhaps obfuscating expression of the concept in *this* post ... [I took Roe's clear prose and ran an obfuscator on it ;)]
Normajean Yates (2008-11-01 23:43:03)
Benjamin Block - I agree
It seems there is some HP product that offers 5x5 chess of various kinds including the one I describled - it is called 'Gardner minichess' now. English-wikipedia 'minichess' entry has a link to that - and in a discussion forum on that HP thing I found - "recent play suggests that Gardner minichess is a draw".
So the first decent engine for it would finish it, it seems, as thibault said earlier in this thread...
Someone modify crafty for 5x5 and check - yawn - I am toooo lazy --- plus crafty [and all later closed source engines I suppose] are too strongly low-level optimised for 8x8 chess --- writing an engine from scratch? Well I know the seven steps [they are/were on an internet in a nice article] --- but I have retired from writing code --- written enough for three lifetimes; no more programming for me.
*Proving* that Gardner-minichess is a draw would be more difficult -- 20-piece tablebases! (okay, in a much smaller space) - that's for the universities --- they have to do something to give out M.S.'s and Ph.D.s - so let them do it :)
[they did it with draughts <called checkers in the USA> - it is solved ie proven to be a draw -- let them try Gardner-minichess now :)]
3x3 - as I said there are complate tablebases now including for positions with pawns on first rank -- so it is very-strongly solved [i.e. given *any* position, the result and the best play for that result are known - in fact online accessible -- instant results of course... you'll find the link on eng-wikipedia -- I have accessed it [3x3 chess site] before but yesteday it seemed to be down - the old link was http://kd.lab.nig.ac.jp/3x3-chess/ but it is broken now...
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.
Don Groves (2008-11-07 01:58:00)
Kennedy's famous (mis)quote
What Kennedy was trying to say was "I am a Berliner" (in the sense of being a resident of Berlin in spirit).
What he actually said was "I am a piece of pastry" (a "Berliner" was a popular snack of the time).
What he should have said was "Ich bin Berliner!" (no "ein", which means, "I am a resident of Berlin"
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-12-01 22:17:10)
Endgame knowledge ...
... (with more than 6 pieces) is one of the last differences of todays high level correspondence chess!
Pablo Schmid (2008-12-07 14:05:01)
@Thibault
Je profite de ce post pour parler d'un "problčme", sur une partie j'ai fait une promotion de pion en dame mais j'ai été "désagréablement" surpris que bien que c'était le coup que je voulais faire, le site ne m'a pas proposé la pičce promue. Ok, dans 95% des cas, faire dame est le meilleur coup mais parfois promouvoir en autre chose est le seul coup...Pourrais-tu remédier ŕ ce "problčme"?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-26 20:26:06)
Pichelin - Utesch
Hi Hannes, as far as I experienced, Xavier is an excellent chess player, beyond Rybka & chess engines, with a very good understanding of the game and very efficient ideas, also in quiet positions. Wolfgang is able to make very deep & accurate analysis in complex or strange positions while playing fastly, really hard to play. Moreover both have a coherent, maybe different, global match strategy.
In my opinion, we may see quite surprising and long games, that could be decided in a way since the opening, I mean psychology could be the key in such a match. The way the pieces will be dealt may show some things.
50 / 50 :)
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?
Sophie Leclerc (2009-01-19 21:51:23)
Big chess pieces values
Hello,
I have just how terrible the board in Big chess are for the pieces, so, I would presume the pieces values are much differant than in normal chess.
I wonder, If a pawn worth 1, how much the knight, bishop, rook and queen would worth ? Forget the king as hs is alone and too slow to participate in the action.
Normajean Yates (2009-01-20 07:19:07)
nicola [nicola lupinacci ansered it]
nicola lupinacci posted in the international chat in june last year that:
In bigchess, P=1, N=3, B=5, R=8, Q=11.
One of the points is, bigchess is a bigger board, so compared to chess, long-range pieces (B, N, Q)are much more powerful than short-range ones - specially, B is significantly more powerful than N.
I followed nicola's implicit advice, and as you can check, I've won all 6 of my games in one of the two only bigchess tournaments I am playing: FICGS__BIG_CHESS__TOURNAMENT__000025.
And I have won all 4 of my completed games in the other one.
[ FICGS__BIG_CHESS__TOURNAMENT__000030:
all games are in early stages by bigchess standards ]
my two incomplete bigchess games are keenly contested.
In one of them, opp has exchanged two Bs for my two Ns and 2-Pawns: so, that game puts Nicola's idea to test.
Waiting for the top bigchess players to comment on Sophie's and my posts...
Nicola was so good at chess and bigchess, but she stopped playing.
I have pasted her reason (her profile) below: (so why did she stop playing bigchess is what I do not understand. I mean no one has bigchess engine!)
Lupinacci, Nicola (ITA) [member # 1307]
Nicola Lupinacci
I am a chess amateur, playing only for fun! I do not have any chess engine. Good game to everyone!
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-20 20:07:44)
Big chess pieces values
It has been discussed in this forum also :
David Grosdemange suggested :
"pawn : 1 knight : 2,5 bishop : 4 rook : 6 queen : 11"
I quite agree with this.
Anthony Jones (2009-03-06 14:25:26)
TV influence
Ya, i'm sure the producers of the TV show & the sponsors are overjoyed at such actions. The highest profile players nicknames are after all 'Poker Brat' and 'The Mouth'.
Maybe if there was any chess on television, the behaviour of players may deteriorate!?
I once witnessed a player in a tournament react to losing by flipping the board and pieces over his opponent, knocking his chair over and storming out!!
Is this what chess needs to 'jazz' it up?
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.
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?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-22 14:54:02)
captured pieces
Hi Denis (and sorry, I forgot to respond to your previous message)
Well, the way I implemented it - to save more processor time - doesn't allow to show captured pieces without big changes :/ By the way I don't understand well why it would be so useful !?
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2009-03-22 17:58:25)
Captured pieces
Hello Samy,
to know which pieces are captured in your games you can write it into the personal messages of the games:
White: 2B, 2N, 3P
Black: Q,4R
and so on. I think it is a good solution without changing the software.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2009-03-22 18:04:51)
Captured pieces
Sorry: personal notes, not messages
Denis Ivanchenkov (2009-03-22 23:28:11)
captured pieces
Thibault, maybe it is just my personal drawbacks but when I set up board I usually look at captured pieces (on letsplaychess.com or chess-online.ru) and see how many of pieces are out - and just count with those on the board to be 16 in total - and become confident that I didn't miss anything. here on Ficgs it usually takes more time to get confident that all pieces on their places. and from the other side it will be easily seeing which player is getting upper hand - just looking at captured pieces (especially when difference is small - like pawn or two or pawn for a piece)
and yes notation
White: 2B, 2N, 3P
Black: Q,4R
would solve the problem
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.']
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 ;)
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
Normajean Yates (2009-05-12 01:15:30)
bigchess thoughts+tips, #3: R v B
[re Daniel Parmet's valuation in his post] - both are longrange pieces but:
1. a Bishop can reach only 128 squares, a Rook can reach all 256. (and all the other standard reasons why the R is [in general] much more powerful than the B, they carry over to bigchess eg a R can confine the opp's K to an edge; K+R v K is standard easy mate, etc.)
2. In 8x8 chess, once you have a semi-open file, one tries to 'boost' a rook up that file (even if one cannot reach the 7th file). This is much more common, and much more commonly advantageous, in bigchess, because one easily creates a 'quasi-semi-open' file by pushing a pawn 4-5 squares ahead, and boosts a Rook up this 'quasi-semi-open' file.
Hence, I feel that just as in 8x8 chess, the Rook is nearly twice as powerful as the Bishop in bigchess.
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 :)
Sophie Leclerc (2009-05-12 18:49:59)
Too much pieces and too big board
I understand BigChess is a good invention, But for me, the board and the pieces are now too much to think about.
Normajean Yates (2009-06-03 04:18:03)
I agree, heartily - chess is alive!
any number of specific eight-piece endings [in tablebase language; i.e. total of 6 pieces (pawn counted as piece) apart from the 2 Kings] - including KPPP v KPPP .. (King and 3 pawns v K and 3 pawns) no one knows the objective result!
So, rumours of chess's death have been greatly exaggerated. :)
Normajean Yates (2009-06-05 03:12:28)
Hannes, those are *general* rules..
There are exceptions! For example, (Q + a-P + b-P) v (Q + P) is a dead draw, right? So how come I have an easy win in:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=21702
?
If you are not convinced, put in the relevant 6-piece tablebases and see :D
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 ?
Sophie Leclerc (2009-06-09 22:56:31)
the opening
actually, I did not, Yugi played that system to me to me with black piece and I let him build a big pawn,, it was too late for me.
This opening is the same thing as his but with one extra tempo..
White can go in a number of way..
I am waiting to see plenty of thingss, will you play a bird or an enlish ?
Thanks thibeault
Wilhelm Schuett (2009-06-27 19:45:23)
Armenian Variation
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Ba5 is a good idea. I never played it before. Even with the white pieces. But White has to be prepared.
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.
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.
William Taylor (2009-10-26 13:58:56)
Crazyhouse
Lazaro:
1. I think you are confusing crazyhouse and bughouse. Crazyhouse is a 1-player game and so wouldn't have the problem you described.
2. Shogi - I might play shogi if it was introduced here, but I would certainly want proper shogi pieces, not chess pieces.
3. The original question - I enjoy crazyhouse, but wouldn't play it here at the moment as I'm too busy to start more time-consuming correspondence games. I'm also not sure if I'd enjoy it as much at correspondence time controls.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-07 02:28:21)
Najdorf vs. Petroff
When I have no time enough - that is quite often - I also tend to play Najdorf in all my games (white & black), as IMO it looks like more a perfect geometric shape (kind of spiral) that looks quite "simple" & that chess engines & humans 'generally' play quite well/logically. Also it gives more chances with both colors, particularly against a weaker opponent, as most pieces stay on the board while avoiding symetrical positions.
Finally the Sicilian Najdorf looks quite reassuring, that defines most often the human choice... I used to play many other openings more often, some are much more interesting in some ways with more psychological, strategic & tactical issues, but I must recognize that the more I play against or with engines, the more I play like them, particularly when I feel a general "zeitnot".
William Taylor (2009-11-30 20:05:49)
Already discussed
Hi Pavel.
The question of big chess piece values has already been discussed in this thread: http://www.ficgs.com/thoughts-on-Big-Chess-and-tips-q7154.html
As for castling and en passant - castling is not allowed, and I'm unsure about en passant.
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.
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 (2009-12-02 18:28:19)
Major update : Chess openings & endgames
A major update just occured, finished FICGS chess games (Go & poker as well) are now analyzed by the server that gives the name of each known opening & classifies the games by endgames, castlings & promotions !
Best, now you can find games by material on the board (like Chessbase) for endgames with less than 10 pieces. Just click "Search games" in the menu, eg. enter KRPP vs. KRP (whatever the order of the letters & colors), and you'll find among others this game (see the description of the game at the bottom of the page) :
http://www.ficgs.com/game_3724.html
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=3724
Note : Finished games are not analyzed in real time, but this update clearly opens new perspectives :)
Please do not hesitate to comment this update or to report any bug you may see.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-01-27 09:18:36)
Wijk aan Zee 2010
Finally, the tournament is now open again in Wijk aan Zee group A, after that Alexei Shirov won consecutively his first 5 games with a comfortable lead, Vladimir Kramnik finally catched him at 6.5/9 after a win over Magnus Carlsen with Black pieces.
Here is the game :
In group B, A. Giri leads by 6.5/9, in group C, Li Chao leads by 6.5/9 as well.
Lazaro Munoz (2010-01-29 06:05:09)
Piece Values in Big Chess
I am amazed at the number of opponents that are still applying piece value from regular chess in big chess.
I made some regression analysis based on what we value in regular chess in terms of mobility and applied to big chess. Using the pawn and knight as the standard since in both games 3 pawns will probably beat a knight (if they are separated far enough). I assigned the pawn the value of 1 and and knight a value of 3 and extrapolated variables that we seem to use in valuing the other pieces such as number of squares it can reach, and penalty for being stuck on the same color.
I got the following values:
Pawn=1
Knight=3
Bishop=7 **
Rook=9
Queen=16
** The bishop value changes by pairs available, for example 4 white square bishops don't even come close to value 2 white squares and 2 black squares bishops so this is best value but it can go down to 6 or even 5 as pairs are lost.
Interesting, just like in chess a rook+bishop almost equals a queen and two rooks beat a queen. And a queen equals the value of the pawns (ok similar).
I still find opponents who exchange bishops for knights with impunity, not knowing the true values of the pieces.
I notice that nobody has ever mentioned this. I hope I did not give out some deep secret.
Of course you mileage may vary.
--laz
Luc-Olivier Leclerc (2010-01-29 07:10:50)
Piece Values in Big Chess
well. Some ending may really hard.
just like bishop versus knight, I don't think it would be easy to win.
of curse, do it if you got your queen trapped. man,
I love this game, we all start with four weak pawns. and lose at least 1.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-13 21:26:08)
Help : Tablebases, Rybka 3
It will never be exactly the same to play with the help of this interface... At least it is quite feasible to install 5 + some 6 pieces tablebases.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-31 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 (2010-04-01 00:02:58)
How to check tablebases integrity
A small tip that I just read on rybkaforum.net and that can serve again...
For checking tablebase integrity, one can use md5summer.exe
http://www.md5summer.org/download.html
Tablebases md5 files :
http://kirill-kryukov.com/chess/tablebases-online/
It looks like very useful when trying to install 6 pieces tablebases, particularly when your engine suddenly crashes when trying to access it, by the way how did you get it Wayne? TBgen.exe or download? Does anyone know how much time it takes in both cases?
What kind of computer (processor, ram) is necessary to generated 6 pieces tablebases?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-01 00:16:00)
Download 6 pieces tablebases
It would probably be a good idea to gather links where to download 3,4,5 & 6 pieces tablebases. Just found this one :
http://tablebase.sesse.net
Do you know any others?
Daniel Parmet (2010-04-05 02:14:15)
Download 6 pieces tablebases
how does one actually download this? And how do you get it to work with your chessbase?
Wayne Lowrance (2010-04-05 03:06:17)
Download 6 pieces tablebases
Bob Hyatt page, goggle for url
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 :)
Daniel Parmet (2010-04-15 07:56:42)
Download 6 pieces tablebases
http://www.newinchess.com/Gold_Nalimov_Tablebases_set-p-2231.html
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! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-21 14:03:11)
Blitz Games
Hmm, actually there's no "animation", the piece disappears from a square, appears to another... dunno if I can change that without a flash anim.
About the highlighted square, this is on the wishlist, sorry for the delay :/
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.
Gino Figlio (2010-10-26 00:55:48)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
The proposal was based on the assumption that it was a double elimination knockout, meaning you get dropped if you lose 2 games. Since there may be a lot of draws, the new scoring system may allow to drop players with the lower scores after 2 rounds and will give more weight to better results with the black pieces. This is experimental but may stimulate more fighting chess.
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 :)
Eros Riccio (2011-03-05 18:28:33)
Strange game
sadly some players continue (almost) until mate thinking all their time.
That is allowed in the rules, (I am not sure if a game can be forcedly adjudicated if the position has 6 or less piecees, if you can prove you have the 6 man tablebases) even if it is considered (very) unfair to common sense. All you can do is try not to lose your patience and try to avoid such opponents in the future.
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 (2011-05-15 13:34:12)
WBCCC Round 3 links and more
After 2 rounds FICGS has 5 of the top 10 places in the standings in the WBCCC 1. With Kevin #1 and Kamesh #4 at the top with 3 points and Gino #6, David #7, and Sebi #10. Well Rybka Forum has 4 of the top 10. Fulcrum2000 #2, ppipper #3, WeirwindleX #8, National12 #9.
Many of these players are facing off against each other. Here are just a few games you that are must watch for this round.
Banned for Life vs Ruben Comes- Banned for Life (Alan) is one of the best with 1.b3. It should be interesting to see how Ruben combats this expert with the Larson System.
Sebastian Boehme vs David Evans- These two have crossed paths before on the freestyle field before. I took great interest in this match because Sebi has 1 on the highest winning % with the white pieces in the field and hasn't last a white game on FICGS. That I have seen. I can bet on some fireworks in this game.
Kamesh vs ppipper- Kam put on a good show with the white pieces vs one of the toughest opponents in the field (with my human eyes) and ppipper has done great with the black pieces. With both of his wins coming with the black pieces! O_o Should be fun :)
jitan vs Sebastian Boehme- Jitan is showing to be one of the top tier players in this event. I truly enjoy the tactical opening he played in his only win in the tournament so far in round 1 vs George. And gave Gino all he could handle in Round 2 (With my human eyes again) :)
A lot of the other games speak for themselves. Also keep on eye on Board 1 with Kevin. :)
Pablo Schmid (2011-07-12 14:47:32)
Shogi in ficgs?
Hello Thibault and everybody, there is poker, and go, an asian strategic game in ficgs already. I think Shogi, (japanese chess) might be very fun here, this is rather misknown for occidental people and there is not many place where we can play that game. The game is very fun to play and complicated as well! Usually Kanji, japanese symbols are used instead of "pieces" but it exists "occidental symbols" that represents pieces, maybe we could try it with 2 interface possible, with pieces or with kanji like in playok.com
What do you think?
Paul Valle (2011-08-08 03:23:41)
My favorite chess sets:
Bauhaus:
http://www.retrotogo.com/2010/07/naef-bauhaus-chess-set-by-josef-hartwig.html
Edible:
http://www.biggles.uk.com/wow/edble_chess.html
Empire:
http://www.houseofstaunton.com/product_p/menwemp44.htm
Mechanics:
http://www.houseofstaunton.com/product_p/menwmch425.htm
Platonic:
http://www.yankodesign.com/2005/07/20/platonic-chess-by-patricia-tower/
Tesla:
http://design.fr/product-design/chess-set-for-tesla-vacuum-tube-chess-set-to-attract-young-followers/
Wobble:
http://walyou.com/luxurious-wooden-chess-set-wobbly-pieces/
Stanislas Gounant (2011-08-09 03:42:40)
My favorite chess sets:
My chess set :
http://www.variantes.com/Echiquier-palissandre-erable-satin-cases-55-mm--Echiquiers-p-2_201_212_1725.html
http://www.variantes.com/Pieces-Major-Staunton-ebene-Pieces-de-luxe-p-2_201_212_5943.html
Jimmy Huggins (2011-11-28 10:57:39)
WBCCC 2 sign up and WBCCC 1 review
Another great piece in the article is that of Nelson Hernandez. Who probably not many of you know of. He has been part of a 2 man team that has been very success in freestyle chess. He won one of the major championships know as the PAL/CSS which was sponsored by playchess (chessbase). Anyway to those who know him. He has a vast book that he has been working on for years and is a very respectable member of the Rybka Forum.
The game insight he gave in the article. That of 2 long time members of FICGS Kevin Planet and Sebi Boehme was very well done to say the least.
Garvin Gray (2012-06-06 13:53:31)
Second match v Rybka Forum
Hello all,
Current discussion here: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=24942
Following discussions on RF and now what looks like a completely different format to what I was proposing and ideas I had in mind and seeing what looks like a no compromise situation from the RF side, it looks almost certain that I will not be having anything to do with organising this event, or participating for either side.
When I first came up with this idea of trying to get a second match going, one of the main ideas was to help promote both forums and playing clients to a wider audience, and especially to the better players for both sites.
Now that I see what RF seems to have in mind, or at least what they are willing to accept for playing conditions, I find them wholly unacceptable and contrary to the ideas and purposes originally intended.
The current proposed design really does have a pro RF feel about it, in that FICGS players will have to learn how to use xfccplay to play on here, plus possibly sign up an account, but RF players will not have to do the same at FICGS. I am also wondering, what happens if the high majority of players from both sites say they only want to play on their own forum. This whole competition falls over.
RF 'bosses' have been kind enough to allow xfccplay to be used for these games to make them a better product. I do not think it is unreasonable for RF players to play some of their games on FICGS.
Secondly, the current proposed design also goes competely against another original idea, which was to have the top player from RF competing against the top player from FICGS. And so on down the boards. This current design will most likely result in random board pairings and henceforth likely mis-matches, rather than having showpiece games and at the same time having the bottom players from both sides games counting as much as the top board. Potentially it could now be the top player from FICGS against the two bottom players from RF and vice versa. That is ridiculous.
So all in all, I have proposed a format originally on both sites. I do not see the current proposed format as achieving anything substantial and certainly not in the vein of the original ideas. Had I known the current structure was going to be proposed, I never would have bothered proposing this in the first place.
Unless the current structure changes, I hereby resign as overall organiser and go between for both forums and also as a participant in the second match.
Kind regards,
Garvin Gray
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.
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
Eros Riccio (2013-05-15 18:55:23)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
I have problems in evaluating chess games, how can you say if a game is good or not? To my taste, "unusual" games are the best ones. The one I am publishing is one of the first games I played, back in 2001. After a "unusual" Hyppo-Defence, it was amazing how the Black pieces coordinated for an incredible kingside attack. This is probably my favorite game:
[Event "18 C.I.M."]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2001.02.01"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Calzolari, Mario (PG)"]
[Black "Riccio"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B06"]
[WhiteElo "2107"]
[BlackElo "2025"]
[PlyCount "76"]
[EventDate "2002.11.26"]
1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. Nf3 a6 5. a4 b6 6. Bc4 e6 7. O-O Ne7 8. Re1 O-O
9. Bf4 h6 10. Qd2 Kh7 11. Rad1 Bb7 12. h3 Nd7 13. Re2 Nf6 14. Rde1 g5 15. Bh2
Ng6 16. d5 e5 17. b4 Qd7 18. b5 a5 19. Bb3 Rg8 20. Kh1 Nf4 21. Bxf4 gxf4 22.
Qd3 Nh5 23. Rg1 Bf6 24. Ree1 Rg6 25. Nb1 Rag8 26. c4 Bc8 27. Nbd2 Qd8 28. c5
Bh4 29. Ref1 bxc5 30. Qc3 Ng3+ 31. fxg3 Rxg3 32. Qc2 Bxh3 33. Rf2 Bg4 34. Rb1
Bxf3 35. Nxf3 Rxf3 36. Rxf3 Bg3 37. Kg1 Qh4 38. Qd1 Qh2+ 0-1
Michael Aigner (2013-05-16 21:57:51)
PGN notation for draw offers
Hi everybody!
As it is nowadays mandatory to document draw offers in the notation of otb games I would find it a good idea (and an interesting piece of information during a later study of the games )to do so in our correspondence games too.
What do you think about it?
Bogoljub Teverovski (2013-10-05 00:38:01)
Tablebases and no-engines tournaments
To reproduce otb conditions and to tell them from correspondence (analytical!) chess is not possible with the time controls in days. The key difference is thinking in mind instead of pushing pieces during analysis.
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).
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!
Thibault de Vassal (2015-07-05 14:49:03)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
Also, Arno Nickel suggests:
"Therefore, I specifically suggest enhancing the score system to include a ľ point for a performance with an added value as compared to a regular draw:
a) stalemating the opponent;
b) being a piece up against the naked king."
What about King vs King + 2 Knights?
I'm not sure if this b) point is really "natural" (and clear enough).
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
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
Pablo Schmid (2015-07-12 02:09:18)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
Here is most examples of my ficgs practice (corr and Advanced chess). This represent a low percentage of my games. These games are food for thought from my own assisted experience against that rule that I call "+1 decisive advantage chess". I believe you could already burn a lot of chapters in ending's book. Most of my games show balanced games until the end, sometime, the "punished guy" could have played another drawing defense, sometimes not, unfairly to me. The game would be more safe, with less sacrifices of piece vs 2 or 3 pawns and things like that because of fearing an ending with king vs king + piece or king vs king + pawn even if the sacrifice was sound and well played.
Game 22895 and 84758 I would probably have been punished by the rule in the ending of game 22895 (and my opponent in the other game), and that type of ending in general (piece + pawn up vs piece when the king cannot block the pawn).
Game 37122 Shame on me, my advantage in that ending was not sufficient to force my opponent to sacrifice his bishop for my last pawn. This is why I only deserve 0,5!
Game 37920 That king of pawns vs piece + pawn would become lost for the player without the piece, what a way of punish some balanced sacrifices for pawns!
Game 54907 and 20704 That kind of opposite bishop ending would be "lost" for the guy pawnless even if the transition into an inferior but drawn ending was the intention of the "inferior guy".
Game 74870 The ending is perfectly balanced but my opponent couldn't finish the game the way he did because of the rule.
Game 74875 I would have been half-losing in the pawn ending after a nice defense in an interesting unbalanced material line.
Game 74880 the ending knight + h pawn would have been "half losing" for me even if we can't say that I was clearly worse overall.
Game 76734 and 76764 Technichally this game is not directly concerned by the rule but it is very close. I was on the verge of defeat but I have managed to defend stubornely. If he have played well to get a winning position and then the win disapear because of bad play but still finish with a draw, he would get a bonus because he played better overall? The way I managed to defend would not be rewarded?
Game 77809 In this game the whole deep opening line would probably be "half losing" for Black in the ending because of the new rule.
Game 80954 Suddenly it seems that I would have been punished for my defense in the final position.
Game 85106 I did not play specially badly but... I would have been punished for my way of finishing the game!
Jan Ohlin (2015-10-01 07:00:57)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
While we wait for the solution, we can consider that engines do not tell the truth in closed positions with any pieces left. The question is also how much they understand openings as Benko-gambit? We have too much respect for the engines evaluations. And it counts in me too...
Jan Ohlin (2015-10-01 07:02:11)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
With ALL pieces left...
Thibault de Vassal (2015-10-16 01:12:10)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Hi all,
The recent discussions on FICGS chess wch tie break rules just gave me an idea...
Obviously, there are no satisfying solution (for everyone I mean) for a change in the wch rules. In my opinion, wch rules are great already, even if there are too many draws in matches.
The idea of a cup tournament is here for years but I didn't see any way to include it, in a several rounds version at least, in our calendar because of the wch cycle, the slowly decreasing number of active players, and so on...
But what do you think about this cup format:
An enormous round robin tournament with the 33 (1 player for each piece on the board, it's a symbol but the number is to be discussed) highest rated players who entered the waiting list. It is 32 games per player for 1 round only, duration of games could be the standard one (because there is one round only), longer but maybe fits more the number of games and additional games in other tournaments.
Looks like a great challenge and a real alternative, with very few risks of draw odds, cheating or whatever... It may be the biggest correspondence chess round robin tournament on the internet.
Any opinion? Would you play such tournament?
Scott Nichols (2015-12-08 01:22:21)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
The 32 players were fine. Time controls (a little long for my taste, but...) are even OK. I had 2 big beefs with the wch. 1. playing a 1400 that just bought a new comp that NOW plays 2000+. If I beat him--0 rating points, draw--I lose many points, etc. 2. The "seeding" of players is not fair IMO, everybody should start at the start line. then the winner can feel much more proud to repeat as champion. I actually may win an ICCF semi-final (#45349), one more game needs to finish. I was seeded 10th of 11 players when it started. I mention this because in far too many of the Wch games were drawn much too early IMO. In ICCF, at least my tour's, the games were fought much longer, down to less than 10 pieces quite often. I looked at this last one and they are calling it a draw in the middlegame. I ask WHY? Just because it's 0.00 for a while, so what? It's the WORLD CH.! How many chances will a player get the opportunity? Each game should be fought to the death. Eros is very busy and has to be getting on in years, make him WORK for it! Sorry to ramble, just a few thoughts...
Thibault de Vassal (2016-04-16 01:18:01)
7 pieces tablebases
Hi all, I just realized that 7-pieces tablebases (Lomonosov tablebases) have been produced... 100 Tb would be necessary to use it!! Looks like that it is available on another chess website, but not for free yet.
It would be useful in the last game of the 13th round robin final :)
http://www.ficgs.com/game_87413.html
Herbert Kruse (2016-04-17 02:47:32)
7 pieces tablebases
the lomonosov android app says draw
Thibault de Vassal (2016-05-26 01:19:13)
Bugs after the server crash
Hi Sebastian! :)
Ah.... that's... interesting.
Could you copy-paste here a piece of the page and tell me (here or by email) what brower / system you use?
Thanks!
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
Jan Ohlin (2017-01-20 19:46:00)
Thematic with lowest chances of draw
Benoni without 7.f4, Kingsindian (especially variations where both players attacking on different wings (computers are not so good at calculating when all pieces are behind pawns), Spanish with d5 closing center. 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.b4 and 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.Nc3 e6 5.g3
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).
Thibault de Vassal (2017-01-25 15:30:58)
Adjudications & 7 pieces tablebases
And if I remember well, we agreeded that a player can claim an adjudication in this case, but the adjudication will be effective 30 days after the 2nd claim if needed (at least because all players do not use engines or tablebases websites and can be interested in playing it). That's specified in the rules.
Herbert Kruse (2017-10-22 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
Garvin Gray (2017-11-01 15:42:29)
Adjudications & 7 pieces tablebases
Since no one else has answered this. The reason why 7 piece tablebases are not yet used as declared results is two fold:
1) All positions have not yet been completely solved. This is my understanding at this point in time. Even if this point is now incorrect, please refer to point 2
2) The positions are not freely available and able to be reviewed to verify that a position is a draw or win for the claimant. At this point in time, this is possible for all 6 man positions, with sites like shredder tablebases site, for instance. Just copy your fen in as the arbiter and up come the result.
This type of resource does not yet exist for 7 man endings and until it does, 7 man adjudications will remain outside the rulings of official decisions.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-11-01 17:30:51)
Adjudications & 7 pieces tablebases
Makes sense. Thanks Garvin!
Daniel Parmet (2017-11-15 16:49:03)
Adjudications & 7 pieces tablebases
1) is not true. All seven pieces have been solved. Some ICCF tournaments at the start specify whether 7 or 6 is used which generally depends on who is sponsoring and directing the tournament (re point 2).
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
Thibault de Vassal (2017-11-15 18:02:00)
7 pieces tablebases
By the way, do I read/understand correctly that Queen+Rook+Bishop can win against Queen+Queen in any endgame ??
How's that possible?!
Ilmars Cirulis (2017-11-20 17:44:49)
7 pieces tablebases
Probably the QRB wins against QQ too often to not mention the rare wins (that are shorter too, probably) in the other direction is missing from Wikipedia article.
One has to find complete statistics somewhere as Wikipedia article doesn't help in this case.
Ilmars Cirulis (2017-11-20 17:48:28)
7 pieces tablebases
I messed up the grammar, but it should be understandable with some effort.
Ilmars Cirulis (2017-11-21 08:29:46)
7 pieces tablebases
[kqrb4/8/8/8/8/8/8/KQQ5 w - - 0 1] - for example, this is won for the white. :D
Arturas Drozdovas (2017-12-14 20:42:02)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish
Nice games, especialy i liked a game where alphazero let capture of the knight (longterm piece sac) and won. No engine would do such a thing :)
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 19:45:27)
Poll: renaming the Queen as Dragon
Hmm. There is already a game, played on a chessboard, where the pieces are renamed in similar fashion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arimaa
Good game, btw.
William Taylor (2018-04-01 22:11:41)
Poll: renaming the Queen as Dragon
Then you would have to give the Rooks/Dwarves the power to tunnel under other pieces, and the Bishops/Elves the power to shoot other pieces with their bows & arrows.
Stanislas Gounant (2018-04-02 00:10:33)
Poll: renaming the Queen as Dragon
During french Revolution, there was some propositions to rename pieces:
King = Flag
Queen = Adjutant
Rook = Cannon
Knight = Rider
Pawn = Trooper
only male terms
http://www.mjae.com/revolution.html
Thibault de Vassal (2018-04-02 22:09:05)
Poll: renaming the Queen as Dragon
I thought about this kind of joke... didn't dare ^^ But this kind of pieces could be added in the Musketeer Chess variant.
Steven DuCharme (2018-04-03 20:27:40)
Daily Chess World Championship
I have chosen to move on. Piece out.
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.
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.
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!
Christoph Schroeder (2018-08-14 18:17:02)
7 pieces tablebases
Some years ago, ICCF has introduced a very useful rule: as soos as a 7 men position is reached, players have the right to claim a win resp. a draw according to what the tablebase says.
Can this be implemented here, too?
Thibault de Vassal (2018-08-14 19:59:12)
7 pieces tablebases
I always thought that this rule was a bit unfair for players who actually just want to play the game, particularly when not using any engine and/or when rated below 2200... but maybe we could add this rule only when both players are rated over 2200 (or 2000). Any idea?
Christoph Schroeder (2018-08-16 03:25:38)
7 pieces tablebases
If the rule is introduced, the no-engine-tournaments obviously should be excluded. For all other tournaments (where engines, databases and tablebases are allowed) I see no reason for any exceptions.
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?
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.
Christoph Schroeder (2018-08-18 01:03:49)
7 pieces tablebases
Regarding the argument that this rule might be unfair for players who don't want to use engines/databases, I would like answer with a comparison:
If I participate in a bicycle race - but as a runner (without a bicycle), this is strange enough, but maybe allowed. Much more strange, however, is the idea that the organizer of the bicycle race could be urged to adjust the bicycle race rules for the needs of the runners.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-08-18 01:35:55)
7 pieces tablebases
I understand the comparison (quite funny by the way), but all players do not particularly race in all tournaments - maybe this would make more sense in WCH cycle than in regular tournaments.
@Rotom: Good question... maybe tablebases do not consider it while a software using tablebases could consider it. I don't know as I don't use it for a while.
Thibault de Vassal (2020-01-30 21:10:34)
Vacation suggestion
Ah, I remember that was the first version of the vacation system I tried to make... but there were massive difficulties for different reasons. I must say that building FICGS piece after piece brought problems unlike if it was globally thought for all those options from the start :/ The mystery was in my head 14 years ago ^^
Charles Bovary (2020-02-19 17:09:29)
Game decided by tablebase
At ICCF the tournament director is the one whom you'll have to address your request to.All 6 and recently 7 pieces endgame tablebases positions are arbitrated automatically. If your request is correct.
Charles Bovary (2020-02-21 17:59:00)
Game decided by tablebase
As part of the ICCF rules:
7-piece tablebase:5.1.3. A data set or program that indicates forcible outcomes (with best play) when there are 7or fewer pieces remaining on the board.
Referring to in your players feature the game comes to a forced end, if your claim is correct. The TD is the one confirming that your claim is correct. Adjudication is done automatically by the server.
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.
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.
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?
Ilmars Cirulis (2021-10-29 17:36:26)
Big Chess theory?
Do you mean replacing knights with some other type of piece, smth from fairy chess?
Ilmars Cirulis (2021-11-01 15:36:57)
First steps in 8-piece endgame TBs
http://arves.org/arves/index.php/en/latestnews/latest-news/2-ongecategoriseerd/1509-8-men-tablebase-first-explorations
Thibault de Vassal (2021-11-07 00:45:47)
First steps in 8-piece endgame TBs
Woooooww..... some 8 pieces endgames are completely stunning!
I like quite much BBBN-30 RN
Juri Eintalu (2021-11-07 01:08:42)
First steps in 8-piece endgame TBs
32-piece endgame TBs...
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.
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!
Ilmars Cirulis (2022-10-29 23:59:26)
What about this position?
Do we have any rule that allows deciding (?) games when they have reached 7 piece endgames? (Too lazy and sleepy to read Help section...)
Juri Eintalu (2023-03-31 09:09:17)
RUSSIA AND BELARUS NOT SUSPENDED?
To Thibault de Vassal:
Thank you for taking a look at my open letter on Medium.
“... isn’t it a bit short to compare Russia’s war in Ukraine to what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq or Serbia? (that are quite different cases by the way, involving different groups of countries)”
If country A starts a war against country B, the relevant question is whether that war is justified or unjustified, whether it is a war of aggression or, instead, the attacker has the right to do so.
By now, it is a piece of common knowledge that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were wars of aggression.
Chess organisations FIDE and ICCF have punished Russian chess organisations for the Russian invasion of Ukraine while not punishing the US chess organisations for the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. FIDE and ICCF have not presented any comprehensive analyses about how justified or unjustified some of those wars are. You are turning the burden of proof around and accusing me of not delivering the arguments that FIDE and ICCF had to present.
“It seems that most russians in Russia still support this war (“special op”) while everyone ignored the truth about those weapons in Irak (in example). Any context should be analysed in depth IMHO.”
Excuse me, but I cannot follow what you are trying to say.
You argue that any context should be analysed in-depth, but you fail to hint at why Russia should be punished and the US should not. Your only fact mentioned, “everyone ignored the truth about those weapons in Irak”, remains mysterious. I do not understand in what context you are saying this.
We know already for ten years that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
Concerning your other remarks, I make only one reply. We know that there are saliently some Nazis in Ukraine.
Here, on the chess forum, I technically cannot answer in detail to your several remarks that, in my mind, are all somewhat inexact or vague.
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. :(
Thibault de Vassal (2023-11-17 20:54:53)
Battle of Kings
About evaluation of positions, the value of pieces is not obvious as well... that's the good point, but still, in such complex games, calculation becomes even more important. I hope to see Alphazero playing this game one day ;)
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2023-12-15 01:51:10)
Referee Adjudication
Well, I thought that a one month limit for the game to finish could satisfy everyone...
IMO, that's quite strange to end a game when some players do NOT use 7-pieces tablebases and still could make mistakes in a winning or drawish position...
There are 45 results for piece in wikichess.
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)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4
The Nimzo-Indian Defence is a hypermodern opening, developed by Grandmaster Aaron Nimzowitsch who introduced it to master-level chess in the early 20th century. Unlike most Indian openings the Nimzo-Indian does not involve an immediate fianchetto, although Black often follows up with ...b6 and ...Bb7. By pinning White's knight Black prevents the threatened 4.e4 and seeks to inflict doubled pawns on White. White will attempt to create a pawn centre and develop his pieces to prepare for an assault on the Black position.
According to Chessbase, black chances are about 43%
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5
The Giuoco Piano (Italian: "quiet game"), is the oldest recorded opening. The Portuguese Damiano played it at the beginning of the 15th century and the Italian Greco played it at the beginning of the 16th century. Because of Greco's work on the opening, it is sometimes called the Italian Game, although that term is also used more generally to describe the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4. The Giuoco Piano was popular through the 19th century, but modern refinements in defensive play have led most chess masters towards openings like the Ruy Lopez that offer White greater chances for long term initiative.
White's "Italian bishop" at c4 prevents Black from advancing in the center with ...d5 and attacks the vulnerable f7 square. White plans to dominate the center with d2-d4 and to attack the Black king. Black aims to free his game by exchanging pieces and playing the pawn break ...d5, or to hold his center pawn at e5.
According to Chessbase, white chances are about 46%
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
e4 c5 d4
This move usually leads to the Smith-Morra Gambit (or simply Morra Gambit). After 2. ... cxd4, White can develop his pieces quickly, but have to choose between giving a pawn more (3.c3) for activity, or taking back with the queen (3.Qxd4), exposing early the queen at the center of the board.
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3
The Morra Gambit is an interesting opening against the Sicilian Defence. It is not common in Grandmaster games or correspondence chess, but at club level chess it is an excellent weapon.
White sacrifices a pawn to develop quickly and create attacking chances. In exchange for the gambit pawn, White has a piece developed and a pawn in the center, while Black has nothing but an empty space on c7.
If black wants to refuse the gambit, he can do so with 3... d5 or 3... Nf6, both of which transpose to the Alapin variation of the Sicilian (usually introduced by the move order 1.e4 c5 2.c3). Alternatively, 3... d6 is the Smith-Morra declined proper, and leads to unique lines.
Some interesting games played on FICGS by David Angeli : Game 563, Game 565 (accepted gambit) or Game 555 (declined, with 3. ... d5).
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
David Grosdemange (1912)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 b5 cxb5 a6 b6 e6 Nc3 exd5 Nxd5 Nxd5 Qxd5 Nc6 Nf3 Rb8 Ne5 Qf6 Nxc6 dxc6 Qe4+ Be7 Qf4 Rxb6 Qc7
it seems win a piece , but ..... how many white pieces are developped ??
============
Contributors : David Grosdemange
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
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
e4 Nc6
The Nimzowitsch or Fischer Defense.
This is a somewhat unusual chess opening and an example of hypermodern chess where Black invites White to occupy the centre of the board at an early stage with pawns. Black's intent is to block or otherwise restrain White's central pawns and, if allowed to do so by inaccurate play by White, eventually undermine the White pawn center by well-timed pawn advances of his own or by attacking the White pieces defending the centre.
============
Contributors : Dirk Jan Van Dijl, Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2424)
e4 c5 f4 d5 Nf3 dxe4 Ng5 Nf6 Bc4 Bg4 Bxf7+ Kd7 Qxg4+ Nxg4 Be6+ Kc6 Bxg4
Here Black has choice, but no mistake to do. This is typically a position where chess engines are lost. In my opinion 9. ...g6 is quite reasonable to find a balance in pieces activity.
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Mark Carroll (1700)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3 dxc3 Nxc3 Nc6 Nf3 d6 Bc4 Nf6 e5 Nxe5
This is not the best choice for black. At best, he will now go down a piece.
============
Contributors : Mark Carroll
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
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 c5 e5 Ne8 d5 exd5 Nxd5 Nb6 Nxe7+ Qxe7 Be2 Nc7
Despite having 2 knights vs 2 bishops, Black has slightly better chances because of his superior development, good coordination of pieces, control of the "d" file, and pawn majority in the queenside.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Telmo Escobar (2107)
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 Bg4 Qd3 Rae8 Nd2 Re6 a4 f5 axb5 f4 Bxf4 Bxf4 Rxe6 Bxe6 bxa6
This passed pawn gives more than enough compensation for the sacrificed piece.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
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 Nc3 d5 exd5 exd5 Nf3 Be7 Ne5 Nf6 Bg5 O-O Bd3 c6
Passive, but Black's development of his queenside pieces is slightly tangled. He'd like to have played Nbd7 immediately, but of course Bxf5 is White's simple riposte.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
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)
e4 e5 d4 Qh4 Nc3
White deals with the threat and develops a piece. It's a bit passive mind.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 Be3 cxd4 Bxd4 N8c6 c3 Nd5 Bc4 Nxd4 cxd4 Qa5+ Qd2 Bb4
White may as well resign. He's down at least a piece.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Terry Godat (2088)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 Nf6
Building the tension even up with piece development
============
Contributors : Ashik Uzzaman, Terry Godat
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
Completing his minor piece development and bringing more pieces to bear down on the white King.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bd3 Nc6 Ne2 d5
White has decided this is not going to be a highly tactical opening, so Black needs to decide what formation he will settle for, and where his minor pieces will go.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nf3 Be7 Bd3 d5 Ne5
Premature. White should develop more pieces or castle before moving one piece twice. The kingside attack (initiated by Qh5) is not on.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nf3 Be7 Bd3 d5 Ne5 Nf6 Bg5 O-O c4 c6 Bxf6
Pointless. White should be developing pieces (e.g. Qb3 is best, 0-0 is OK). Now Black gets the upperhand. Fritz says -0.22.
============
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 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
Telmo Escobar (2048)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Bxf7 Ke7 Bb3 Qe8 O-O Rf8 Nc3 d6 Nd5+ Kd8 c3 h6 d4 exd4 Nxf6 Rxf6 e5 Rf5 Nf3 Nxe5 Nxd4 Rf6 Be3 Ng4 Re1 Qe5 g3 Qh5
Unclear: Black has still his king misplaced, but his pieces are exceedingly aggressive and White is now forced to play h2-h4.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 Nc3 d5 exd5 exd5 Nf3 Nf6 Ng5
Seems pointless. White should finish his development before moving a piece for a second time.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Richard Hendricks (1459)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ng5 h6 Nxf7 Kxf7
The Allgaier Gambit 5.Ng5?! h6! 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 does not offer White enough for the piece, but can
be a tricky choice in practical play.
============
Contributors : Richard Hendricks
Mike Hoogland (1760)
d4 f5 g3 Nf6 Bg2 g6
Black opts for the Leningrad variation. A sharp opening in which black counterattacks the centre with his pieces.
============
Contributors : Mike Hoogland
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 Nxf6 exf7+ Kd7 Rb1 Qc3 Nd4
This is Walker-Bowen, England 1967 (see Chess Informant 4/544). More than merely having compensation for the piece, White is winning because he has four good attacking pieces with plenty of files, rows and diagonals to enjoy, while Black king has no pawn wall to hide behind and his pieces have trouble to play because of the much disturbing f7 pawn.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
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
Art Watts (1404)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Bc4 Bc5 c3
============
Contributors : Art Watts
If black continues with...dxc3, then white has at his disposal, Bxf7+...KxB then white has Qd5+, recovering the piece. I saw this line in ECO.
Yugi Inving (0914)
e3 g6 b3 Bg7 Nc3
This is not so bad for white.
if the bishop take the knight, then the black have lost a very valuable piece, the good bishop and has made a fianchetto for nothing except to double some pawn... Bxc3 is very bad for black.
============
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 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 Bc4 Ng4 Bb5+ Kf8 O-O Nxe3 fxe3 Nc6 Bc4 Ne5 Ne6+ Bxe6 Bxe6 Kg8
As simple as that! With his excellently placed minor pieces, Black is little impressed and plan to "castle" by means -in due time- of h7-h6 and Kf8-g7. Let us see a posible continuation.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
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
Tano-Urayoán Russi Román (1944)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 c5 d5 exd5 cxd5 b5 e4 Nxe4 Qe2 Qe7 Bg2 Nd6 Be3 Na6 Nc3 Rb8
============
Contributors : Normajean Yates, Tano-Urayoán Russi Román
Rb8 was played in once and black achieved a draw. Here white continued a4 but I believe black will have problems after Nf3 all black pieces are awkward placed.
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 Rxh4 Ne2
it seen like white wants to exchange pieces where he should note exchange pieces but pawns.
============
Contributors : Sophie Leclerc
Sebastian Boehme (2062)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 Be2
Threatening some nasty things and developing a piece naturally.
============
Contributors : Sebastian Boehme
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
Sophie Leclerc (1573)
e4 e5 f4 Qf6 Nf3 Qxf4 Nc3 Bb4 Bc4 Bxc3 O-O
the only possible monve, it give white compensation for the lost piece, Taking on c3 let black carrie out his treat. (Qxe4 check )
============
Contributors : Sophie Leclerc
Luc-Olivier Leclerc (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 Nf6 bxc5 e6 Ba3 Nc6 g3 Qa5 Qb3 Bxc5 Qb5
A correct decision... when white lack in developpement, he exchange piece, but he make black, pay the price of those exchange. Whitout that, white would fall behind for the entire game.
============
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
Gregory Kohut (1574)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e6
This inaugurates the Taimanov/Paulsen lines of the Sicilian Defense. Black's main idea is to play Qc7 and a6 in some order (although the "pure" Taimanov, with ...a6 and Nge7, is also possible), controlling the dark squares with pieces and the light squares with pawns. The d5 and e6 points are generally less vulnerable than in many variations, leaving white with fewer obvious attacking possibilities. The game therefore can take on an oddly positional character for the Open Sicilian, with White seeking to prove dark squared weaknesses or obtain favorable piece exchanges.
============
Contributors : Graham Cridland
Patrick Satonnet (1833)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 exf5 e4 Ne5 Nf6 Be2 d6
============
Contributors : Davide Nudo, Patrick Satonnet
In this line with very sharp and complicated variation, d6 seems a mistake, at least imprecision.
Now, after Bh5+, the king have to go to e7 and his beshop is a prisonner, decisive in this kind of position where each tempo, piece and activity is precious.
If 5..Be7, (not 5..d6) , after Bh5+, the king go on f8, and the bishop is ok on e7 and position is unclar.
FICGS : piece , Wikipedia : piece , Dmoz : piece , Google : piece , Yahoo : piece
When you see a good move, look for a better one. (Emanuel Lasker)
All I want to do, ever, is just play Chess. (Bobby Fischer)
Capture of the adverse King is the ultimate but not the first object of the game. (William Steinitz)
Back to FICGS , Wikichess