play



FICGS - Search results for play





There are 5028 results for play in the forum.


Hannes Rada    (2006-04-08 13:20:52)
Thank you !

Thank you Thibault for this great job of creating a chessfriend clone. Chessfriend had definitely the best and most convenient user-interface for server play. I Hope many chessfriend-players will migrate to this server. Once again thank you for your work and support of the correspondence chess community ! Furthermore -There is an overlap in the class tournaments concerning the minimun elo requirement. Can you clarify this ? - No holiday entitlement is mentioned in the terms and conditions hannes


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

Hello Hannes. Thank you for support :)

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

Feel free to tell me what you think.

Thibault


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

Hello to all.

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

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

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

Have a good big chess game :)


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

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

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

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

Thank you for your advices.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-08 17:02:06)
First tournament started !

A small bug delayed (1 hour) the start of the first FICGS tournament (class A) ! Sorry to the players. It's fixed now.

Have good games :)


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


Hannes Rada    (2006-04-08 19:06:49)
Vacations

The most important issue to be implemented is imho the vacation. I think otherwise many potential players (me included) will be prevented from joining a tournament. How many days a year would you allow ?


Hannes Rada    (2006-04-08 19:12:59)
Titles

I thing titles provide an incentive for players and their wording is not really important. To avoid potential conflicts with other bureaucratic organisations you should maybe rename them to FEM, FIM, FSIM, FGM ...


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


Hannes Rada    (2006-04-09 23:27:03)
Success

This server is now 4 days old and there are already 115 members :-) Many of them well known players from chessfriend. So this is really satisfying :-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-10 12:26:52)
To low rated players...

A second CLASS M tournament (category 4) already started ! I suppose once FICGS will be sumitted correctly to search engines, more low rated players will join us. Be patient :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-10 12:53:29)
FICGS and internet

Hello to all & thanks again for support.

I announced FICGS starting into main chess forums (FIDE, TCCMB, Talkchess, France-Echecs...), now working on search engines.

Feel free to talk about it in other forums (in your country or chessclub) and to your chessfriends... Website success is here, and the more players, the more players :)

Thank you in advance. Have good games !


Patrice Verdier    (2006-04-10 13:43:36)
Status of the games

It will be interesting to indicate the status of the game in the list of current games. It's important to know who must played. Example : "You turn", "Not your turn"


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

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

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

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

Best wishes & thank you !


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-11 05:24:41)
Statistics

As you may have noticed, the "About" page now contains some chess opening statistics ! Quite interesting. We have a strong bird specialist & already a king's gambit player :)


Marc Lacrosse    (2006-04-11 10:36:45)
Computer accounts ?

Just an idea : as computer use is explicitly allowed on FICGS, it could be nice to offer chess program authors the possibility to have a "semi-official" account for their latest beta babies on FICGS.
Some of them would surely like the idea of having quite a tough test against good correspondence players ...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-11 13:23:44)
CC players vs. Computers

Hello Marc, the idea is good for sure, but I doubt developers would want to see their "beta babies" to achieve a 2000 ELO rating with pain :) If matches like CC GM - Engines are quite balanced, so would be a CC 1800 - Engines one... Anyway, if you know developers interested, we could envisage something in this way...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-11 13:28:13)
Download

Hello Karlheinz & Hannes.

I'll arrange that. But indeed that's the way I developed the "Search games" page. Copy/Paste PGN games should work. (but it may become too big later to display all games in one page)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-11 14:44:22)
Not exactly...

... but it's true that there are many things to translate yet. Players already helped me with German, I'll continue to translate as soon as possible. (feel free to send to me German & Spanish translations, French is ok for me)

Thank you in advance.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-11 14:54:36)
FICGS titles

Hello to all.

I would like to have players opinion !

As you may have noticed, I already changed FICGS titles to FEM, FIM, FSM, FGM. (not titles obtained elsewhere) Do you agree with titles appearing this way ?

I thought several other ways : EFM, IFM, SFM, GFM, or only to mention norms obtained ! (not titles) At last, of course, we can suppress definitely titles from FICGS, a bad idea in my opinion. What do you think about that ?

Thank you in advance for your responses.


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

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


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

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


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

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


Marc Lacrosse    (2006-04-12 09:57:10)
Tournament formulas : not too many .

Personally I do prefer playing a small number of games simultaneously at a relatively rapid pace instead of a larger number at slower pace.

But I can understand that some prefer the opposite. So why not.

One caveat : I think you should wait a little bit before multiplying categories.
As long as we are not a larger number of active players there is a risk that there will be a small number of players waiting for long before a sufficient number of players will join for starting a tournament in a given category.

Marc


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-12 14:02:49)
Solution...

One solution could be to display titles from organizations in separated columns named FICGS, ICCF, FIDE, IECG etc... (as Chessfriend do) It's quite heavy for the rating list page :/ So the idea was to display the player's highest title only, and player is free to mention his titles in his own informations page.

That's not a completely satisfying solution, I agree...


Hannes Rada    (2006-04-12 19:15:19)
Titles

>> One solution could be to display titles from organizations in separated columns named FICGS, ICCF, FIDE, IECG etc... (as Chessfriend do) It's quite heavy for the rating list page :/ So the idea was to display the player's highest title only, and player is free to mention his titles in his own informations page.

I think that's the best idea. Maybe you can use smaller fonts, so that all information can be displayed on that page.


Hannes Rada    (2006-04-12 21:35:40)
Opening statistics

Incredible - The whole world plays Sicilian ... :-)


Paul-Iosif Guralivu    (2006-04-13 15:19:03)
New Titles!

To make FICGS more atractive and original I propose to make new titles for every category of players: Candidate for Master(FCM) - 2000-2200 First category (FI) - 1800-2000 Secound category (FII) - 1200-1800 Third category (FIII) - 800-1200 Every of this category could be obtain if a player plays more than 12 games in tournaments with tha same ELO. What do you think about it ? P.S.:Don't be mad on me...It's just a proposition.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-13 15:46:55)
New Titles

Hello Paul-Iosif.

Interesting new idea. In my opinion, there are too many titles & titled players already from official & "non-official" organizations. I think this is a mistake from FIDE / ICCF they couldn't remedy anymore. Titles from other organizations and particularly IECG are not really a problem "more", cause they are hard to achieve (rare), but I don't think this could be so attractive for players. To get a title is a reward itself. Maybe even EM title shouldn't exist.

But I think that ie. a KM title (over GM) could be an interesting idea !

Anyway, I'm ok with the commission idea, we'll vote that too.

Another interesting & controversial idea is (as IECG do) titles not to be awarded for life ! If player's rating decrease, he could lost his title... but I don't think this is very fair.


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-13 16:05:35)
I agree...

... that would be unfair.

About players that will never achieve a title, I think most important is to stimulate motivation, and titles (I think) are awarded in this way. Don't you think categories FI, FII, FIII are in a way the rating itself ?


Paul-Iosif Guralivu    (2006-04-13 16:25:01)
New Titles

I agree that the rating in a way. I was proposing that because it like in my country where chess players start with a the third category and continue with II and I and cadidate master after which it's coming the Master title. So that will simulate more the country system...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-14 04:54:25)
Proposal from a visitor (anonymous)

" >>> Hi Thibault

Congratulations for the launch of your new CC server! I fully support your initiative and hope I will join very soon.

Meanwhile I would like to share some ideas about the Ficgs Titles, which I also fully and unconditionally support.

My proposal is to adopt/or "recognize" any title awarded by FIDE/ICCF/IECG as a FGM, FSIM, FIM, FEM titles. (e.g. not just IECG IM = FIM, but all others too).

That is, a ICCF GM should be named FGM much as a FIDE GM, or IECG GM (or SIM, IM or EM for CC). There shouldn't be special treatment to those players with a title from FIDE/ICCF

Then, to differentiate them, there could be a color scheme or a footnote explaining the procedence of the title: FGM (ICCF) ...FSIM (IECG) and simply FSIM for the truly SIM title obtained at FICGS.

In adition, those players who do not have a title, but have norms either at FIDE/ICCF/IECG (my case ;) either will have them "homologated" (as the titles are) or better, when/if the title has been awarded later, his Ficgs title will be "updated" to the newly awarded title (by FIDE/ICCF/IECG), which must be the highest of them all (as in IECG SIM > ICCF IM > FEM ..etc)

This way FICGS will be the first organization to homologate norms and titles in CC world ;) <<< "


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-14 05:16:26)
re: Proposal

What do we call "legitimacy", "official" ? This is quite subjective. In my opinion each organization can create his own titles and choose to recognize titles from other ones. IECG titles are recognized by FICGS, but it's obvious titles from FIDE / ICCF have more value in players mind (legitimacy is not the subject), and players from everywhere could appreciate this distinction. Anyway the FICGS council will discuss about that.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-14 13:19:38)
Registrations, best of :)

Among players who tried to register with a false name, some of them have a great imagination. I'll post their most funny "contributions" here. If they finally succeed to skirt the filter (me), I'll just say "ok, you won... great. now, what about a game ? :)"


Fischer, Bobby (2900)
Holycron, Kieron


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

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


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

Hello Håkon. Some answers :

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

Hello to all.

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

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


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-16 11:58:58)
IECG & ICCF webserver

Hello to all.

Congratulations to Ortwin Paetzold who just started with success (src. IECG forum) the new IECG webserver.

Feel free to compare IECG, ICCF & FICGS servers (if you already played on) in this thread, it may help me to feel future improvements, as I have no more time to play on the other ones :(

Thank you for feedback.


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!


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!


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

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


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

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

Thank you for feedback.


Hakon Anda    (2006-04-16 17:20:42)
Great

Thanks a lot to Thibault for adjusting the features on this server quickly and smooth for best performance and wishes from us players. Great work!


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-16 18:33:01)
Adjudication

Déjà ? :)

So, about games "obviously lost" (somewhat subjective), the council may decide special rules so that referees can grant games that drag out. What do you think is best ? That's a recurrent problem in correspondence chess, and an original policy could make the rating more accurate, as some players may finish "good games" very faster than others... Quite subjective indeed, and not obvious. Where's the limit ? Maybe correspondence chess players should first accept this idea that their "won" games may finish much later...


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

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


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

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


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-04-17 08:54:33)
About Glen's observations

Thibault, I think Glen has a point there. IF any players are using/might use such fraudulent script writing, a system can be found to detect it!?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-17 09:23:44)
Fraudulent ?

I'm not sure.. is really an "automatic player" fraudulent ? Many players are centaurs (human + computer). The decision to let an engine play would be a human one after all.. Anyway, a script player doesn't seem so easy to make. (and for what ?)


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

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


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

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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-18 00:34:26)
About vacation...

Don't you think it would be more logical to allow 40 (for example) days of vacation per year and not per game ? Vacation would stop the clock for all games of the player. Seems to look like "vacation" more than a "reservoir" that doesn't really have to exist ?!


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-18 00:39:05)
Sorry, Paul-Iosif

But I don't understand.. (must be tired :)) Is there a play on words in your american name ? Kieron Holycron (Quieron holy crown) is ok but...


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

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


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

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

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

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

RAPID TOURNAMENTS are an alternative solution.

Thibault


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

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

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

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

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

Just my two cents :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-18 23:04:48)
Interesting...

Glen, that's a fine suggestion !

We could probably improve the time rules, indeed.

Maybe a 100 days accumulated time limit would be appreciated ? What do think the players ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-18 23:26:06)
Live games

Hello to all.

I don't know (I hope) if the "live" concept is somewhat a reason for this, but I'm quite surprised to see already Alekhine defence played 6 times (and King's gambit the same). I wait for more accurate statistics, but no : everyone don't play Sicilian and that's great :) Spectacular & original games are welcome, I'm to install a "best game" poll script.


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

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

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

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

Have good games !


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-20 11:59:21)
Cheating / Forfeiting

Hello to all.

The website detected 2 'probable' cheaters registered (one playing), with a 1400 rating.

Of course, FICGS will face problems encountered by all correspondence chess sites but I think it will be minimal here, as I'm enforcing detection rules so that aliases couldn't register anymore.

Important : Games forfeited without a valid explanation won't be rated, and the account for the player closed. A player who may forfeit should send an email with explanation to : ficgs (at) ficgs.com

Thanks.


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

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

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



Elmer Valderrama    (2006-04-20 14:52:47)
search by ECO code

Wonderful feature to have all on-going games available just one click away (an old request to Reimund @chessfriend). Even more interesting to be able to search games by player name. Now would it be too much to ask for a search by ECO? --similar games would be identified in a second, a good thing; and information for choosing different variations would be available..


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-20 15:12:34)
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_B__000002

All games played against Daniel Grecu (forfeit) won't be rated in this tournament. Sorry about that.


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-20 23:18:32)
Vote for the best game

A funny feature has been implemented : You can vote for the best game played on FICGS. I hope it will reveal great games... :)

The votes have a lifetime.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-22 05:39:05)
Not sure...

Might be useful, right... But what to do if people's schedules change once the games started ? I made this way to reduce forfeits, players shouldn't enter waiting list if they are not sure to play the games until the end... Feel free to tell me what you think about that.


Patrice Verdier    (2006-04-22 15:33:48)
At the end of the game

I think that option is very interesting but only when the game is finished. When the game are in play it is possible that players play many mistake and after the game is not so good. In my opinion the vote will be better at the end of the game with an analysis of the 2 players


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

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


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

Hello Elmer.

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

Hello to all.

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

Thanks in advance :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-23 17:17:17)
Famous quotes

Another thing, if you know famous (or unknown) quotes relative to chess, correspondence chess and "go". I have found many ones in english and french, but it's harder in deutsch and spanish.

Or if you know rare & strange quotes, not from famous chess players... maybe from you ?! :)

Thanks again :)


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

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

Sorry about that.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-24 11:21:14)
Bug...

About vacation, an error has occured with the backoffice. Vacation turned back to 30 days for all. Fortunately not heavy consequences, as just one or two players took days already. It won't happen again as the sub-admin backoffice will be installed today.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-24 13:20:05)
Looking for 3 more players...

... to complete the first Fischer Random Chess tournament ! (Special tournaments category)

Have good games...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-24 15:59:32)
Checkmate

I considered that there wasn't so much difference : Generally players resign before being checkmated. Whoever playing until checkmate "quickly" will probably resign quickly... A player who wants to last a game will do it before checkmate... I really think it's only more friendly (and original).

Anyway, if too much players or council think otherwise, I'll change it. Thanks for your feedback.

About checkmate, I just fixed a bug that prevented players to resign if they were checkmated. (hum :)) That's why 2 players called the referee.


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

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


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

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


Stefano Ghisi    (2006-04-24 16:18:59)
Quad tourn

Do you think it's possible in future to have quad tournaments? (4 players 6 match each one)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-24 16:24:14)
Quad tourn

Nothing easier :) I'm just waiting for more players to offer other tournament categories. Maybe next month.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-24 18:43:59)
It was precisely one...

... of these two games ! The player wanted to resign but he couldn't "because" he was checkmated. The bug has been fixed today.


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Just another opinion :)


Graham Wyborn    (2006-04-25 17:42:52)
Please join:-

I joined this site recently and still have not started a game! Forgive the advert 4 the following games. We need one more player! FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_C__000002 (type : rated round-robin, time : 40 days, increment : 40 days / 10 moves) 7 players, 6 game (1 game against each opponent) elo : 1600-2000 Cridland, Graham (USA) 1700 Grady, Richard (USA) 1654 Höppenstein, Michael (DEU) 1700 Fillion, Nicolas (CAN) 1640 Wyborn, Graham (GBR) 1700 Muller, Henri-Louis (BEL) 1923


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-25 23:15:07)
Links (& emails) recognition !

The forum now recognizes links and emails. No tags or whatever, just enter the link & it will appear correctly... (for connected players, not from the home page)


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-26 19:42:16)
Russian, Italian, Chinese, Dutch....

The Babelfish versions of the FICGS home page in other languages are at the bottom of the home page... Quite funny :)

If players from these countries have time to help to translate, feel free to send me an email to info (at) ficgs.com ! Thanks.


Glen D. Shields    (2006-04-28 01:35:12)
Congratulations FICGS!

Congratulations FICG! The rating list now has over 200 members. 200 members in about 1 month of operation. Outstanding :) The more players we can attract, the quicker tournaments will fill.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-01 19:01:58)
Class tournaments

Salut David !

About standard & rapid "class" tournaments, they are open to players with ELO rating included into a range, specified just below the tournament name. (ie. CLASS M : 2200 to 2600 , CLASS A : 2000 to 2400 , CLASS B : 1800 to 2200 etc...)

J'espère que tu nous feras profiter de ton gambit favori ;) Bonnes parties !


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

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


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

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


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-04 17:25:27)
FICGS statistics

2006 may 4

Dear chessfriends, the first FICGS statistics (1 month after server start) are displayed on the informations page : http://www.ficgs.com/informations.html

Google just reacted (today), so I hope for new players coming from search engines soon...


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

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


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

Hello to all.

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

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

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

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


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

... from a player :

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

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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-05 15:36:17)
2 players matches

Hello Jose ! That is not possible yet. There's no players enough to create other tournament categories.. The delay before tournament start could increase significantly.


Jose Carrillo    (2006-05-05 18:37:09)
Re: 2 players matches

Don't we need only 2 players for a two-game match? Why do we need to create a whole tournament? I'm only interested in playing one other player. Are all the games in FICGS tournament based? Are there no individual matches?


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

Try a round robin + Page system playoffs.

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

Final Round:
Page System Playoffs:

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

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

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

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

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

Loser of 3rd-4th gets eliminated.

Winner of semi-final plays in the final.



Graham Wyborn    (2006-05-06 10:37:16)
Computer Aided Sites

Do you know of any other sites that allow computer aided chess?
I am aware of www.playchess.de and www.cowplay.com. Any others?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-06 11:49:01)
Advanced chess

About correspondence chess : IECG & ICCF (see links page) but probably all others too. GameKnot, Its your turn, Scheming mind, Chessmaniac etc... Real time play : Chessanytime, Chesshere.

Actually probably 98% are computer aided sites, so you can play advanced chess everywhere.


Glen D. Shields    (2006-05-06 11:51:16)
Two Others

Two other sites are ICCF (http://www.iccf-webchess.com/) and IECG (http://lss.chess-server.net/). They're similar to FICGS in that both require one to play with their real name. Neither site promotes computer use, yet neither site discourages it. ICCF is a fee-based. IECG is free.


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

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

I'll consider that.


Trent Parker    (2006-05-06 17:15:28)
Best games

I personally think that only finished games should be considered for best games. Or a panel of high rated players should vote for best games. Also i think players should not be able to vote for their own games.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-06 18:32:03)
All is possible...

Maybe players shouldn't be able to vote for their own games... But in most cases, interesting games are first known by the players themselves. We could miss something.

Anyway, I think only really interesting or spectacular games will obtain many votes. We'll see... I also think about mini-sites / kind of blog, or shared wiki-like pages for players who want to discuss & analyze games in depth together.


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

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

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

The rules for world championship have been updated.


Jose Carrillo    (2006-05-11 00:09:47)
Re: Qualifying

The top 4 players in the round robin qualify for the quarterfinals.

The beauty of this system is that the #1 and #2 players in the round robin have a 50% chance of going to the final (they deserve it too! as they finished top 2 in the round robin).

The loser of the 1st-2nd match still has a chance to go to the finals if he wins the semi-finals.

This system prevents lower ranked 3rd and 4th players in the round robin to knock out in one round the top players of the round robin.

If you play the round robin to win (and finish 1st or 2nd) you are rewarded for the finals.

There is still the possibility of the 1st and 2nd place in the round robin to play in the final match.

If you just play to finish 3rd or 4th, you have to fight your way to the final.

There will never be a 3rd vs 4th final match, something very well possible in a knock out tournament.


Trent Parker    (2006-05-12 00:31:30)
Banned players

Hi Thibault! I noticed that there is a banned/deleted player who has entered the world championship. You might want to fix this before the closing date :D.


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

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

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


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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-12 07:49:43)
Building groups

I suppose the following method is quite reasonable... (if you have a better idea...)

So, building WCH round-robin tournaments groups : Grading all players by elo. Starting from the middle of the list. The first 2 players, one above the middle, one below, play in the first group, the next 2 players in the second group, the next 2 in the third group etc.. Finally, elo average for each group shouldn't be far from each other. What do you think ?


Jose Carrillo    (2006-05-13 00:28:45)
Re: Qualifying

In a Knock out you can have 3rd vs 4th in the final. In the Page system you can't.

It's just a matter of whether you want to acknowledge the top players in the round robin.

In the page system ONLY the top four players in the round robin qualify for the playoffs.

Look at the Page system in practice in the Gligoric Cup tournament that we are running in FRCEC at:

http://frcec.chess960.info/GligoricCup.htm


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-13 20:27:05)
Swiss : 3 rounds ?

Hello Heinz-Georg.

Interesting, but how exactly did it work ? Only 3 rounds, but how many games per round and against who (I didn't know that swiss system allowed to play several games per round...) ? Thanks in advance for enlightening me.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-05-14 00:47:20)
Swiss

Hello Thibault these are the "rules" (see at http://www.chessfriend.com/ and then Tournaments-CFC World-Championship-CFC Championship 2003)
Modus: 3 rounds Swiss à 10 games each. ... Every player is allowed to participate in all 3 rounds. Pairings of the 1st round are based on rating. We will build equal groups where possible. In the second round we will do the pairings so that be build at first 3 groups depending on score and rating. Among this three groups we will build new tournaments which should be of about equal rating.. Third round will be paired in the same way with the exception that the first group will be the strongest (score and rating). Normally two players should play during a championship cycle only one game. If it will be necessary in a following round that two players play a second game, this game should be played with revised colours.
I will send you more information.


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

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

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

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

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


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-05-14 17:29:59)
Swiss and Blitz Cup

Hello Thibault

Swiss tournament was only a suggestion. I don't like knockout tournaments - too many rounds (7 if 128 players want to play), great problems, if not the right number of players is available or players withdraw. If you have only 30 days for the whole game, it is much better to live on the "right" continent relative to your opponent.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-15 08:33:32)
Team Championship

In brief : The idea of a team championship is very good, but of course it's too early... Such a championship could be a 2 stages round-robin tournament with teams of 6 or 7 players.


Bonjour Sébastien. Pourquoi discorde ? :) Au contraire...

Pour le moment j'envisageais des matchs par équipe occasionnels (FICGS vs. fédération ou autre serveur de jeu).

Le problème d'un championnat est qu'il soit représentatif, il serait donc souhaitable (dans le cas par pays) de pouvoir monter des équipes complètes (6 ou 7 joueurs) et que les plus forts joueurs trouvent un "intérêt" à défendre leurs couleurs (dépend de la popularité du serveur). L'idée est de toutes manières des plus intéressantes, mais le serveur doit gagner en confiance et en expérience sur la durée, il est encore tôt. Par contre je me demande comment se déroulerait un tel championnat... Un tournoi toutes ronde (round-robin) entre 5 à 9 pays, divisés par groupes, puis une phase finale ?!


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

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

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

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


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

Update for the method building round-robin tournaments groups :

1) Grading players by rating

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

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


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-05-15 13:49:57)
Team Championship

I like Sebastien Marez's idea, for a team championship somewhere in the near future. It could perhaps be termed FICGS Team World Championship. It's a good way of building camaraderie between chess players too!


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-16 19:28:57)
New feature : Comments

Hello to all.

I was thinking about a new feature, that could be quite interesting but maybe controversial. It would allow members to write public comments on any game played, appearing on the viewer page... So it could be used also to share analysis... There are several alternatives : Comments could be displayed or authorized only after the game finished, and / or written only by players who actually played the game, etc...

What do you think ?


David Grosdemange    (2006-05-16 20:15:30)
about comments

i think that the players theirself could be able to comment their own games , but others players should wait the end to post their comments . and it should be like on the wiki , to change a comment , man has to be better rated .


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-05-17 08:41:06)
overall evaluation of this new site

This mate problem on this site is a big problem. Only chess site I play on where you have won and it is not won until the player resigns. Secondly I am in a game where mate is in 2. but my opponent has stopped playing. Many others are reporting the same thing. The idea is nice, it assumes that all players are good sports. Over all I would say many players here are not considerate of their opponents, and it is a reflection of their charachter. I dont think to much of the moderaters or those who are responsible and have taken a no action stance despite many complaints. Moderator or responsible authority take care of this ridiculous policy Regards Wayne


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-17 15:37:39)
Best game :-)

Maybe we should wonder why players didn't vote for other 'better' games !?

A good game doesn't necessarily need to be perfect, but obviously it has to be spectacular. It seems to be the criteria for players. Who said there was no beauty without errors...

However, I hope Wikichess and Comments feature will reveal good chess games in another way.


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

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


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

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


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


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

Hello Glen.

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Respectfully.


Glen D. Shields    (2006-05-19 03:40:33)
I See Two Issues

Perhaps I miss something, but I see two separate issues here. One issue is technical, the other is chess etiquette.

The inability of the server to recognize that a game is over when one player is checkmated is a technical issue that should be fixed (in my opinion). No resignation should be necessary to end the game.

The chess etiquette issue is different. I agree it is rude for a player to drag out an obviously lost game. Despite the bad behavior, I think it is the individual's right to continue to fight to the bitter end. We might not like it, but that's just part of the game. I never played in any correspondence or over-the-board club where a player's decision to resign was determined by his opponent or the referee.


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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for this site Thibault!

Trent Parker


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-19 11:09:58)
Re: Suggestion

Thanks for the suggestion, Wayne. Actually, I'm to implement a "comments" feature (see the discussion in a thread below). I don't think it's a perfect solution ! Of course it's a way to solve this problem, but it will create other problems with other abuses ! Anyway, it's a positive point more for comments. As David Grosdemange said, only players should be able to chat before the game ended. I think I'll do it this way...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-19 19:04:26)
Future rating !

Hello to all.

I've added a feature to know the future rating, based on games finished since the last rating calculation.

Click on the magnifying glass near the player's name, then click on ELO, it will appear on the elo history page.

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


Daniel De Noose    (2006-05-20 17:55:10)
:-(

I'm not sure in case of equality we have to give the first place to the best rated. Because if a 1800 player and a 2300 player have the same score we can think the 1800 player makes a performance over his rating (good tournament) and the 2300 player a performance under his own rating (bad tournament). I think it's not correct to give the first position to the player making a bad tournament result and not to the player making a good tournament result. ;-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-20 18:39:06)
Equality rule

Hello Daniel.

If the 2300 player scores 5.5 at this tournament, and the 1800 player scores 5, we can imagine the 2300 player makes a bad performance as well (possibly lower than the 1800 player), so the 1800 player should win ?

There's no perfect system, only conditions, but this rule prevents from 'accidents' and grants the rating that is the best players strength indicator. I think this is a way to ensure that the best players will reach the final stages. Because this is a world championship...


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

Hello Dave. You're probably right...

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


Henri Muller    (2006-05-23 09:43:09)
Time reflexion !!

Je rejoins en partie la note de Wayne Lowrance. Il y a quelque chose d'incorrect dans le décompte du temps de réflexion. Il suffit de jouer les 10 premiers coups très rapidement, et on dispose ensuite de 60 jours de réflexion !!! Ainsi, un joueur, sur le point d'être maté, peut attendre DEUX mois avant de répondre !? Et certaines parties traînent ainsi lamentablement....par manque de fair-play de l'adversaire. Aberrant ! Pourquoi pas limiter une réponse à 5 ou 7 jours de réflexion MAXIMUM - tout en conservant le décompte habituel. Il FAUT donc répondre endéans les 5 ou 7 jours ( ou perdre la partie ). Cette pratique est courante partout !!


Ryaad Aabid    (2006-05-23 22:48:14)
why I have right to vote for my game ?!

I think it is better for the player hasn't vote for a game where he was an opponent in that game ! Why I don't let others to vote for one of my games as best ? I have myself done this mistake , but thenafter the mentioned idea has come to my attention :-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-23 23:02:54)
Votes

Hello Ryaad.

Other players still can vote for your games. I think "auto-vote" ability is necessary because who knows better than the players themselves if their games are interesting or not ? If a player vote for a boring game, the other players won't, that's all. What happened last month with game 156 illustrated that quite well.


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-24 10:18:34)
Players / Country

Hello Per. I'm just working on (and other new stuff) ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-24 14:46:20)
New features

Here are some new features :

- Countries directory - http://www.ficgs.com/directory_countries.html
(with players sorted by name)
- Players sorted by rating for each country (click on the flags on the rating list)
- More player statistics (results with white and black, elo average opponents)


Phil Cook    (2006-05-25 12:04:06)
Players online

I see players login, is there a chat room somewhere? or message sending, how to do it?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-25 12:10:06)
Messages

Hello Phil.

There's no chat yet, if you want to send a message to players, you can use this forum... Private messages are authorized during the games.


Xavier Pichelin    (2006-05-25 21:56:00)
delai de reflexion

J'ai lu quelque commentaire en francais sur les durée des parties. Je trouve que obliger de jouer tous les 6 ou 7 jours est pas judicieux. Car il suffit qu'on parte en déplacement la semaine au niveau professionnel ca m'arrive fréquement donc on arrive au week-end et on doit répondre une vintaine de parties voire plus car on joue aussi a ICCF et autres en un week end sous peine de perdre?? Mois ça m'est arrivé de jouer un coup en 15 jours afin de réguler les autres parties et le temps d'analyser ses parties en cours. Non je trouve que c'est utile de jouer vite les débuts afin d'augmenter considérablement le temps de reflexion afin de ne pas blitzer pour jouer correctement. Aussi il est vrai que certain joueurs non fair-play sur une partie archie perdue vous fait attendre avant d'abandonner ou simplement perdre au temps!. C'est valable aussi dans les autre instances ou certain joue 1 coup tous les 39 jours pour faire durer le plaisir!!! Amicalement Xavier.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-26 11:04:11)
Go (weiqi) world championship

Hello to all.

I've updated the rules for go world championship and go tournaments. Now the results in go tournaments qualify for the wch first stage round-robin tournament. See the rules.

It's more logical, as there's no rating system here for Go, and I think more people will play soon...

Have good games !


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-27 03:30:57)
Ok.

Hello Ryaad. I'll replace you by another player soon.

Go tournaments are unrated but count for the FICGS championship qualifications, so I'll replace forfeiting players as much as possible.


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

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

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

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


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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-28 14:06:07)
Go games - SGF format / Java viewer

Hello to all.

Go games can be replayed with the Java viewer. Click on the magnifying glass near Game #

SGF format is available for your games (see help), ie. :

http://www.ficgs.com/format_viewer_sgf.php?game=805


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-28 15:40:14)
go 9*9

Hello David.

I didn't implement 9x9 goban firstly because I didn't have a Java viewer for this size... Then, I thought it was a good thing not to propose other sizes, 19x19 is "real go", most interesting and challenging games ! 9*9 is only tactical training... Actually my games here are the very first I play on a 19x19 goban. I use to play 9x9 with friends, on a chessboard :-)

We could offer different times, goban sizes, handicaps etc... but I think this is not the way FICGS goes : Purity of games and competition. 19x19 go games are long, but we have time... Not a bad thing to cut idleness (particularly mine :))


David Grosdemange    (2006-05-28 16:53:39)
real ?

on this server we don't play only "real chess" , so why play only "real go" ? if a lot players wan't to play this "go variant" , why not to organize 9*9 go tournament ? (we must see if other players want to play 9*9 go)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-28 17:17:21)
Chess & go variants.

Ok David... But Chess 960 isn't chess 'training', as Go 9x9 could be. I think unrated chess tournaments wouldn't have much success.

Let's see if other players want to play go 9x9 ... I think the point is about rating and championship. As there is no rating system and only a title for 19x19, players couldn't be attracted by go 9x9 if there isn't the same challenge. I changed the rules in this way, now more players will play continuously Go tournaments and compete to have a chance to play the Go world championship tournament.


David Grosdemange    (2006-05-28 22:08:48)
challenge ?

if trying to become the ficgs go world champion is a challenge , playing go can be a challenge for chess players who discover go . and beginning with 19*19 is a little hard ...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-29 01:00:30)
annotations

I think too much annotations would give quickly something incoherent... Some players would use it, others no... Most important is commentaries.

About this problem (Qf6 = Qxf6), it is fixed now.


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

Hello Thibault!

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

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

Once again thanking you for this great chess server.


Trent Parker


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-29 13:06:48)
Sorting games

Hello Trent. That's a fine suggestion, thanks.

Actually, there are several ways to sort games usefully, hard to choose. Now the games (in 'My messages') are sorted according to your time of response. Thus the first game appearing is 'most probably' the one you should consider first.

About one of your messages I forgot to respond (sorry), I'll try to offer to play on a javascript/java interface later [help welcome :)] , but I think HTML is quite ok and most compatible. On some computers it consumes less time on dial-up than other servers using Java...


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

Dear Thibault

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

Heinz-Georg


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-29 23:03:44)
Team Championship

Hello to all.

I'm now promoting the site in this way, a team championship will start as soon as possible. (waiting for more players)


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

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

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

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

IMHO ELO would be best.

Knockout or round-robin cycle ?

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-30 13:23:44)
1st SM chess tournament, elo 2443

The first FICGS CHESS SM tournament just started !

http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_SM__000001.html

3 ICCF titled players, 1 FIDE GM, 1 IECG titled player, and 2 'newbies'.. :)

FEM norm : 3 points, FIM norm : 3.5 points, FSM norm : 4 points, FGM norm : 4.5 points...

Have good games !


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-31 15:34:58)
Including games into webpages

Hello to all.

I've added a small feature : it's an adaptable viewer that enables to include a game into a webpage (ie. with frame).

You can easily change text, board & background color, display pgn or not...

See the Help section (bottom) - http://www.ficgs.com/help.html


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

Hello and welcome Lionel :)

That's a very... good question !

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

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

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


Lionel Vidal    (2006-05-31 21:15:10)
Weiqi komi

Hello,

Thanks for that link: it is indeed a good reading. I would suggest also to read the chapter on the rules of Go in 'The go player's almanac' (Bozulich 2001), that gives much more details.

By reading these, you can see that half a point komi is indeed quite uncommon :-)
But an important point is that it should probably depend on the chosen rule, or more precisely on the counting mode, area or territory.
BTW, what is the counting rules here in FICGS ?
Note that this rule question may be quite critical on some life-and-death situation and may change the result of a game! And some of the simplest cases (like bent four in the corner) can arise not too uncommonly.

Lionel


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-01 04:10:56)
Komi, pass, area scoring, ko, seki....

Ok... I'll bring answers and modifications to the rules for all points that remain blurred, today and tomorrow !

The counting method will be Area Scoring (chinese scoring) : When alternate play has ended, each player's score is the number of his stones on the board plus the number of empty intersections surrounded only by his stones.

Now I have a question from a beginner (me) : Is it possible, even with a non entire number komi (ie. 0.5 or 5.5), to have a draw situation ? In other words, what happens if a game can't finish because in example ko rule can't apply ?!

Thanks a lot for your help.


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-06-01 07:32:45)
other chess websites

okey dokey. Thank you. dunno what I did wrong but I check. by the way, it is not my chess site, I only play there for over 10 years.Thanks Wayne


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

Hello,

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

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

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

Lionel


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-01 13:22:24)
Infinite repetition

Couldn't the problem of infinite repetition be solved by giving the full point to White (the 2nd player, not like chess) ? It could be a compensation added to komi, as it can force black to give such stones that provoke repetition !?

But can White force easily such a situation with many stones....... ?


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

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


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-01 15:47:28)
Replacement

I did not forget you, Ryaad. (time sometimes misses, sorry to your opponents..)

Does anyone would accept to replace Ryaad in the first Go tournament that started a few days ago ? Thanks in advance.

Reminder : If players wish to qualify for the FICGS Go championship, they must be among the 11 players who obtained the best results in Go tournaments (see rules).

I think 2 (maybe 3 if the number of players increase quickly) victories in tournaments should assure a place in the WCH tournament.


Lionel Vidal    (2006-06-01 15:56:41)
Replacement

I will be glad to play in that tournament: first time I will not play go face to face... I forsee an nice new experience!

Best wishes.


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

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

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

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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-01 21:25:04)
Discrepancies

It is very clear Lionel.

In another hand, each tournament rules and generally each situation influence the strategy at chess (so other games). And FICGS chess wch rules are special ones in the knockout tournament that should avoid draws. Actually, only a "one game match" can have no influence on 'the game'. (not perfectly true, as the player's strength is another factor)

Rules are flexible, particularly for the game of Go, so I think we can use even uncommom ones, if it is balanced enough (= there's still a challenge). Do you have an idea about this rule avoiding repetition, how many stones or komi it could be worth ?

Another question : Are there situations that look like zugzwang in Go (where the best move could be 'passing') ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-02 12:24:54)
Weiqi : FICGS rules

Thanks for your explanations Lionel. (forum bug is fixed)

I've changed the rules. I would like some opinions before I announce it :

First, now you can pass, just entering 'pass'... Special rules in FICGS are : Suicide of more than one stone is authorized, and infinite repetition means a win (full point) for White. Both players must play until one resign, both players pass (then call referee) or game is adjudicated. Scoring method is area scoring with chinese counting. Eyes in seki count as territory.

Thanks in advance !


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

It's me again :-)

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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-02 16:52:40)
Famous quotes about FICGS :-)

"Who needs drugs and alcohol if he can play big chess on FICGS ?" (HG. L.)

Sorry to the author, I couldn't resist ;)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

FICGS now uses the positional superko rule.


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

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


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

Hello to all.

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

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

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

Best wishes.


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-06-06 05:11:01)
Trent, Here's An Interesting Question!

Trent, IF future teams are named after countries, under what country would I fall?!??? (As I'm from Sri Lanka, and as far as I know I'm the only player actively playing on FICGS, ICCF, IECG etc). Then the only option would be for me to play under another country's banner, eh?! Quite an interesting idea, I might say!


Paul-Iosif Guralivu    (2006-06-06 09:59:27)
Invite other players.

Or you could invite players from countries that have too many players to play for Sri lanka team and you would be the captain.


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

Many good ideas... :)

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

So far, the rules :

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


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

Hello to all.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

So, rules :

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


Tommie Derz    (2006-06-07 00:05:48)
Go applet, ranking list

I am interested how this chess site could develop into a valid site for playing Go. It obviously started by as a server for Chess enthousiasts, which is ok. I suggest a better separation between Go and Chess on this server, resp. a rating list for Go to. It does not make sense to me to have my 'non'-chess-rating of ELO 1400 entered into a list and being silent of the Go rating of e.g. Florescu, Ion (2600?). The chess applet works well, the Go game replayer not.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-07 00:38:57)
Go / Chess

Hello Tommie.

I chose not to implement a Go rating system for several reasons, first and main is: a quite true correspondence Go rating may be very (!) long to achieve, maybe even impossible. It seems to me that the challenge could be elsewhere ie. tournament results, to qualify for the FICGS championship tournament.

About the rating list, so far all new players appear in a unique rating list, soon there will be an established rating list, a provisional rating list and a new player rating list.

About this rating for Ion (2600), where did you see it exactly ?

... at last what happens with the Go applet ? You have to click on 'game description'. If it doesn't work, feel free to tell me what game you try to watch and what happens... Thanks in advance :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-07 00:33:53)
To be or not to be...

Hello Marc.

That's an interesting point of view ! The first reason such a championship could be interesting IMO is, as Dinesh said, it may be a good way of building relationship and camaraderie between players... I don't think this tournament will be a kind of stake for countries (so nationalism is probably very far from here, if it changes I'll reconsider this point), it's not very important and has positive points, so I just say "why not ?"


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-06-07 06:59:09)
Interesting Debate!

Hi, everyone It's quite an interesting debate......regarding whether to name teams after countries or not. Marc, for players like you and I, perhaps we could find some sorta compromise if the team rules allow it. As Thibault says, the problem is that even though our (small)countries hardly have any players interested in correspondence chess to form national teams, playing under another national/country banner is kinda a unique situation (IF allowed). It all depends on whether future FICGS team championship rules might allow it or not. Any creative ideas/suggestions left to make?!


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

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


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

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

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

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

So, why teams at all...

Marc


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-09 14:34:14)
Email webmaster, 2 players matches

Bonjour Julien, merci :)

My email is displayed (just replace the symbol by @) on the 'About' page.

As I explained in another (old) thread, priorities are to reduce the delay for tournaments to start and to make it as simple as possible. As this server offers all games live, I think it to be 'competition oriented' is the best choice. It would be easy to offer many sorts of tournaments, rated/unrated, different time controls, quad/round-robin/ko etc... but it would loose his interest.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-09 14:50:52)
Olympiad...

Hi Trent and Marc.

I must say what Marc says makes sense for me. Actually, if olympiad is a way to know the countries 'chess level', I don't think it would be significant enough in correspondence chess, first because of computers. And regions (asia, oceania, europe...) wouldn't be significative enough.

Anyway, this question is to be solved by players, as there are too few captains to build teams so far. I'll wait a few days more, then I'll withdraw the tournament if no more requests.


Amir Bagheri    (2006-06-13 11:35:10)
help (2 players matches)

i would like to know if it is possible to challenge an individual for a game. ie. I would like to play vs Nigel Davis but dont know how to challenge him.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-13 11:58:41)
2 players matches

Hello Amir.

Sorry, this is not possible yet to invite players for a 2-games match.

Nevertheless, you can start a game with Nigel instantly just entering the FICGS CHESS CLASS M 000005 tournament waiting list. One player more, and the tournament will start !

Another way, as it would be an interesting match for sure, I can create a special match if Nigel agrees to play.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-13 18:28:54)
FICGS chess world championship 1 & 2

Hello to all.

FICGS chess world championship deadline (2006 june 15) is 2 days far from now ! Here is the scheme, allowing all players who registered to start playing at the same time, without loosing the opportunity for new players to register at a later date :

As 2300+ players will enter the cycle at stage 2, the idea is to start 1st (from stage 2) and 2nd (from stage 1) world championship at the same time. Thus, all tournaments will begin at the fixed date for all players who already registered, then a new deadline will be fixed (probably in august/september), and all players registering late for chess wch would begin a tournament each time there's enough new players in the waiting list, with the condition that the ELO average of these new tournaments be equal or superior (as few as possible) to the tournaments that began on June 15.

And good luck to all... :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-13 19:20:19)
1st (stage 2) and 2nd (stage 1)...

Ok :)

The rules state that 2300+ players enter stage 2 of wch cycle directly. If we begin now a cycle at stage 1, they couldn't play before a while... So if first wch begin at stage 2 with 2300+ players and second at stage 1 with 2300- players at the same time, everyone can play !

Furthermore, the 1st wch will begin earlier, "a stage before", that's logical.

2300+ players registering lately could enter the 1st wch at stage 2, 2300- players registering lately could enter the 2nd wch at stage 1.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-13 21:43:17)
Consecutive world championships

These are 2 consecutive championships, nothing more... and a new one will begin after the end of each first stage (probably each year), so ie. in about 8 months (at the end of this stage) : players involved in the 2nd stage of the 1st wch will play the 3rd stage... and they can register to play the 2nd stage of the 2nd wch too. At last, in about a year the first stage of the 3rd wch will begin...


David Grosdemange    (2006-06-13 21:58:25)
..

so players who aren't 2300 rated can't play the real first ficgs_wch ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-14 08:12:37)
FICGS 1st chess world championship

That's right.

However, it's more like an extra championship, it doesn't change anything for players rated under 2300, ie. a player rated 1700 who register next year couldn't play the 2nd FICGS chess championship since 2nd stage begin... But he could register for the 3rd wch.

The positive points are everyone can play immediately and 2nd wch could be a complete cycle (with a final match)


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-06-14 12:08:12)
FICGS 1st chess world championship

Hello Thibault

I don't like your rules. I think it would have been better if all players start in the 1st wch (this time and in future cycles). It would be more attractive for the most players. What do you think is the rating average of the 1st stage groups?
I cannot remember that the 2300-restriction was in the rules when I have registered ...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-14 13:15:33)
FICGS 1st chess world championship

Hello Heinz-Georg !

It's only a logical extension to the rule that divide the championship in a round-robin and a knockout (for the 8 best rated players) tournament. Of course, there's no rule that fit to everyone, only choices... I hope to make the most balanced ones for the whole site.

By this rule, high rated players have a stage less to play (that they would probably win) and it limits the rating gaps (otherwise it would be more like a cup). In most wch competitions, winners and high rated players/teams are qualified for an advanced stage in the tournament.. A quite common and logical system, used everywhere from football world cup [winner qualified for quarter final] to Roland-Garros [qualifications stage], FIDE world championship etc... 2300 rule is a statistical choice, used in IECG too with more parameters. (nevertheless at IECG high rated players can choose to play the first stage too, but IMO it's quite complicate)

I hope to make it as simple and attractive as possible, believe me ;) Of course (and it is mentioned in the rules- preliminaries) rules could still evolve if improvements are decided by the [future] council.

The only negative point is, indeed, only 2300+ players can play the 1st wch, that is in a way not a "complete" championship. But compared to all other positive points (first, everyone can play now), and as 2nd wch starts at the same time, I think this choice is best.

What I think to do is to send all tournament tables to players who registered on 2006 june 16. If finally there are players who don't want to play it, they'll just have to tell me within days, responding by email. It should avoid any forfeit.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-06-14 14:40:34)
FICGS 1st chess world championship

Hello Thibault!

Thank you for your answer.

Two points:

It isn't sure at all that a player with a rating > 2400 will win his group if he had to play a 1st stage group. The CFC-Ch 2003 has shown, that less than 50 percent of the best rating players (even players with rating > 2600) have won their qualification groups.

In the moment we have about 100 players with a rating < 2300 who have registered themselves for the wch. Their rating avarage is about 1720 (!). Is that right? This means (if I understand your rules) the wch groups of the 1st stage will have this rating (+ or - some points). In these groups for a 2200 player it is nearly impossible (even as winner of a group) to get a tournament performance > 2050 (I suspect that this is the reason that players with rating > 2300 not have to play this stage). After the first stage the distance to 2300 will be greater than before.

I have registered myself and I will play. But I'm not really satisfied with that situation.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-14 15:02:11)
Statistics, ELO and performances

For sure, there could be a great work to do with statistics to improve little by little the rules, then we have to find the balance between easy-to-run (and understanding) rules and best ones, but I'm not sure we could improve significantly more, I'll explain why just below. Anyway that's good discussion ! :)

About performance, that's not quite true a 2200 player couldn't perform more than 2050 in stage 1. The rating system do not take account of wins when the ELO difference is superior to 350 points ! So if a 2200 player win all his games with only 2 games (ie. against 2 players rated 1900) calculated, his performance is more than 2400. Now if a 2500 player play stage 1, probably all his games won't be rated at all... Not very interesting :/


Daniel De Noose    (2006-06-15 15:17:03)
Not very satisfy too...

Like Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff, when I registered the tournament it was announced as 1st championship and open to everyone. I don't like when rules change after the registration. Secundo, if you only reserve this 1st tournament to players with rating over 2300, you can change my rating : on the "correspondence" chess site chess-mail I'm over 2370. But as I said to you when I began here I want to improve my real rating beginning like an unrated. But if now the rating is so important to play the 1st championship, I prefer to be correctly rated. Hoping you'll change all this and play really the 1st championship with everybody.

My actual rating in "correspondence chess" :

- chess-mail : kasapov (2370)
- echecsemail : danideno (2280)
- echecsnet : danideno (2271; but it is the highest rating of this site)

Daniel


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

Hello Dorel and Daniel.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Daniel De Noose    (2006-06-15 17:23:38)
It is not the same !

Playing 1st or 2nd Championship is not the same because if you play only the second you can't be the first FICGS champion ! ;-) Secundo, as you explained it at the start of the site, everybody can use databases, computers, ... In that case a 1600 can beat a 2300 if he enters correctly parameters in his chess engine. Because the tournament is not again started you can correct this. After the beginning it will be harder. And what's my rating now ? ;-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-15 17:51:02)
Candidate and World champion...

That's right, Daniel... In another hand, the 1st wch wouldn't be complete without a final match.

Here is a suggestion : What I called 1st wch wouldn't be named 1st wch, it would be only a cycle that will designate the 1st candidate for the 1st wch title and final match... The other one will be the winner of the 1st wch cycle. And both will play the first final match for the 1st wch title. Thus everyone can play immediately, and you play in the 1st world championship.

I think it could satisfy everybody.. !? What do you think ?


Daniel De Noose    (2006-06-15 18:33:39)
Perfect !

I think like this it more equal! Don't think I hope to be the 1st champion (I don't have that ambition), but it's just to have all the players on the same level. Thanks to you ! ;-)


Amir Bagheri    (2006-06-16 13:08:59)
thibault

thank you for your advice as you probaly saw I have registered for a tournament ( i think I am the only one...) I would be grateful if you could contact Nigel and let him know that i would be interested in playing him. Regards Amir


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-16 13:28:11)
Ok

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-16 13:39:02)
GM - SM - M tournaments

Hello Amir.

I don't think a GM tournament begin before a while ;) Actually, not only granmasters can register for this tournament, but players with a rating > 2600 (means who probably have a GM level or title). So far, there's only one player with such a rating. The same for SM tournaments (rating > 2400).

If you liked to play against most probably titled players, you could have registered for a SM tournament (I can change that - exceptionnaly) that should begin in about 3 weeks...


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-06-16 13:55:54)
Statistics, ELO and performances

Hello Thibault!

"About performance, that's not quite true a 2200 player couldn't perform more than 2050 in stage"

Maybe you are right, if most of the players have an established rating. But you can see at the rating list that more than 50 percent of our ratings are provisional - most of them with 1700. The question is how many of these players are good or very good (like Daniel)?


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-17 12:39:45)
Correspondence chess

Hello Wayne.

Correspondence chess is definitely a game of patience...

Note : When you register, you can enter your rating ! The rules state a rating not from FIDE / IECG / ICCF gives at most a 1700 rating... So you could have started with a 1700 rating ! Anyway in july (after the next rating calculation) you can play stronger tournaments... and so on..


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-06-18 14:10:23)
FICGS 1st wch (my last try)

Hello to all,

I think it would be better to start our 1st wch with the regular rules (knock-out and round robin)? Players with rating > 2300 who are not starting in the knock-out can start in the 1st stage of the round robin if they want. If they do not win their group they can neverthless start in the second stage (if their rating is > 2300) of the 1st wch. World champion is the winner of a 24 game knock-out between the winner of the 3rd stage round robin and the 3rd stage knock-out.

What do you think about this?


Tim Bredernitz    (2006-06-18 16:35:30)
Confused...

I understand the rules of the tournament fairly well, but I'm still having trouble figuring out when the games will start. The last post says that the deadline is June 15, but when I check the waiting list it says the deadline is July 1st. I'd just like to know when the games will start being played. Thank you.


Tim Bredernitz    (2006-06-18 16:52:34)
Chess Openings

Hi, I'm wondering what openings other players have experienced success with. I've primarily used the Ruy Lopez, but I've grown tired of it. I haven't really explored any queen's pawn openings, and I'm wondering which ones are effective. Thanks.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-18 23:07:45)
FICGS 1st wch

Hello Heinz-Georg.

I can't see any reason why these players would enter 1st stage if there's no real motivation... Most won't play, for sure.. Logical consequence is they won't play before months... That's a pity in my opinion.

I really think we found a good compromise with Daniel, that can satisfy everyone. Thus 1st wch is a complete cycle, that will designate the 1st FICGS champion. Is there really something more to hope ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-18 23:20:14)
Deadline / Start date

Hello Tim.

FICGS 1st wch will start on 2006 july 1st. A new deadline will be fixed, so that players can begin other tournaments lately, but all players who entered the waiting list already will begin their games on july 1st.


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

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


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

Hi Tim.

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

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

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


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


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-06-19 15:45:34)
FICGS 1st wch

Hello Thibault!

It seems that I haven't really understood what will happen on July 1st. You write "Thus 1st wch is a complete cycle". Does this mean, that the knock-out tournaments of the 8 players with the highest established rating also will start (stage 1)? If not it is not a complete cycle according to FICGS (your) rules - in my opinion.

What happens if a player has a rating > 2300 at the beginning of stage 1 and a rating < 2300 at the beginning of stage 2? May he play stage 2?
What happens if a player has a rating < 2300 at the beginning of stage 1 and a rating > 2300 at the beginning of stage 2? May he play stage 2 even if he hasn't won his round robin group? The rating at which time is essential?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-19 16:19:58)
Go is not a drawn game...

Not for tomorrow, hopefully !

But programs are killing chess little by little for sure... Maybe then we'll play Go, which has the advantage not to be a drawn game (we even don't know the result for sure with a 7.5 komi)... or maybe we'll play big chess :)


Amir Bagheri    (2006-06-19 17:57:15)
Ruy Lopez

Tim, i am now playing a Ruy Lopez in my game vs Nigel Davies. I will try to show that that old opening still have some surprises...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-19 18:42:16)
FICGS 1st world championship

Hello Heinz-Georg.

While watching the wch waiting list, I realized that there could be an improvement more about this "extra-group". So here is the 1st wch scheme (and next ones, without the special group in the first stage), according to the rules.

Stage 1 :

-- Knockout tournament --

FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_1__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_2__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_3__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_4__000001

with John Anderson, Petr Makovsky, Daniel Cinca and 5 other players...

-- Round-robin tournaments --

FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_1__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_2__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_3__000001
(...)

And at last, a special and one-time group :

FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_M__000001

This will be a high rated group, with GM Nigel Davies, GM Amir Bagheri and the ~10 players 2300+ who won't play the knockout tournament according to the rules. The winner of this group will directly qualify for stage 3 round-robin final tournament (a one-time rule). The others can play stage 2 as specified in the rules.

Thus, only the 1st wch will start on july 1st. I think it's fair enough and finally everyone can play...


Stage 2 :

-- Knockout tournament --

FICGS__CHESS__WCH_SEMI_FINAL_1__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_SEMI_FINAL_2__000001

-- Round-robin tournaments --

FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_1__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_2__000001
(...)


Stage 3 :

-- Knockout tournament --

FICGS__CHESS__WCH_KNOCKOUT_FINAL__000001

-- Round-robin tournament --

FICGS__CHESS__WCH_ROUND_ROBIN_FINAL__000001


Stage 4 :

-- Candidates match --

FICGS__CHESS__CANDIDATES_FINAL__000001


Stage 5 :

-- Title match --

FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000001

... if there's a world champion and if he defends his title. Consequently we won't have a stage 5 this time, but as it could happen again in the future...

That's all folks !


Tim Bredernitz    (2006-06-19 23:02:26)
Thanks

Thanks to all, especially Amir. I'm curious as to your game number, and how you use the old Spanish game. Also, Wolfgang makes a good point. I'm not sure the exact stats, but I'm pretty sure almost half or maybe more of the games played at the master level and above end in ties. Chess is a game of creating opportunities and executing against mistakes. Once a player gets to a certain skill level, I'm sure that it's rare that they make mistakes, so its harder for the opponent to win. One side will usually pull out the draw. Thanks again, Tim


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-20 17:17:19)
Re: "Revolver" movie...... cinema UFO !

Yes :) ... I saw it in french version... It was really IMO one of the biggest deceptions of the year... probably because I expected a lot, when seeing this fantastic trailer.

This film should have been one of the greatest chess (games in general) relative movies. There was all matters, and many interesting philosophical thoughts... maybe not supported enough by the movie. And I suspect director Guy Ritchie of having voluntarily suicided the movie during the shooting... Luc Besson or other reasons... How to explain such fantastic pictures, then such obvious faults all long. The screenplay surely was better than the result.

Finally, cinema press judged it as totally pretentious and it was a commercial failure. That's a pity, really.


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

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


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-06-22 17:22:08)
Interesting question for the Gambit's a

Amir, interesting question. do you know that 41 % of queens accepted result in a loss for white. Even worse Kings gambit (not in favour) 47% of gambits accepted are lost for white. I do not like offering in general unless I want to play a interesting tactical fight against a conservative positional player. This reason enough to play a queens. Just my two bits worth.


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

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

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

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

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

... in classical time controls.


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-24 14:31:15)
Chess Samizdat

I just read many Chess Samizdat articles (some from chess players around here)... Really funny and interesting. I particularly liked this quote from CJS Purdy : "The only valid excuse for withdrawal from a chess tournament is death, and then only with a death certificate" :)

From the new chess dictionary by John C. Knudsen.

http://www.correspondencechess.com/syndication/articles/0003.htm


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-27 16:58:03)
FICGS world chess championship

A minor update in the rules that fixes many problems for future wch cycles... Nothing has changed in the rules for the 1st cycle that begins in 4 days, changes only concern next cycles, with the extension of the one-time rule mentioned above.

The equation was :

- No confusion with the cycles when entering the waiting list (2300+ players qualified for 2nd stage of the previous cycle is too confusing).

- Avoiding tournaments with too big rating gaps (and encourage high rated players to participate)

- The formula combining knockout tournament, round-robin cycle (so that everyone can play wch, with no more than 5 stages), and the final 2 players matches in the last stages.

- Making it as understable as possible...


It is now mentioned in the rules that 2300+ players will play 1st stage in high rated groups (ratings superior or equal to 2300). Winners of such groups (same criterias) will be qualified for the 3rd stage round-robin tournament, the others will play 2nd stage.

As all games are played with rapid time controls, a new cycle will probably begin every 6 months !


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-06-28 19:31:18)
Ficgs chess world championship 1&2

here is easy qurestion. I a 1800 + player at july 1 (2250+ at other correspondence cites). Now the easy question. If I should win all my rounds, will I or will I not be overall world champion. Not likely, but a nice goal to think about. I am not used to losing tournaments, never have yet, anywhere


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

Hello Paul-Iosif.

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

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


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

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

FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_C__000002
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_B__000006


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-01 17:20:35)
1st FICGS chess championship started !

Hello to all.

As you may have noticed, 23 new tournaments just started :

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


4 matchs (quarter final) started in the knockout tournament

QF 1 : John Anderson (SM) - Farit Balabaev (GM)
QF 2 : Daniel Cinca - Peter Schuster (SM)
QF 3 : Gilles Hervet (SM) - Gino Figlio (IM)
QF 4 : Petr Makovsky (SM) - John Knudsen (SM)


19 tournaments (groups) started in the round-robin cycle, 17 tournaments with an elo average between 1672 and 1732 (16 tournaments of 17 are in a 32 points range), and 2 "group M" with an elo average about 2390.

All round-robin tournaments are groups of 7 players as it was the best way to make it fair.

I wish you all good games and have fun :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-01 17:44:41)
Format For Championship

Hello John.

After all, if it wasn't unusual, the interest would be lower for sure... :)

So you noticed, the 8 players with the highest established correspondence chess ratings play a pure knockout tournament.

I thought about this format a long time ago (and a long time). Combining a knockout tournament (more "spectacular") and a round-robin cycle (everyone can play, no more than 5 cycles) gather together the advantages of both. It is one of the reasons I made FICGS... I think pure knockout or pure round-robin wch cycle is not efficient enough for chess championships.

The other thing you'll notice in the rules : "The special rule is that in case of equality (4-4), the winner is the player with the strongest tournament entry rating if all games are draw, the player with the lowest tournament entry rating if not all games are draw. The winner is qualified for the next stage."

This rule (in case of equality in the round-robin tournaments, the player with the strongest TER is qualified too) is another way to avoid short draws... It may sound strange at a first sight, but I really think it's fair enough and a good way to find most probably the really strongest players in the last stages. Anyway, it's amazing for sure :)


The FICGS chess wch rules :

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


Peter Konig    (2006-07-02 10:50:19)
rules & ratings

Hi, the rules on registration were different, and stating personal rating seemed just to be of informative value, no checking of numbers or anything. Now, it seems that I have a disadvantage by stating that, I feel treated second class (I wholeheartedly ackowledge that there are much stronger players around) and my motivation dropped considerably. it is like in real live. There are people earning more or less money, but they should be equal before the law (rules). That's in the spirit of 1789! Je t'embrasse, Peter Konig


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-02 12:52:15)
rules & ratings

Hello Peter.

Indeed, you were one of the very first registered players. I have fixed the rules since this time, though it seems to me this point was the same already.

Anyway, ratings of course are not only informative (like in life :)), as it allows to play class tournaments. Now, there must be a way to choose a winner in certain cases, even if there's no "perfect" way. But if you win the tournament, there's no discussion. It only lights the battle a little more... When a player register he can ask for a >1700 rating only if he has got an "official" rating already, so the influence of choice is not so important at registration.

Your reference to 1789 is amazing, but actually we ARE equal before the law (rules). Doesn't mean the law is perfectly fair, that's impossible, of course. Like in life... The rules slightly favourize the best players. Je t'embrasse itou :)


David Grosdemange    (2006-07-02 18:53:50)
qualification for 2nd round ?

how many players will be qualified for the 2nd round of the round robin tournaments ???
that's not written in the rules .....
how many groups of how many players for the 2nd round ??
and 17 is a prime number ... so there won't be the same number of qualified players in each group (or the groups of the 2nd group won't have same number of players) ......
there's a lot of not ansered questions ...


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

Bonjour David !

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

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

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

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


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

Hello Pablo.

There's no problem :)

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-04 01:25:41)
Go rating list

Hello Sebastian.

So it was a GO rating about Ion... (I did not understand that :/)

Still thinking about a Go rating list... If I implement something would it be better to have only informative ratings (from federations) or rating calculated from the games played here (probably not very relevant) ?

Anyway, players who didn't play a single chess game with a rating <1700 (~not from FIDE / IECG / ICCF) won't appear on the chess rating list in a while.


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

Hello Gino.

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

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

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

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


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

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


John Knudsen    (2006-07-04 05:31:49)
Symmetrical games

This format (8 games against the same player at once) is really strange and not normal at all, IMHO. Don't get me wrong - I am enjoying my games. I would not recommend this format for future versions of the quarter-final. Most strong players that I know would not even consider playing in this kind of format for one minute. Better to have a RR, with X number of players advancing from that. If you wish to make the championship attractive to stronger players, you won't want to repeat this format in the future. John


Henri-Louis Muller    (2006-07-04 09:39:01)
temps de reflexion

Je suis également d'avis qu'il existe un très sérieux problème concernant le temps de réflexion dans les parties ! Un joueur peut ainsi rester "trainer" avec une partie durant DES MOIS sans jouer, et sans AUCUNE justification ! Il faudrait aussi reglementer la durée PAR coup et non seulement sur la totalité des coups joués. J'ai CINQ parties dans le même cas :perte certaine de l'adversaire, et on attend 50 à 90 jours avant de répondre ou de dépasser le temps !! Evidemment, le fair-play et la sportivité jouent aussi un rôle.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-04 12:02:45)
triche et fair-play

Bonjour Henri-Louis.

Encore une fois cela fait partie intégrante du jeu par correspondance... Il n'est pas rare que les joueurs "gèrent" leurs défaites et victoires dans le temps pour les faire coincider avec les calculs de classement de leur choix. Le problème est identique à l'ICCF et ailleurs, et il n'y a aucune solution ou règle raisonnable pouvant régler le problème. Lorsqu'on a compris que le jeu par correspondance est une question de plusieurs mois, on finit par comprendre que le problème est somme toute négligeable...

De nombreuses parties jouées sur le serveur sont jouées beaucoup plus rapidement qu'à la normale, cela n'empêche qu'il s'agit d'échecs par correspondance, avec la cadence du jeu par correspondance. Diminuer le temps par coup ne changerait absolument pas le problème si tu y réfléchis bien. Quoiqu'il en soit, concernant la partie dont tu avais fait appel, qu'elle se termine maintenant ou fin aout, ça ne change rien, elle sera prise en compte dans le classement de septembre.

Pour finir, je rappelle qu'il existe une cadence "rapide" (tournois rapides, championnat), c'est donc le choix de chacun. Patience :)


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


John Knudsen    (2006-07-04 18:50:05)
Symmetrical games

Hi Thibault: The format is unusual, and not desired, IMHO, because you do not need an 8-game match with one opponent to determine who is the superior player. Think about it - it is 4 games with white, and 4 games with black. Overkill. You mention OTB chess players. What OTB player has played an 8-game match with the same opponent, lately? Never happens. It also never happens in serious correspondence chess, except here. I do not want to complain too much, because I thank you for the neat server, and the opportunity to play some serious games for free. However, the format will need to change, in the future, if you want to attract excellent players. John


Gino Figlio    (2006-07-04 18:54:07)
Difficult to prove

If it's difficult to prove who is "cheating" in a match like this, it's practically impossible to prove foul play when the incident occurs in 2 different tournaments, against 2 different opponents. I'm sure this has happened in ICCF but unfortunately there is no way to detect it. I remember chessfriend claimed to have this figured out, but it was just one person's opinion. Players need to be aware of this problem and avoid it, nothing worse than being forced to play against yourself.


Gino Figlio    (2006-07-04 19:08:38)
8-game matches

Just to clarify my position about this format, I think it's just fine if the players are alert and avoid playing symmetrical lines/games. I actually think it's a good idea to play a simultaneous 8-game match to see who's better. It's just a bit different than your normal round-robin tournament, perhaps that makes your site unique!


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-04 19:33:17)
Symmetrical games

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

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


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

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


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

John... ??? :)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-04 21:40:51)
statistics and cheating

Gino, this is one thing sure : symmetrical games played on FICGS will be detected... No statistics here in question.

Anyway, symmetrical games (cheating) consequences won't be the same in correspondence chess and on ICC, that's obvious. A computer is much stronger than any human in rapid chess, and computers are easily available on ICC. In correspondence chess, very strong players are not so easy to reach ;)

Actually that's not so comparable. Note it is mentioned in the rules "any kind of help is authorized", so a player could be helped by a computer, or even by other players...


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

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


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

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

We discussed about it in another thread :

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-06 16:16:01)
Thanks to all...

That's quite a good start indeed... (to be continued) :)

I'd like to thank all players who helped to introduce FICGS to their federation, forums, friends... We just welcomed many Turkish players this way, and I hope many other players from continents not very represented yet (asia, arabia..) will join us soon. That's great to see people here from everywhere in the world, even countries I did not ever heard about before :)


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

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

Just different...

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-06 16:38:23)
Out-of-time

Hello Marc.

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

Your opinion ?

Marc


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

Hello Marc.

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

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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-08 17:37:33)
Vacation (change)

Hello Stefano... That's not possible. (see rules & thread below).

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

Anyway, it won't change anything to your clock as days have be added already (works like a "reservoir"). You can play all month long if you want.


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

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

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

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

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

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


Josh Knapp    (2006-07-09 06:54:48)
Private notes

I'm new to the site, so far I like it. But I am curious, are there any plans to make a private notes feature? I have played on several other sites and make notes all the time. I know I could make them on my computer, but the problem with that is that I often switch back and forth between two different machines.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-10 01:24:28)
Limit for one move

Hello Alarich.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Cheers & viva Italia.


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-07-10 09:03:46)
Re: Italy vs France.......

What the tv replays showed was that the Italian player was holding Zidane from behind a bit. Zidane walked forward after a few seconds, turned around and headbutted the Italian player's chest. Perhaps it was one of those rare moments of uncontrolled tantrum/anger by him. A pity it happened in this final. (FIFA rules allow straight red cards for intentional hitting, butting, stamping, two legged fouls etc). Let's wait and see what the two players have to say/reveal about their incident later on. (It must be mentioned that Italy's penalty kicking was excellent in the penalty shootout. The shots were fast, had good height & spot on. A pity for France that Trezeguet hit the penalty too high).


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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again. My best to you.


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

Hi Thibault

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-15 17:51:39)
Big chess

Hello Heinz-Georg.

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-16 14:50:26)
a suggestion

Ok. I'll add two forms for each game : One for personal notes, another for public comments (only by players themselves)...


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

Hello to all.

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

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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-19 02:54:06)
Search : commented games

I've added a link in the 'Search games' page to find all games commented by players... First comment made by David is very eloquent ;)

Feel free to tell me if you have ideas of criterias to search games. Also added in the 'Search games' page : search by opening. Now 3 ways, this new one, Wikichess, and the form below the menu (improved).


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

Hello Gino.

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

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

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

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

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


What do you think is best ?

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-19 18:05:41)
FICGS championship : new groups

A new group just started in the 1st FICGS wch :

FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_18__000001

Waiting for another player with a ~1700 rating and a new one will start.

As the rating average of new players significantly decreases, I can't guarantee all players (most with a 1200 rating and below) who entered the waiting list after the start of the tournaments will play this first WCH (late groups rating average should be equal or superior to other groups).


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

This game is pure madness.

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

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


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

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


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

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

---------

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

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

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


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

Any predictions ?


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

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

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

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

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

- Servers will improve functionality and ease of use.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-23 16:00:42)
Wikichess : Modifiability

Hello Dirk Jan.

It's not possible to modify a comment made by a stronger player (> +100 points ELO) in order to maintain a kind of "trust level"...

Anyway, chess game is still large enough for everyone ;)


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-24 13:03:25)
Future of correspondence chess......

That's a fine analysis, Glen.

However, it's legitimate to consider that chess at a higher level is becoming much harder so that some of the very best players may stop their career, thinking that it's no worth the energy anymore, for results more influenced by 'chance' in statistics...

How many "super-grandmasters" (2700+) said that each point over this mark represents more and more work ?

It's probably the same (and more) in correspondence chess. I do think that it's still possible to improve a lot ! .. but there's a lack of a higher class of players. That's a pity the very best correspondence chess players (ie. former ICCF world champions : Joop van Oosterom, Gert Jan Timmerman...) retire or at least don't defend their title since they achieved it. Of course it's a lot of time, but result is the top class appear to be bigger and there's no clear champion. That's not good IMO to popularize correspondence chess.

All games need champions. I read recently on a Go forum that the success of Chess nowadays was due to his champions (Go is not popular yet in the west because there's noone to represent it, except a manga [Hikaru No Go]..), Garry Kasparov, Bobby Fischer... That's true IMO, and that's what particularly misses to correspondence chess. Maybe things won't change in ICCF (maybe I should pretend to the board :)), but anyway that's why I chose the knockout system for the FICGS world chess championship, and the possibility for the winner to play a final against a challenger. We'll see...


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

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


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

Thanks Thibault for the response.

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

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

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

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

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


Glen D. Shields    (2006-07-24 17:11:03)
LOL Dinesh

Dinesh - definitely think you're on to something :) If we ever play, you can send still pictures as attachments until the live chatting technology is commonly used to play!


Glen D. Shields    (2006-07-24 17:18:17)
LOL Dinesh

Dinesh - definitely think you're on to something :) If we ever play, you can send still pictures as attachments until the live chatting technology is commonly used to play!


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

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


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

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

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


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-07-26 00:32:35)
I'm feeling guilty

I just read The touching story of Glen and frankly I feel guilty. I complained here of basically, having to play a 1400 player. Reason obvious he has a 2800 rated program, but so do I. Glen earned his stature. the old fashon way, brain power, intuition, chess knowledge and a strong memory, putting all these tools to work for many, many years. My CC rating elsewhere is 2200+, sorry to admit my programs got me there. In the fairness vain, I didnt earn such a rating. I sorta like to kid my self that all the players I play use comps too. So I tell my self I earned this rating. I earned it playing on servers against people, just like me doing the same as I, getting help/advise from a program. I do not believe this is right, it is not fair for a player such as Glen. I do not have an answer. I am all in favour of Artificial intelligence and hardware advances applied to chess. I am a EE so it is natural for me to be deeply involved.


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

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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-26 20:46:02)
New profile feature : Photos :)

Just added this new feature in 'Preferences'. You can now upload a photo... (JPG format, 100 ko max)

Thanks to Dinesh for the idea (indirectly). By the way, for live video chat you can use other services... :) (we are still there to play chess ;))


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-27 11:20:24)
ajout en cours ;)

ce ne sera pas dans la liste ELO mais dans la liste des joueurs (classés par ordre alphabétique).

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

je suis en train de le rajouter, ça devrait être en ligne d'ici quelques minutes...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-28 02:31:50)
Blogs !

Everyday a new feature, I keep in the rhythm ;)

You may have noticed this link ('see the players blog') at the top of the forum page. A new interface that simply looks like the forum, but built like a blogs website.

You may want to relate your Chess life or Go philosophy, your games or whatever.. you can do it there.

Like in the forum, links are automatically parsed. The html < br > tag to begin a new line. Comments by everyone are also available.


Graham Wyborn    (2006-07-29 00:14:17)
Country Flag

I notice that a few players now use the "England" flag. I seem to remember that when I joined, that I did not have this option. I would like to change from the Union Jack Flag to the English Flag. How can I do this?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-29 13:04:12)
Chess analysis tools

I hope that analysis tools won't improve too much. The obvious problem will be (already is) draws. Not at the highest level, but ... if all games are draw at a high level, the interest will decrease for many players.


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

Hello to all.

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

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


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

Hello to all.

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

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

Thibault


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

Thanks ! :)


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

How can I play "Pass" on my move?


Graham Wyborn    (2006-08-01 23:53:22)
England not a country?

England is not a country!! What is it then? In the football world cup, we played as England, not United Kingdom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_terminology part of which is quoted above. "England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland = constituent countries of the United Kingdom." It is like saying France, England and many other countries belong to the EU, therefore all EU countries should have the EU flag, not there home country. I would prefer the English flag, but I can live with the Union Jack flag.


Graham Wyborn    (2006-08-02 00:19:42)
ICCF

England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland are all member countries of the ICCF. No players are said to come from the UK! Interesting to note that the ICCF has Ireland as a whole, not Eire and Northern Ireland.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-02 00:35:49)
ICCF members / countries

Interesting point... But do ICCF display another country code and flag than ISO norm for each player (I would be quite surprised, and it would be a bit complicated) ? Or country-members list is just something separated from players ? (so it wouldn't solve the problem)


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-08-02 16:10:49)
Inactive Rating List

Thibault, I see that some players don't seem to be playing in any of the tournaments! though they are listed in the Rating List. Any future plans to list them under an Inactive Rating List perhaps?! Just a suggestion.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-02 16:38:07)
Inactive player list

Hi Dinesh.

That's planned. I'll add an inactive player list in september...


Jose Antonio Marin Millan    (2006-08-02 20:18:18)
New groups of the 1st WCH

Of whichever players they will be the new groups of the WCH? The inscriptions were made according to playing not more than 12 games.


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

Hello José Antonio.

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

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


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

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

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

Nice...

Marc


Jose Antonio Marin Millan    (2006-08-02 22:44:12)
Thanks for the answer

Thanks for the answer. He thought that all the players when following including in the waiting list were going to be including in a new group. I understand that single a group of 7 players in this First WHC gambles warm Greetings


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-02 23:07:36)
Adjudication, forced mate & rules

Hello Marc.

According to the rules, the game has been adjudicated.

I think this is a good moment to discuss this adjudication rule.. (see 11.5 - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html)

Surely it can be improved, but how.. I'd like to have players opinion on what cases (position + time) should be adjudicated or not, so that we find a better & fair compromise.

Any ideas ?

Thibault


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

Thanks Thibault.

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

To Graham : Sure you are right.

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

Marc


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-03 10:49:34)
Special cases (health..) & server rules

Hello Roger !

I hope you are fine now...

I'm afraid that health problems have no reasonable solution, as many people expect from server rules to avoid human factor as much as possible...

A high rated player, also one of the very first registered player on FICGS had this problem too, and I did not find a solution to save his games. We both "resigned".

Anyway, I see that only your games in 1st WCH have been lost on time, and you have been replaced already in the tournament. Even if you are in the waiting list again, you probably couldn't play this WCH, cause several 1200 players are waiting already. Sorry about that :(

Best wishes.

Thibault


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-03 20:30:44)
Update of the 11.5 rule

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

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


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

Hello to all.

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


Roger Weber    (2006-08-04 01:27:50)
thanks

Thanks, I hope I'll be fine for the future. By the way, is there a possibility yet to arrange games with a chosen player? Regards, Roger.


Gino Figlio    (2006-08-04 02:55:44)
tricks

Hi Thibault,

Players use tricks to distract the opponent when they suspect they are losing, one of them is offering draws many times, another trick is to delay the game.

I am afraid this rule can be used as another trick by a player losing the game, but still able to call the referee and claim a draw.

If you allow them to do this once a month, even better for them.

I suggest using more strict criteria to call the referee: obvious checkmate or tablebase win...otherwise this rule may be abused to distract the opponent...

Best,

Gino


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

Hi Gino.

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

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

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


Marc Lacrosse    (2006-08-04 17:05:33)
WCH tournaments

In the 7-players qualification tournaments for the Wch there are usually two 2100+ players together with five players with a much lower rating.
As there is only one player qualified for the next step, isn't there an enormous advantage for the one of the two better rated players who happens to be white in the game with the other higher rated player (assuming that both can hope for very good results against lower-rated players)?
This is probably unavoidable ...

Marc

PS what does happen if two players finish 1st ex aequo with a draw in their mutual encounter and similar results against all others?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-04 17:47:56)
WCH tournaments

Hello Marc.

The new group you're playing in (probably the last built before august 15) has a bigger gap ("écart-type") than others.. It was not possible to build it in another way.

The advantage is given by the rating to the 'best' player in all stages (knockout or round-robin), but that's the challenge, and the way of these WCH rules.. (see previous threads about WCH)

However, it's not obvious that top players win all other games... A single draw should decide.


Brian Rucker    (2006-08-08 08:24:04)
Playing go

does anyone know where i can go to play a go game here


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-08 12:09:40)
Suggestion (sponsors)

Hi Dinesh.

I'm looking at everything of course, it would be great to get sponsors and prizes for free tournaments ie. WCH... The more success, the more chances, so still working. It will take time anyway...

In a near future : Tournaments with entry fees & money prizes should start in October, I have many new ideas to make it attractive for the most, titled players as beginners, and it should bring something to the whole site.


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

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


Mladen Jankovic    (2006-08-12 20:11:51)
Advanced Chess

Computers have their advantage in the field of tactics, while humans have their advantage as strategists. A combination should be better than either on their own. A player capable of combining the advantages of both well should be the best.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-13 15:09:54)
WCH waiting list closed

Hello to all.

It won't be possible to start new WCH tournaments for this first stage.

Total : 21 groups, 2 groups M, 4 knockout quarter final, 169 players playing, about 190 entered the waiting list (replacements, forfeits...)

The waiting list will be closed during a few months.


Graham Wyborn    (2006-08-13 17:32:35)
(download) in Go games!

Recently started playing Go. Similar problem to (download) in chess. If I hoover over the Go (download) button, the ballon reads, "Download this game in PGN format". If I press it, it tries to download game into my chess database!
Can you help? You solved it last time, can you do it again?


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

Hello Thibault,

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-14 19:39:28)
Activities on the FICGS server

I'll think about that. I have to make a "static" statistic page anyway...

Inactive players
Active chess players
Active Go players

Any other ideas ?


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-08-15 17:32:04)
Statistics

Some suggestions:

- all winners of a tournament (including the number of won tournaments)
- the player which plays or has ended most games
- the player which has obtained most points


Benjamin Aldag    (2006-08-17 19:42:02)
Ratings ???!!!

Hello, i have a question about the Rating-System here. There are many players here, with an offical FIDE or NATIONAL ratingnumber under 1800. Some of these players have here at FICGS a ratingnumber over 2000 !!! Of course, this is correspondence-chess, but it would be a nice ratingfeature, to include the official FIDE/NATIONAL ratingnumber at the FICS-Ratingformula. Benny


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-17 21:57:51)
Ratings FIDE / ICCF

Hello Benjamin.

These players probably have an established correspondence chess rating over 2000 at ICCF or IECG. Players can't be forced to specify their FIDE rating, but they can do it in the 'player informations' text area.


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

Hi,

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

Benny


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-22 14:36:59)
Re: Thematic Blackmar......

Hi Marc & Dinesh... You're right. Anyway it's too late, already 5 (!) players in the waiting list. So we'll see...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-22 14:55:18)
How to know future rating

Hello to all.

A reminder about future rating and personal statistics... You can check it by going into Preferences, click on the picture just after your chess rating, a new window will appear, then click on "elo"... Several pages with different informations will be displayed.

You can check these informations for any player, by clicking on this pic in the rating list.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-22 16:48:47)
Thematic Blackmar : 1 day !

Obviously, you were interested in playing Blackmar thematic tournament. The waiting list has been completed in only 1 day :)

I'll try to find more openings like this one...


Benjamin Aldag    (2006-08-22 17:48:09)
I prefer the following Gambit

Ok, here my idea, for one of the following thematic tourneys.

The Goering Gambit:

1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6
3.d4 exd4
4.c3 dxc3
5.Nxc3

This Gambit is full of great tactical play.

Benny


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-22 18:15:39)
Private messages

I don't think a kind of webmail could be really useful... Emails could be displayed (player's choice) for connected players only. What do you think ?


Benjamin Aldag    (2006-08-22 18:56:37)
Kings Gambit is disproved !

Hey,

the Kings Gambit is since a few years disproved and not playable. The Goering Gambit isn't disproved and still a good Gambit.

Benny


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-22 19:52:28)
Thematic tournaments & King's gambit

Danish gambit and scotch gambit have been played already. (not far)

FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000005
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000006

I'll keep the idea...

Where did you see that king's gambit is not playable ??? Disproved doesn't mean anything IMO... (& this is probably the most known chess 'troll' :))


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

Ok,

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

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

Benny


Benjamin Aldag    (2006-08-22 20:15:34)
^^^^^^^^Once again...

Black play the Latvian. And whit will win ever in each variation. Thats my opinion. Benny


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

Hi Don.

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


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

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


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

Hi,

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

Benny


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

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

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


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

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


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

Hi again,

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

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

Benny


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-24 20:32:23)
Re: Why do you play corr-chess ?

Because there are no chess players where I live... :)

And maybe because I'm quite perfectionist too ;)


Samy Ould Ahmed    (2006-08-24 21:42:54)
Easy :)

To play chess 24h a day lol


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-08-25 01:31:24)
Re: Re: Why do you play corr-chess ?....

You zee, I play zees thing calld corr- chess becawse I'm a firm beleever in zi phrase: " Off With Zi King's Head ".


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-26 01:08:25)
bug fixed: en-passant captures

The "en-passant" bug is now fixed.

According to the rules, the games have been adjudicated...

Sorry to the players :/


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

Hello,

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

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

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

Benny


Don Burden    (2006-08-26 18:51:54)
Opening Idea

I'd say it is a fairly big advantage to black. He's a solid pawn up and threatens to win another. Found two games in my database with higher rated players:

[Event "ICCF MN/12 corr"]
[Site "ICCF corr"]
[Date "1995.06.30"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Majewski, Jan"]
[Black "Chorvat, Marian"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C54"]
[WhiteElo "2335"]
[BlackElo "2305"]
[PlyCount "122"]
[EventDate "1995.??.??"]
[Source "www.chesslib.no"]
[SourceDate "2006.04.01"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 Nxe4 8. O-O O-O 9. d5 Bxc3 10. bxc3 Ne7 11. Re1 Nf6 12. d6 Nf5 13. Ba3 Nxd6 14. Bxd6 cxd6 15. Qxd6 Ne8 16. Qd5 Nf6 17. Qd6 Ne8 18. Qd2 d6 19. Ng5 Nf6 20. Rad1 d5 21. Bb3 h6 22. Ne4 Bg4 23. Nxf6+ Qxf6 24. f3 Qb6+ 25. Qd4 Be6 26. Bxd5 Bxd5 27. Qxb6 axb6 28. Rxd5 Rxa2 29. f4 Rc8 30. Rd3 Rc2 31. Ree3 Ra8 32. h4 Raa2 33. Rg3 Rd2 34. Rde3 Kf8 35. Re4 b5 36. Re5 Rab2 37. Rc5 b4 38. Rc8+ Ke7 39. cxb4 Rxb4 40. Rxg7 Rxf4 41. Rh7 Rf6 42. Kh2 Ke6 43. h5 Rd5 44. g4 Rd4 45. Kg3 Rd3+ 46. Kg2 Rd6 47. Re8+ Kd7 48. Rf8 Ke7 49. Rhh8 Ke6 50. Re8+ Kd5 51. Re7 b6 52. Rf8 Rf4 53. Kg3 Rdf6 54. Rc8 Rf3+ 55. Kg2 Rf2+ 56. Kg1 R2f4 57. Rg8 b5 58. Re3 b4 59. Kg2 Kd4 60. Rb3 Rb6 61. Kg3 Rf1 0-1

[Event "ICCF MN/12 corr"]
[Site "ICCF corr"]
[Date "1995.06.30"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Mathias, Manfred"]
[Black "Chorvat, Marian"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C54"]
[WhiteElo "2370"]
[BlackElo "2305"]
[PlyCount "110"]
[EventDate "1995.??.??"]
[Source "www.chesslib.no"]
[SourceDate "2006.04.01"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 Nxe4 8. O-O O-O 9. d5 Bxc3 10. bxc3 Ne7 11. Re1 Nf6 12. d6 Nf5 13. dxc7 Qxc7 14. Qb3 d5 15. Bd3 Be6 16. Rb1 b6 17. Qc2 g6 18. Bb2 Ne8 19. Re2 Neg7 20. Rbe1 Rfe8 21. Qd2 Nd6 22. c4 dxc4 23. Qc3 f6 24. Bxg6 hxg6 25. Qxf6 Qf7 26. Rxe6 Qxf6 27. Rxf6 Rxe1+ 28. Nxe1 Re8 29. Nf3 Re2 30. Be5 Nf7 31. Bd4 Re6 32. Kf1 Rxf6 33. Bxf6 b5 34. Bc3 Ne6 35. h4 Nf4 36. a3 Nd5 37. Bb4 a6 38. g3 Kg7 39. Ke2 Kf6 40. Ba5 Nd6 41. g4 Nb7 42. Bd2 a5 43. Bg5+ Kg7 44. Ne5 c3 45. Kd3 b4 46. Kc4 Nb6+ 47. Kd4 Nc5 48. axb4 axb4 49. f3 Nd5 50. Nc4 Ne6+ 51. Kd3 Nxg5 52. hxg5 b3 53. Na3 Kf7 54. f4 c2 55. Nxc2 Nxf4+ 0-1



Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-27 14:49:29)
CheckMate = Not lost yet

Hello Ryaad.

"Reminder : Chess games are not adjudicated automatically if a player is checkmated. You still have to resign (rules)."

Kind regards.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-31 01:51:59)
Go (re -> Julien)

Points are not counted automatically in Go games (not possible), even after both players pass... Players may discuss the score by passing more than 2 times, but in all cases one of them has to resign to end the game (or call referee in case of disagreement)...

About your Go games, I saw you use a personal strategy quite far from theory (basically corners, bands, then center)... Original one, but it will be hard, undoublty :)


Marius Zubac    (2006-09-01 16:19:35)
Title norms page update

Hi, My question is how and when is the title norms information page (from player's statistics) get updated. Thanks


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-01 17:11:46)
Go / Weiqi tournaments : New categories

Hello to all.

New Go tournament categories have been created.

PRO category, for players ranked 1 dan and above (Go elo > 2099)
DAN category, for players ranked 10 kyu and above (Go elo > 1099).
KYU category, for all Go players, whatever their rating...

Rules have been updated for the rating calculation and Go championship (a win in a KYU tournament = 1 point, a win in a DAN tournament = 2 points, a win in a PRO tournament = 3 points).

Feel free to post here any suggestion to improve this site for Go game...

(& don't forget this is not a chess variant ;))

Kind regards.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-01 17:37:52)
FICGS titles update

This site will work by itself soon... :)

Thanks Benjamin. I'll post soon again about the council/staff, moderators etc.. Feel free to tell me if you're interested ;)

About titles, I'll add that players who will get a FICGS title could probably have one at ICCF, so they're invited to try...


The first norms calculation just occured. Here are the result(s) :

FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_M__000001 : Zubac, Marius EM=1,IM=1


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-09-02 11:39:12)
Re: FICGS titles update...........

As a fellow correspondence chess player, let me take this opportunity to CONGRATULATE Marius Zubac for achieving the title norms. Well done!


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

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


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-09-03 14:04:49)
Re:

All the players I've come across on FICGS are quite friendly: 1. Some of them keep a good chess conversation going. 2. Some of them ask & answer questions. Oh, I almost forgot! 3. A few say nothing at all.... absolutely nothing..... silent mode.


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

Hello Joachim.

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

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

Anyway, all suggestions are welcome.


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

Hi Charlie

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

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


Regards

Marc


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-04 16:42:15)
Re: Clock running while on holidays

Hello David.

There shouldn't be other problems since the clock display bug at the beginning of august... I send you an email to check this.

Best regards. Thibault


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

Hey Charlie,

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

Benny


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

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


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

Hello Ulrich.

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

Is it understandable ? :)

Best regards. Thibault


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

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


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

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


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

Hello Dirk & Ulrich

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

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


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

Hello to all.

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

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

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

Thanks in advance ! :)

Thibault


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

Hello to all.

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

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

All comments welcome.


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

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

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

Thanks.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-09-05 17:03:50)
Time to display all informations

35 seconds - but the page is great


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-05 17:07:17)
Time to display all informations

Hmm.. That's a real problem :/

Could you tell me more about your processor / browser / internet speed ?
(by email if you prefer)

Thanks !


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-05 17:40:48)
Time to display all informations

Do you know your computer (processor) speed ? That's very slow...


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-09-05 17:52:21)
Time to display all informations

Pentium 4, 3 GHz

I have closed all "working" applications (Word, Excel), but the time is the same.

How much time takes your browser?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-05 18:08:35)
Time to display all informations

....... don't laugh :)

More than 60 seconds. I have a timeout, so I can't even load the whole page !

Reason is first a ~33kbps connection (no adsl where I live), then a slow computer, for internet only.. :))

This is prehistory here ;)


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-09-05 18:26:38)
Time to display all informations

No reason to laugh. Excuse my question! I hope you don't have to develop these wonderful programs at this computer ... Or with what have you earned this punishment?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-05 19:27:54)
Time to display all informations

Of course not. I have other computers... But slow connections have advantages : Finally I just can't loose too much time on the internet this way, watching 'youtube' videos or hunting divx & mp3 on edonkey, bit torrent...

So, convinced ? .. do we exchange ? :)


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-06 03:41:02)
Time to display all informations

It seems complications did not begin yet... :)

Heinz-Georg, could you try a last time to load the tournament (with boards) page ? It should run 'a bit' faster now... Thanks !


Dirk Ghysens    (2006-09-06 08:14:02)
Time to display...

Here in Poland (384 Kb/sec) it took 22 seconds to download; during the first 13 seconds nothing was being downloaded, apparently.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-09-06 09:04:10)
Time to display all informations

~ 15 seconds now.

I suspect the program uses most of the time to collect the information from the database tables. If I save the page it needs less than 400 kilobytes.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-06 13:21:27)
Time to display all informations

Actually, it's only due to recursive call s to other files...

I firstly thought this slowness was caused by browsers because of all the pictures to display. I was wrong... Now the program is less "beautiful", but it works much faster, don't you think ? ;)




Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-09-06 14:16:25)
Time to display all informations

yes, it is much faster than the first version.

Two remarks:

- The reflection time also is shown if the game is already ended - and the time goes on.
- What does it mean if a text stands above the diagram? Example: in the game 1626 (FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_12__000001) I can read "ok".


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-06 14:42:30)
Time to display all informations

It's all corrected. Thanks for your help !


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-06 15:43:12)
FIDE WCH : Kramnik vs. Topalov

Do you believe it ? .. now it's most probably almost sure :-)

We'll have a new FIDE-Classical world champion in a few weeks !

A reminder : This will be a 12-games match, taking place from September 21 to October 13 in the capital of Kalmykia (whose president is FIDE president : Kirsan Ilyumzhinov himself), Elista. In case of equality, four rapid games will be played, if equality again two blitz games will be played and finally a sudden death blitz game. The prize fund of one million US dollars will be equally divided between Vladimir Kramnik and Veselin Topalov, whatever the result. The looser won't play the next world championship tournament (quite strange).

Anyway, that's a great thing for chess, even if I'm not very optimistic for the next FIDE world championship cycles, particularly if the world champion has to play a knockout tournament, instead of a classical 12 or 24 games match...

My favourite in this match is still Kramnik because of his style, but Topalov is really getting stronger IMO... It will be a hard match !

Any predictions about the result & games ? .. Will Vladimir Kramnik play his Berlin defense in the Ruy Lopez again...


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

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

Now waiting for the million moves... ;)

Thanks to all for support !


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-06 17:08:56)
Other games on FICGS ?

Hello to all.

Just wondering... after Chess, Chess 960, Go and Big Chess (soon available, as the graphical interface works better now) what other games you'd like to see here in the future ?

FICGS is firstly a correspondence chess server, without any doubt, but that's great to see chess players discovering Go game this way.

I have been told about Chinese Chess (Xiangqi), Shogi, Blokus.. Maybe not Draughts, as it is a solved game now.

Any ideas ?


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

Hi Dinesh.

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

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

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


Charlie Neil    (2006-09-07 09:02:54)
Krammik vs Topalov

Krammik will play 1.Nf3 with his 1st 5 games with white and as Topalov is dozing off.....POW! It's going to be a tense match. A clash of styles I'd say. But it is all good for chess. We need an undisputed OTB champion again, it can only be good for chess. ( A million dollars for the best of twelve games.....I think I'll go and buy myself a database....:-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-07 12:28:40)
Re: Best Game.........

Game 342 is still preferred, but it has changed many times these last days.

Maybe I should also display several boards here...


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-09-07 13:12:14)
Re: Best game......

Thibault, I think that's a good idea! ( There are hundreds & hundreds of chess players at IECG, but only a handful seem to be voting! )


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-07 13:32:05)
IECG

A "tell-tale" lapsus ? :)

There will be an update for the 'Best game' in a few minutes...

(Dinesh, you told me you were playing a candidates final at IECG !? .. Will you play the final ? .. In good way ?)


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-09-07 14:11:14)
Re:

Thibault, regarding your question..... I was 3rd in that Candidates Final. I was just 1/2 point short of getting into the top 2 and automatically qualifying for the FINAL. But as the first placed Nigel Robson is also qualified by another cycle, and as my rating is quite high now, I might get a chance to play in the FINAL there.


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

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


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-08 18:10:52)
Chess tournament : Zero-sum or not ?

While discussing about Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", and the question "Is the best player always the champion ?" (of course not IMO) , I was argued that any chess tournament "was" (actually could be "reduced to") a zero-sum game :

"In 1944 John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern proved that any zero-sum game involving n players is in fact a generalised form of a zero-sum game for two persons, and that any non-zero-sum game for n players can be reduced to a zero-sum game for n + 1 players; the (n + 1) player representing the global profit or loss. This suggests that the zero-sum game for two players forms the essential core of mathematical game theory."

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

It seems to me that it's out of topic, but I couldn't say exactly why... In my opinion, a tournament is nearer life than game, at least quite far from it. Much more rules, often complex ones, and results that depend on many parameters you couldn't influence...

The word "champion" depends on accurate rules (the best player could finish 2nd, even if he wins all games ie. in an open tournament..), the "best player" depends on general opinion (most commonly through ratings), ie. Topalov vs. Kasparov ...

What do you think ? :-)


Where the discussion started from :

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060907/sirlin_01.shtml

I agree with many points about how to win, but the use of some words seems to be dubious...

I like much this quote :

"I was surprised to see that Capablanca did not initiate any active maneuvers and instead adopted a waiting game. In the end, his opponent made an imprecise move; the Cuban won a second pawn and soon the game. “Why didn’t you try to convert your material advantage straight away?” I ventured to ask the great chess virtuoso. He smiled indulgently. “It was more practical to wait.” "

—Mikhail Botvinnik, 6th World Chess Champion


Lionel Vidal    (2006-09-09 10:40:13)
arimaa ?!

Arimaa may be a good choice too: it may be played on a chessboard, it is deep, fun and invented precisely to make any computer ridiculous :-) (Just like with Go and ChuShogi it is a very satisfying ego-boost-experience to feel vastly superior once in a while to even the best silicon brains :-))
And another point is that I don't know any site where you could play correpondence arimaa with a server. (whereas you can play Go or Chusogi at pbem server for instance... with even a graphical interface but not as comfortable as FICGS!)
Oh but wait... if you add a game, you'll have to change the name FICGS ? :-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-09 13:21:38)
Backgammon, Arimaa

I'll have to think about that.. That's a pity there's a chance factor in this interesting game. I know chess grandmasters who are very good Backgammon players.

About Arimaa, that's a really strange game... But not very attractive IMO :/ .. That's amazing to see that the developper of "Bomb" is the one who created "Many faces of Go"...

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


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

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


Lionel Vidal    (2006-09-09 23:08:00)
Tavli

Is tavli the greek version of backgammon? I am not sure of the specific rules of that variant and I do not think Jellyfish could play it but I may be wrong.
BTW I find real time backgammon (by server or not) a great fun to play!


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-09-10 13:02:14)
Suggestion: A best game prize in future

I suggest there should be a BEST GAME PRIZE in the future (if Money Tournaments are a success in the future, which I'm sure it will be. That itself might generate some extra cash needed for this). A prize of.... say....US $ 100+ would be nice! Contenders for best game should be judged by a competent panel appointed by FICGS. Best Game could be selected once every month or once every two months. I think only one game should be submitted per each player, so that there's time enough for the panel to make a proper evaluation of the submitted games.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-10 14:31:47)
Sudden death games !

Hello to all.

Does someone have any idea about chess openings that would give White 50% chances to win & Black 50% chances to win OR draw, or reverse ? (in absolute, not ie. blitz statistics)

Thinking about 1.e4 Nf6 2.d4 Ng8 or 1.Nf3 d5 2.Ng1, in examples... but it's hard to know. Databases can't help much as very few games with obvious errors have been played. So mad gambits could be real challenges to play & analyze, with no draws at the outcome...

Your feelings ?


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-09-10 16:19:37)
Re: Money Tournaments.......

I'm optimistic! Probably double-player matches might be more popular than multi-player tournaments in Money Tournaments category, as it gives a better chance to win. Some players might play it for fun too, if GMs could be challenged for a fee. Many possibilities why it'll be a success.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-11 13:49:05)
OTB idea

Hi Gino.

I thought about that, but it seems really unfair.. It depends too much on player's availability, so chances wouldn't be equal for sure.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-11 14:28:51)
Gambits + Time controls

Ulrich : There's no line without a major mistake, even in these gambits, that really offers 50% chances to both sides this way (win & win OR draw) in my opinion. That's why I thought about these mad lines...

Dinesh : As I responded to Gino, time can't be an acceptable compromise. I thought about it already in order to find the best way to decide between players who tie in the WCH tournaments. It depends too much on personal parameters. There will probably be a kind of "infinite challenge", where the game starts again until one looses.. but it may be long in some cases :)


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    (2006-09-12 01:08:25)
Traxler Counterattack

Hello Ron.

That's an interesting opening... Ok, we'll use it for the next thematic tournament...

Thematic tournaments waiting lists are filled quickly now.. but often by the same players. Maybe we should propose some boring openings too, to help them to have a rest & slow down the rhythm... :)


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

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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-12 12:55:06)
Scoring function for Go

Hello to all.

I'll add in a few days a scoring function for Go games. Players could retire dead groups, then the program just covers the board (line after line & column after column to compare) and adds empty spaces points to the stones that surround it. The aim is to give an evaluation of the position only, not to decide the result automatically.

Just tell me if you have an idea about a better algorithm, as I realize the difficulty of programming Go.

Thanks in advance ! ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-12 13:40:08)
FICGS team

We have 4 players already... I hope many others will join for this funny challenge ! :)


Miguel Pires    (2006-09-12 15:08:51)
Match FICGS vs. GameKnot

I wana say they have a lot of strong player signing to play. I hoppe we can create a very strong team


Benjamin Aldag    (2006-09-12 23:36:53)
Yes ! There is an boring one !

The Latvian Gambit is really boring. An opening is boring, if there is a better way to play. With the Latvian-Gambit, you will do all wrong, what you can do in the opening.

Benny


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

Hello Alarich.

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

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

That's ok :)


Benjamin Aldag    (2006-09-13 15:08:29)
hey...

cmon Thibby,

i am one of the fanatic players, who is with over 100 corr-games really bussy. I will push up the wiki, after i've completed some of my running tourneys.

Benny


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-14 12:01:30)
Re: Greetings from GameKnot :)

Hi Thomas !

7 players of all levels are ok to play this challenge already. I'm sure we'll complete our team in about a week. And I have no doubt about that, we'll win this match ! :)


Miguel Pires    (2006-09-15 02:50:58)
well

you are the boss, if say soo, for me is ok. But for shure some not going to do that. And now we have a big problem, the OTB Vs CC rating. Cairo from GK have an elo in OTB +2300, mor or less the same at GK an ICCF, but others, the thing's are different. Like me, i'm a +1700 in otb, and + 2000 in this site, and in GK i'm a +1900 (a lot of timeouts put my rating in 1756 now). soo playng in CC without any help (databases like i play in GK) is hard to play at + 2000. And we need players with good OTB rating's to. Like i say, you are the boss. what time controls we going to use?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-15 03:08:36)
Ratings used

It's logical IMO to consider OTB ratings if we all play in OTB conditions, without computer assistance... FIDE or self-estimated OTB ratings should prevail over CC ratings (ICCF, FICGS or so) for the pairings.


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

The scoring function for Go is now online !

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

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


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

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


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

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


Black wins the game by about 135 points.

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

All feedbacks welcome !


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

This could shed more light into this scheme..


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-16 12:13:33)
Go rules (playing rules)

Hello Don.

I just updated the 'Help' page, to find easily the good links.

Playing rules for Go (2006 september 16) : "Rules for Go are chinese rules, as defined by the Chinese Weiqi Association. (...) Scoring method is area scoring with chinese counting. Positional superko rule apply. Komi is 7.5 points."

Chinese rules - http://senseis.xmp.net/?Chineserules

Feel free if you have any question.


Nigel Colter    (2006-09-16 21:48:12)
Comments at resignation

How can you reply with a comment eg 'Well played' after your opponent has just resigned and sent a comment?


Thomas Gilbreath    (2006-09-16 23:46:58)
Udate from GameKnot:

I just wanted to give you guys a heads up as to the players from my site that are being CONSIDERED for playing in the match. As ratings fluctuate, I have simply rounded and given approximate strength: mateintwo - 2400+ cyrano - 2400+ cairo - 2300+ fmgaigin - 2300+ drdesoto - 2300+ papani - 2300+ harlekin - 2300+ nestorix - 2300+ drunken_rabbit - 2200+ kumpan - 2200+ grandpatzer - 2200+ os5213 - 2200+ carlosmart - 2200+ chrisp - 2100+ nottop - 2100+ gloomy_den - 1900+ thumper - 1700+ gwalchmai - 1600+ tugger - 1600+ yanm - 1500+ mattw - 1500+ patagusto - 1500+ tag1153 - 1400+ cjjpeterson - 1400+ simian9 - 1400+ eqj2 - 1400+ hollcanna - 1300+ dewillget8 - 1200+ mozz - 1200+ These GameKnot players have expressed an interest in playing. More will sign on I'm sure, as I have set Oct 1, 2006 as the sign up deadline. I will put together our team during the first week of October, and will be ready to commence play by the second week of October. During the interim, Thibault and I will finalize the details of the match. I realize that this short list is very master and expert heavy, but have no worries - I will be contacting more of our A, B, C, and D class players and asking them to participate. We look forward to the match:) Thomas


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-17 00:29:58)
Heeeelp :-)

We definitely need more strong players :)

About 10 players are interested to play right now.


Miguel Pires    (2006-09-17 00:33:10)
Heeeelp :-)

I think you need to contact directly the players.


Thomas Gilbreath    (2006-09-18 01:03:29)
Thibault

If possible, could you post the names and ratings of those players from FICGS who are interested in playing against GameKnot? I would like to go ahead and get some idea of the pairing possibilities. Thanks:) Thomas


Henri Muller    (2006-09-18 09:39:42)
match vs gameKnot

I have a great experience to play in Gameknot and can say that ALL( or MIN 95%) players with a rating above 1600 elo uses a chess-engine !!


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

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


Marc Lacrosse    (2006-09-18 11:22:31)
Computer use

I completely agree with H Muller.
In most web-based sites where computer use is forbidden most high-rated players do actually use them.
The most intriguing example is the very well organised www.playchess.de (not related to Chessbase server) where there are two different sections with respectively computer use allowed and forbidden : there are much more players in the "computer forbidden" section but almost all high-rated players in this section are cheaters (I was one of them and I left because I began to fell disgusted with this necessity to cheat for not being crushed).
That's why I came here and that's also why I will not in any case join the team for the match against GameKnot (or others) if the rules are not modified.

Marc


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

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


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-09-18 13:32:15)
Re:

Hey, Thomas! That was nicely said. As it's a friendly match, I think the right spirit of sportsmanship will prevail. By the way, why were some players thrown out of GameKnot?!? When you say some of them were a "nuisance", what exactly did they do?!? I don't think a single player of FICGS has so far been thrown out by FICGS officials.


James Stripes    (2006-09-18 13:46:35)
excessive fears

Of course cheating is always a danger, but I doubt more than a small minority of players do it. Chess appeals to those who enjoy solving problems more than to those who need to maintain a artificial number (rating) alongside a fictitious name. Cheaters likely lose interest fairly quickly. I've played at GameKnot and many similar sites. If any more than a half-dozen of my 300 or so opponents were cheating, they were doing so badly.


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

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


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

Thomas :

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


Miguel :

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


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

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


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

Hello to all.

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

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


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

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


Best wishes.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-09-19 10:16:32)
2 players match...

Is it possible to challenge a player to match? Or not yet? Thanks, Cirulis


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

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


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

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

Your opinion ?

Marc


Henri Muller    (2006-09-19 12:53:49)
match GameKnot-FICGS

Hello Dirk (Ghysens ) Accordingly with you, there are exceptions - I said that 95% players from GameKnot used computers ! Therefore not 100% !!


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-19 13:14:35)
2 players match...

Hello Ilmars.

No, it's really too early yet :/ .. Some waiting lists are quite long to fill. Sorry about that...


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

Thanks Peter ! :)

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


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-19 14:40:42)
match GameKnot-FICGS

That is the case. GameKnot players who already registered will play under their real name.

Now, there are 12 players in FICGS team.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-19 15:03:13)
Computer use on GameKnot......

I just read GameKnot forum about the FICGS vs. GameKnot match :

http://gameknot.com/fmsg/chess3/3860.shtml

It seems to me this question of computer use on GameKnot is quite out of topic (and on the wrong forum)... I proposed to GameKnot rep (Thomas) to prohibite any computer assistance (engines + databases) for the match or to simply authorize it, as I think more players from FICGS would play, and surely players from GameKnot too... Then everyone is free to play, accepting the rules and the risk of cheating (quite small IMO), but it's up to I & Thomas to deal with that. This debate shouldn't happen here IMHO.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-19 18:42:49)
Really?

Waiting for your reply : 12.Qb3 O-O-O

You entered so many lines I don't know which one to play :) .. but you can see it's not so easy. I think this thematic tournament will be interesting.


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

HAHAHA :=)

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

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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-20 01:55:46)
First blitz game (draw)... 1.d4 f5

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3351

Topalov plays dutch defense... ? :)


Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-09-20 01:30:29)
Kxf2

It looks like it is easier to play without the bishop. I need black replies in that variation, Vassal.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-20 02:07:42)
Traxler thematic tournament

The waiting list is filled already for this 14th thematic tournament ! .. The last player who entered is Benjamin Aldag :) (Benny, this is not reasonable ;))

This opening was definitely a good idea :) Thanks, Ron.


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

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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-20 13:35:43)
Not too late

Hello Claude.

It's not too late... Actually you can score your game (finished or not) or any Go game played on the server ! ..

When you're on the viewer page (?page=viewer , in the link), just replace 'viewer' by 'score' ..


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-25 00:08:52)
How about two matches?

Hello Marius.

That's a good idea... but it seems that players at GameKnot are really against computer use in such a match. Anyway, that's probably better like that.. Teams will be quite low-rated, more friendly, more fun :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-25 18:15:04)
Kramnik vs. Topalov

Benny, what did you think about the match Kramnik vs. Leko (with such fantastic games, ie. Marshall gambit) ? What about Kasparov vs. Deep Blue.. (only examples).. I prefer to see human chess with blunders at top level than to doubt.

Anyway, the match is not over yet, but Kramnik probably won the psychological battle already. Now Topalov must prove he plays the best chess...


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

Hey,

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


Elmer Valderrama    (2006-09-26 09:15:06)
..f5?? > ...f5!!

..100% agreed.. they are (especially Topalov) playing variations which make sense to enter only in engine-assisted chess (CC)... (as a result they are tired after calculating the first set of 8 variations with 18 non-forced plies each ;)

Regarding the match, fingers crossed Topo will pull a Phoenix as in other tournaments when he was -2 after the first round...




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

Hello Halil.

Unfortunately, this is not a bug :/

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

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

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


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

Anyway, I send you an email about this problem.

Best wishes. Thibault


Ismail Baskin    (2006-09-28 17:20:01)
Offering duel (go)

i want to play go with player who is under 1 dan(kyu) . see you.

sigma71 [at] gmail.com



Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-28 17:28:04)
Re: Offering duel (go)

Hello Ismail.

2 players Go matches are not available right now, sorry... The next Go tournament (FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU__000004) will begin soon... Be patient ;)

(but feel free to offer games played out of the server, of course)

Best wishes.


Daniel Brunsteins    (2006-09-29 01:09:31)
Request to play a SMTournament

Hello, I m very interesting in playing a SM tournament but my Elo is 20 point under.Is it possible to join conditional. Thank you !!! Daniel Brunsteins


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-29 02:21:57)
Request to play a SMTournament

Hello Daniel.

Ok, I arrange that.

CLASS SM tournament waiting list is quite long to fill yet, but this should be exceptionnal.

Best wishes.


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

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


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

Hi Don.

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

To be continued.


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

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

Common toilet for both players.

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

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

More - http://www.chessbase.com


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-29 13:07:02)
Tournaments winners list updated

Hello Wayne.

Tournament winners are displayed when you browse the tournaments lists in 'Tournaments' or 'My tournaments'.

This link gives all results so far in all tournaments played on FICGS :

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


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-09-29 13:09:10)
Psycho(logical) games?...........

Silvio Danailov., Manager of the Bulgarian team says:

To all mass media

Ladies and Gentlemen,

After we got acquainted with the ruling of the Appeals Committee of the Topalov vs. Kramnik world championship match we deem it necessary to point out the following:

The ruling in its present form is not satisfactory to us since it practically does not result in any change. Mr. Kramnik will be able to visit the new bathroom an unlimited number of times without being subject to further control.

We would accept the current relaxation rooms to continue to be used provided that the presence of controllers in both rooms is ensured.

When the two players need to go to the bathroom, they should be accompanied by an assistant arbiter.

The checks carried out in the relaxation rooms were made only by experts of the Organizing Committee, whereas our experts were present as observers and only after the second game.

We find it difficult to understand why is it that the accredited journalists are denied access to the video tapes from the relaxation rooms.

The World Champion Veselin Topalov is outraged by the suspicious behavior of his opponent Mr. Vladimir Kramnik who in actual fact takes his most significant decisions in the bathroom.

Despite the above, in the name of the chess game and out of respect to FIDE, to Kalmikia and the millions of chess lovers, Veselin Topalov is willing to continue his participation in the match provided that measures to guarantee fair play are taken.

If the match were to continue, the World Champion would refrain from shaking hands with Mr. Kramnik before the games and would not take part in joint press conferences with him. Veselin Topalov will make statements for the media separately.

We look forward to receiving your response by 14.30 h hoping that it will give concrete answers to the questions that we pose.

28.09.2006
Elista Sincerely:
Silvio Danailov
Manager of the Bulgarian team


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

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

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

Elista, 29 September 2006

Open Letter to FIDE President H.E. Kirsan Iljumshinov

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

Dear Mr. President,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further and more detailed legal investigations are already in process.

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-29 13:19:45)
FIDE world championship (suspicions)

A "toiletgate" : Kramnik visiting the bathroom unreasonably often (according to Bulgarian delegation), video surveillance in rest rooms, Topalov threatening to stop the match, FIDE decisions (common toilets, players accompanied...), now Kramnik threatening to stop the match !

Tension is high, reminds us old memories :) ..

Can this world chess championship be finished yet ??

http://www.chessbase.com


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-29 15:57:14)
Fischer vs. Spassky ?

Vladimir Kramnik did not play game 5 !

All this reminds me the first match Fischer vs. Spassky... In a documentary, Boris Spassky said he lost the match when he accepted Fischer's new conditions (ie. playing in another room) in order to continue to play...

Seems to be quite the same situation here...

Now who made the mistake : Kramnik, Topalov or FIDE... I hope game 5 will be replayed.


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

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


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

Hello to all.

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

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

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

Thanks for feedback. Thibault


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

Hello Roger.

Two ways to reach FICGS Go rules :


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


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

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


Reminder : FICGS Go rules (2006 september 30)

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

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


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

I agree with you, Nigel.

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

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

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


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

Open Letter To
FIDE President
Kirsan Iljumshinov
Russian Chess Federation

Elista, 29. September 2006

Requests of Vladimir Kramnik

• To proceed with GAME 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Rodrigo Jaroszewski    (2006-09-30 08:11:32)
hmm...

I'm playing only Class G right now and I have two games left, but I never got to a tight spot in it when I had WC and Class G at the same time. In 12 games I have always been with less time than my opponents, so I guess that says something.

OTOH, 30 + 1day was really hard to manage, although none of my opponents ever got into time trouble (i.e. less than 10 days).


Rodrigo Jaroszewski    (2006-09-30 09:41:27)
Re: Legitimacy

Hey, you don't have the chance of asking a GM a question every day! :)

Nigel, since my limited database and research resources here didn't allow me to know if you played a game against Kramnik, much less if you ever had a nice chat with him, I'd like to know if you did and if you really believe that he'd be the kind of guy that would go out and organize a WC Cicle on his own, like Kasparov did (well, tried)?

I take this match as a display he is willing to expose himself in order to get things straight once and for all, but going to the business side of the game is for those that really want to risk a lot to get things done.


Nigel Davies    (2006-09-30 13:50:51)
Re: Legitimacy

Hi Rodrigo, I haven't played Kramnik but I met him once; my impression is that he's a proud and rather honourable person. I don't see him organising his own cycle, but there are plenty of people opposed to FIDE who could. This might be just the opportunity they need. Kramnik couldn't really have refused a 'reunification' match before this, it would have looked like he didn't want to play. But now he's got a strong case that FIDE cannot provide a suitable aegis. Nigel


Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-09-30 15:25:13)
Can I play it with white?...

... against Benjamin Aldag. It is one of his favorit openings, but I think it's good for white. (: Cirulis.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-30 15:30:52)
Re: Can I play it with white?...

According to the waiting list distribution, that's the case: you'll play it with White against Benjamin.


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

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

I luv Dzindzi-Indian-Defense

Benny


Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-09-30 23:06:46)
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


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

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

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


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-10-02 13:30:08)
Re: Kram. vs Top. match......

Game 6 just started with the score standing at Kram. 3: Top. 2. ( Kram. playing "under protest" regarding the earlier game number 5 status ).


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-02 15:06:33)
Chess / FIDE

Why did Kramnik accept to continue this match... Becoming a chess (FIDE) hero ? Prize ?

Finally I would prefer the prize reason... :)

It seems he just resigned the psychological battle against Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, unless he's sure he can contest the final score once the match is over, but it would be harder for sure.

It will be just harder for him to play now... Anyway, the result in this match is not so important, the real issue is future of world chess championships, but in the 'other match' that just began, FIDE scored one more point.


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

Official statement and protest by V. Kramnik

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

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

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

Based on this decision I make the following statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elista, 2 October 2006
Vladimir Kramnik Classical World Chess Champion


Rodrigo Jaroszewski    (2006-10-02 15:17:48)
Argh!

"Question to Topalov: Veselin, with what feeling will you come to play tomorrow?

With great enthusiasm. I am tired of rest!"

On the other front: "unfortunately, Vladimir could not appear here – he is not feeling well"

Disgusting! It's a good thing they opened the toilets, because I need one to puke right now! So they give in on everything, except on the 3:2 score, just to get Kramnik less advantage and to wear him out. Argh!


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-02 17:46:46)
Re:

"the one true champion" .. until next FIDE wch cycles, where Kramnik will most probably loose his title, simply because he'll have to play a 4 rounds / 16 players knockout tournament (if I understood well, not sure.. :/) that he could even refuse to play ! :)

Let's say he will be the last one true champion. Maybe that's a reason enough to continue the match after all :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-02 18:01:18)
Rybka vs. Chessbase engines

Are there correspondence chess players who use Rybka here ? .. is it a better analysis tool than his well-known rivals (Deep Fritz, Shredder, Junior, Hiarcs...) ?

A thread about chess engines could be interesting : How to use chess engines in correspondence chess, which ones (when & why), their weaknesses.....

For sure many players don't want to tell their opponents their way of 'think' :) .. but it could be interesting to make this kind of comparison...


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Smith Dhumbumroong    (2006-10-03 14:10:29)
How many people actually use chessengine

Just curious, how many people here uses chessengine when playing on FICGS? And what engine do you usally use?


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

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

I would say about 50% ...


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

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

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

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

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


Roger Weber    (2006-10-03 15:06:37)
50% ?!

Are you serious?

I mean, it is just bad to use chess engines.
1) You don't improve your own skill level
2) If I want to play against a chessengine I can just install one instead of trying to play people over the internet



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

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

Go is all about seeing patterns and making strategical moves.

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

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

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

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


At least for the moment ...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-03 15:19:04)
Humans vs. centaurs

This kind of discussion happened already here :

http://www.ficgs.com/forum_read_857-Why-do-you-play-corrchess.html

People obviously play chess here for many different reasons, and there are very different ways to improve... I think that using a chess engine or not is not so important, centaurs will play with centaurs & humans against humans. The fact is chess engines are allowed here, and we can suppose that most players under elo 1700 don't use engines and most players over elo 1700 use engines.


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

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

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


Anthony Bingham    (2006-10-03 15:47:07)
Introduction

Hello all, my name is Tony, aka (DEwillget8 @ Gameknot). I am looking forward to our upcoming tournament and would like to give a big thank you to all involved. I do have one question. How do I challenge a player here to a match so I can get used to the layout of your site? Thanks, Tony


Smith Dhumbumroong    (2006-10-03 15:55:17)
Interesting

Thanks for information, Thibault. I've never play in an association that explicitly allows computer assitance before, so I'm curious what is the reason most people use it, which is very interesting after reading the thread in Thibault's post. In the end I just have to agree with you, Thibault, centaurs will play with centaurs & humans against humans, and who cares if you're playing against a centaur if it is a good game, right? :)


James Stripes    (2006-10-03 16:06:53)
Engines appeal

I've played on several other correspondence sites, and this is the only one that permits engine use. For me, that was a critical part of its appeal. I started playing here to see how adding engine analysis to my other research methods will affect the play. I still think that positional understanding will be the critical difference in most games, as it is where engines are not permitted.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-03 16:07:34)
Tournaments

Hello Tony & welcome...

You'll notice FICGS is quite different from GameKnot... You can play tournaments here, just follow the 'Waiting lists' link and choose the tournament (according to you provisional elo) you want to play...

Feel free to read Help - http://www.ficgs.com/help.html


James Stripes    (2006-10-03 16:13:13)
curious

I have approximately 64 chess engines, including the beta version of Rybka 1 (the free version). In engine tournaments on my box, it has prevailed against my strongest commercial engines. However, the centaur play that is the norm here presents Rybka with an entirely different sort of playing environment than those in which it has demonstrated its superiority. As I am new to this type of play, I don't yet know how Rybka measures up to the likes of Junior, Shredder, and Hiarcs.


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Roger Weber    (2006-10-04 13:21:29)
Computers

@Marius
If I may ask the question, why would you even want to play a match with chess engines?
I don't see the point, except if you're a chess engine addict and can't play without.

I am totally against the usage of chess engines on internet servers, as its just not sportsmanlike and a match where both players agree using engines is IMHO not worth playing it.


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

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

Here are his statistics :


Game 1 :

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

Game 2 :

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

Game 3 :

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

Game 4 :

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

Game 6 :

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-04 16:31:45)
Re: Computers

My two cents, as I probably share Marius point of view : The same reasons you like to play a match or any game without engines... Challenge, chess beauty, and so on..

It is sportsmanlike ! .. simply because the rules allow it ! .. and it's worth playing such a match, simply because we like it :)


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

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



Regards,
Roger.


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

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


Miguel Pires    (2006-10-06 11:53:01)
I use engines

For check my analisys, and to see if i misse something. But i don't trust 100% in the engines, in some positions like this one: 2r2rk1/1bq1bpp1/p2ppn1p/1p4BP/3NP1P1/3B1P2/PPPQ4/2KR3R w - - 0 17 i don't trust in the engines. Playing with the help of the engines help me to improve my OTB games. Regard's Miguel Pires


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

Thibault -

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-10-04 18:48:59)
Delay/Slow down games

Thibault, I see no reason to slow down play, I would be dead set against any such change. The current format is sufficient. I am playing in six tournaments,just signed up for a seventh, which I expect will open up soon. I have had no trouble keeping up and my site clock is in no danger. That is the way I feel. Wayne


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

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


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

Marc


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Marc


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

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


Glen D. Shields    (2006-10-05 05:25:52)
Wayne no one ...

Wayne - no one is time trouble because no one is using their time. That's the point! "Correspondence chess" on a server has basically become an OTB match between chess engines. Players in all organizations are complaining about server burnout. Players who swore off postal are re-considering their decision.

What Thibault is trying to find out is how prevalent is the burnout. What I'm proposing any player can do manually, but why should it be done manually when the server can do it for us? Isn't automation the whole purpose of the server?

Help from the server to manage the pace (and one's game load) is a perfectly logical extension of server play. If you want to play fast, play fast. If you want to play slow, slow the pace, use the server to do it for you. Why is that bothersome? No one is suggesting a change from the 40/10 limit. There's no proposal to deviate from the 100 maximum accumulated days (great rule - every server should follow this rule!). What am I missing? I really don't get it :)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Thomas Gilbreath    (2006-10-05 13:21:39)
Thibault

I have a substitution. My player bunta has had to withdraw, and I am replacing him with ccmcacollister in the match vs. Benjamin Aldag. Is this ok with you? Thomas


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

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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-08 13:24:25)
FICGS vs. GameKnot tournament

Hi Thomas.

The games here will be played under the tournament name :
FICGS__CHESS__FICGS_VS_GAMEKNOT_MATCH

I just sent an email about pairings.

Best wishes.


Ryan Benitez    (2006-10-08 22:50:43)
engine is just a tool

2r2rk1/1bq1bpp1/p2ppn1p/1p4BP/3NP1P1/3B1P2/PPPQ4/2KR3R w - - 0 17 The engine I use plays Bxh6 Anyway of course an engine should be used as a tool not to play the game. I will beat an unattended engine 80% of the time at the time controls played here.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-09 09:32:36)
FICGS vs. GameKnot ... about to start

Our friendly match against well-known GameKnot chess server is about to start.

2 players still have to tell me their nickname on GameKnot so that Thomas and I can create the games on both servers. If players want to register now, there could be a replacement... Feel free to send an email to info [at] ficgs.com if you're interested to play.


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

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

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

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

Thanks in advance,

Yannick


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

Hi all and thanks for sharing your views.

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

The idea of delaying the sending of moves is interesting but I'm not convinced yet. I fear it wouldn't be used a lot and too many options is not good IMO. (more, the delay wouldn't be 100% accurate) As for me, I just 'accepted' to have 10 or more pending moves continuously, I delete emails (or set email notification off) and come back later to the server... Another way would be to filter moves responded before a defined time in 'My games'. Not so useful...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-09 11:19:53)
UCI / Winboard engine

Hello Yannick.

Maybe you could try a free chess engine like Crafty (quite strong already, also running on Chessbase / Fritz interface), GNUchess, Arasan, Ghost or any engine running on Winboard / Arena free interfaces...

See a list of chess engines here :
http://www.ficgs.com/wiki_en-chess_engines.html

A well-known french speaking website about computer chess :
http://perso.orange.fr/lefouduroi/computerchess.htm


Actually it's probably very hard not to be influenced by chess engines suggestions, but the point is to understand, then find better moves...

All depends on the level you want the engine to play. There are hundred of engines to download...


Rodrigo Jaroszewski    (2006-10-10 05:27:08)
Re:

Use Toga II if you're looking for a freeware one. Crafty was simply too unreliable. 15 minutes of brute-force search, returning ~18-ply results with slight advantage; then I'd play them one by one and about the 10th ply, *bang*, a blunder. Very nice if you're trying to emulate Topalov-Kramnik, but not nice if you want to get some good advice.

The trick is to have a general understanding of the opening, and notice when the game has entered the realm of the middlegame (this is still very blurry for me, but I'm getting the hang of it). Then you just have to try to learn as much as you can about basic middlegame concepts. That's as far as my understanding goes up to now, tactics and strategy are not within my grasp yet.

Of course, this is for total noobs like me, if you know more you'd like to test more advanced concepts.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-10 10:42:53)
Thomas

Hi Thomas.

I'll create the games and tournament as soon as all pairings and names / nicknames are ok. I send my list in a few hours. Players will just have to connect and see their running games in 'My games' or 'My messages'...

Best wishes.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-10 16:04:54)
Arena chess

I suppose it's possible to evaluate a position without displaying the lines under Arena...
Free program, hundreds of chess engines...

http://www.playwitharena.com


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-10 16:16:37)
To be continued...

Open Letter

To
FIDE President
H.E. Kirsan Illyumzhinov

To
Head of the 2006 Executive Committee
Mr. Valery Bovaev

Dear Mr President, Gentlemen,

Having received innumerable published and unpublished inquiries I would like to clarify, in the name of Vladimir Kramnik and his team, our position in the decision taken by FIDE regarding the fifth game of the current World Championship match.

As you know Vladimir Kramnik is playing the current match under protest. Nothing has changed in our attitude, which is documented by Kramnik’s actions around the fifth game and our statements, protests and letters:

29.09.2006:
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=104
02.10.2006:
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=106
04.10.2006:
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=107

Consistent with this standpoint Vladimir Kramnik will be playing this match, including a possible tiebreak, up to the last move under protest.

Should the decision of FIDE regarding the fifth game have any influence on the awarding of the World Championship title, with Mr Topalov receiving the title after being granted a free point for the unplayed game, Mr Kramnik declares unequivocally: “I will not recognize Mr Topalov as World Champion under these conditions, and I will take legal action against FIDE at the end of the World Championship.”

The damage done to Mr Kramnik in public opinion (e.g. the slander campaign) after the illegal release of private video images by the then FIDE Appeals Committee or the WCC 2006 Executive Committee to the Topalov team, and the subsequent release of these video images and private information of Mr Kramnik in his restroom to the mass media, as well as the interruption of the match, which broke Mr Kramnik’s concentration and playing rhythm, will all be part of the legal action which will be initiated.

As a sign of good will Mr Kramnik once again requests FIDE to arrange for game five to be played out on the board immediately after game 12. This in our opinion is the only way to alleviate the personal, sporting, judicial and ethical injuries that have been incurred by Mr Kramnik.


Elista, October 10, 2006
On behalf of Vladimir Kramnik
Yours sincerely
Carsten Hensel
(Manager to Vladimir Kramnik, Classical World Chess Champion)


Rodrigo Jaroszewski    (2006-10-10 18:28:43)
Fritz et al.

You can try Fritz and the like (Shredder, etc.), as they come with a chess coach that give small tips like "I don't think you should put your Queen there." I just don't remember which playing modes and under which conditions you can use that without displaying the engine thinking lines, but it's really nifty.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-11 13:25:48)
Tie break

"In case of equality, four rapid games will be played, if equality again two blitz games will be played and finally a sudden death blitz game."

So I suppose it's 20/20 (rapid), then 5/5 (blitz), finally 5/4 for the sudden death blitz.


Rodrigo Jaroszewski    (2006-10-12 05:38:01)
Kramnik

Oh, forgot to say it, since you commented after posting the moves for g11. You probably read it already, but Kramnik's latest open letter says he'll play through the tiebreaks, even if FIDE doesn't go back on the g5 decision. But if he looses, he'll sue FIDE.


Thomas Gilbreath    (2006-10-12 05:45:51)
Yes I got them...let's begin!

I see we still need 3 GK ids from you guys. The other 9 are ready to begin. I will be messaging GK players with their opponents right away, and instructing them to begin. Let me know when your other 3 guys are ready.......Thomas


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-12 15:16:11)
Start

Now 10 are ready to play (I sent lately id for Benjamin Aldag)... Ok, I'll create the first 10 games as soon as I have a username for 'cairo', who will play at board #1.

Best wishes to all players :)


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-10-12 17:15:04)
Re:

Thibault, what has been the rapid playing form of Kram. & Top. in previous tournaments?!?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-12 17:21:24)
... rapid games

Huh.. I've no idea... All I know : They played a blitz game just before the match and it was a draw (dutch opening) :)

Maybe we'll have surprises (at last) in the openings, but the result will be so aleatory...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-12 18:56:37)
80 -> 50 -> 20

Actually, my estimation was probably right a few months ago, but not anymore... When the server started, the elo average was really strong, most players coming from well-known correspondence chess places (TCCMB, IECG...), but more and more beginners sign up, so the proportion of centaurs (human + engine) already is or will be nearer 20%, slowly but continuously decreasing (Google effect)...


Thomas Gilbreath    (2006-10-12 21:07:39)
cairo is ottesen_soren

.....but I've got him at board 2 vs. Miguel Pires.. I guess it doesn't matter what board we call it here on FICGS, as long as the players are correct. - Thomas


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-12 21:33:52)
Cyrano

Oops, I meant 'cyrano'...

Anyway I'd like to create Glen & Miguel's games first so that it's easier to follow on the tournament page - games ordered by ratings... We're late (sorry to all players), but it's probably better that most games start at the same time !?


Miguel Pires    (2006-10-12 21:45:05)
TIME CONTROL

Please setup the same time control for GK and FICGS games. I'm playing wit cairo in GK with this time control 10+1<10 Regard's Miguel Pires PS: I put a similar post in GK


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-13 14:18:01)
Game of time ?!?!

Someone of us are just thinking to play with thinking time rules as a part of correspondance chess game is a fine and sportsman like behavior. I don't think so: It is just childish and primitive - nothing to do with the culture and art of a chess game!


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-10-13 14:57:27)
Kram. Wins Tie Break Game No. 2

Kram. (White) strategically outplayed Top. (Black) in tie break game no. 2 in 45 moves just now. After Top. conceded the bishop pair, he was forced on the backfoot in an ending, and went down a bishop for just two pawns, at which point he resigned.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-13 16:32:42)
Re: Game of time ?!?!

Hello Thibault, please have a look on the behavior of one of the players in our common tournament #002. I find no other way as shaking my head on it!


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-13 18:13:05)
Re: Game of time ?!?!

http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_SM__000002.html

I must say this is a quite strange strategy, if it is... Several 2300+ players continuously are in zeitnot (and finally loose some games on time). I don't think it can influence 'much' the play at correspondence chess time controls so that's probably their only way to manage time. Some can't play faster, obviously... Some also play at IECG, ICCF and so on. Anyway nothing can prevent that...


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-13 19:26:48)
Game of time ?!?!

The point is that only one player seems to be in zeitnot, but NO - it is just his tactic (in all games) - strange attitude - he loves it to do his last move before new time count (after move 10, 20 etc) always in the last minute.


Hannes Rada    (2006-10-14 00:03:36)
Tactics ?

Hi Wolfgang, I am playing against this guy in FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000002 But I do not have a problem with this tactic, if it can be called a tactic. Maybe it should be simply called Zeitnot .... Why do you bother about that ? It's wíthin the rules.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-14 04:30:07)
Game of time ?!?!

Legal doing is not the same as right and good doing! When a player stops always at move 9, to do the 10th in last minute (mostly after a long time period of inactivity) is this strange. I think, i have enough experiences in correspondance chess to differ this from normal handling with zeitnot. By the way, at the same time he has also enough time to discuss in this forum copiously.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-14 07:10:25)
Game of time ?!?!

You cognizned yourself - this could be the best way to change your mind! You can play so many games as you want - maybe it is not reasonable! Also it is not your use to full capacity of time in your games, but the way you're doing. If you are ill, you should take a time out - best wishes for your convalescence!


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-14 18:33:37)
Chess and Go diagrams / Forum update

A major update for FICGS forums (& blogs) !

Now you can insert Chess & Go diagrams in messages...
(useful to submit chess problems, analysis and so on...)

See the FAQ in help section - http://www.ficgs.com/help.html - for details, in example here is the position of the last game in the FIDE world chess championship between Veselin Topalov & Vladimir Kramnik, just before Topalov blunder 44. ...Rxc5 ??

ChessPosition (see diagram)

Diagrams format is quite simple (see Help), please note only one diagram / position will be displayed per message.

Also minor bugs (links, search functions) corrected...


Graham Wyborn    (2006-10-17 12:24:05)
Top of Rating List

How can Atalik, Suat be top of the rating list, when this player has never played a game on this site? Or have I got these facts wrong!


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-17 12:43:42)
GM Suat Atalik

GM Suat Atalik is about OTB #100 ranked player in the world (GM FIDE), and one of the first players who registered at FICGS. Ratings & titles are also displayed in an informative way, some other strong players will probably register when it will be possible to play unrated simultaneous games for money, but they'll keep a provisional rating. I still have to separate the rating lists, but provisional ratings aren't displayed the same way already.


Benjamin Aldag    (2006-10-18 19:59:02)
Kick this player !!!

Hello, please KICK this player: Arsch, Popo His handle is german "arsch = asshole" ! Thank You !


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-18 20:37:25)
Kick this player !!!

I'm German and I'm also convinced, that the name "Popo Arsch" is really fake! Wolfgang Utesch


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-18 21:31:24)
Re: Kick this player !!!

Thank you...

That was my first impression too, but I was not sure. The 'filter' is not perfect yet ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-20 19:41:21)
Time Control Clarification

Hello Scott.

It is 40 days to make the first 10 moves then it is an additional 40 days to make next 10 moves and so on...

Note : There's an accumulated time limit (100 days) rule.

See rules - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#playing .. and particularly 11.4


Scott Prestwood    (2006-10-21 03:15:11)
Full Disclosure

Perhaps tournaments should be labled as permiting engines and not permiting engines. Coorespondence chess has tradionally had only the rules of chess and the time control limiting it. And the early masters that used and believed in coorespondence chess as a method to improve ones game did not have access to computers, nice to know I could get killed in the tourney I am in just because I'm playing 6 computers. The initial allowance of databases and books to aid ones choice of moves as well as playing the game through allowed improvement of ones chess abilities. Computers will have a greater tendency to be the one playing the game because they only prescribe one line of action from a position. That line is very strong and likewise tends to be the operators choice of the next move. If the allowance of computers is posted for the games it will allow for the players to chose which type of game they prefer.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-21 11:31:16)
Some strange tactics with server chess

Server chess is allowing to see all parallel games in the same tournament. So some players hope to get an advantage by playing their first moves very slow. Perhaps they can learn (so they hope) by the other more progressed games of their opponents. It's legal but not so funny - neither for their opponents nor for themselves! Playing your own style will give you the most satisfaction! Wolfgang


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-21 12:11:22)
Tactics / server chess

You just have to be a bit more creative or to play different openings in your 3 games as White & Black in a tournament... Anyway, with online databases it's quite easy to know any player style & opening book.

There are many psychological tactics with server chess & CC time controls IMO, ie. it may be quite important to manage your unlucky opponent spirit during a tournament :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-21 12:19:48)
Game 2222

Really ?? .. Maybe my engines are outdated :) .. What engine prefer the last move ?

About the best game, I fully agree..... But I doubt a majority of players will choose the best game with the same criteria :/

By the way : FICGS with 'G', FICS is another one :)


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-21 12:23:19)
Thinking on opponents' time

Thinking in chess variants cannot lost time for me. It is not so important for me that the variants (I had thought about) will played. The contest with all chess positions is also my enjoyment - not only the success (or disappointment) by result of the game. Wolfgang


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-22 14:00:32)
Re: Best Game

That's right Wayne, but anyway I would have played it even with one Nf6-Ng8 more... I like these mad challenges :)


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-23 11:13:43)
Rating / 8-game match

Hello Thibault, it doesn't make any sense to count all results for the rating, independent whether generated by playing out or forfeits about time issues. At least one rating seems to be very excessive affected by this practise in the FICS Chess Championship! Wolfgang


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-23 18:00:29)
Rating / 8-game match

Hello Wolfgang. (FICGS, not FICS ;))

In these 1st FICGS WCH quarter finals, there were 2 forfeit cases & 1 match with 6 games out of 8 lost on time. In the first 2 cases, not all games were rated as a win (according to the 8-game match rule), the last case was a bit different but as far as I remember, the winner had a better position (winning or small advantage) in all games... Anyway, ratings wouldn't change significantly if 2 wins were not rated.

The real question is about 8-game matchs & fast time control 30 days + 1 day / move (quite hard). There's no perfect rule & particular cases could happen, but that's really interesting IMO & the number of games with rapid time controls are probably enough to balance ratings in time. We'll see...

Anyway, several players were surprised by the difficulty of this time control, I hope it won't happen again during the next cycle (that should start in january)...


Thomas Gilbreath    (2006-10-24 06:05:56)
Thibault

Feel free to replace Selby and Michelson with any players you see fit. You have been very in the pairings so far.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-25 11:47:22)
Once upon a time in Kalmykia

An interesting interview of FIDE president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov about future of chess, reunification match and other things...

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3448


I can't resist this quote :


Misha Savinov : Bearing in mind successful unification, do you see a chance of Kasparov returning to chess?

Kirsan Ilyumzhinov : In my opinion, Garry will not return. His age will not permit him returning, chess advanced too far. But, of course, we would all be happy if he returns. Actually, I would be happy if not only Kasparov, but also Spassky and Fischer come back. If they do, I am ready to organize a supermatch of FIDE champions. A good idea, by the way! We’ll invite Vassily Vassilyevich Smyslov, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Khalifman, Kasimdzhanov, Topalov, Anand, Ponomariov… It is going to be a good supertournament!

Misha Savinov : In Elista?

Kirsan Ilyumzhinov : In Elista. And, probably, it will be 25-minute games, double round-robin. I wonder if Fischer accepts the invitation, what do you think? We will announce the winner a superabsolute champion (laughs)!

Misha Savinov : One can call it an open championship of Kalmykia…

Kirsan Ilyumzhinov : Are you suggesting inviting the Kalmyk champion of 1978? I think I could play 25-minute games…


.....


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-25 12:32:12)
Rating / 8-game match

Hello Farit, the problem with rating of contests by duels is a generally: If one player knows that the whole duel is no to win he will abandon all games - independent from the particular situation in all of the open games! Greetings, Wolfgang


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-10-25 12:55:01)
Re: Rating / 8-game match........

What Utesch says is quite true. But of course it's not the fault of the players of the duels. Simply, the duels system does seem to be a flawed concept!


Don Burden    (2006-10-26 02:32:25)
Rating / 8-game-match

Seems to me that the large jump in ratings is the result of a problem, where the root problem seems to be that there are just way too many players on here that for whatever reason just drop out and don't want to finish their games. Don't know how you would fix that.

In my WCH Stage 1 section that I just finished, two of the top 3 rated players in my section both gave up and quit. One player without playing a single move. The rules say that in the case of tied scores, only the higher rated player advances. There are two players in my section, myself and another, both finishing with 5.5 points out of 6. I think that's a pretty good score, but apparently it's not good enough because only one advances. If all 7 players had played all games to completion, the chances of having a clear winner, and a final score somewhat lower than 5.5 out of 6 would have been much greater.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-26 15:20:20)
Re: Rating / 8-game-match

That's not right.

These quarter finals are particular cases because there were no forfeit before move 10 in all games... (games with less than 10 moves played are not rated for the winner) That's why there's a special rule 'general forfeit' for 8+ games matches.

Moreover, the waiting list for the 1st FICGS WCH remained open from april to july, maybe it was a too long period, that's why the waiting list for the 2nd FICGS WCH (that could begin in january) is still closed.


Glen D. Shields    (2006-10-26 16:21:03)
It's Been Awhile ....

This tournament is the first time in awhile since I played on the Gameknot server. A lot has changed in server chess during my absence, but not at GameKnot. There are two GK annoyances. I point them out NOT to trash GK, it's a well designed chess server, but hope that someone from GK who is following this match can instigate appropriate modifications. I REALLY wish the e-mail notification indicating my opponent has moved would show his move. I have a lot of on-going games and don't have the time to make an extra log-on to GK just to get my opponent's move. Also for those who use Opera, take note GK does not work (at least not for me). The board consistently shows up minus half the pieces. Refreshing the screen helps sometimes, but not always. An extra log-in with my non-favorite browsers is not particularly endearing :)


Pekka I. Turakainen    (2006-10-26 18:04:25)
Reveal your software

Engines against engines....please, at least tell what chess engine you're using, so that your opponent knows which engine defeated his engine....like Shredder 10 vs. Shredder 10 1-0. Better advise: If you want to know which engine is strongest, please don't play here, visit some site that has ratings for chessengines.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-26 18:33:58)
Reveal your software

Actually I wouldn't say that any engine vs. engine games are played here.
(or at ICCF, IECG ...)

This kind of statistics may be relevant on Playchess server or FICS [Free Internet Chess Server] at fast time controls where human can't help much, not in correspondence chess. That's obvious anyway that most players above 2000-2200 elo use chess engines, but games are not 100% engines, or any particular engine for sure...

I'm convinced Fritz or Shredder 'alone' wouldn't reach 2200.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-10-28 17:32:08)
Chess quizz :-)

8) Peter Schuster will win the first FICGS-World Championchip! He's playing the most variable chess and his opening repertoire is the largest.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-28 17:43:05)
Match FICGS vs. GameKnot , the games

Hello to all.

It would be great to follow how the match evolve in this thread. As far as I know GameKnot leads by 1-0 (Ilmars blundered :))

http://gameknot.com/anbd.pl?bd=5966999&rnd=0.9197820842414586

It seems that's possible to link to all games (that started) on GameKnot, so feel free to post the links & results here.


Reminder, you can follow games played on FICGS there :
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__FICGS_VS_GAMEKNOT_MATCH.html


Scott Prestwood    (2006-10-28 19:58:33)
Connected players

What is the "Connected players" list in the messages for and why does my name stay on it as others are changing, and the list of others in the tourney I am in do not show up in the list?


Jaimie Wilson    (2006-10-29 15:00:53)
Connected players

It is simply a list of players connected to F.I.C.G.S. at that particular moment in time, Isn't it? :))


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-30 08:54:15)
Re: JUDIT POLGAR

Hi Dinesh.

Seems to be a question a money ?! .. If I remember correctly, Sergey Karjakin was to play Topalov with a 1 M$ prize fund (?), so why not a Judit Polgar vs. Vladimir Kramnik match...

She (probably) only needs a good sponsor and a serious preparation to create such an interesting event... I'm sure Kramnik would play it. I don't remember Judit playing a 6+ game match, but I feel it would be hard for her, first because of Kramnik style (& Judit's).

Anyway, great performance at Essent with a 2-0 mini-match against V. Topalov and I. Sokolov !


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-30 08:56:55)
Connected players

That's right... Nothing more :)


Graham Wyborn    (2006-10-30 10:04:22)
Go games "display"

First allow me to say how much I enjoy playing chess & go on this site. Keep up the very good work!

Would it be possible to mark or display on the board when playin Go the piece that was last moved?

Also on other sites the option to flip the board is present. On this site the board is already fliped when playing white. Is this needed? If you download the .sgf to a viewer it will not show the game the same way round.

We have to press "send" and then "next". Is it possible to have an option included where after pressing "send" you go automatically to the next game?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-30 13:16:29)
Update : last move (Go)

Hello Graham, thanks :)

I just updated the display of Go games, the last move is now marked in red.

Boards are fliped because it's more logical at chess (and most games), to be nearer "reality". I prefer all games displayed the same way, sorry :/

At last, about going automatically to the next game, that's quite right but the confirmation page ('Your move has been sent') may avoid some "problems"... I prefer this way, unless many players ask for this change.

Kind regards.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-30 18:28:50)
Member No. 1000 !!

Thank you Hannes !

Yes that's great, the number of players regularly increases already, with no more announcements on chess forums (most players come from Google).

I think it will speed up at the beginning of 2007 ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-30 18:13:36)
Big chess "birthday" tournament !

FICGS now counts more than 1000 members :)

The display of Big Chess games has just been improved : Last move marked, coordinates, speed, bugs fixed... So it may be funny to see more games !!

A special tournament will start soon, if you want to enter it, just post "I'm in." (or something like that :)) in this thread. The first 7 players will be in.

The tournament will be there :

http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__BIG_CHESS__THOUSAND_MEMBERS_EVENT.html

Games unrated, time control is 30 days + 1 day / move... 7 players -> 6 games per player (big challenge).


Reminder : To see what Big Chess is, see the Inaugural match game...

http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__BIG_CHESS__INAUGURAL_MATCH.html


100% human chess guaranteed, no chess engines & databases :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-30 20:20:03)
2nd FICGS chess WCH waiting list is open

Hello to all.

The waiting list for the 2nd FICGS chess world championship is open !

The 2nd stage of the first cycle may begin before the end of 2006. Thus, a new WCH cycle should begin every 6 months !


A small update in the rules : "A player can't be involved in two consecutive knockout tournaments." (of course, the 8 players involved in the quarter finals during the last cycle can enter the round-robin tournaments cycle)

Several logical reasons to this change : More fun & more chances for more high-rated players, decreasing the risk of rating peaks & to see a world champion involved in several knockout tournaments & candidates finals... to play the final match against himself :)

[edit : this rule is no more effective, simulations show the results wouldn't be interesting enough, and as it will be hard to start a new WCH cycle every 6 months, it's simply better to see the highest rated players in the knockout tournament, whatever the consequences]

Good luck & best wishes to all...


John Acre    (2006-10-30 22:09:15)
lowball

I absolutely use an engine. The permitted use of engines is the only reason I'm at this site to begin with..... ........... ........... ........... ............. .............. ........... Engine assisted games can be a great study tool, if used correctly. I analyze each position to the best of my ability, record my candidate moves. Select one, record it, and then feed the position into Fritz to see how it evaluates the position......... ........... ............ ............. ........... ............. ............... ............. If my move is in the same ballpark, I make my selected move, I feel fricking great, and I await my opponent's reply. If my move is substantially inferior to Fritz's selection, I try to figure out why, and then I play Fritz's move. This way, not only do I get to understand the positions rising out of my chosen opening in a depth I could otherwise never approach without professional guidance, but each step of the way, I learn to play the next move's position as if the strongest move had been played............. ............ ........... ............. ............ ........... ........... .......... .......... If an opponent blunders in a big way, I mostly let Fritz finish him off, because the game is of no study value to me beyond that point. I don't care what my rating is, except that it be at a number where I can join a variety of rated tournaments (to face a variety of opposition). I don't play at this site to win, or to lose. I play here to get as close as a ~1600 OTB player like me can get to understanding the objective truth of the game............ ........... ........... ........... ........... ............. ............ ........ Sorry if that upsets anybody, but that's the whole reason I'm here. The community isn't big enough to have much independent value as a non-engine-assisted place to play correspondence matches. And why would one bother? There are a million of those places on the web. This place, however, is a one-of-a-kind goldmine. If engine play were to dry up or be outlawed here, what would be the point?....... ........... .......... ........ ........... ......... ........ ........... ............ .......... Anyway, to answer, from my viewpoint, another question asked in this thread, I'm currently self-rated at 1500 for this site. I'm playing in tournaments at about that level, and am admittedly using Fritz 9. My record, out of 20 or so games, looks like it's going to be about 4 wins, 6 losses, and 10 draws......... ............ ........... ............ ............ ............ ........... ............. ...... Only two of those wins are going to be miniatures, and both of those against the same guy. So playing with engine-assisted strength of around 2500 on my slow-ish machine, I'm going to score around 45%, with about 17 out of 18 opponents playing at or above my machine-enhanced strength............... ........... ............. ............ ........ ............ ........... People guessing 50% of users here use engines are lowballing, bigtime. I estimate around 95%. And I have no problem saying that I'm one of them.


Sebastian Ilie    (2006-10-31 06:55:11)
Go games "display"

Thx Thibault , for displaying the last move in red , you make my day :) Speaking about improving this site , i must say that it would be better if the opponent message will be displayed at the top - i usually missed them :(


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-31 09:50:28)
Red mark + Message

Graham, really ? Please note the red mark is only displayed on the 'move' page, when you're to play a move. (not in the viewer page ie.)

Sebastian, that's quite right, messages may be forgotten on the 'move' page... But I thought it would be hard not to see it on the 'move_confirm' (cf. url) page, above the 'send' button... That's a problem to displace the board at the bottom IMO :/ And a popup window wouldn't be appreciated... I have no better idea at this time.

Thanks for feedback.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-31 10:54:18)
Go : pro game videos on Youtube

An incredible mistake in a Go game by a professional 9p player. Pressure is high too :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj58O_qHBAU

"The player of the Black stones was Nakano Hironari 9p and the White stones were played by Ishida Yoshio 9p of joseki dictionary fame. This is part of a broadcast of a game from a TV tournament in Japan. The announcer who comes on in the middle says that there isn't time in the program to show the whole game so they are skipping to the end."

From GoDiscussions forum :
http://www.godiscussions.com/forum/showthread.php?t=732


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-31 20:49:57)
Time overstopping

Yes, that's a pity players give up games (particularly in thematic tournaments) like this... It can happen, but not so much games are given up in comparison to other chess servers. Just wait a few days more and it will disappear from your games list...

Kind regards.


Saksham Wal    (2006-10-31 22:53:03)
Help For New Members


I tried to check all existing post, but could not find what i Needed. Can someone Please Help me out in Few Things

1. How do i Start a Single Game Here ? Or playing Tournaments is the only way?

How do i find out which Tournaments are Open to join and which ones are already closed?

2. Are all moves played by e-mail(if yes, how?) or is there on site-java based Interface or something of the sort (eg: like features on GameKnot )

I understand that my Questions Might happen to be silly but well... i-need-to-know...

Hope this topic does not annoy anyone.

Regards



Roger Weber    (2006-10-31 22:56:02)
Help

1. There is no way to play single games on this site.

2. No, there's a beautiful interface on this site. I like the site, because it is very fast loading.

I hope this helped.



Regards,
Roger.


Don Groves    (2006-11-01 05:24:52)
Browser problem

Thibault, That I don't see the opponents highlighted last move is apparently the fault of my browser since it works fine using IE on someone else's computer. However my browser *does* display the highlight on my move just before I send it. Are the two highlights done by different methods? I can't think of any other reason why my browser would display one but not the other.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-01 21:03:53)
Draw offer

Hello Alarich.

You can write a public comment that will be sent to your opponent by email. (or just offer a draw when it's your turn - check the 'offer draw' box when playing your move)

Best wishes.


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-11-03 04:18:01)
Rating change

Hello, sorry, but try as I do I have difficulty with the rating calculaltion here. I am in a dead draw game with a player rated 1765 at table 236. I wonder if you would not mind giving me my expected loss in rating points with this draw. My rating is 2005. By way of information, I have offered twice now, but he plays on. That is ok, that is his privilage. Thank you Wayne


Don Burden    (2006-11-03 14:20:07)
Only 965 ?!

I noticed it too. It was the rating list page. It's back showing over 1000 now, but it definitely was showing under 1000 players for a few days. I think it was the 1st and 2nd of this month.


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-11-03 20:18:14)
Rating change

Ahhhhhh. I just dont understand this I guess, I am confused, my TER at start of tourny was also 1400. This does not make sense to me. Guess the only way I am gonna find out is for this guy to draw. In that vain I will force a playing draw, if the 50 rule does not do it for me. Thank you Wayne


Thomas Gilbreath    (2006-11-04 09:18:41)
re: the timeout

My player ccmcacollister will not be available for any re-start of the games vs. Aldag (due to personal reasons). I would like this situation adjudicated as soon as possible.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-05 12:45:06)
Fischer : "Now chess is completely dead"

A new interview from the former world chess champion Bobby Fischer...

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3468

No surprise : Fischer’s problems with the Union Bank of Switzerland, United states founded and being run by extremists, Capablanca brillancy, but also : "I don’t like chess any more" (what about chess 960 ?), "Now chess is completely dead. It is all just memorisation and prearrangement. It’s a terrible game now. Very uncreative"...

I just wonder.. How can we find so much pleasure in correspondence chess ? .. Was his pleasure only to destroy weak players or in real challenges against strong[er] players (ie. Karpov).. I can understand why a grandmaster stop to play competitive chess because it's too hard & it takes too much time, but I can't explain myself such a champion finding "limits" to chess & getting no more pleasure...

"Play Go !" :)


Sebastian Palozzi    (2006-11-05 14:29:19)
A Moment of Clarity

I find it interesting that no matter how bizzare his life and his thoughts might be I can usually find a moment of perfect clarity and thought; his description of Capablanca's style and ability coincide very nicely with the latest computer analysis of World Champion strength and style as posted on Chessbase. It seems to me that putting aside all questions of strength or playing ability Fischer has a profound knowledge and love of chess. If he is wrong about anything he is wrong about his own feelings about the game.


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-11-05 15:06:43)
Re:

Sebastian, tha's an interesting thought. Maybe you're right. If Fischer just stuck to chess only/continued with chess playing, chess analysis & chess commentating (without getting mingled up with other worldly issues & many bizarre views), he would have been better off in life.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-11-05 20:25:29)
Fischer : "Now chess is completely dead"

Why should be a (very, very) good chess player also a wise person? Bobby by himself has showed us that there are no correlation between theese abilities. It must be very frustrating for a grandmaster that very weak players can tell him for many positions (but far from all positions!!!) on an easy way by using chess engines what had been his mistakes in last competition!


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-11-06 05:59:08)
Re:

What was the last tournament Fischer played in?!...... the rematch with Spassky in the 1990s?!?


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-11-07 15:45:25)
Re:

Charlie, I'm almost certain that Fischer played some sorta return match versus Spassky somewhere in the ninetees in Yugoslavia!?? & won. Maybe Thibault knows some details about it.


Elmer Valderrama    (2006-11-07 19:34:10)
Motivation

It appears to me Fischer's approach to chess it's a simple case of (lack of) motivation, if you haven't got any everything seems dull and grey. On the opposite side is V Korchnoi, older than him, but with a lot a will and of course motivation.

Of course having been at the very top preclude any further motivation, perhaps that's a curse to every WC (they can't just go on playing chess for fun as other GM (wanna-be WCs) would do -and be happy at the same time-, exception could be M Tal)


Dorel Oltean    (2006-11-10 22:00:27)
retire, come back. What's next ?

I’m playing in two tournaments with Mr Marez : class M02 and WCH M01. Mr Marez had practically retired from the FICGS tournaments because he did not play for a very long period (one-two month). He lost on time 4 of 5 remaining games in each tournament. Now he comes back to continue the games he did not lose on time. By proceeding like that he is not fair to all the participants in the given tournaments, ruins the results and gives a not serious character, an amateur-like flavor to the tournaments. On top of that he is now registered for other tournaments. I think someone must do something about that.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-11 05:47:37)
All tournament boards on a single page

A new update...

Reminder : When browsing a tournament page, if you click the "photo" icon at the right of the name of the tournament, all boards, moves and public comments will be displayed on the same page.

It may take more than 30 seconds the very first time (these days, because of the update), but then it should be much.. much faster...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-11 06:16:23)
@ Sebastien Marez

Hello Sebastien.

That's always interesting to compare IECG and FICGS... Several players asked me about your forfeit in the previous tournaments, so I'm curious : Can I ask you why you finally came back to play some games at FICGS (after loosing about 240 points - future rating : 2204) ?? I suppose the time controls here are too slow for you (as Henri), do you have an idea about a "perfect" formula ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-11 06:31:12)
... translation

Sorry to all who don't speak french... This thread is another one about FICGS time controls. Several players complained about the 60 days rule and time controls which are too slow... We discussed it already : In my opinion, one can last a game the same way with a 20, 30 or 60 days limit per move rule. What's important is the global time control and I think the 30 days + 1 day / move scheme is fast enough.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-11 07:24:59)
temps de réflexion

Such a rule (a player who do not connect to the server during more than 30 or 60 days [+holidays] automatically looses all his games at the same time) could be applied, but would it solve all cases & problems. I don't think so...

About time controls, is 30 days + 1 day / move really too slow ? What else ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-11 14:13:54)
temps de reflexion

I don't understand why it is a problem !? ..

Many players like the 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves time control, it is even - much - faster than the same time control played by email (ie. IECG) !

Finally, why didn't you prefer to enter the RAPID M tournament waiting list ??


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-11 19:27:15)
Chess tournaments : Performances

Hello to all.

Performances are now displayed for chess tournaments in the tournament crosstable pages.. (click the picture near the tournament name)

It doesn't mean anything for the rating calculation as games taken in account depend on tournament entry ratings (TER). Informative only :)


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-11-12 15:34:17)
Chess problem

Fine - let us play in Wikichess! What have I to do?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-12 18:41:41)
Incredible life of chess players...

Sometimes I'm simply stunned by the players informations I can read... :)

http://www.ficgs.com/display_informations.php?member=1065


That's great to welcome players from all horizons... and ages !


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-12 18:45:39)
Nice endgame

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=wikichess&article=3536

I quote you : "That's the nice endgame, which is won for White! .... really??? - definitely, but very complicate!"

Do you mean this is the line played by your opponent (Peter Daus, I presume) ?


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-11-12 18:50:50)
Nice endgame

Certainly not! He didn't play it the best way.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-11-13 13:10:22)
Challenge!

I think that
- Latvian gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5
and
- Traxler counterattack 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5
is won by white.

So I challenge everyone serious player who wants to play Latvian gambit or Traxler counterattack (for example, Thibault Vassal :D ) with black.

My e-mail is ilmars.cirulis@gmail.com

Ilmars Cirulis. :D


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-14 00:39:01)
?

Hi Ilmars. You mean the email with the lines we play ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-14 12:44:39)
A story of chess...

'not boring', at least :)

Hello again & welcome ! .. I'm so curious, I would have number of questions (regarding to chess, of course :)), like first at what age did you begin to play chess (maybe correspondence chess)... You probably know chess stories that nobody knows. But I don't want to take your time.

All the best, Thibault


Arthur Alfred Macarsindale    (2006-11-14 13:22:07)
Story Of Life and Chess

Often closer linked than people may think! Ask me anything you feel you want to please.Chess or otherwise.I can only answer or not answer! I was taught chess by a relative who was a rather fine player when I was aged 9 in 1921. He died when I was 12 years old and so I lost a playing partner. I was married in 1932 and, seeing the ghastly goings-on in Germany in 1930s knowing that the whole show was starting again as it had in 1914 ,I vowed to ensure that a group of thugs and criminals would not be taking a foot on the shores and shires of Great Britain and bringing along some new age of butchery and lunacy . And so the RAF was my home for the next 15 years from 1938. I revisited chess principally in 1940 and that was hot summer's days outside playing cards,chess and other games waiting for the phone to ring and 'scramble'. Unfortunately two of my chaps who I played often with were shot down and killed over Kent in August 1940. I miss them both to this day. Then I did not play for years until the advent of correspondence chess in the 1960s and 1970s through the postal mail. And since 1998 the Internet. There you have it!


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-14 13:49:08)
Story Of Life and Chess

Yes, a story of life and chess ! ..

In my ICCF database, the oldest archived correspondence chess games have been played (at first sight, I may be wrong) in 1989, did you kept your first correspondence chess games ? It would be great to see some from this period... In which organizations did you play before ? Thanks for your answers :)


Arthur Alfred Macarsindale    (2006-11-14 14:07:49)
Answer

I do not have them.I am sorry. I think it was 1996 when i first played on the Internet.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-14 15:59:48)
First chess servers

1996... the very beginning of internet. Was there another way to play chess online than FICS (not FICGS :)) through Winboard on Unix system ?!


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-14 16:47:18)
Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz, 2006

In less than 2 weeks from now, classical & FIDE world champion Vladimir Kramnik will play the best (at least most famous) chess program Deep Fritz 10 !

From november 25 to december 5, 2006 at the Federal Art Hall in Bonn. One million US dollars for Kramnik if he defeats Deep Fritz, half this amount otherwise...

We did not forget the previous match in Bahrain (2002), that ended with a 3-3 score.

Do you feel Fritz improved enough to beat a player like Kramnik, who most probably improved his play too... Will Kramnik play rather different openings than in his match against Topalov ? .. Anyway it should be an interesting match to follow.


A few links :

http://www.kramnik.com/eng/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=95
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2947



Dinesh De Silva    (2006-11-15 02:17:33)
Re:

He will most probably play semi closed openings & defences, which gives a slight/miniscule advantage or equality somewhere, avoiding early tactical open positions. So we might not see any Sicilian at all as Black in his repertoire. He'll try his best to outwit the computer by sometimes introducing deviations or novelties in the first 25 moves or so.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-15 02:35:07)
FICGS update : Security improved

Hello to all.

You may (sure :)) have noticed the new login page with two forms.

This is most probably temporary.

Of course, passwords are stored 'hashed' on the server so that noone can retrieve it, even me... Now, if you login with the first form, your password won't be even sent through the internet, it is hashed by your browser before. Second, passwords won't be stored anymore in cookies with the secure form. At last, a new barrier against hacking... The old form is still available because it might be possible for certain players to be disconnected early because of their changing ip address (according to the internet provider).

Please just tell me if you encounter any problem. Thanks in advance :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-15 12:56:07)
1996 + this site and others

So you played email chess since 1996 ! .. in a particular organization ?

About the boards here, you're right, they are quite small according to screen resolution. That's why I just implemented (at last) the possibility to change the board size & set in Preferences. Is it too small yet ? .. Anyway I have to improve it... All feedbacks are welcome :)


@ Marc : Thanks for info ! ;)


Arthur Alfred Macarsindale    (2006-11-15 11:43:50)
this site and others

may i say what a joy this site is to play on.Nice people,etc. I play also at GameKnot and the reason I chose that is because the chess board graphic is excellent and clear. No criticism of yours at all but for old eyes that one is wonderful.


Marc Lacrosse    (2006-11-15 12:08:49)
Early web chess

Hi Thibault In 1989 I affiliated to Compuserve.
This was an international online system with chats, forums ...
... and an active community of chess players playing slow-timing chess!
You had to connect to a national server through dialup modem connection and then they relayed all-over-the world. Early interfaces were character-based under DOS ...
A few years later Compuserve began to interact with the "real" internet and so I was among the 100 earlier private persons to have internet access in Belgium...
So you see that server-chess is not that new!




Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-15 14:23:14)
Go scorer (improvement)

Hello to all Go players.

A small improvement in the Go scorer : Komi (7.5 points) is now added to White score and the program says who 'probably' wins !

Also a small bug corrected in the count algorithm, about a few unknown points...


In example, you can score this exciting game Vorobev -Steveson :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=score&game=3102

Just remove these groups : n8 m9 g18 r18 g17


Score is 183 to 178 (+ 7.5) -> White wins by 2.5 points. (verified with a viewer)

See the game here :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=3102


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-11-16 01:26:09)
Players needed

Hello all. We need 4 more players to fill out the Class A 000009 tournament rating range is 2000-2400. It should be a nice tourney. Wayne Lowrance


Ryaad Aabid    (2006-11-16 01:42:44)
Something to be changed

FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_C__000005 Game 741 The clock of my opponent was almost 0:0 He came and has done his move #22 until the move #31 , then he hid after his clock drank 40 days! What type players is there? I think something should be changed. Another opponent (Game 1265) has appeared after his clock became almost 3 days! Either I am an unlucky player, or there is somerule should be changed. Because of this I will leave, but never leave those 2 games for the rubbish of the chess:Adrian and Balogh.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-16 01:56:57)
Something to be changed

Hmmm... Dinesh has his fans :) ... (just a joke)

This has been discussed before : Server chess has clear time rules, some players may "play" with the slow time controls, sometimes for a good reason, sometimes not... It can't be totally prevented (or feel free make suggestions).

Looking at your clocks, that all reached 100 days, I suggest you to play rapid tournaments. This problem won't happen often this way !

Best regards.


Ryaad Aabid    (2006-11-16 09:28:27)
Suggestion

All openings became known nowadays. If the opponents ends the openinig step, the clock will automatically be changed from 30 or 40 days to 7 or 10 days. If the player has no time enough to visit the website during 7 or 10 days, he/she should take vacation, otherwise to leave! instead of bothering his/her opponents. Thank you Thibault, Ryaad


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-16 13:02:24)
Suggestion

The idea to jump the first time control (not to add 40 days at move 10) would have been interesting if we knew 'where' ends the opening, but that's quite impossible... The real problem is some players can't connect so often, or play so quickly !

It may be frustrating in some cases but that's correspondence chess... I connect about 20 times a day but I have many games and I feel in zeitnot in some of them. As for me it depends more on the game than on the time control...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-16 13:27:51)
Please link to FICGS

Dear friends, you may know how it is important for a website to be linked from other places on the internet since Google created his famous ranking system Pagerank...

FICGS has got about 1,000 links so far (not too bad after 7 months) for a Pagerank 5, but the more links, the more players !

Feel free to link to FICGS from your website, blog, in forums and so on...

You may contact me - info (at) ficgs.com - if you have a chess or Go related website, so that I add it in the file that displays random links at the bottom of each game page, ie. http://www.ficgs.com/game_342.html


A link written one of these ways would be very appreciated :

<a href="http://www.ficgs.com " title="Correspondence Chess Server">FICGS</a>
<a href="http://www.ficgs.com " title="Chess Server">FICGS chess server</a>
<a href="http://www.ficgs.com " title="Go Server">FICGS Go server</a>
<a href="http://www.ficgs.com/forum.html " title="Chess forum">FICGS chess forum</a>
<a href="http://www.ficgs.com/wikichess.html " title="Wikichess">Wikichess</a>

Thanks in advance !


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-16 23:48:55)
Nice endgame

Hello Wolfgang.

No need to play it anymore..... g5 ! wins.

But is it the only winning move... That's another study. Actually, this game looks like numerous high-level correspondence chess wins, "winning" moves are quite natural & clear and it may be very hard to know the first loosing move (which is always unique). Not very spectacular, but very technical & instructive. Thanks :)


Glen D. Shields    (2006-11-17 06:39:51)
Changing World

It's interesting to read players correspondence chess expectations as technology evolves.

What we see on servers like FICGS is the integration of players with various chess backgrounds and expectations. Players who grew up with the internet, and whose first chess experiences were real time chess servers expect games to move quickly. Players who grew up playing correspondence chess by postcard expect games to move much more slowly.

Personally I'm as equalled annoyed by players who stall (like the one described by Mr. Aabid) as I am by those who think move-a-minute correspondence chess is cute. It's going to take time and creativity by the server owners to balance players needs/interests. My ideal is when both players move at a steady 2-3 days per move pace (with the obvious exception for holidays, work, illness, etc). Those games stay interesting from start to finish and always seem to end with a pleasant thank you and congratulations.


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-11-17 17:51:23)
Need one more player

Class A 000009. We have 6 strong players. Need one more. rating 2000-2200 welcome Wayne


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-11-17 17:53:24)
Need one more player

Correction, sorry. Rating for tournament is 2000-2400. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-17 18:59:02)
Tournaments with money prizes

Hello to all.

Finally, Chess & Go tournaments with money prizes will begin in 2007 january !

"Money chess" is an all times controversy, many players play for fun only (even at the highest levels), others like much more this way of play. I think it's simply the most challenging, finally it quite looks like classical tournaments.

About Go, things are quite different, as software & particularly engines are a negligible factor in the play. The best players will probably always win, but weak players may be interested in a lesson.


You may have noticed some changes in the waiting list categories for money tournaments :

Two formats for 2-players matches will be available, 8 games matches (time control 30 days + 1 day / move) and 2 games duels (time control 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves) renewed in case of a draw.

Simultaneous games will be also organized with international masters for both games, with prizes shared if some players could beat the masters.

Of course, it won't change anything to the free tournaments & championships, it will be optional only. I hope it will help to provide prizes for the FICGS chess & Go world championships (sponsors are welcome :)) ...

The membership page - Terms and Conditions - has also been updated.

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html

Some major changes (as in money tournaments pages) might happen until 2007 january.


Feel free to post here if you have any comment or suggestion.

Best wishes.


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-11-18 00:52:42)
Player needed

A challenge your invited to the Class A 000009 2000-2400 tournament. There are six players now, top rated is 2300+. Room for one more player. Cmon and enjoy a nice tourney. Wayne


Mikhail Ruzin    (2006-11-19 09:22:47)
Rating change (Go)

Hello Thibault. It is not normal! My initial raring was 1800. Then I lost the rated game in FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT__000008 against a player rated 1900 and my rating changed to 1780. It is normal. But then I win the rated game in FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_DAN__000001 against a player rated 1600 and my rating changed to 1752. It is not normal.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-18 22:38:06)
Rating change (Go)

Hello Mikhail.


Looks quite normal :

You won a rated game in FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_DAN__000001 against a player rated (TER) 1600 and you lost a rated game in FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT__000008 against a player rated 1900... The rating average of your opponents is inferior to your initial rating (1800).


Marc Lacrosse    (2006-11-19 13:33:40)
Where else do/did you play corr. chess ?

I just wondered where else did some of us play before coming on FICGS (and do some of us still play elsewhere ?).

Thibault I could not find you on AJEC or ICCF listings although I see you are a regular poster on ICCF's forum (TCCMB): where did you play before ?

For what regards myself I played in ICCF tournaments in 2000-2003 than switched to playchess.de and then here. And now I just began with ICCF play at new : I had one half master norm there and thought it could be nice try to get the other half :-)

Marc


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-19 15:35:57)
Where else do/did you play corr. chess ?

:)))

Hello Marc.

That's funny you ask me... Hard to find correspondence chess info about me & indeed I did not play at AJEC & ICCF yet. That's not a secret, many of you already know that I made several movies, some (last one was a kind of parody of Stanley Kubrick's "A clockwork orange") under my name, others - english speaking ones - under my "real" director's name that I used on most chess servers & in another correspondence chess organization, where I achieved about the same rating. (damn, I may be disqualified for the WC final :))

Of course I tried a lot of correspondence chess places before, but none was interesting or challenging enough to me, that's why FICGS and its tournament & WCH rules.


Charlie Neil    (2006-11-19 17:05:27)
Retire and come back.

I'm sorry to read that you feel you have to leave because of the behaviour of some other people. I think that is just one of the drawbacks of having a free site on the internet. Anyone can join our "club" and conduct themselves in an unsporting manner. I think it is just one of those things. I have been the victim of similar unsportsman like behaviour in over the board games, by post and on similar sites here on the net. I just think you get that tiny minotiry (and that is all they are) who mess around. I do like playing on ficgs and , (so far) have been paired with well-mannered opponents who play fair. I have had a number of silent withdrawals but that is to be expected. I am just sad to think if any well meaning players would leave because of someone messing around. But life's like that, that's the way it is.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-19 17:56:13)
Retire and come back.

Hello Dorel.

I'm very sorry about that, but actually Charlie just said everything.

"It is just one of the drawbacks of having a free site on the internet."

This was only an obvious example, but the problem is quite more complex... What about a player who just looses a game on time and continue his other games. Farther, why a player should draw to another one and win to a third. Any result in any round-robin tournament is partly 'aleatory' and depends on many other factors than chess, particularly rules.

It also happens in over the board tournaments to get prizes, it can happen everywhere and at ICCF too... That's why I prefer knockout system. Of course, I'd like to solve all problems, but no rules are perfect. (by the way all suggestions are welcome)


The original post was in 'temps de réflexion' thread :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=1453


Best wishes.


Marius Zubac    (2006-11-19 19:21:59)
A penalty system is needed

Hello Thibault. I think that time has come for you to add new rules to FICGS and a penalty system (using penalty points) to discourage players from retire-comeback behavior. Loosing some games on time unless provoked by some unforeseen event should be also penalized although less severe. Upon reaching a certain number of penalty points the player should be prevented to register for new FICGS tournaments (let's say a half a year) and on resuming the penalized player should be only allowed to play a limited number of games until the lesson is learned. If you would compare FICGS list with the server-based IECG list you should notice that FICGS is less populated in the strong players section (2200+) than IECG and this has an impact on the quality of high-end tournaments, norms and titles and of course ratings. If we want to improve FICGS some action in this regard must be taken. I sympathize with Mr. Oltean and wish he reconsiders his decision. Marius


Charlie Neil    (2006-11-19 21:05:51)
Match FICGS vs GameKnot

How/where can I view the match games on GameKnot? Is it possible to see them as there being played as we can here? I'm just nosey.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-19 21:40:49)
Re: A penalty system is needed

Hello Marius, thanks for suggestions.

My problem is : How to deal with ie. a player who can't play (personal or any good reasons) during a while and looses only one or two games on time in a tournament ? .. How to prove a 'retirement' ? .. Above all, we have to avoid cases that could be undecided by the rules.

Of course, IECG server is more populated in the strong player section ! .. But there is no link with this in my opinion, IECG - International Email Chess Group - exists for more than 10 years, it's a long way. I regularly read IECG forum but I did not try IECG server yet.

I only know that IECG & FICGS servers started about the same time (FICGS started one or two weeks before IECG server), as Ortwin gave me some advices about the server before it started...


Marius Zubac    (2006-11-20 00:25:05)
The penalty system - a proposal

A player that for a (good) reason is not able to continue his games should have two choices: A) Let some games get lost on time and then he would be treated under the penalty system. B) Ask for a retirement and in this case no penalties should be applied. Once a player asks for retirement the following actions should be taken: 1. His status in the rating list should be flagged to retired; perhaps a retired player should not be able to register a new tournament; 2. A retired player could get re-instated by applying directly to the FICGS adjudication commission; 3. All the retired player’s running games should then be frozen and dealt with on a by tournament basis: 3a) if in a tournament the retired player has finished games that are not lost the remaining games should be adjudicated by FICGS for rating purposes. However all the retired player’s games should not be counted for qualification purposes (if the tournament provides qualification to a next stage); how the games are to be considered for norms is a matter to be discussed. 3b) if in a tournament the retired player has finished games that are all lost the tournament director can act as in 3a) or has the option of canceling all the retired player’s games. This proposal is far from perfect but shows that we are not helpless and some action can be taken. The reason I mentioned IECG is because probably on the server the population is roughly equivalent with the FICGS’s one but in IECG’s case the distributed is more favorable in the upper section. This is the reason why there is enough active population at any given time for new tournaments and severe rules are not needed as much as in FICGS’s case in order to maintain a meaningful activity. My belief is that the centaur mode will prove in time to generate stronger games, stronger chess and FICGS will have chances to become in time the most relevant correspondence chess server. The technical conditions are already met. Marius


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-20 01:03:54)
Re: Perhaps a silly question, but...

Hello Lawrence.

Do you mean "knockout tournament" ?

Reason is simple, it doesn't make sense in correspondence chess, as time controls are too slow and rounds can't be played at the same time. On the contrary, in round-robin tournaments all rounds can be played at the same time...

But knockout system is great and it remains in FICGS chess WCH, which is a multi-stages tournament.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-20 01:33:29)
Re: The penalty system - a proposal

Ok, I say why not... But once again the problem is : What to do if a player looses only one game on time (after 12 moves, very small advantage for his opponent) in a tournament ? .. How to be sure he has bad or good reasons ? How to prove a 'retirement' ? .. My opinion is you can't prevent all cheating attempts (obvious or agreements between players), but we have to discourage them as much as possible. At IECG, there are many tournament directors but a player can withdraw from a tournament without loosing a single point, and there are consequences on the result in all ways.

CJS Purdy : "The only valid excuse for withdrawal from a chess tournament is death, and then only with a death certificate" :)

I think FICGS rules are quite hard already. Most important is to follow clear rules, with no human decision as much as possible. Still looking for improvements.


Don Groves    (2006-11-20 07:33:54)
Go : Komi

I feel 7.5 points komi is too much for some Go games. Since we do not use handicaps (which is good, IMHO) should not komi be reduced if White is a higher rated player than Black? For players of equal ability, 7.5 komi is fine, but when I must give Sebastian Ilie 7.5 points, it seems a joke. He beats me by 200 anyway ;-) I suggest komi be reduced by one point for every 100 (or perhaps 200) rating points difference (to a minimum of 0.5) when White is the superior player. What do others think about this?


Daniel Khayman    (2006-11-20 08:23:52)
Wikichess

Still me and still new. It's not quite clear to me how this Wikichess function works and what its purpose is. It looks like some sort of communal board where anyone can make a move and comment on it but, can one go back and replay previous moves in a different way? and what else can one do? Thanks, Daniel


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-20 15:59:46)
Go : Komi

Komi 7.5 points is the 'estimated' fair value while playing perfect (at least pro)...

Since we use elo rating system for Go, I think any handicap (stones or komi) is nonsense, but maybe we could create an unrated category of tournaments, simultaneous games or matches with a handicap... Could be fun & more interesting in some cases.


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-11-20 21:12:28)
Messages

Hi Dan. Welcome aboard. This is nice site. I agree, the site is a very good place to play CC, But it is not very friendly only because of the feature you mention. When I first came aboard that is the first thing I noticed. Consider this a second vote for a place that we all can converse and get to know each other better. Wayne. ps Dan I know your a tough cookie and will do well here


Lionel Vidal    (2006-11-20 21:29:31)
You seems in advance :-)

Well, considering the results of last year pro games (almost a perfect 50-50 result, according to my rather large but admittedly incomplete database) I am not sure a komi change from 6.5 will occur soon, at least in the japanese pro scene... And the number of recent games in gobase that ends in 1 or 1/2 points difference is astonishing :-) (not really significant, I know, as pros have the capacity to keep a tiny edge till the end, reducing it to simplify the game... but still :-))
Anyway, for us, simple and humble go mortals, that does not change much :-)

(but even at my low level I tend to be more aggressive in my fuseki while playing with an opponent of my level or stronger when the komi is 7.5 instead of say 5.5... so considering the increase/decrease (black/white) of aggressive attitude, maybe it is important for most of us because the feeling of a game might eventually change)


Lionel Vidal    (2006-11-20 21:57:03)
Go handicap and rating

Is handicap Go really nonsensical in rated tournaments?
While it seems so in a world championship, where the aim is to determine the stronger player in an absolute sense, why should it be so in a tournament, where the aim is to determine the best player in a relative sense... hum, not a very clean or clear sentence, but I hope you got the idea :-)

In face to face Go, in most amateur tournaments, it is not a problem, and you can win or loose a tournament, win or loose points, playing with an handicap (some tournaments set a limit lower than 9 in the number of handicap stones). I do not know the formulae used to compute the knew ratings, but in practice it works well. (and the same thing works also in Shogi tournaments)

Before WWII, even pros played with handicap (one or two stones at most, more commonly with a fixed color and no komi) and that *for money*!! Nowadays this is not the case anymore: maybe the increase of pro-tournament prizes change the noble way to be the best of two players fighting *their best* at their *respective* level!

Anyway, I think such an idea may be interresting to motivate players: when weaker, I will fight my best because I have a chance to win, and when stronger, I *have* to fight well :-)

We could think of a rating system where you play your first, say, 20 games without handicap to get a starting rating, and then to receive or give handicaps automatically in tournaments. We could then consider a rating as fixed after a bunch of 20 more games...
Or any other system that will always generate tense and dangerous games! That will be, at least for me, a great motivation to play more :-)
(but then I do not care much for my rating :-))


Daniel Khayman    (2006-11-20 22:13:29)
Messages

hello Wayne, i'm glad you've popped in. yeah, apparently not many players here like to have a friendly chat while playing but, hey, you can always find a way around it so, if you wanna talk, my friend, just post a topic here and we'll discuss it......or maybe we can do by the usual e-mails :-). thanks for your welcoming Wayne and hope to meet you soon across the board.. daniel p.s.: today my son has been hospitalised for 10 days to examine what appears to be a certain case of autism: the final diagnosis will be made at the end of this session but i'm not to optimistic anymore; he looked like he'd been improving but it was only a mirage or maybe just my irrational hope that all this be a bad dream from which i'll soon wake up. i've woken up, alright?!?! what can you do? life goes on and he's forever gonna need me so i can't afford to despair. the greatest match of my yet short life has begun. see you around Wayne.


Don Groves    (2006-11-21 00:45:58)
Go: Komi

Hi Thibault, I'm confused as to why elo ratings matter. Go has used komi a long time to compensate for the first move while chess never has. But in chess, you have narrower rating groups, so practically never is an expert matched against a novice. Since in Go we have only three rating groups, these uneven matches happen many times. Until we have enough Go players to have more rating groups, a sliding komi scale would be a way to level the playing field a bit. PS - I'm not interested in traditional Go handicap games -- the empty board is the only true way to begin, IMHO.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-21 11:32:39)
Go: Komi

Stones handicap or Komi handicap is handicap anyway... I'm not sure it makes sense to change the Komi (Lionel would agree, I think).

As I just said in another thread, if we add a handicap system which gives chances enough to weak players against strong players, I'm afraid results & ratings / ranks don't mean anything anymore then, at least more aleatory. This is another game... (and such 'strange' rules might frighten beginners).

I think it could be ok (as another challenge) in an unrated tournaments category.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-21 11:42:59)
Players needed

All in subject :)

Come in, lots of fun ! Or frightened ? ;) .. ok, only 1 player more and we'll start a 5 players tournament !


Lionel Vidal    (2006-11-21 13:03:54)
Oops, sorry!

After rereading my last message, I saw I forgot a negation that change the whole meaning: I meant a komi change would *not* occur soon in the Japanese scene IMO!!
Otherwise my whole point and argument is nonsense... anyway, while I would prefer 6.5 (just to play the very first move identifying myself to some of my Go hereos... come on, just grow up :-), I can live with the still much uncommon 7.5 :-)


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.


Lionel Vidal    (2006-11-21 14:12:35)
Komi 7.5

Well, in France too, it is officially 7.5 in tournaments, with counting based on the chinese method (and you have to ensure that both players played the same number of stones), but with no provision for complex cases (multi-kos, complex sekis...). In practice, it works!
I wonder if the japanese way of counting makes a difference in komi value... I'll check that...


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-21 19:44:09)
Vacation cancel : Not possible...

Hello Sebastian.

To cancel vacation is not possible, sorry. Because time is frozen during vacation, time virtually added to your clock may differ according to who played last move (you or your opponent), so it's quite difficult to take it back. Sorry about that :/


Don Groves    (2006-11-21 20:49:23)
Go: komi

Hello Lionel (and Thibault), I think you misunderstand what I wrote. I am suggesting "reducing" komi in certain games, not "increasing" komi as a way to handicap games. I agree the games should not be handicapped. I do not agree that a much higher rated player playing white should receive 7.5 komi against a much weaker player. The much stronger player already has a great advantage and does not need to be compensated for the weaker player making the first move.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-21 21:24:02)
Poker, chess & chance

As many of you, I regularly read Chessbase news and I was quite surprised to read this article "A chess master's poker tour" by Almira Skripchenko about World Poker Championship, french celebrities and so on... (a way to popularize chess ? or is it only Almira ? :))

I used to play stud poker and I was just looking informations about the part of chance in games. I only found this article written in french (sorry) :

http://jeuxstrategie.free.fr/page_le_jeu_de_strategie_cest_quoi.php

If you know something about that or an article on the internet, I'm quite interested in.

Here is a personal estimation - at first sight - of the part of chance (opposed to a perfect play) in some games :


Chess, Go (& all determined games) : 0 %

Scrabble, Trivial pursuit : 20 %
Poker : 30 %
Monopoly : 70 %

Roulette, Loto (& all chancy games) : 100 %


Barry Bell    (2006-11-22 04:42:46)
Introduction - Anyone4chess.com

My name is Barry and after corresponding with Thibault on my website (www.anyone4chess.com) for the last few days, Thibault suggested I drop by and post something about our website. Anyone 4 Chess is not a correspondence chess, we call our system an online a turn based chess system (Association – A4C). The site works on a 7 day cycle for moves and you receive no emails that a move has been made however, if you are entered into one of our free tournaments (all tournaments are free and their will never be any cost to play chess on our system) an email is sent to each player in any tournament that the next round is about to begin. Anyone 4 Chess is an online turn based chess system however, it also hosts the Association dedicated to promoting, supporting and developing an association for webmasters / players who support this type of chess. We believe there is a place for this type of chess (different from correspondence, OTB and real time chess) and the association will work to promote this type of chess following the example of FIDE and other organization to work towards our mandate and goals. Thanks


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-11-22 05:54:24)
Re:

How much clock time per game per player???


Lionel Vidal    (2006-11-22 13:51:55)
Scrabble?

Just to point out that scrabble, when played in duplicate, is 0% chance (but I vastly prefer the game as a duell, despite some luck, easily almost cancelled by a 10 games match, because of the various blocking and counting strategies involved :-)).
Same thing for bridge BTW.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-22 13:54:26)
Go engines...

SmartGo is really nice, but I've read Many Faces of Go is a bit stronger (it would play around 8 kyu). I've tried both programs, and I feel they would be weaker at correspondence Go, as reflexion time couldn't improve much their play.

But they are a great way to improve by solving problems and watching pro games.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-22 13:56:01)
Scrabble

"when played in duplicate" ??

What do you mean ?


Lionel Vidal    (2006-11-22 14:17:20)
Scrabble

Duplicate scrabble is a form a competitive scrabble where each player (more than 500 in some big tournaments!) has his own set and play the same letters, chosen at random by a referee. The goal is to score the maximum at each move. The referee, in case of multiple max scores, chooses the possibility that opens the grid more, then all players play that move and the play goes. The very best players end usually with very few points under the theorical top score!
Note that a computer always gets the top score (obviously!) in that form a competition, and so cannot loose. But in a duell, because of the strategic aspects, the best humans may still beat silicon monsters :-)


Barry Bell    (2006-11-23 02:49:56)
Re:

Hi The site works on 7 days to make a move, the clocks are reset after each move. To answer the next question: The site is a free turn based online chess system (a place to play chess free) and it also hosts an association to support webmasters that believe and or support what A4C stands for regarding online chess. As for google, as I mention to ThibaulT, we have no interest in google at this time, we are in the first phase of development and when the third phase is finshed we plan to take full advantage of these options when we are ready. Thanks


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-11-23 04:14:40)
Re:

I think I figured it out: 1. A player has to log in to that site at least once every 7 days. 2. A player does not know whether his/her opponent has made a move until he/she logs in to check out. 3. A player who fails to make a move within 7 days loses the game. What I haven't figured out is whether computer analysis is allowed or not. Is it totally banned there???


Barry Bell    (2006-11-23 06:20:08)
Re:

Hi - There is a section under Help that deals with Computer Play, so to answer your question no computers are not banned. The TD (tournament director) has the ability to create whatever type of tournament he wants as long as he follows A4C rules. The normal tournaments are swiss, the team tournaments are a combination of swiss and round robin. Example: A TD creates a 5 round swiss and states this tournament will be a computer assisted tournament, he states the rules etc etc. as long has it does not break any A4C rules then this type of tournament is accepted. So far we have not had a tournament like this, but provision to allow this type of tournament are already in place.


Barry Bell    (2006-11-23 06:35:18)
Re:

I also want to mention that our system is very fexiable, with tournament play and normal game play. Example re tournaments: You start the tournament, you get choose whether it is open or closed, you make decisions on pairings if you want or just let the computer decide. You deal with complaints, withdraw or return players in the tournament, declare a winner, draw etc. In other words you cant just set the tournament on auto pilot and forget about it (well I can no else can...grin). Normal play, you find 7 days is not enough time, if the other player agree you baiscly can set your own time frames. Yes an option to claim a win will appear if your opponent does not move in 7 days but you dont have to accept it! I hope this is not to much information. - Thanks


Glen D. Shields    (2006-11-23 06:38:17)
No Thanks

Why in the world would I want to play on a site that sounds as disorganized as yours? There are tens of places to play like FICGS that are well organized and aren't shrouded in mystery. When you figure out what you want to be, want kind of tournaments you want to offer (turn based doesn't mean anything sorry), and you offer folks the opportunity to evaluate your site without harvesting their personal information, I'll take a look and re-consider.

Good luck.


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-11-23 07:54:47)
Re:

Mr Bell, Thanks for the info! It's a bit different from other sites, but I now have an understanding of it's structure of play. I have registered on your site. I will start playing my first tourney there soon. Best regards.


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-11-24 06:44:37)
Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz, 2006

My two cents. I have little interest in this match. It is no longer any doubt wheather the programs are stronger than the Human. The playing field for this match is not even,. Kramnik has secured far too much of an advantage based on the rules of the match. He will play just well enough to secure a draw, or even perhaps push to a 31/2-21/2 win. After all gotta keep up the suspense for the next big payday cow. Anyways Fritz is not the strongest Engine I believe Human-Program matches should be played without handicap for the program. Then we know who is champs. so now in my view I already know. Wayne


Marc Lacrosse    (2006-11-24 09:27:56)
completely unfair and thus impredictible

The fact that the match conditions have been arranged on such unfair rules has two immediate consequences :
- we already know for sure that Kramnik himself is sure that he could not succeed on a more fair ground
- final result is unpredictible and probably already arranged beforehand

Marc

By the way the rules are really incredible.
Just an example : not only does Kramnik have the final opening book of Fritz at home for preparation, but moreover he will have the right to see Fritz's opening book _during_ the games with the various moves that could be played by the engne according to the player's intended move, together with the associated statistics. so in the unfortunate case where Kramnik could not remember is home killer preparation he will have the various choices presented to his eyes during play. Pretty incredible !
and there are quite a dozen rules like that ... (including the right for Kramnik only to call for an adjournement with subsequent overnight computer- or fellow-GM-assisted analysis ...)
For those who would like to have a look the complete rules are on Susan Polger's blog : http://www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com/



Don Groves    (2006-11-25 20:42:20)
"Next" request

I would like to see the "Next" function changed to move through a player's games by going to the next game in the list instead of going to the front of the list each time. The reason for this is: if I have skipped over a game because I don't want to move in that game until I have given it more thought, I can't use "Next" to step through my games but must instead use "My Messages" to keep skipping that game. With a long game list, this gets tiresome.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-26 12:20:28)
"Next" request

The current "Next" function displays the oldest opponents move played, maybe not the most logical way. "Next" could display the next 'id' or the last opponents move played (looks good ?), what do you think ?


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-11-26 20:16:14)
Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz, 2006

I think, Kramnik has played very well, the ending was won up to move 31. !


Elmer Valderrama    (2006-11-27 19:40:07)
not that Deep?

..CB shooting themselves in the foot as this reveals "Deep" Fritz 10 is reeling in the endings :/

Not so "the others" which wouldn't play that endgame like that.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-29 12:16:21)
"Next" request

Actually, it depends on quite aleatory factors.

"Next" request can't predict what game you want to avoid to play particularly :/ .. In my opinion, this change makes it better. Of course not perfect.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-29 12:19:13)
Go: Komi revisited

Hi Don.

"should be"... maybe depends on the level of play ?!

Where did you read this ? Any links ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-29 14:59:14)
new chat bar

Hello again...

It's now possible to disable the chat bar permanently. Check the 'display chat bar' option in preferences.

Best wishes.


Charlie Neil    (2006-11-29 23:13:37)
Krammik vs Deep Fritz, 2006

After the blunder in game two Krammik plays on and IMHO pulls game three out of the fire I thought. after getting into trouble he saved a half point with style and fight. But I could be wrong.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-01 11:19:43)
Deep Fritz, Rybka & future

The Chess Challenge 2006 in Bonn between classical world champion Vladimir Kramnik and chess engine Deep Fritz 10 confirms (who ignored ?) the best chess programs can rivalize with the world champion in a match, but it first shows us these calculating monsters still have weaknesses.

Question is : What are the real improvements in Fritz 10 compared to Fritz 9 (engine speaking only) ?

Here is what I think about chess engines nowadays (Fritz 10, Shredder, 10, Junior 10, Hiarcs 10 and particularly Rybka 2.2) :

The way of think to play correspondence chess is (or should be) mostly human one combined with a chess engine algorithm. We follow the tree of moves like a program with our selective algorithm (much better than chess engines), applying our judgement of the position when necessary only. The point is we evaluate moves and we almost never evaluate a position twice.

Chess engines are very good analysis tools but are surprisingly not designed to be very good chess players. I think a major improvement in chess engines should be recognition of 'sufficient moves' : ie. it is no worth to always find the best move at a particular point of the tree, this reflection time could be used later... It depends on the evaluation of the position, on the clocks... Iterative model is quite basic (in a game at least !).

Another point is recognition of traps. This is the start of psychology in chess engines, and basics of the art of war. It first depends on who your opponent is, and on the clocks too. Finally, at the end of the tree, chess engines evaluate positions, but how many evaluate moves ? .. Speculative moves were a step, but it first shew chess engines were not able yet to see what move is worth to be analysed really deeper, consequently creating a 'human' weakness, particularly against some other chess engines.

I don't know how Rybka works, but as far as I read about this one that calculates much less positions (about 10 times) than Fritz, I wouldn't be surprised that Vasik Rajlich had implemented a better approach of human way of think, which is undoubtly the future of chess engines.

A good 'centaur' in ie. Playchess rapid tournaments is first a good choice between Chessbase engines according to the position and clocks. Fritz qualities probably apply best in standard games, where clocks are really designed for him. Among Chessbase engines, Hiarcs is probably the best Blitz player and could be the best correspondence chess player (even if it isn't the best CC tool for humans). Rybka is probably a kind of centaur itself (sorry, herself ;)), knowing when to use (in the tree !) brute force and more selective approachs - not to be compared to Hydra or Deep Blue which, on contrary, use most brute force.

My conclusion is chess engines have much to learn from humans yet, we'll see a Rybka 5 and Fritz 13, with much better results against other chess engines, but their results shouldn't increase a lot against the best humans in future. Finally, it will never be a good correspondence chess player :)

My two cents.


If I find time, I'll continue to implement my own chess engine..... but it's a lot of work :/


Lionel Vidal    (2006-12-01 21:42:25)
Intuition?! what for?

Don't you think intuition in any abstract game is in fine just a nice word to hide our (that is human) limitation in analytical power?
In many very good chess books (see for instance Watson opus), intuition is indeed shown as not an adequate compensation for a good, reliable, concrete analysis. Of course, for us humans, it is still very useful because the experience of already seen patterns may suggest the very best move in a given position, without even any calculation... but if you had the power to make a complete analysis, would you still use your intuition?

My feeling (and I am not very happy with that, but I don't see any evidence to contradict it) is that in 98% of positions, the brute-force stupid way of computers is already deep enough in the tree of possibilities to find the very best move (at least in any practical sense)... and the 2% left is only interresting for correspondence players... and then, only for the very best who can claim enough expertise, or enough time :-)

Now I am sure chess can still be fun: the old and only true chess way has just been re-edited: "tempête sur l'échiquier" (sorry I don't know the name of the english version)... at least I feel competitive enough :-))


Elmer Valderrama    (2006-12-01 22:13:19)
good news and bad news

Some good news and bad news for "deep" Fritz 10 (& CB..)

The good news is that game 4 was drawn with the computer playing a respectable good ending as White which forced Kramnik to display all his arsenal of strategic knowledge in endgames and his World class mastery to calmly withhold a difficult position...

The bad news is that "shallow" Toga would have played the same good moves made by Kramnik :-}


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-02 02:12:06)
Intuition?! What for ?

That is huge, indeed. That's why computers alone couldn't play correspondence chess at a high level... These 2% of moves are enough to beat them, at least to score 3 out of 4.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-02 04:30:34)
Game 4

Deep Fritz - Vladimir Kramnik

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 Nxe4 4. Bd3 d5 5. Nxe5 Nd7 6. Nxd7 Bxd7 7. O-O Bd6 8. Qh5 Qf6 9. Nc3 Qxd4 10. Nxd5 Bc6 11. Ne3 g6 12. Qh3 Ng5 13. Qg4 Qf4 14. Qxf4 Bxf4 15. Nc4 Ne6 16. Bxf4 Nxf4 17. Rfe1+ Kf8 18. Bf1 Bb5 19. a4 Ba6 20. b4 Bxc4 21. Bxc4 Rd8 22. Re4 Nh5 23. Rae1 Rd7 24. h3 Ng7 25. Re5 Nf5 26. Bb5 c6 27. Bd3 Nd6 28. g4 Kg7 29. f4 Rhd8 30. Kg2 Nc8 31. a5 Rd4 32. R5e4 Kf8 33. Kf3 h6 34. Rxd4 Rxd4 35. Re4 Rd6 36. Ke3 g5 37. Rd4 Ke7 38. c4 Rxd4 39. Kxd4 gxf4 40. Ke4 Kf6 41. Kxf4 Ne7 42. Be4 b6 43. c5 bxc5 44. bxc5 Ng6+ 45. Ke3 Ne7 46. Kd4 Ke6 47. Bf3 f5 48. Bd1 Kf6 49. Bc2 fxg4 50. hxg4 Ke6 51. Bb1 Kf6 52. Be4 Ke6 53.Bh1 Kf6 54. Bf3 Ke6 1/2-1/2

... I really wonder if Kramnik played this Petroff defense with any hope to win.


Lionel Vidal    (2006-12-02 08:55:46)
Intuition?! What for ?

3 out of 4? Really? Which test-matches are you refering to?
Leotard made a test (won :-) and with grand manner) but that was years ago, and besides, he is one of the very best :-)
Then there is the match against a panel of different engines by Ham: even if he does not play at the same level than Leotard, he is quite a good player!... and the results were very far from 3 to 4 for human :-( (that was also years ago!) Then there are the hydra matches... :-( the results are not very good also for humans and the game comments are very instructive: against first class expertise chess knowledge and intuition, the 'dump' brute force machine managed to handle quite well complex ending positions...at least as well as all correspondence players but the very best (I would say the top 20 at most :-()
Maybe there is some recent test I am not aware of?

But the point really is: who can play like, say, Leotard? Of course, he says he can crush computers, just by playing them like 2500 rated players... well, I can believe that... but when I play a fritz-push-button opponent, I am only a 2300 player... have I to use also an engine to have a chance (and one game out of ten, be very proud to have chosen another move than one of the few the engine suggested as best and still not have lost... ok, just kidding :-)?
It can be still fun, but I think it is not the same kind of chess Leotard alludes to when speaking of himself in his after match interview :-)


Lionel Vidal    (2006-12-02 09:54:32)
A lone engine in CC :-)

Suppose I make the following test (it has certainily be proposed before, but let's do it again, for the fun of the argument):
- I buy a recent engine (say the new Fritz10)
- I play in some CC tournaments (I do not want to pay fees, so let's say, here at FICGS of course :-), and at iecg)
- I choose the first moves of all my games based on some statistics made on a CC base (just to avoid some openings statistically bad in CC)
- starting from a few moves before the engine goes out of its opening book (to be defined, maybe 4 moves) I let my average computer run 10 hours by move (around one night per move... I know, I sleep too much :-)
- I *always* play the very move the engine finds as best
- I play as many tournaments as I can, considering the time constraint that limits the number of games (just to get a meaningful rating as fast as possible)

Now, what rating do you think I can reach at most, strictly following these guidelines?
(note that if I know some basic maths to do the stats, I do not even have to know chess rules... although a basic knowledge is assumed to ease the play in practice)
Are you ready to bet on your guess ? :-)

In pratice, the test does not work, because the tester dies from boredom long before he gets any rating :-))


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-02 13:40:46)
Chess engines CC ratings

It is my estimation. 3 out of 4 represents about 200 elo points. I doubt Chessbase will organize a Man(+Machine) vs. Machine correspondence chess match... However there are a few examples : Arno Nickel - Hydra (2,5-0,5), Hydra which beat Adams over the board 5,5-0,5 ... And I suppose Arno Nickel did not have access to the program, but knowing better his opponent I'm sure it's possible to reach such a score against any program.

About your test, it's been discussed here already :) .. In my opinion such a player's rating would travel between 2200 and 2400 (at most) mark !

Waiting for a match against Rykba :)


Elmer Valderrama    (2006-12-02 15:31:47)
On the subject of intuition

Just received an e-mail from a known online book dealer inviting me to order the fifth Volume of G Kasparov's My Great Predecessors(about Korchnoi and Karpov).

I had a look at the online pages of the book (first three or so) and there is a paragraph about a proposed (by G K) division of players according to -guess what- intuition:

1) those players without any intuition but hard work (Botvinnik, Fischer..)

2) those with strategical intuition (Capablanca, Petrosian, Karpov..)

3) those with non-balanced positional intuition (Alekhine, Tal, Korchnoi, Kasparov..)

Very interesting reading. I guess we have to place engines in group one ;)

However, I would place Kasparov in the same group one of those without intuition but hard work as the criteria shows that players from that group tend to quit chess earlier (Botvinnik was on/off through his reigning) than the intuitive players who last longer (with Korchnoi the Terrible heading by far the lot)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-02 15:55:16)
Engines and intuition

About chess engines, that's hard to say. If we call 'intuition' their ability to play speculative moves - calculating less possibilities than usual in complex positions - it's quite easy to change some parameters and say "this engine plays according his evaluation function more than calculation", like us... It's a question of proportion and that's hard to compare with human thinking.


Lawrence Nesko    (2006-12-02 17:58:08)
Does it even make sense...

...to attribute intuition to engines at all? I mean, even if the parameters of an engine were to be altered to limit its analytical abilities, isn't the engine still going to play what it's algorithm considers the objective 'best move'? If such is the case, then the engine still isn't using intuition at all, correct?

Furthermore, I'm not sure any grandmasters could be said to lack intuition. Fisher may have had less intuition than Korchnoi, but probably possessed more intuition regarding chess in his litle finger than I ever will in my entire body.


Don Groves    (2006-12-04 05:25:01)
Intuition

A good definition of intuition is the immediate knowing of something without the conscious use of reasoning. This leads to two observations: (1) Computers cannot do anything without reasoning (programming) and thus cannot act intuitively. (2) Intuition can be trained by practice. The more intimately we are familiar with anything (say a game), the more likely our first impression (immediate knowing) will be correct. So, I think intuition gained through experience plays a large role and an intuitive player can go far in Chess or Go. At some point, however, one must become a good analyst to progress further. I would be interested in opinions about how far in each game (elo rating) a purely intuitive player might progress.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-04 12:52:51)
Intuition

I don't agree with that. If you oppose intuition to calculation / algorithm / reasoning, chess engines do have intuition. Even Fritz has chess knowledge, that looks like ours by the way, and can play at a 1900-2000 level OTB without any calculation (1 move forward) IMO. And the same, some chess engines improve their evaluation of positions by training.

Quite complex question, nearer philosophy than computers :)


Janos Helmer    (2006-12-04 14:16:34)
About Google Adsense!

Hello Thibauld! I think the idea is very good,especialy for the players from some eastern countries, but what do You know about the...real story of the Chessfriend server?!? Best regards, Helmer Janos


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


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-04 15:46:28)
About Google Adsense!

Interesting... So, two questions :


- Why especially for the players from eastern countries ??

- What about the... real story of Chessfriend server ? ??


(thanks for private answers, I didn't know the whole)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-04 22:05:27)
One player more ?

Hello Heinz-Georg !

I was waiting for you :)

Ok, it was firstly a 7-players tournament, so let's try to find a seventh player. Come in, this is a mad experience. Trust me :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-04 23:28:45)
One more...

We still need one player more !


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-06 00:05:33)
Deep Fritz 10

... wins the match 4-2

It's a shock (even if Kramnik said it and repeated - deeeep fritz is favorite). It's hard to explain such a result.


Deep Fritz - Vladimir Kramnik

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Bb3 Qc7 9.Re1 Nc6 10.Re3 0-0 11.Rg3 Kh8 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Qe2 a5 14.Bg5 Ba6 15.Qf3 Rab8 16.Re1 c5 17.Bf4 Qb7 18.Bc1 Ng8 19.Nb1 Bf6 20.c3 g6 21.Na3 Qc6 22.Rh3 Bg7 23.Qg3 a4 24.Bc2 Rb6 25.e5 dxe5 26.Rxe5 Nf6 27.Qh4 Qb7 28.Re1 h5 29.Rf3 Nh7 30.Qxa4 Qc6 31.Qxc6 Rxc6 32.Ba4 Rb6 33.b3 Kg8 34.c4 Rd8 35.Nb5 Bb7 36.Rfe3 Bh6 37.Re5 Bxc1 38.Rxc1 Rc6 39.Nc3 Rc7 40.Bb5 Nf8 41.Na4 Rdc8 42.Rd1 Kg7 43.Rd6 f6 44.Re2 e5 45.Red2 g5 46.Nb6 Rb8 47.a4 1-0


It seems to me it was allowed to Kramnik to consult Fritz opening book, so first why to play 8. ...Qc7 !?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-06 10:09:25)
Player needed

Finally, we still need one more player for a replacement... Any warrior ? :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-06 18:18:54)
David Bronstein

David Bronstein (February 19, 1924, Bila Tserkva, Ukraine - December 5, 2006, Minsk, Belarus) was not only one of the fathers of anti-computer play, he also drew a challenge match for the title of world champion by a score of 12-12 with Mikhail Botvinnik, the reigning champion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bronstein

He played (and beat) all the first well known chess programs : Rebel, Fritz, Zarkov, Chess player, Deep Thought, Socrates, Saitek Sparc, MChess, Genius, Dark Thought, Deep Blue Jr., XXXX ...

Some of his games - http://www.angelfire.com/on/anticomputer/bronst.html


Don Groves    (2006-12-08 03:00:18)
Scrabble+

Yes, trademark is a problem ;) I have played a game long ago with a 5x5 grid where each player took turns naming a letter and each had to put that letter somewhere inside her grid. Scoring was one point for each letter that was part of a three-letter word or longer both in the vertical and horizontal directions. This game could be expanded to a much larger board with a few premium squares and with more points for longer words. This may possibly be close to your idea about Scrabble+. You have my permission to implement this and we split the enormous proceeds evenly. OK?


Mladen Jankovic    (2006-12-08 18:56:16)
Re:

It's realy a problem of inadequate conditions (like not owning a chess board and connecting only from public computers). And playing too much games like that can be a frustrating experience, last time I started making dumb moves to just to end games, and reduce the presure.


Lionel Vidal    (2006-12-09 14:34:04)
scrabble+?!

I am not sure this scrabble+ would be a better game than the current face to face competitive version. (the rules imply a game of skill; but also of risk management because of the clock and the correctness you may loose, but willingly give up, in a form of bluff very like poker).

The point is, why would one change a game where players can beat computers if one has enough skill (because computers are still bad at valuating the level of openess of a scrabble position), for a game where a searchable tree is (in theory) enough to play the very best moves?
The game then becomes IMO quite void of fun in correspondence play, because the player skill adds nothing to the computer evaluation. Note the difference in chess, where most correspondence players are convinced they do add and choose something worth improving the play. (although I have just give up the idea to buy an engine... gnuchess is enough for me as a sparring partner, and correspondence analysis, I let it to my shaky brain... for shaky analysis :-), but more fun!... And thank you Thibault, you convinced me to play correspondence chess again :-))

The deepness of the game is another wonder: in the current game I have to ponder many possibilities, an probalistic equipartition (sorry for the bad translation) (and good players always keep the count of the remaining letters)... it seems much more complex, though less analytical, than just wandering along a calculation tree?!


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-09 19:11:18)
Disabling Chat - while playing -

Hi Don.

I'll think about that in a while, it's quite easy already to close & reopen the chat bar whenever you like.


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!


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-10 15:43:50)
scrabble+

Interesting point of view.

Chance in Scrabble probably gives it all his interest as it does for poker or even football. Question of suspense, probabilities... That's why chess or Go are not as popular as these games, and that's why I play chess & Go :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-10 16:20:16)
FIDE's world championship format

Quite good news...

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3530

Ok, we'll have a final match between a challenger and the world champion, this is great !
(the worst is avoided)


In future, the challenger should be designated after a multi-stages round-robin tournaments cycle, then a candidates match (original :))

Will it be enough to attract sponsors... In my opinion the candidates match should be played in 6 games at least, and the knockout tournament should be at least 2 or 3 rounds long. Several round-robin tournaments, this looks like correspondence chess format and this is useful when you have many players and few time. I'm not sure it's a good choice for OTB world chess championship... :/

What do you think ?


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-12-10 17:37:05)
Re:

I fully agree with the view that the candidates match should be played in 6 games at least, and the knockout tournament should be at least 2 or 3 rounds long.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-12-11 10:26:41)
1.e4 e5 2.Bb5

Black has comfortable play after it.
It doesn't mean that black wins. :)


Miguel Pires    (2006-12-11 11:29:45)
Portuguese Oppening

I've a lot of cc games with this oppening. Some very hard. I'm (i hoppe) finishing the investigation of the line with Qe2. "I added better (IMO) answer to 1.e4 e5 2.Bb5 c6 3.Ba4 Nf6 4.Qe2 It's 4.. d5 5.exd5 Bd6" I've a game with this line in ICCF. When i find the solution to that line i tell you. If you wana, create a tournament with this oppening to us play.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-12-13 16:37:20)
Rybka clearly the best ?

There are many investigations of chess engines in web their resultats are showing the same like yours. But the open questions is whether playing against other chess engines is the same like assisting human to analyze a chess position?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-14 00:09:56)
Rybka clearly the best engine vs. engine

I fully agree with both of you... We must be careful, even if all these results are really impressive, most chess engines have been designed to play against humans and to be useful analysis tools. As I said in another thread, there are still many things to improve to make it the best engine vs. engine fighter.

Nowadays, the best chess engines try to 'think' like humans and actually have inherited human weaknesses from them, so IMO a Hydra or Deep Blue would crush ie. Shredder or Junior which try to make it harder for human brain while Fritz is clearly better balanced.

Maybe this new engines generation started with Fruit which plays very solid. So Rybka, which is clearly designed to beat his rivals but I'm not convinced at all it is a better tool to play correspondence chess.


Daniel De Noose    (2006-12-13 14:29:26)
Rybka clearly the best ?

This week I have tested Rybka againt 3 others engines.

The parameters :
----------------

Intel Centrino 725 (1,67 Ghz), 64 Mb Hash Tables, games in 10 minutes (+ 2 seconds per move) for each "player", Shredder 9 interface, 20 games' matches, HS-Masterbook Opening book .

The Engines :
-------------

Rybka 2.2 W32, Gambit Fruit 1.0 Beta 4bx, Toga 1.2.1a and Shredder 9.

The Results :
-------------

1) Rybka - Shredder 9 :

15,5 / 4,5 (+13,-2,=5)

2) Rybka - Toga 1.2.1a :

12 / 8 (+8,-4,=8)

3) Rybka - Gambit Fruit :

13,5 / 6,5 (+10,-3,=7)

The comments :
--------------

Rybka seems to be clearly the best for the moment ... I would like to test Rybka against other engines like Fritz 10, Shredder 10, ... but I don't have these engines. Perhaps later... ;-)

Do you have comments about this ?


Yannick Maret    (2006-12-15 10:29:25)
Withdraw from WCH waiting list

I registered on the waiting list of FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP but I would like to retire. How can I do it? The reason, is that I started too many games in another site and cannot afford to play more chess at the moment!
Thanks,
Yannick


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-16 03:09:51)
Vacation clock frozen, no exception !

Hello Marius.

There is no bug ! ... Your clock is : White clock - 54 days 17:50:44 (49 days 13:26:08)

So clock displayed in ie. My games is your 'time per move' clock !

Rules 11.4 : Please note the time limit per move clock still runs during vacation. Take your days carefully, as it's not possible to take back or displace your leave dates. However you can add days leave.

This rule avoids someone to take more than 60 days for only one move...

Best wishes for your holidays :)


Lennart Oberg    (2006-12-16 11:35:56)
Change, please!!!!!

I´m new here, playing my first tour. and 2 guys make a few moves and then let the clocks run. Solution, every move within ( 3, 7, 10 days ) or you forfeit. That´s life in live chess! Regards, Lennart Oberg


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-16 13:06:09)
Correspondence chess time controls

Hello Lennart.

Sorry about that, it's been discussed a lot, as in all other correspondence chess sites: correspondence chess time controls are the source of many problems, I'm afraid without a solution. I can only say that's the better solution anyway.

If 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves is too long for you, feel free to play rapid tournaments at 30 days + 1 day / move time control.

My best, Thibault.


James Stripes    (2006-12-16 16:19:10)
bad timing, but

World Championships should be decided by matches, nit by a tournament such as that planned in Mexico. Topalov was never a legitimate champion, but he is perhaps now a legitimate champion (and FIDE finally recognizes the legitimate champion again). If this challenge by Topalov succeeds in derailing Mexico, it will have accomplished a useful purpose. Of course I'm lookin forward to watching the games in Mexico, and would be wholehearted in support if it were a qualifying tournament. Thus Topalov should be playing, rather than Kramnik; the winner should then challnge Kramnik with the full backing of FIDE.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-16 23:38:52)
What is the best chess program ?

Hello Austin.

You mean the best chess engine or full program ? Anyway, I think interfaces are quite the same, with small improvements in Deep Fritz 10.

About the engines, it depends more on what you expect (style of play) and the use... I would have a small preference for Deep Fritz 10 in all cases.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-16 23:59:42)
Deep Junior vs. Deep Fritz

Style of play is a bit different while main program is about the same...

Hard to answer without knowing more... What is the chess program of your dreams ? :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-17 01:38:17)
SEO forums

Hello to all.

You may have noticed new FICGS forums, linked from the Home Page (article follows) and from the bottom links...

http://www.ficgs.com/forums.html

The article : "The most famous game nowadays isn't chess or Go anymore, the game most played for several years is called SEO : Search Engines Optimization. The board is internet, rules are dicted by Google and players are the webmasters. Actually anyone who creates his homepage or a blog is interested at one time on how to get more visitors on his website. The stakes ? Glory or whatever, but first of all : Money, of course... FICGS now has his own SEO forums. Feel free to discuss anything about Google, his famous PageRank, Yahoo! search, MSN live, affiliate programs, AdSense, AdWords and so on... Have good-Google games !"


The idea is not to make this site a portal about everything or anything, of course :) .. But there are many good reasons to add such content to this site, even if it's completely separated.

SEO forums start today... first dedicated to webmasters, feel free to discuss anything about your website and search engines optimization. I'll try to give some advices :)

Best wishes.


Austin Ferrell    (2006-12-17 05:01:40)
Accedental waiting list sign-up

I was looking at the waiting lists and I accedentally signed up for a GO Tournament... unfortunatley... I do not play GO...


Jason Repa    (2006-12-18 07:56:00)
new chat bar

Thanks for allowing players to remove the chat bar in their preferences. It was getting annoying having to manually remove it every time upon logging in.


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-12-18 19:18:21)
Indeed

Yes I dont think Tribault will agree with this as I seem to recall that he said that "most Engine programmers program them to play Humans" or something to that affect. ( I am too lazy to check out Thibault's direct quote). Having said that It is my believe that they direct their respective programts to beat other programs. Reason being that it promotes sales better. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-18 22:17:31)
Rybka vs. Human

I agree with James, Rybka has to prove he can defeat the best players. It may be not so easy... (I don't know if it was what you meant, Wayne !?)


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-12-21 10:40:17)
Re:

A real cliffhanger! My opponent Krol is a very good player. When endings are interesting as this, correspondence chess is the ultimate winner.


Steve Sabean    (2006-12-23 16:58:08)
Traxler/Wilkes-Barre

I have heard from many players of a wide range of strength that the Traxler is busted for Black. The trouble is, none of them appear to have proof. A few years ago, I played in a Traxler thematic in IECG. I had a great time, learned a lot, and managed second place overall. My own assessment is: unclear, but Black is probably OK. So, why not have a Traxler thematic tournament here on FICGS, to settle the matter once and for all. :D Maybe it could be a double round robin, to be fair to those who feel that one side or the other has the advantage. I would sign on for such a tournament. Nice Latvian, btw.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-24 17:25:20)
Karpov, Kasparov, Fischer play Go !

Just read this in IGN "Goama" newsletter (by Alexander Dinerchtein)

http://gogame.info/


"3. Both Karpov and Kasparov, former World Chess Champions plays Go on 10-kyu level."

"4. Somebody noticed, that Robert Fisher, the former Chess champion played Go a lot during his stay in Japan and reached the amateur 3-dan level."


Quite impressive. (particularly Fischer)


Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-12-24 19:29:15)
Merry Christmas, Thibault! ;)

Thanks to Thibault for big XP in Latvian and Traxler. :)

>> About Latvian gambit game:

11.0-0 is a mistake. King feels safer in centre.
11.f3 is the best white move. IMO


I am still thinking that Latvian gambit and Traxler counterattack is won for white. :D

Now I will play 5.Bxf7+ in Traxler. 5.Nxf7+ is too complex for me yet (IMO it is winning too).


Steve Sabean    (2006-12-25 22:45:03)
Sounds like a challenge

The gauntlet has been thrown down! How about this: We play two games, I will play Black in both. In one, White plays 5 Bxf7+ and in the other, White plays 5 Nxf7. We could play here if M. de Vassal would be kind enough to set it up, or if not, then e-mail is OK.


Glen D. Shields    (2006-12-26 12:59:52)
Congrats to cyrano

Score one for GK. I just resigned to cyrano on the GK site. I was given a lesson by am excellent player. Congratulations to cyrano and GK! Hope to hold on to the game here, but things are looking bleaker by the move.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2006-12-26 13:03:05)
Traxler is dead ?!

Here you can see my game with Thibault:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7.Ke3 Qh4 8.g3 Nxg3 9.hxg3 Qd4+ 10.Kf3 d5 11.Rh4 e4+ 12.Kg2 0-0 13.Bb3 Rxf7 14.Qg1 Qf6 15.Rf4 Qe6 16.Nc3 Qh3+ 17.Kf2 Be6 18.Nxd5 Nd4 19.Rxf7 Bxf7 20.Nf4 Qf5 21.Bxf7+ Qxf7 22.Qd1 g5 23.Qg4 Qf6 24.Kg2 Rf8 25.b3 Nxc2 26.Rb1 Ne1+ 27.Kg1

It is not finished yet. But it looks like a draw.

-- My 16th move was a mistake. Only chance to play for win is 16.d3. -- I could make much better 14th move: 14.Rf4 with possible 14.. Rxf4 15.gxf4 Be6 16.Nc3 Rf8 17.Qh5 g6 18.Qh4. P.S. Hi, Thibault! :D


Miguel Pires    (2006-12-26 21:20:05)
Thematicall Tournaments

Thibault de Vassal i think in the thematical tournaments you should put an double round robin, not only one round. I've played some thematical tournaments and that is what append. Just my opinion Regard's Miguel Pires


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-26 22:40:28)
Double round robin

In 'theory', that's fully right... I finally chose single round robin because double round robin means 6 games more per tournament, meaning less tournaments, less opponents and so on. As thematic tournaments are friendly - not rated - score is not so important, it's more interesting to play different openings IMO.


Miguel Pires    (2006-12-26 22:56:40)
Thibault de Vassal

That's correct but if you play the same oppening with withe and black against the same opponent that is going to help you improve, because you don't wana enter in "his" line


Miguel Pires    (2006-12-26 23:25:01)
Open challenge

Hello, I'm making an open challenge to all players (from the top to the bottom) in this site to play against me in the Portuguese oppening. Soo if someone accept the challenge please tell me. I play always with withe. To Thibault de Vassal If someone accept can you please setup the games in FICGS? Best Regard's Miguel Pires


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-27 00:37:59)
Simultaneous game

Ok, looks interesting... If at least 4 players accept your challenge, I'll create a simultaneous game on the server. Conditions : Unrated, time control 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves.


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-12-27 06:41:21)
open challenge

I will play you provided it is set up here by Thibault as he said "if you get four players". Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-28 10:47:52)
Cheating : Future is now

An indian player (rated 1900, suddenly 2484) gets ten year ban from FIDE for cheating... Using a bluetooth device stitched into his cap to receive external computer assistance.

Source - http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3573


A new danger for OTB chess... Could suspicion (like Topalov-Kramnik match) kill the game ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-28 11:30:57)
Amazing

That's funny to see how this thematic tournament (portuguese opening) attracted players from Portugal.

I wonder if french players would fight for french defense the same... :-)

A high-rated one with a very strong correspondence chess player !

http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000020.html


Graham Wyborn    (2006-12-29 14:28:09)
Could this be changed?

Other sites allow you to go on vacation and cancell or return early. Could you make this possible on this site? I would not have booked such a long holiday if I had known I could not cancel it. Now I have withdrawal symtoms as I cannot play on this site until my hoildays ends.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-29 14:48:31)
To be continued

It has been discussed already, my conclusion was vacation had to be hard to use enough, in order to reduce influence on time controls, ie. a player shouldn't be able to take days to think more time when having difficulties in some games and cancel his 'holidays' after finding a solution... So it has to be discussed. Anyway, I'll add a message specifying vacation can't be canceled when taking days leave.

Reminder :


http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#playing

11. 4. Time rules

Any move in any game shall be played in a maximum period of 60 days, otherwise the game will be adjudicated on time. Time accumulated in a game can't exceed 100 days. Please don't call referee since you see your opponent's clock 'Out of time', you just have to wait a few hours a robot automatically adjuges the game.

Please be aware that it's possible sometimes your internet provider or a point between the server and you may block the connection between the server and you. Even it's a rare thing, it's strongly recommended to always have several days left at your clock. No result will be reconsidered or time added due to such a technical problem. No time will be added due to any problem during a period less than 1 day long.

It is possible to take a maximum of 30 days leave per year, called vacation. During this time, clocks are frozen and it is no more possible to play, in order to reduce the effects on time controls.

Please note the time limit per move clock still runs during vacation. Take your days carefully, as it's not possible to take back or displace your leave dates. However you can add days leave.


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-12-29 18:33:20)
An English translation needed......

Could any Spanish speaking player please translate the following to English? It would be much appreciated: "Estimados amigos, A fin de evitar mayores problemas en vuestra partida, he decidido que ambos jugadores envíen copia de sus mail obligatoriamente a mi dirección hasta el final de la partida. Yo recibiré esos mails y los archivaré en una carpeta especial."


Marc Lacrosse    (2006-12-30 11:24:05)
translation

I am far from knowing spanish fluently but I think that this can be translated so :
"Dear friends, in view of avoiding major problems in your game, it has been decided that both players should send a copy of their mails to myself until the the end of the game. I will keep these mails in a special folder."

Marc


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-30 13:31:14)
Quad Silver?

Tournaments with money prizes will begin in january... By the way there will be changes in these tournament categories (it will be also possible to play "blitz" games, at probably 10 moves / 1 hour time control)

However I think this challenge should stay friendly... (at least 'on FICGS')


Elmer Valderrama    (2006-12-31 11:01:04)
Blitz CC

It looks like half-way between chessbase freestyle and rapid CC time control, personally would prefer the old OTB control of 2h + 30min for 40 moves + 1h for 20 with adjourn; or similar TC.

Another time control variation on the 10moves/1h format would be to add an adjourn (suspend for a later specified time), this could be done after 4 hours of playing (or 6 hours) Then, players meet the next day after some home analysis for continuation with the same format (+ second adj after 4h or 6h)

I presume Thibault will enlighten us soon on this subject.

However I think it would be nice to let the player choose a time control for a chess challenge (duel) so all flavours and individual tastes are met.




Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-31 14:53:21)
Blitz correspondence chess

Hello Charlie & Elmer.

Still thinking about it, I don't think it should look like standard OTB time control, some points are :

- How many games played at the same time (2-game match or tournament) ?

- Entries in waiting list will have a life period (someone agrees the challenge in the next hour, if not it's canceled)

- Adjournment is a big issue... It could cause many problems :/

- Too many time controls is not good IMO.


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-12-31 22:59:37)
Strong players needed

Class A 000012 Tournament needs two more strong player near 2200 to complete the field. Will be nice strong tournament to start 07 Thank you Wayne


Wayne Lowrance    (2006-12-31 23:02:26)
Strong players needed

The tourney is open to 2400 rated. cmon lets have some strong chess starting 07 (did not mean to exclude up to 2400 rated in my last post, sorry Wayne


Wayne Lowrance    (2007-01-01 05:06:43)
strong players needed

welcome aboard our tournament Miguel, with you in it's going to be very good. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-02 15:13:01)
Re: No winner?

Hello Francesco.

It's a design issue... Winner(s) / Leader(s) are displayed if no more than 2 players have the best score in the tournament. In this tournament, 3 players scored 5 out of 6 points.

Anyway, FICGS WCH rules state there's only one winner in WCH tournaments (according to tournament entry rating), so the result displayed may be not accurate in some cases.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-02 15:21:20)
Vacation

Sorry about that, Graham. That's right, rules are quite hard here, simply because many players asked for these changes. Result is satisfying IMO, but I've to clarify some points yet.


Miguel Pires    (2007-01-02 15:32:11)
Interesting

One of the most interesting games i've played in the Portuguese oppening: http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=2851 The Novelty i intruduce is in move 15. I really don't now if is a good one but... Best regard's and an happy new year


Miguel Pires    (2007-01-02 17:22:41)
Re:

I'm going to try to translact this correctly: Queria aclararle solamente que yo no había recibido el mail que esta reenviando. "I wana elucidate you that i've not received the mail that you are recending" Por favor, asegurese que su servidor este funcionando bien. "Please, make sure that your mail server is working properlly." A partir de este momento, de no recibir alguno de vuestros mails, si despues hay un reclamo de parte de alguno de ustedes, deberé tomar como que el mensaje no se envió, cargando el tiempo perdido al jugador en falta. "After this moment, if i don't received some of your mails, and some of you make a complain, i assume that the message was not send, and the time lost is charged to the player that i've not received the message." Esta medida la tomaré de ahora en mas a fin de evitar inconvenientes y que la partida finalice de la mejor manera posible. "I make this to try to avoid any incovinients and to the game finish in the best whay possible" Pasando en limpio, en caso de no tener copias de vuestros envios, deberé decidir a favor del reclamante sin más tramite. "(I think is this the first word's) Making a resume, in any case of i don't have copies of your envoices (mails), i'm going to decide in favor of the player how complain, without any discussion (i think is this) Saludos cordiales y Feliz Año Nuevo. "Best regard's and Happy new year" I hoppe i help you Miguel Pires PS: Sorry the bad english :)


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-01-02 18:19:12)
my try

Miguel was quicker, here is my shot at it anyway (I thought it was a requirement for a referee in international CC to have a good command of English..]

====

I only wanted to clarify [to you] that I did not receive the mail that [you] are re-sending. Please, make sure that your [email] server is working well. As of this moment, if I do not receive any of your mails, [and then] there is a claim from anyone of you, I will assume that the message was not sent, charging the time spent to the player who default [didn't send a copy]. I will adopt this measure from now on in order to avoid missunderstandings and that the game finishes the best way. In summary, in case of not having copies of your mails, I will have to decide in favour of the claiming party immediately. Warm greetings and Happy New Year

=====


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-01-02 18:41:01)
Blitz correspondence chess

Do the games have to be played at the same time?

I mean if the time format is 4-6 hours per game, a 2-game match will be over in two days (weekend?), and a tournament of 6 rounds -in a week (or two weekends)..


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-02 19:34:16)
Blitz correspondence chess

It has not, you're right... but 2 games / 2 days may cause some problems...

Maybe a unique game - unrated - with the player who entered the waiting list first playing White could be a good solution.


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-01-02 20:43:37)
Blitz correspondence chess

Programming problems you mean?

In a 1-game match I would gladly play Black all the time :) -provided that if draw Black "wins" of course-

It's tricky to make a fair 1-game match; the old proposal of giving odds to White (first two consecutive moves in a MUST WIN -other result loses- situation) would give White -I reckon- 60-to-70% chance to win, which is about the same odds as playing Black for a draw. But it's something new, which could be tested. Here I could play Black just to try to prove me wrong, lol.




Graham Wyborn    (2007-01-03 00:12:41)
I'll stop moaning!

It appears to me that the "hard rule" re vacation is to stop players wasting time or using time in a mischievous way. All it has done for me and my opponents is waste time that could have been used wisely. This is the only site that I use that applies such hash rules, I wish I had seen the earlier correspondence on this matter, as I would had voiced my opinion then, but now it is too late. Anyway, thank you for the replies. I will stop moaning and look forward to the end of my vacation which will be on January 10th about 4 am!!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-03 01:08:07)
Blitz correspondence chess

Of course not :)

I mean I don't think everyone can play 2 games one 'today' and one 'tomorrow', or even be sure they really could play 'tomorrow'... There would be problems for sure with a "rendez-vous" system.

The advantage of playing White is probably not much greater (maybe not greater at all) than playing Black and to know who's your opponent, particularly with a standard time control, what do you think ?

Anyway everything is possible if no solution is clearly best, but we must avoid the old proposal with White playing ie. the 2 first moves IMO. It may be a funny variant to offer, but this is not real chess game.


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-01-03 11:00:42)
Blitz correspondence chess

Well, as long as it's an unrated chess game, you can call it Silver Thematic and virtually any variation would qualify as a real chess game..

The way the winner is chosen in a 1-game (or 2-game for that matter) match is what is debatable, it's a little advantage to have White that's why having Black would be good if the color decides.

I think that players would agree to enter a tournament under some conditions (e.g. as playing on Satuday 3pm & Sunday 3pm), people were/are happy to enter the Chessbase "marathon" (freestyle with 3 rounds per day) and most here hang around making several moves per day in their CC games every day, so it's a matter of agreement about the appropiate time (easier to achieve with just two players (2-game match) than a tournament of course)

Maybe a poll would help although the players who would enter these events may not be even registered to FICGS yet, lol


Charlie Neil    (2007-01-03 23:04:06)
Blitz Chess on Ficgs

Hello Thibault and New Year greetings to you and your team. Blitz on ficgs. I've beeen thinking, would it be possible to have "real time" games? The human element is the difficult one there. As for the tournament set-up, how about a six round swiss system? Speaking as one down in the ratings basement, single pairings with a rapid time limit in the swiss pairing set-up would be fun. Setting games between opponents on a real time basis I imagine will be very difficult so, what about a really rapid time limit tourney 10 days plus a day a move. I'm sure there lots of options available. Well it's just a thought. No one likes drawing in a Swiss tourney, you have to play for the win!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-03 23:57:33)
Blitz Chess

Hello Charlie, happy new year :)

What do you mean 'real time' games ? What about a time control like 10 moves / 1 hour or 40 moves / 2 hours ?

I'm not sure to understand the point... Swiss system means 6 rounds not played at the same time with complex pairings. Not usual in correspondence chess. Anyway, quite hard to win a round-robin with draws, isn't it :)


Charlie Neil    (2007-01-04 12:07:29)
Blitz Chess on Ficgs

Hello Thibault, By "Real Time" I mean both players are on the site, at the board at the same time. " The rendez-vous system" as you called it. The Swiss system of pairings by rating and then the second round having the winnners play the winners and those with no points play each other and so on into the next 4 rounds just may work I think, draws are then discouraged. If it is possible to play 40 moves in two hours on this site that would be brilliant! But how about 2 hours each for the whole game! Games lasting 4 hours maximum would be a challenge, and maybe fun. Along with the correspendence chess features. Ficgs would have it all! But then "you may call me a dreamer but I'm not the only one".


Lawrence Nesko    (2007-01-07 14:10:17)
Quick Draw?

Hello, all. In one of the tournaments in which I am playing, a game has been agreed drawn on the third move. I'm not saying that there's anything underhanded about it. But I am trying to understand what would lead to such a situation. I'd appreciate if someone could enlighten me. Are certain openings recognized as nearly certain draws? Could drawng situations be recognized so early in a game? Any insight would be greatly appreciated.


Lawrence Nesko    (2007-01-07 16:14:49)
Hello, Thibault

It's game 5990. Again, I want to stress that I'm not implying any sort of foul play. I just don't understand a draw at such an early stage.


Barry Bell    (2007-01-07 18:50:34)
Association Website

Well, the second phase of development has started and you can visit the Anyone 4 Chess association webpage at http://www.association.anyone4chess.com this is not a online playing site and their are no logins required. It is dedicated to providing information and tool to webmasters and people who may want to become a webmaster of a online chess system. The site is young but we that over the next several months to have enough content to be of value to the new and old webmaster. Thanks


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-01-07 19:14:02)
Game with Steve Sabean (5.Nxf7+)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.d6 Qxd6 10.c3 Bg4 11.Qa4+? (my mistake :/ ) Nd7 12.Kxf2 Qf6+ 13.Ke1 O-O-O 14.Nf7 *

Now Steve can get draw with 14.Nf7 Nc5 15.cxd4 Nxa4 16.Nxd8 Qh4+ 17.g3 Qxd8 =

12.cxd4? Bxd4 13.Ke1 Qf6 14.Rf1 Qh4+ 15.g3 Qxh2 -+


Instead of 11.Qa4+ I will play 11.Nf7 next time.
11.Nf7 Qb6 12.Qa4+ Bd7 13.Qb4 Nc2 14.Qxb6 Bxb6 15.Na3 Nxa1 16.Nxe5 with +/- IMO

It's funny to learn from mistakes. :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-07 21:55:13)
chat (bug)

... was a small bug created when I added this option to remove permanently the chat bar (in preferences). Only new players were affected since that moment :/ .. Thanks !

I had to reinitialize this option for everyone, so feel free to remove the chat bar again if needed. Sorry about that.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-07 21:59:00)
Draw

Hmm... I suppose this draw was just satisfying both players, saving energy and ratings.


Jaimie Wilson    (2007-01-08 18:00:37)
ECF ratings

There seem to be two formulae for converting between ECF (formerly the BCF) and FIDE ratings. The old one which still seems to be in use is ECF x 8 + 600 = FIDE ELO. A Newer formula I have seen is ECF x 5 + 1250 = FIDE ELO. This newer formula rates ECF players higher on the FIDE scale than the old one did. I don't know which is more accurate although I certainly like to believe that the old formula underestimates us a little bit. It's as clear as mud.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-09 14:27:34)
Money in Go game

I just read on AGA e-journal that the top pro Go players (Takao Shinji 9P, Yamashita Keigo 9P, Gu Li 9P, Cho U 9P, Lee Changho 9P, Hane Naoki 9P, Park Jungsang 9P, Lee Sedol 9P...) in 2006 won a total of prizes between 330,000 $ and 750,000 $

Not so bad (I guess) compared to top 10 chess players...


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-12 09:45:31)
Google videos

A 20-minutes chess film by Krzymowski Chess TV Production about 2005 European Individual Chess Championship in Warsaw, Poland :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1209188319682979542&q=chess&hl=en

Including interviews with Vassily Ivanchuk, Agnieszka Brustman, Henrik Carlsen, Bartlomiej Macieja, Teimour Radjabov, Baadur Jobava, Sergey Karjakin, Charles Crawford (the British Ambassador), Boris Kutin (President of the European Union), Horst Metzing (Secretary of the German Chess Federation) and last but not least, Beethoven's Ninth Symphony :)


Also to see on Google video : Korchnoi beaten by a cow, Alexandra Kosteniuk playing blitz.....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2085861679131106209&q=chess&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7759628193600089422&q=chess&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7831006117106424885&q=chess&hl=en


The history of computer chess (conference, 2 hours and 6 minutes !)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1583888480148765375&q=chess&hl=en


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-12 10:01:46)
Cho U vs. Yoda Norimoto

Great video, a commented professional Go game : Cho U vs. Yoda Norimoto.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-707330422532806433&q=Weiqi&hl=en

... no english subtitles but interesting anyway !


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-01-13 11:23:38)
WikiEndings?

..is it feasible? (I'm sure it is, it's just a rhetorical question ;)

I believe endgame theory (and players) would benefit from a endgame section in Wikichess contributed by members taken from their practice, especially if general "rules of thumb" and guidelines are outlined together with analysis. Specially interesting I think would be many-pawn endings and other practical endings which are given poor coverage in the books and are less investigated (and, as it seems, there are always holes in the analysis even from very strong players, there would be a lot of room for improvement of the articles until a general consensus is reached)

Subsections could be created in the lines of the ECO classification for endgames, it would then be easy to find/correct/contribute in a given position.

Any thoughts?


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-01-13 12:23:08)
Wikichess, javascript with comments?

(thanks Kieran for your support in the thread "WikiEndings"! hope you'll like this one too :)

Just looked up some lines in Wikichess but I had to go though every move with the browser, not with the javascript cleverly provided to view the line/game so far, to see the contributions from players. However if the comments in the line could be attached to the moves in the javascript it would be great as it would be seen as a "commented game", just a thought.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-15 12:10:16)
Draw declared

Hello Wayne.

You mean if a draw can happen without offer AND acceptance by both players ? Two cases...

1/ The referee grants a draw (according to rules).

2/ A stalemate position automatically generates a draw offer.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-15 12:18:28)
Go : Korean awards

Korean awards 2006

Best player of the year: Lee Sedol, 9-dan
Fighting spirit prize: Seo Bongsu, 9-dan
Best junior master: Paek Hongsuk, 5-dan
Top female prize: Rui Naiwei, 9-dan
Best Korean amateur: U Dongha, 7-dan
Most popular male and female players: Lee Changho, 9-dan and Park Chiun, 6-dan


Korean records 2006

The highest number of wins: Lee Sedol, 9-dan, 78-28
The highest winning percentage: Paek Hongsuk, 5-dan, 77%
The longest winning streak: Lee Sedol, 9-dan, 14 games straight (2.13.2006 -3.21.2006)


From IGN "Goama" newsletter - http://gogame.info


Sandor Marton-Bardocz    (2007-01-16 18:29:21)
Conditional Move

Hi there! I noticed that there was a topic regarding conditional moves but it is closed. I think that conditional moves, aren't a bad thing after all..it should be implemented..Just think about the first moves of a game....for now, even the weakest players play theory ( fritz database or something)and this implies that the first moves will be played rather fast...Then why spend time clicking around to get to the games on a starting tournament over&over again, just to play the well known moves? U can overcome the "irritation" issue by limitating the use of conditional moves. Let's say every player has the right to use for example ...10 conditional moves in the begining of the game (in the first 15 moves for example). After that in 10 to 10 moves have let's say 2 possibilities to use conditional moves...This way it's erradicated the annoyance of countless use of premoves. Btw. I think that the example of those players who might use Fritz or whatever chessprogram to play, and then premove the lines indicated by the engine isn't really good..Only if the opponnent against whom they use it ...playes using the same lines indicated by ....an engine :-) Otherwise I can't realise how on earth the replied moves can be the same and matching with....or those lines are really forced..and if that is the case then the use of premoves is normal. Thank You.


Dinesh De Silva    (2007-01-17 14:49:23)
Re:

I had some interesting conversations with Nigel during some games on FICGS last year. It was great that a GM like him played on this site. Best wishes to him.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-17 17:59:25)
2nd FICGS chess world championship

Hello to all.

2nd FICGS chess WCH just started only 6 months after the first one and with about 75% players more.


24 tournaments with an elo average from 1620 to 1698, 1 group M (elo average 2363) and 4 quarter final matches in the knockout tournament :


GM Farit Balabaev (2569) - FEM Wolfgang Riemer (2415)
Thibault de Vassal (2514) - FEM Wolgang Utesch (2460)
SM Peter Schuster (2537) - FIM Harry Ingersol (2456)
Wolfgang Kund (2557) - SM Wladyslav Krol (2423)


By seeing the first moves, I predict the 4th quarter final will be a very exciting match with risky games :)

Thanks to all for enjoying these tournaments, I wish you good games and may the best player win !

http://www.ficgs.com/category__ficgs__chess__wch.html


WCH waiting list will stay open during next months for eventual replacements.


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-01-17 22:39:46)
I will not be able to play

I also won a stage one group.
But inbetween I have too many games running (here + master class ICCF).
So I won't be able to play in stage 2.
I wish we could get more precise timings next time so that we can plan things more adequately.

Marc


Wayne Lowrance    (2007-01-18 01:19:11)
Chess engines rating

Very nice information. A great big word of caution. We play coorespondence games here. Those engine-engine tournaments do not indicate directly which program is best suited for correspondence deep analysis, I do not have enough experience with the engines except earlier versions of Fritz, shredder, Hiarc, Junior and of course Dr Robert Hyatts Various versions of Crafty and Rybka. Rybka is top rated eng-eng program for fast time controls. But not sure that it is best for deep analysis. My guess is that Latest Fritz is at least as well suited for deep analysis and perhaps better. Then their is Shredder another top eng-eng program that is very very good at deep analysis. From what I read and for what it is worth those are the best engines. But if you want the strongest program for 40/120 time control down to bullet chess,then the clear winner is Rybka by Vas. Hope this is of interest. Wayne


Hossein Dabbaghyan    (2007-01-18 02:10:52)
how can I play in the "class tournament"

Hi I would like to play in the class tournament here on Ficgs....how can I enter this tournament and start playing? I appreciate any help....


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-18 10:55:10)
Draw declared

Wayne, everything is ok. You did offer a draw on 2007 January 6 - 18:52:0 by playing c5.

Best wishes.


Wayne Lowrance    (2007-01-18 17:39:24)
draw offers

gad !, I am terribly sorry. I have two reactions: 1) I am very glad that the program draw logic is sound without a crack. 2) I am terribly embarrased, I just cannot remember asking. As I said tho the draw was very appropriate, And I thank my opponent who is a stronger player than I for accepting. My best to both you and He. Wayne


Barry Bell    (2007-01-19 03:13:05)
Chess Ring

Hello I have already announced the new chess association located at http://www.association.anyone4chess.com however, I also wanted to mention the new chess ring located at http://www.chessring.anyone4chess.com even though the ring is only available to webmasters that run online chess systems, there is an optional link section that is available to any chess player that would like to advertise (place a link) to their chess website. Thanks


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-19 10:25:53)
Correspondence chess

As I wrote to Nigel, correspondence chess teaches 'best' moves, probably not best chess IMO... I'm not sure at all this is the way a GM (should) play.

Definitely it's a very different game and we must keep an over the board vision of the game if we still want to play exciting games and avoid quick dead draw positions. (look at the games of Wladyslav Krol in example :)) .. Chess engines are a very important tool, so think different. A full debate.. to be continued...


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-19 11:41:07)
FICGS login & registration problems

Hello to all.

It seems there are some login, password recovery & registration problems for a few players. I'm looking for an explanation...

Some can't register without getting message "please enter the correct number" while they did enter it, so it may be a format problem for numbers. (in this case please write to the email at the bottom of the page)

If you failed to obtain a new password that works with password recovery, just try once more and it will 'most probably' work.

Really strange... I'm inquiring.

An example : "Although I got a new password I was not able to use my account from my PC!-So I decided to log in from my colleague´s one and it worked - I don´t know why."

So some computers could send a format for numbers that the program does not recognize yet. (?!)


Nigel Davies    (2007-01-20 07:42:54)
Correspondence Chess

Hi Thibault, I picked up your message and I would agree in terms that an OTB player should not try to play 'perfectly'. The point of my article was that correspondence chess can help cure OTB players of becoming 'too practical' at the expense of good moves. A lot of OTB players will develop defective (but dangerous) methods to score heavily against weaker players but get cut to ribbons when they use the same methods against a stronger player. This is particularly noticeable on the ICC, where some players will just try to win on the clock regardless of the objective strength of their moves, and most of the time it works. But their 'chess habits' suffer mightily as a result. Best wishes, Nigel


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-01-20 10:48:05)
practical play

I believe this can happen at all levels: at +2700 level for example, A Morozevich illustrates the case, +2951 Perf in Pamplona, not too awesome in big events, Linares or WCs :/

-I think he might be easily the Most Practical Player of All Time --if that award exists--


Spiros Lois    (2007-01-21 12:09:13)
rank explanation

what are the SM, FEM, FIM ranks in some players in the rating list? i only know GM = grandmaster IM = international master


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-21 13:48:44)
Go and chess, IGN Goama newsletter

From IGN Goama newsletter by Alexander Dinerchtein - http://www.gogame.info


Go and Chess ­ Two Games, Shared Experiences

Chess and go show are similar in many ways, yet it's always strange to see how the masters of each game try to "invent the wheel", instead of benefiting from the knowledge of their colleagues.

Let's consider sharing experiences!

These ideas can be useful even for strong Asian Go professionals:

1. Currently, only a few pros use Go databases and programs for studying. It is easy to find commentaries, written by 9-dan masters, which state that a move is new and has never been played before. Yet if one checks such moves in Go databases, one can sometimes find up to 100 examples from professional games. How can they cheat the readers who study these commentaries?

Once in Korea, I showed the Bigo Assistant program (similar to GoGod, MoyoGo and SmartGo) to Lee Sedol's brother Lee Sanghun, 5-dan, who is the director of a large children's Go school. He was surprised and said that the program looked very useful, and he added that he had never met this kind of program before. He even suggested deleting all amateur games and games played on Go servers, because of their low quality. I promised to order the programs and to install them on the school's computers if he liked this idea, but he did not follow up. Lee Sanghun, 5-dan was not able to break the traditions of his forefathers …

2. Even such top chess players as Kasparov, Kramnik and Topalov enlist the support of trainers during important tournaments and matches. During the Communist era, almost every Russian grandmaster worked on behalf of world championship candidates. Our government forced them to help, to show them new moves and ideas. Those who refused to help were punished severely: for example, sometimes a player would be prohibited from playing in tournaments abroad and would be refused foreign visas.

We do not see this in Go. Everyone thinks only about his or her own self. Do you know who is currently assisting Lee Changho? I don't know, either!

3. I would like to say a few words about playing technique. Chess players often used to write the move on paper first and then make it on the board. This helps to avoid impulsive moves and to prevent blunders. Go masters record the game afterwards, and so one can often find terrible mistakes, such as overlooking ataris and recapturing ko without playing a ko threat first. As an example you may see Black's move number 271 from this game: http://www.go4go.net/v2/modules/collection/sgfview.php?id=10828 I am sure that if a player looked at their move at least twice ­ before they write it on paper and after ­ they would not make such mistakes.

4. Even top Go tournaments are usually run by the knock-out system so we often see sensational results. Mightn’t it be reasonable to think about increasing the number of games in each round? If rounds were best-of-three (in case of time constraints, it would be possible to use blitz time controls for the third game), it would help to minimize sensations.

How about organising a definitive World Go Championship? Chess players have contested one for more than 100 years, and competitions for this World Championship have revealed the very best players of each generation. In Go it's harder to tell which player is true champion. In 2006, for instance, one international tournament was won by Lee Changho and another one by Lee Sedol, while Cho U won the largest amount of prize money. Whom can we call the World Champion? Who can say which tournament is the most important : LG, Samsung, Fujitsu, Chunlan or another? We don't even have a unified rating system …

If we determined a single World Go Champion, he might earn the same degree of popularity as Garry Kasparov achieved in chess, and this could have a very positive influence on Go popularity around the world!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-21 13:59:06)
FICGS titles

Hello Spiros.

FEM, FIM, FSM, FGM are titles awarded by FICGS.

Requirements are not the same as in ICCF but it quite looks like : ICCF titles are EM (Email Master), IM (International Master), SM (Senior Master), GM (Gran Master).

Note : In rating list, a GM player could be a FIDE GM or ICCF GM...


See rules (11.7 - 11.8) :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating

Best wishes.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-21 14:31:00)
Chess ratings

Hello to all.

I have been submitted this case :

"Rating system: Look at this situation: Current rating ot the player: 2200, 10 games, all players with TER 2200, result 9=, 1+ Case 1: Finished games: 01.01-28.02: 9= --> New rating 01.03: 2200 01.03., no other finished games in this period: --> New rating 01.05: 2228 Case 2: Finished games 01.01-28.02: 9=, 1+ --> New rating 01.03: 2200 --> New rating 01.03. 2214 In case 1 the value of the won game was 28, in case two it was 14. IMO the value of a result should not depend from the number of games you finish in a period. The value of a result only should depend on the rating of both players that they have at the start (preferable) or at the finish date of the game and the result. And the rating formula should be like NewRating = LastRating + SumOfAllValuesOfFinishedGamesInThisPeriod. That's the way (idea) IECG is computing the ratings."


This result looks quite normal to me as a player's level may increase as time passes. Rating calculations are done after periods long enough to avoid big differences... I don't know if you're right about IECG rating calculation, FICGS ratings seem to evolve quicker and I think it's best. By the way this system is used by several chess federations.

Best wishes.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2007-01-21 15:16:26)
Chess ratings

I have formatted my message (and partly corrected) to be able to read the text better.

Rating system:
Look at this situation: Current rating ot the player: 2200,
10 games, all players with TER 2200, result 9=, 1+

Case 1: Finished games:
01.01-28.02: 9= New rating 01.03: 2200
01.03. 1+, no other finished games in this period: --> New rating 01.05: 2228

Case 2:
Finished games 01.01-28.02: 9=, 1+ --> New rating 01.03: 2214

In case 1 the value of the won game was 28, in case two it was 14.

IMO the value of a result should not depend from the number of games you have finished in a period. The value of a result only should depend on the rating of both players that they have at the start (preferable) or at the finish date of the game and the result. And the rating formula should be like
NewRating = LastRating + SumOfAllValuesOfFinishedGamesInThisPeriod.

That's the way (idea) IECG is computing the ratings.


Lionel Vidal    (2007-01-21 17:49:41)
Go and Chess

About your point number 3... A chess world champion could very well note its moves before playing and yet be mated in one move :-)
In Go pro-matches, the moves are usually recorded during play by another (younger :-) pro, who has also to deal with time keeping: it makes sense not to disturb gods at play by basic housekeepings :-). I remember an article on the WEB counting the numbers of obvious blunders in go pro-games, and it was *very* low compared to chess.

Concerning your point 2, it is not quite true AFAIK: most top pros run a school of younger pros or wanabe pros who play and analyse numerous games on the Master supervision (He does rarely play with students and then it is a great honour!). So a master does not not really analyse alone, but discuss many ideas with others.

Concerning your point 4, I think that increasing the number of games would change the playing calendar too much and a pro cannot play many more games by year without consequences on his results... even at my very low level, I find a go game *much* more tiring than a chess one (here I mean a face to face game, not correspondence or server go... something I still don't manage to get used to :-)
BTW, I also find that recovering from a loss in go is much more difficult (again I mean face to face Go) than in chess: maybe because of a higher involment, maybe it is just me. What do others players think?
Another point is that a pro is paid by the federation (a fixed amount depending on its rank, not linked with his gains in tournaments that are much more important), and have to give some services to the community: lessons, conferences, teaching games... and so on... and this is more true for the lowest ranked pros!


Michael Finkelstein    (2007-01-22 08:39:51)
problems with playback --

Whenever I play back a game and hit the move button, the computer screen drops down a quarter of a page and I have to move the screen up to get to the move buttons. I use firefox as my browser I came here from playing a lot at queen alice. That site has an easier to use and more informative interface. For instance, allowing me to download my games in progress all at once instead of one at a time; also, have a light by the name of a player to indicate he is online; a buddy list, etc.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-22 11:26:58)
problems with playback

Hello Michael.

Sorry, so many things to implement yet :)

What do you mean 'Whenever I play back a game' ?

I use Firefox and Explorer and I didn't see that until now ?! (if I understood well)

I'll add a download button for all games, right now you can try to click the printer icon in 'My games', there's a list of your games in PGN format.

You can see who's online at the bottom of the page 'My messages' or go to http://www.ficgs.com/informations.html

My best.


Michael Aigner    (2007-01-22 17:44:52)
Stage 2 FICGS chess world championship

Does somebody know when stage 2 of the championship is starting? Is there something to do for the qualified players (winners of stage 1) to enroll for stage 2? Have a nice day Michael


Dan Rotaru    (2007-01-22 22:13:20)
WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP Waiting list

Hello. I registered on the waiting list for FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000002 on January 17 so I assume I am on for replacements during next month. However there are quite a few people before me on the waiting list so I am not sure what my chances to play are. Would it be possible to predict if I can play? I would like to start another tournament by I don’t want to have the surprise to have too many games at once. Or will it be wise to wait? Thank you! BTW. I really enjoy this site :-).


Hossein Dabbaghyan    (2007-01-23 04:09:08)
WCWL

well...there are players in my group who has not started their games yet after 7 days!! I think that they should be replaced with players who want to play now!


Michael Finkelstein    (2007-01-23 04:37:26)
problems with playback --

Dear Thibault, Thank you for your kind attention to my issue. I appreciate your efforts here very much. When I am at the start of a game which I wish to play back, I hit the forward button to play the next move -- when I do so the screen drops a quarter of a page. I then have to go to my screen up button to move the screen up again so I can see the move buttons. Or, when it is my turn to move, I click on the piece I want to move, and the screen again drops down a quarter of a page -- so I have to do a screen up button to get back to the board and click on the square I want to go to. I assume this is a unique problem to me since I saw no posts on it. What do you think, do I need to do a better job of explaining my situation? In regard to the light by the names of people online, I find it helpful when I logon and go to my games to see in one view which of my opponents is online, that way I can know if I will be making several moves before I log out since my opponent is online too. It is more tedious to search on my messages to see if any of my opponents is online. It would also to nice to have a buddy list so I could see stats in one view on my friends here. Thank you so much for allowing us to download all our games in progress at once. I did not mean to be critical. This is a nice site and you do a nice job here. Thank you again for your response to my question. Mike


Charlie Neil    (2007-01-23 10:54:15)
playback

Hello Thibault, Michael is right about the board dropping quarter of a page when you are going through each move of a current or a past game. But otherwise this is still a 'simple' site to play on. I mean not too many features that detract from the game. Keep up the good work.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-23 11:57:21)
WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP

Hello Hossein.

According to the rules, I'll make replacements 15 days after the start of the stage.


Dan, your chances to play in WCH 2 stage 1 are about 99 % :)

Best wishes.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-23 12:27:06)
Famous chess games

Hello to all.

I am testing a new database which will contain famous chess games / games from famous chess players... World championships, Man vs. Machine, Computer games, Correspondence chess, Curiosities etc.. Now 2200+ games in, but it will grow quickly.

Feel free to suggest any link with interesting free chess database, or you may send to me PGN games (particularly looking for non-chess celebrities chess games).

http://www.ficgs.com/informations.html

(see A-Z)


All suggestions & feedback are welcome. Thanks in advance :)


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?


Charlie Neil    (2007-01-24 10:09:12)
Playback

Michael said what I was trying to say. I think you double space to make paragraphs.


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-01-24 14:26:13)
playback

If you want to review the game, the pop-up window that is accessed trough the magnifying glass icon is a better option, and on top of that you don't have to reload the page. About making moves, I never noticed as I find it a better option simply to type in the move directly in english algebraic notation.


Dan Rotaru    (2007-01-24 16:42:19)
Suggestion for rating period

I would suggest that the rating period to be monthly instead of every 2 months. I understand the reason for longer periods between calculation being to avoid big differences but 2 months seems a little bit too long for me. I have noticed that some players with high provisional ratings or who started with high provisional ratings still have a much higher rate after they lost all or almost all their games, and players which started with, let’s say, standard 1400 still have lower ratings even they won all the games. And there is no such a difference between the Elo average of the opponents. My point is that a monthly period will increase the dynamic of the ratings and eventually will lead to a much realistic overall ratings and why not to a more challenging environment.. Of course the number of games played will have the biggest impact on re-adjusting the ratings based on results, but a month period will help for example a player to obtain a higher TER sooner and eventually play on a higher ELO bracket tournament. The other reason is that I believe many players will want to see how their rating evolves and a month seems more reasonable. As I said it is just a suggestion, others may not agree with me. Thanks, Dan


Michael Finkelstein    (2007-01-24 19:29:25)
Playback

I used the magnifying glass, as suggested. That gets rid of the problem of the screen dropping a quarter of a page, but it adds its own problem - I cannot flip the board and look at it from my perspective when I am black. I have tried double spacing and triple spacing and still I cannot paragraph in these posts. These flaws in the feature interface, and others that I have mentioned before, may seem minor but detract from my experience here.


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-01-24 20:07:30)
playback, paragraphs

It is true that you can't change the perspective, but it is the easyest way to see how the game progressed. Besides, having your own perspective is the most important when you are making your move, IMHO. For paragraphs, try pressing enter while you type in the text.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-24 23:22:32)
playback

Thanks for help :)

Viewing the game with the javascript viewer (magnifying glass icon) is the best way to replay a game : You can change the perspective by clicking on the numbers - vertical scale.

"When you click on the arrows to move a piece forward or back as you replay the game, the screen drops a quarter of a page." - I did not experience this yet ?! .. I don't understand how it can happen. (theorically, this happens with a url like www.ficgs.com/page.html#anchor with <a name> HTML tag or browser's back / forward buttons)


Michael Finkelstein    (2007-01-25 08:07:51)
playback

Thibault, Thanks for the advice -- it worked fine. I clicked on the magnifying glass and then clicked on the numbers on verticle side of the board to change the prespective. Still cannot paragraph space no matter what I do when I post in this forum. Mike


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-01-25 15:58:46)
Horrible players wanted ;)

Horrible players wanted to start the Class G tournament no. 10.

We'll also take anyone whose rating currently sucks, n00bs, and generaly just anyone who has ELO rating 1200 or less.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-25 17:26:46)
!! ... :-)

No no no no no... :) .. According to the rules, this is advanced chess = human + computer allowed. So, one shouldn't say 'Horrible players', one should say 'Human players (at most)' .. More attractive, don't you think ? :)


Michael Finkelstein    (2007-01-26 05:23:20)
playback

Dear Thibault, Thank you for your response. I do indeed ask how can I start a new line in a forum post. You advise that I do the following: please use < br > html tag to begin a new line)", without spaces in BR tag.. I do not know what that is. Mike


Michael Finkelstein    (2007-01-26 05:25:12)
horrible players wanted

Very well put Thibault.


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-01-26 13:46:06)
re:

Actually, I was just looking for humans players with no engines who have a tendency to suck real badly ;) (I just want to beat them all!! ;)).

Ok, one more player needed.


Phil Cook    (2007-01-26 22:27:16)
Horrible player

Its not just me then,join the horrible player club,total members just me ;op seriously just play,have fun and enjoy,if they use computer they do,at least your using your brain not machine!


Miguel Pires    (2007-01-27 00:09:54)
thank's

and i hoppe some strong players came to play to.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-28 14:01:35)
IGN Goama

Lionel, your answer has been published in 41st IGN Goama newsletter... :)

Another answer :


"Also we got a letter from Benjamin Schooley:

Dear Alex, I have been having these very same thoughts. I think after awhile I started to accept the way things were done in the East and tried to see the positive side of it. Maybe three world champions are better than one. And really isn't it better that people don't have endless helpers and seconds, then it almost becomes a matter of who has the most help and the most money to hire that help and not the most skill on an individual basis. But I do get the sense there is more of a community in Go. Go players are more apt to share their ideas and puzzles with each other and not prepare secret variations in some unscrupulous plot. I would be more curious if the Korean paper at least acknowledges your thoughts, I highly doubt they will try to change anything though.

Still I do lament the absence of a broader tournament format. Not all are knockout but they all tend to have the knockout "flavor." I think some players who are really talented get overlooked (Hane Naoki) because their playing style doesn't mesh as well with a knockout tournament. On the other hand people who have novel playing styles like Cho U and Takao Shinji do pretty well in the KO format. They benefit from a smaller sample size, harder to get a read on their strengths and weaknesses."


Anton Schellen    (2007-01-28 19:02:46)
holiday

Hi, I thought, the max. holiday for a year is 30 days??? How can a player to take holiday more as 30 days (see tournament E 0000014) !!!! A. Schellen


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-28 19:34:00)
Rybka 2.2 vs. Fritz 10

Harry Schnapp organized a 6 games match between Rybka 2.2 and Fritz 10 on DUAL XEON 5160 (4x3000Mhz), the same computer Fritz 10 played and won against Vladimir Kramnik.

Rybka : 5,5 - Fritz : 0,5

http://perso.orange.fr/lefouduroi/tournois/tournois66.htm

All details and article in German / French.


Now look at the games...

What do you think ?


Benjamin Aldag    (2007-01-29 11:51:07)
Without computer !

Hi, it would be nice, to have some tournaments, where it is not allowed, to use computer-assistence. And it would be great, to have list of players, which dont use computer-assistence. Since my comeback here, i dont use an engine for my games and i can say, it makes more fun ! ;-) yk


Benjamin Aldag    (2007-01-29 14:24:07)
engine-free area

Thank You Thibi, for your fast answer. I believe, its more interesting to play vs. Opponents between 800 and 1600 rating. This area is in my opinion "engine-free". yk


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-01-31 18:21:40)
1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.Nf3

This is the line for the next chess thematic tournament :

http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000023.html

A line played several times here already by SM Wladyslav Krol, and a really interesting opening that produced the current 'best game' :

http://www.ficgs.com/game_864.html


Does anyone know a name for this opening, or may I call it "Krol attack" :)

Anyway, it should be a spectacular tournament !


Marcus Miranda    (2007-02-01 14:43:32)
Computer assistance

I do not know very much about chess, I am just a beginner, but I think that using a computer to help you play your moves is kind of not fair with your opponent, and if both players are using it, seems to be a game between two computer engines. Maybe I just do not know how people use computer assistance, I apologize if I am talking nonsense.


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-02-02 00:59:47)
Bryntse opening ?

http://hem.passagen.se/tjmisha/bryntse.html

This was played in the sixties by former swedish CC champion A Bryntse.
Very interesting indeed !

Marc


Charlie Neil    (2007-02-02 11:45:33)
Without Computer

Marcus if you can please read the old forum postings, "Why do you play corr-chess." I made a similar comment about computers being used as the main player. Believe me I was wrong! As much as in correspondence chess you can use notes, books and databases for reference. Here at FICGS, (A great site!) players use their computers as a reference. It does not benefit anyone to just relay their computer moves without understanding them. Those players won't prosper nor will develop a passion we chessplayers have for the game. I believe that now to be the case. Personally I don't have a Juinor8, Fritz 10 or Deep Joe 90 or whatever to use as a reference point. I do have a pile of books that serve to confuse me in my games. As I continue to seek understanding in this game. People should use computers as long as the computers don't use them! How boring can it be just to imput moves? The computer isn't compulsory. And I am saving a fortune on stamps playing here! It is fun after all. It is only a game. Even if it is a terrible one.


Marcus Miranda    (2007-02-02 15:37:22)
Without computer

Thanks Charlie for directing me to the old forum, I thought that a computer engine is unbeatable if you give it enough time, and if this was the case there would be no human touch in the moves you play, I guess I am wrong.


Richard Core    (2007-02-03 03:20:17)
Computer free chess

Hi Benjamin Aldag, I agree with you. I really don't see the reason for playing with a computers help. What have you accomplished with the help of a machine? I have no idea. When I come up with a great combo, I get the satisfaction that the answer came from me, not the machine or any other source. It is alot more fun. A lot more fun. I think most people I have played are not ussing computer help. I haven't won a tournament yet, but I think I have had a respectable performance.


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-02-03 18:09:12)
To Richard & Benjamin

There are dozens of web-server-chess sites where computer use is forbidden.
If you cannot see any interest in computer-assisted play why do you play here ?
Nothing requested you to play here ...
I won't argue on the interest of computer-assisted chess. It's a question of taste and I do completely understand that you do not like it.
Every month there is a new thread in the forum complaining against computer-assisted cheaters or defending the gimmick of the poor computer-assisted idiot unable to play on its own.
This I cannot accept : go away to these numerous sites where computer is forbidden (and real cheaters abound) and let us play according to the rules of this site !
By the way if you wish do choose any engine of your liking and do let it play alone without human intervention a pair of games against any of the 100 best rated players here. I am ready to bet that the computer alone is probably going to lose both games or at most to get one draw.
Then you will maybe understand why the human touch is decisive in these games.
And as I already said on numerous occasions, when I am going to spend dozens of hours analysing a foregoing game all along months of play I prefer that my opponent won't spoil it due to a pure magnificent and so-human blunder.
Winning against blundering self-comfident purely human opponents has no taste at all IMHO

I prefer fighting hard against one who has all kind of book and computer help assisting him.

Marc


Benjamin Aldag    (2007-02-04 22:26:09)
To Marc Lacrosse

Hey guy, come down !

I just say, it makes more fun to play without computer-assistence.

I play here, because i will never reach the level of computerplayers and my opponents are in 99% free of computer-assistence. I dont want to be a slave of my computer and in my opinion is this the right way.

I know 9 people here with an official rating between 1500 and 1600 ELO(DWZ) and here they have a rating between 2200 and 2300. :-D<br
You say, with only computermoves you will never reach the highest level here and i can say - YOU ARE RIGHT !

Players with a FIDE ELO 2200 and higher will have here a rating over 2600 and they will not only play computermoves. But i play chess for two years and have an official FIDE rating of 1822 and believe me, it makes no sense for me to play with computer-assistence.

yk


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-05 12:34:53)
Correspondence chess / OTB chess

Quote : "Players with a FIDE ELO 2200 and higher will have here a rating over 2600 and they will not only play computermoves."

Benny, this is just wrong ;) .. There are many examples, here and everywhere... Best correspondence chess players are not best chess players with computer assistance, they are 'only' the best correspondence chess players.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-07 00:52:58)
Rybka 2.3

An interesting thread about Rybka 2.3 (should be available on february 12) and his new features, described by Vasik Rajlich. In a few words : stronger, new chess knowledge, better search algorithm, better positional play, bug fixes and an interesting feature called "randomizer" :

Quote : "You can put Rybka into a mode where she will play against herself over and over from the same position without repeating variations - she will systematically explore the space of possibilities in the variation, branching from the previous games at later and later points. It's an effective way to get a Monte-Carlo-based evaluation of a position."

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=180


Charlie Neil    (2007-02-08 09:32:48)
Why I play here.

Reading the forum postings as I do everytime I log on, I have noted that we are a diverse group here at Ficgs. For that reason I thought I would make my statement of intent. "Why I play here." 1. It is Free. I am Scottish and that is that! 2. I like the 7 player single pairing groups. 3. I know zero about chess and computers but I think I am learning something just by reading the Forum. 4. As I said a diverse group of people play chess here but in many ways it is similar to being at an OTB club, well at least as I remember them. All different types united by one game. 5. Chess is fun but what else can make you so happy when a scheme comes together in victory and what other game can have you rocking back and forth in your chair making you doubt every decision you have ever made. And all in the time it takes to click from one game to another. 6. I wonder how long it will be now before Thibault gets fed-up with us whinging, complaining and not appreciating his hard work! (Thibault just once tell someone complaining person to go and .....!) Maybe not.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-08 11:33:25)
Why I play here

I don't know if playing here is similar to being at an OTB club (well I forgot what it is :)), but I do appreciate to have time to discuss with my opponents.

About complaining, it looks like things are going really better for a few months, the site may be not very clear everywhere yet and I'm still late with new features to come, but that's encouraging :) .. Also I'd like to thank all people responding to newcomers in the forum & chat before I can see it. And last but not least, thanks everyone for the friendly peace that reigns here :)


Dinesh De Silva    (2007-02-09 11:58:30)
Re:

Does Illya Nyzhnyk carry the teddy bear at all times while he plays?! Do you think it's a lucky mascot or something?!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-10 03:08:52)
Rybka, Fritz and future...

Computerchess is definitely an exciting challenge... The community is fast-growing, new versions of chess engines appear every day, many dream to be the next Vasik Rajlich and to produce an engine that would beat the well-known Chessbase engines and the famous Rybka.

These days, I had a look at Fruit 2.1, TogaII and Crafty source code that are available to download, and started to implement new search & evaluation functions. It's quite easy to understand why chess programming is so addictive, so much done and so much to do... finally I did not enter this mad race without an ending, probably for the same reasons Anthony Cozzie (the author of Zap! Chess Zanzibar) and many others retired.

However here are my feelings about future of chess engines, and the fight that just started between most probably Chessbase engines (Fritz, Shredder, Junior and Hiarcs) and a new era of chess engines that started with Rybka...


First, it's quite obvious to me that Rybka (now Rybka 2.3) is only another one of a long series of chess engines always stronger than each others ! .. I expect the next ones to reach 50, 100 then 200 points more (and maybe more) on the next chess engines elo rating lists, a scale that definitely can't be compared to human elo rating list ! .. Several reasons to this : (1) Chess engines are human killers at standard time controls, but chess engines are far to play perfect chess yet. (2) The way ratings are calculated.

Rybka taught us several things IMO :

- Algorithms and evaluation functions are no more enough. Now chess engines have to play chess, not only search a tree of chess positions... That's probably what Rybka brought to computerchess. Since Fruit 2.1 & Toga II source code is available, and computerchess community is constantly discussing improvements in algorithms, evaluations of positions and new ideas, to implement a chess engine becomes easier so I have no doubt that new very strong chess engines like Rybka will come.

- To become famous, a chess engine must 'also' beat his rivals. I first thought that Rybka was designed to be an engines killer only (at least before to be an analysis tool) with some tricks exploiting most engines weaknesses. No, Rybka is also a great UCI engine, simply stronger and with many options & features. Like Vasik Rajlich, who is engineer and international chess master, you'll have not only to think like an engineer to create such an engine. However I still don't think it is the best analysis tool for correspondence chess, it doesn't play really better chess and in all cases it is not enough. More, Rybka 3, 4, 5 shouldn't influence correspondence chess (maybe even human vs. machine) much... Computerchess influences computerchess first.


It's written sometimes that the strongest chess engines could reach a IM, even GM level at correspondence chess. I definitely disagree with that, at least for the moment (it will take a long time yet), but as chess engines results tend to approach correspondence chess ones (means more and more draws), I do think chess engines have much to learn from correspondence chess players way of thinking, meaning : A more psychological approach, bonus for traps detection. Evaluate moves, not only positions. A more complex search, not 'only' iterative (brute force is definitely useless). No more anti-human style, speculative moves (=weakness, ie. Deep Junior) for speculative results against strongest chess engines, draws are prefered. To avoid positions not understood by the engine. Longer games, closed games (if supported)... Opening books should look like correspondence chess GMs ones (of course according to the engine's style of play) and no more been made of FIDE GM games. A better time management... Future of computerGo may teach to computerchess about some evaluations.

A chess engine must play good moves AND try to win (which is not always the same). It seems Fruit & Rybka play solid and are waiting to exploit their opponent's weaknesses thanks to a better "chess" algorithm/knowledge. As far as I have seen, Shredder & Fritz still have the best 'eye', they see far but fuzzy. Quite the same about Fruit & Toga developped by a great engineer, Fabien Letouzey : Less chess knowledge but an improved algorithm. As for Rybka, a great chess knowledge and probably a smarter algorithm (not better, smarter !) were probably enough already. The future best chess engines will be made by good chess players...

An interesting point is it could be not so easy, maybe even nonsense, to create the best analysis tool that would also obtain the best results against other chess engines. My first prediction is Rybka won't be the top rated chess engine ever, hundreds of new ideas will appear in all parts of chess programming, slowly breaking Rybka secrets, then speed will be a factor again. Deep Fritz, Junior, Fruit or Hydra are most probably the core of the next generations of chess engines... but there's a lot of work yet :)

My two cents.


Dinesh De Silva    (2007-02-10 08:36:07)
Re:

Do you think Illya Nyzhnyk's feelings would be hurt if chess officials ban him from carrying a teddy bear in future tournaments?! Or will they scan/ monitor or even interrogate the teddy bear?! Will Illya lodge a complaint citing cruelty to kids & teddies?! Will this divide the chess world in two?! Lastly, will there be a sizeable increase in sales for similar teddy bears by chess players who might think that these teddies might make them very strong players?!?


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-02-10 13:55:59)
teddy-bear-free chess

That teddy bear is worth 350 ELO, my guess.

Actually everyone has his 'teddy bear': it might be a blue shirt, the black shoes, or taking even his own mother/wife to the games (no punk intended to concerned players ;) ..All of these get scanned so I do not see any good reason why the teddy bear should not be scanned both before and after the game. If game is lost by the child there is no need to scan it of course. If game is won, then the teddy bear must be confiscated temporarily for further examination. Measures should be taken to shift the child's preference to any other object or person, as this teddy bear is starting to look rather suspicious to me/many, and annoying to his opponents who would then bring on dummies, milk bottles even nappies making this scenario rather...childish, unacceptable for a intellectual game as chess. Moreover, there would appear chess variants named after this toy, as 'the Teddy Bear Attack', or 'the deadly Teddy Bear Gambit' which could be played while singing 'teddy bear, teddy bear touch your nose, teddy bear, teddy bear touch your toes, teddy bear, teddy bear touch the ground, teddy bear teddy bear turn around', any of which would kill the game. In fact if nothing is done against this teddy bear, hereby I announce that I would quit chess, rapid chess, blitz chess, postal chess, email chess, server chess and correspondence chess (where admittedly is difficult to guess if there is any teddy bear around) I will then switch to a table game where teddy bears aren't going to be seen for a while, like Poker, or Roulette, all 18+ games

Yours in Teddy-bear-free Chess,


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-10 15:58:56)
King's indian

Radjabov's good score in Corus 2007 tournament (Wijk aan Zee) gave a second youth to King's indian after Kasparov dropped it about ten years ago. Chessbase now sells a dvd by ex-FIDE world champion Kasimdhzanov.

I still consider this opening as a good OTB weapon, but what do you think about it in modern correspondence chess, particularly after the nice victories by Christophe Léotard during last ICCF world championship.

I think it could be interesting to discuss this opening, why not in Wikichess... What would you play after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 e5 7.O-O Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 (9.Ne1 and 9.b4) ?

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=wikichess&article=4156


Nicola Lupinacci    (2007-02-14 09:57:32)
engine-free area

I completely agree with Benjamin Aldag. there are many players that do not use comp. ass. becouse they are pure chess players. and there are also players who cannot use a pc ass. becouse they do not have a chess engine or they play from work or from the office. but if comp. ass. is allowed i cannot tell nodoby "DO NOT USE A CHESS PROGRAM". i think a great idea is to make a "place" or special tournaments where computer is not allowed or a special symbol after the name of players who use pc ass. so you know if your opponent is using a chess engine and you will play differently. this is the best free corrispondence chess server i found on the web and making a "not-pc-assistence-zone" will be the cherry on the cake! sorry for my bad english


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-02-14 19:09:12)
To Nicola

But there are already _many_ other web-chess organisations with forbidden computer use:

- our friends at itsyourturn.com
- the letsplaychess server
- http://www.playchess.de/
...

The last one has a very good interface and is also free.
Servers with computer use allowed are at the opposite very few.
So why should Thibault change a feature which is specific here for something which is already available everywhere else ?
Moreover, having played for long at playchess.de where both kinds of play exist (with or without computer help) I can tell you that there was there a surprinsingly large number of players cheating in the non-computer section instead of playing with their computers in the computer-allowed one, and this was at the origin pf permanent discussions and flame wars on their forum.

For what regards myself I do not wish that FICGS would go the same way.

Marc


Benjamin Aldag    (2007-02-15 12:30:33)
YOU FLAME !

@ Marc Lacrosse

The discussion is not about to change something. It is about to build a new feature here. It would be kewl to see a little (c) in the profiles of computerusers.

Please dont flame here about 'what is allowed and whats not allowed' !!!

IT IS ALLOWED TO USE A COMPUTER-ASSISTENCE !!!! AND THIS IS OK FOR ME !!!! AND IT IS ALlOWED TO PLAY WITHOUT COMPUTER-ASSISTENCE !!!! IS THIS LOUD ENOUGH ???

I play here at FICGS and why should i play at playchess.de ??? I want to play CC-Chess HERE ! So please dont tell me, where i can play without computer-assistence. I can play without computer-assistence here TOO !

yk


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-15 14:26:23)
Engine free area

Definitely, there won't be a (C) mark as computer, (F) as Fritz, (B) as books or (D) as databasen, (C+B), (F+D+B) and so on :) .. It makes sense in blitz / bullet chess on Playchess ie., not in correspondence chess, as human makes the real decision.

Definitely, I agree with Marc. I had some experience in the past in organizations that forbid computer assistance, I'm convinced it's no use to separate rating lists. Actually, it would even lose some interest for many players.

Anyway, if you do not take care about top ratings, just play chess without computer assistance (it is allowed too) :)


Wayne Lowrance    (2007-02-15 22:50:39)
Rybka, Fritz and future

I would like to comment. Your post is most interesting. I sort of disagree with you a little bit. But first: I do agree with you that Rybka may not be the best CC engine. I sort of like F10 for that. Rybka end game is lacking behind several other engines, including Fritz. Perhaps the best cc engine is a dark horse. named Zap, latest version. Rybka kills Zap according to posting in short games (Blitz) but recent testing evidence by reliable testers indicate that it is one heck of a engine in standard time controls. In my opinion there are several engines that have proven that Humans have lost a grip in chess play.


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-02-15 22:55:30)
Why such a shouting ?

@Benjamin Aldag

"The discussion is not about to change something. It is about to build a new feature here"

You are completely illogical.

Evidently you may play without computer as you wish here.

You may also try to find other members who prefer to play this way and register together with them in a tournament.

So what you wish to do is already possible. But what you request is not that.

You request to play here against opponents for whom computer use will be forbidden.

This is simply not the rule here. It's even one of the fundamental originalities of this site.

The rules of the site are that everything is allowed

If you and friends of yours manage to play without computers this is up to you

But asking for special rules supposes that you intend to request that Thibault or someone will check that YOUR rule is enforced.

IMHO this is purely not working. You won't find any organisation that wil be able to ensure that no player cheats regarding this kind of rule.

So let me repeat (and it is MY RIGHT not to agree with your opinions) : if you find opponents with which you have an agreement for playing without comps here this is perfectly fine for everybody and it's up to you to see wether you are happy with the way your partners do or do not respect the agreement.

If you wish to change radically the rules so as to have tournaments where something like a police dept will check that no comp is used than GO AWAY and simply do register in one of the numerous sites where these rules do exist and where almost everybody cheats.

By the way : no need for shouting to tell what you wish.

Shouting will not make your opinions more valuable in any way.

Marc


Wayne Lowrance    (2007-02-15 23:05:38)
more chess engine talk.

Thibault, you miss the boat on Hydra futre expectations in my opinion. Its advantage over pc engines was dedicated hardware (no necessarily speed) and ease of making program modifications. However you perhaps neglect to consider the tremendous improvement in PC performance multiple cores, processors and et all. My thought is that the pc programs already are superior to Hydra. Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that Rybka has finished ahead of it in tournament play. As far as other programs, you did not mention Zap. You best keep an eye on this one. It is very very strong and improving. Right now it is the only engine that has a chance of catching Rybka in eng-eng matches. I think it will be number two on the computer rankings. I will try to look further into Zap for a top CC engine. we see. again, my thoughts Wayne


Pablo Schmid    (2007-02-15 23:32:13)
A solution?

For players like Aldag, it might be possible to host a tournament "without computers", so Thibault would not have to change something in his system, rules or rating..


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-16 00:00:43)
A solution?

Hi Pablo.

The real point is here (quote from Benjamin) : "The discussion is not about to change something. It is about to build a new feature here"

Such a new feature is not only something more, it would completely change the challenge's nature offered here. I don't think it's a good idea. A special tournament would have no sense here IMO. If you want to play without computer assistance and be sure your opponents do the same, the only solution is... play big chess :)


Dan Rotaru    (2007-02-16 00:32:00)
Rating list

I think it would be nice to have a second rating list for established ratings. I have noticed that there are quite many players in the actual rating list who haven’t played yet a single game on FICGS. This list would also give an accurate picture of how many players are actually playing. Maybe this list can be implemented when the list will be updated at the beginning of March? Thanks, Dan


Don Groves    (2007-02-16 00:47:37)
I Agree...

... both for Chess and Go. Such information will give a much more accurate idea of where each player fits in on FICGS.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-16 01:14:10)
Active player list

Hello Dan.

I don't think it's a good idea to have several rating lists (many reasons to this), but I can easily add in statistics the numbers of active players. Now, after which period of time a player should be considered as inactive at correspondence time controls... 3 months is not enough IMO, some players regularly connect and ie. wait for WCH tournaments to start, 1 year is still more than the age of FICGS.


Dan Rotaru    (2007-02-16 01:44:17)
Established rating list

I didn't suggest to have more than two rating list but just two: 1. First list with all the players registered on FICGS which is the actual Rating List. 2. Established Rating list (after playing at least 9 games). Once a player ends up on this list he can stay there for ever.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-16 02:09:40)
Established rating list

Of course it's a good idea, and it can be discussed. So far, three main reasons for not doing this change :

1) One rating list is much clearer and easier to reach than two.

2) Provisional and established ratings are easy to distinguish already. (grey or not)

3) There could be more strong players in future who will play unrated games -only- at standard time control (2 hours / 40 moves, soon available) and in my opinion, the rating list is first a way to show who is playing there.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-16 15:37:47)
More columns

These informations are available already, what Dan would like to know is how many players are "active", so I think I'll add (quite easy) in the statistics page [Menu -> About] the number of players who connected to FICGS for a period of time to define.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-16 22:56:01)
Openings

As usual, Peter plays some risky & interesting openings :) .. Do you know a name for this one ??

http://www.ficgs.com/game_8065.html


Dinesh De Silva    (2007-02-17 07:33:13)
Re:

A "Schliemann" variation, isn't it?! Two of the most interesting correspondence chess players I've come across on FICGS are Peter & Krol because they play very exciting lines.


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-02-17 10:59:30)
like a no-smoking zone?

I believe what Aldag want is a place with a sign "computer-free chess" just like those pubs, restaurants, trains, etc use a "no-smoking zone" sign. It will be visible so that it will deter smokers/engine-users to enter that zone.

To make it less attractive to engine assistance, these games should be unrated, with player automatically losing their current ELO (that ELO rating could have been "won" using engines previously anyway) so just their names will suffice, and there should not be no tournaments --so that there is no "winners" as this will trigger the use of engines-- The players will only challenge each other and the winner will not be known to anybody except the players, and the games will not be recorded in the general database and they will not be shown live: all this will for certain deter any need to use an engine i.e. 'winning' means nothing literally and it will look as if it never happened

This way chess without engines will be as if doing something clever when actually it is a loss of time -can't remember who said this about chess 8-)


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 ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-17 18:07:31)
Gameknot vs. FICGS, other challenges

It seems GameKnot leads 5-4 in the games played here... Not bad :)

Any news about the games played at GameKnot ?

It could be interesting to discuss about other team challenges... A team tournament, matches against other servers or forums (which ones ?), maybe at different time controls or playing chess variants (chess 960) or other games (could be fun to play chess & Go, poker or anything against the same players).. with or without computer assistance and so on... It should be easier to build teams now thanks to the chat bar.

It seems there was no problem of cheating with chess engines during the match against GameKnot, that's encouraging to organize other ones.


Tom Hodges    (2007-02-17 19:02:17)
Go features

Most servers have a button for Send and Go To Next Game Can this be added here? Also for Go games it is vital to display the # of prisoners taken. A game may go up to 300 moves and the score may be within a few points. Since the server doesnt do a fimal score, we need to see the # of prisoners.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-17 20:01:13)
Go features

Hello Tom.

Did you try the 'next' link after you sent a move ?

About the prisoners, as we use Chinese counting, it seems to me the number of prisoners is not really important. What about the Go scorer ? .. - click the 'score' link before to play your move... Thanks for feedback.


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-02-18 15:19:22)
:-)

If I am the Marc you are referring too, why not ...
Don't be fooled : I like human chess too (I was in the 2050-2100 range for years OTB a long long time ago).
Although I doubt I would like it much I suppose I could still play decent correspondence games without comp assistance ...
And be sure : if I went to enter a non-computer event I would follow the rules !

Marc


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-18 19:14:30)
ICCF champions league

Hello to all.

While looking for interesting challenges that could take place here at FICGS (ie. simultaneous games at standard time control by a FIDE / ICCF IM-GM, or team challenges against other servers), Valer Eugen Demian (ICCF) suggested we build a team that could play in the next ICCF champions league... If we can build a team, why not ?

Rules of the event (taking place on ICCF server) are here :

http://tables.iccf.com/email/ChLeague/2004/season1faq.htm


What do you think ? .. Did anyone play this tournament already ?


Catalin Ionescu    (2007-02-18 23:58:41)
Topalov or Leko ?

1. Topalov 2. Leko 3. Svidler 4. Aronian 5. Carlsen 6. Anand 7. Ivanchuk 8. Morozevich

(right now the round 2 is playing)

I think Carlsen will be the surprise of this tournament :)


Charlie Neil    (2007-02-19 13:52:00)
ICCF champions league

I have played on the ICCF webserver. So, it must be an easy webserver to play on if i can manage it! I think there must be a Ficgs team! More publicity and a chance to meet more chessfriends. Unfortunately I'm not of the standard required to be in a successful team but I can stand on the "touchline" with my Ficgs scarf and shout encouragement. C'mon! Also what about challenges to those sites such itsyourturn and chessworld.net and schemingming.com. you know the ones that aren't free to play on.....


Phil Cook    (2007-02-21 06:33:47)
Novice player

I'm keen,but any room for a novice player 1200- rated??


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-21 16:17:50)
Chinese counting

Hello Lazaro !

Maybe I did not understand some things yet :) .. It seems to me, as we use Chinese rules with Chinese counting, that the numbers of prisoners is completely useless... It is a question of territory (you may use the Go scorer - link Score - before to play your moves to evaluate the board), right ?

Best regards.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-21 16:23:04)
Tournament winners

Hello Nicola.

Tournament leaders or winners are displayed while browsing tournaments listings (click Tournaments, then select a category).. If at least 3 players obtain the best score, no winner is displayed. It takes care about the points only. But in some tournaments - ie. world championship - the winner may be defined by more rules... Does this answer ?

Best regards.


Marcus Miranda    (2007-02-21 18:01:11)
Unrelated suggestion

This probably has nothing to do with this topic, but one suggestion I would like to make is to put the tournaments won by the player in the player profile. For me it would be kind of cool since I am a bit far from titles or norms. Anyways it's just a thought. And by the way, this site is great, thanks thibault.


Nicola Lupinacci    (2007-02-21 18:51:49)
standing suggestion

the thing i try to explain is the follow:

if you are the last player that enter in a tournament, your name in the standing is the last, also if you win or for example arrive third.

Now the question is:

is possible to see the tournament standing with the leader in the first position of the standing, the player who arrived second in the second place of the standing, etc etc?

for example, if you see FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_C__000001, the winner is in the last position of the standing.

Is possible to see this standing with this order?:

Unger 5.5/6
Muller 4.5/6
Holes 4/6
Ghisi 3/6
Baron 2/6
Guralivu 1/6
Rattay 1/6

sorry for my bad english and thanks thibault for your time :-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-21 18:57:21)
Building teams...

Hello to all.

Here is the list of the teams that played in previous ICCF champions league :

http://tables.iccf.com/email/ChLeague/2004/teams.htm


I still don't know what's the cost to build a team, it seems all players just have to be a member of ICCF (through their federation or direct entry) and pay an entry fee for each tournament... Maybe someone can confirm ?

So the question : Who would like to play in our teams (and what name for these mad teams ? :))


Nicola Lupinacci    (2007-02-23 09:13:39)
Magnus Carlsen is now at the top

After round 5 Carlsen lead with 3.5/5, winning against Topalov, while Anand lose against Aronian.
This is a great tournament, with leaders that can lose a game also against the last player. Really interesting :-D


Nicola Lupinacci    (2007-02-23 13:19:20)
kasparov

In my opinion the best kasparov certainly could win all tournaments (also Morelia-Linares 2007) without any preparation

he is the best chess player of all time

he is the game of chess! :-D


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-02-23 18:25:51)
Fischer

In the same vein if Fischer comes out and plays in Linares/Morelia he'd score 13.5/14, blowing all his opponents despite playing the same lines he always played and revealing novelties no-one thought about even with the help of computers...

(must be Friday, :P)


Nicola Lupinacci    (2007-02-23 20:45:40)
The best chess player of history

Who is the best player of history?

From 1500 to 2007, who is for you the strongest?


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 ...


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-25 13:23:18)
Big Chess

Finally, Big Chess tournaments waiting list is open !

If you like to play without chess engines and against human players only, you may try this really interesting variant of chess. (unrated games)

Have a look at these Big Chess events by clicking 'Tournaments', then 'FICGS__CHESS__SPECIAL_EVENTS' :


FICGS__BIG_CHESS__THOUSAND_MEMBERS_EVENT
FICGS__BIG_CHESS__INAUGURAL_MATCH


Have good big chess games :)


Dinesh De Silva    (2007-02-27 06:46:46)
Re:

Haha! I just had to play that joke on you! Wordplay is such good fun sometimes.


Kim Peters    (2007-03-02 01:21:37)
greatest chess players

here is a great article i found on chessbase. everyone is free to draw their own conclusions but the authors make a strong argument. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-02 11:50:12)
greatest chess players

I remember this article, we discussed it here... There was some doubts about the method and the use of Crafty for analysis. That's interesting anyway...


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-03 13:32:43)
FIDE world championship, Mexico

Here is the decision of the FIDE President (Kirsan Ilyumzhinov) in respect of the World Chess Championship cycle :

http://www.fide.com/news.asp?id=1277


Now if Kramnik wins in Mexico, Topalov will play his match against him... But if Kramnik loses his title, he (Kramnik) will play a match against the winner.

Conclusion : Topalov will support Kramnik in Mexico :)


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    (2007-03-03 19:40:48)
5th Freestyle tournament

I'm playing in this tournament in the chessbase server, very difficult tournament with a fast time controle 1h+15 for the game. After 4 rounds I scored 2 points. 5th round at 8 p.m. today.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-04 12:34:09)
Playchess Freestyle Tournaments

A hard one for sure... It looks like Advanced Chess more. As for me, I can't play it because of my internet connection :(

Anyway that's interesting, feel free to tell us about the results and your impressions !


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-04 12:42:37)
Building a team

Okay, it seems it could be quite hard to build a team playing at ICCF CL right now... Maybe too early yet. The entry fee may be another factor, so I hope FICGS can sponsorize a team later. Any volunteers anyway ?


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


Petr Makovsky    (2007-03-04 21:44:16)
Terrible !

We are 4,5 out of 7 and before last game (+- 30 second before start) "somebody" kick of us from room and they did not make pairing for us. 5,5 from 8 was enought for tiebreak and we were very close. Currently I am very frustrated and playchess.com will not see me for next few monthes.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-05 10:19:11)
Playchess Freestyle Tournament

Thanks for info, Samy...

What a crosstable, no less than 17 players finishing with 5,5 / 8

Petr, I understand your frustration, anyway that's why I play correspondence chess only over the internet. Losing a game thanks to a connection lost or strange rules is not interesting much :/


Several remarks while looking at the final crosstable :

The winner uses Rybka 2.3 mp, the others too :) .. Rybka's author (Rajlich) scores 5 out of 8 (pos. 18)

With Rybka getting stronger and stronger at fast time controls, Advanced Chess will probably become Computer Chess and finally Rybka Chess very soon. 1 hour + 15 sec is no more interesting.

I recognize some famous 'names' used on the defunct KasparovChess.com, King Crusher (5 / 8), Deep Thunder (3,5 / 8)... Correspondence Chess GM Mikhail Umansky scores 2,5 / 8... and last but not least, french forums superstar Olivier Evan scores 2,5 / 7 :)


Nicola Lupinacci    (2007-03-06 12:39:26)
Follow a game move after move

Is it possible to follow a game move after move?

i.e.: is it possible to receive an email (or something else) when players make a move in the game i want to follow?

sorry for my bad english :-)


Samy Ould Ahmed    (2007-03-08 16:19:54)
Mikhail Umansky-Samy_Ould-Ahmed

[Event "5th Freestyle Main Event"] [Site "playchess.com #091606"] [Date "2007.03.04"] [Round "7"] [White "Mikhail Umansky"] [Black "Samy_Ould-Ahmed"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "E04"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 dxc4 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. O-O Rb8 7. Nc3 a6 8. e4 Be7 9. Qe2 Nxd4 10. Nxd4 Qxd4 11. Rd1 Qc5 12. e5 Nd7 13. Ne4 Qb5 14. a4 Qb3 15. Rd4 b5 16. Qg4 Bf8 17. axb5 Qxb5 18. Bf4 Qxb2 19. Qd1 Qb3 20. Qh5 Qc2 21. Rdd1 Be7 22. Rac1 Qa2 23. Ng5 g6 24. Qh6 Bf8 25. Qh3 Rb6 26. Bf1 Qb2 27. Rxc4 c5 28. Ne4 h6 29. Bg2 Be7 30. Rc3 g5 31. Bc1 Qb4 32. Qh5 Bb7 33. Re3 c4 34. Nd6+ Bxd6 35. exd6 Bxg2 36. Rxe6+ Kd8 37. Qxf7 Rf8 38. Qe7+ Kc8 39. Rf6 Rd8 40. Kxg2 Qa4 41. Rf5 Qc6+ 42. Kg1 c3 43. Qe1 c2 44. Rd2 Rb1 45. h3 Kb8 46. Kh2 Qc3 47. Rf7 Ne5 48. Rf5 Nc6 49. Rfd5 h5 50. d7 a5 51. R5d3 Qc4 52. Re3 a4 53. Re8 Qc3 0-1


Khaled Toutaoui    (2007-03-08 18:18:52)
do you know this sicilian...

in one of my games i play with the blacks and after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 i played 4... e6 so e6!? or e6?! what do you think...my opponent played after that 5.e5 Nd5 6.Ne4 Qc7 7.f4 Bb7 8.c4 Bb4+ 9.Ke2...and what do you think about the position...thanx a lot for all..:)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-09 15:11:18)
Kingston Defense !

While looking at links poiting to FICGS.com, I found this Wikipedia article and realized that one of the Kingston Defense's fathers was among us :)

http://www.ficgs.com/wikichess_3670.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Defence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Wilson


"Crack the Frutch : How to play the Kingston Defense"
.. by Gavin Wilson. ISBN 0-9514103-0-X

The opening is fully commented in Wikichess by Gavin... Quite funny :)


By the way, this opening looks interesting ! .. I just launched a thematic tournament. Thanks for all your comments in Wikichess, Gavin :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-09 16:53:11)
GM Ehlvest vs. Rybka

A strange match happened between FIDE GM Jaan Ehlvest (2610) and Rybka, with White playing with 7 pawns in all games...


http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=519

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=564


Khaled Toutaoui    (2007-03-10 12:30:03)
yes sorry...oops...

oh sorry sir i forgot a move the complete annotation is...1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4 Qc7 9.f4 Bb7 10.c4 Bb4+ 11.Ke2...but i think that in the Scheveningen play 2.d6 before e6 so that the Knight in f6 is protected from the attack e4-e5...i think that 4...e6 here in these case is really ?! or ?...what do you think...


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-03-10 15:27:33)
Playchess Freestyle Tournaments

Interesting and true observation, Thibault.

What about the format 2h/40moves displayed under Money Tournaments in Waiting Lists? Maybe this is equally harder (in order to beat Rybka) that at 1h+15sec (!?)

And second question is why do you think Black needs so many moves to have winning chances in the proposed Silver/Gold Thematic game, or a better question could be: Do you think White can get a draw after that sequence: 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ng1 d5 3.Nf3 c5 4.Ng1 Black to move. -->assuming the idea is that if the game is drawn White would win the 1-game match--.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-10 15:43:17)
Playchess Freestyle Tournaments

Hi Elmer.

1h+15 is worth 1h10/40 moves... 2h/40 moves is the longest time control before correspondence chess (games that don't finish the same day it started) and I think it's long enough so that human can do something else than operate Rybka :)

About Silver/Gold Thematic game, if White/Black obtains much more than 50%, I'll change the opening until to find one that give about 50% chances. What do you think ? .. About this opening, I think chances are about 50%, I would play it with both colors :)


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-03-10 15:56:59)
Playchess Freestyle Tournaments

..Well, I would play only Black there, so I guess I know who could be my opponent in the first Gold thematic -isn't there a Platinum with 1000 EUR at stake?! ;)


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-03-10 16:17:33)
Playchess Freestyle Tournaments


1hour+15sec per player makes 2hours and 20 min for 40 moves overall which is significantly worse than 4hours for 40 moves overall, so I guess yes you are right (there is enough time to beat Rybka)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-10 16:54:39)
Playchess Freestyle Tournaments

.. enough time to beat Rybka, I don't know, but enough time to bring a bit of human brain chess for sure :)

About another Platin (or whatever) category with 1000 EUR at stake, I'll see it later as it could bring some more difficulties regarding laws.


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2007-03-10 23:24:38)
This is called the 4 knights sicilian

This line is a very complicated line of play. You could play the scheveningen with e6 as your second move,the difference is you chose as your second move Nc6 that allows this line of play. So e6 is a perfect line of play neither good nor bad. Just for your tastes :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-11 01:24:11)
Kingston Defence

Glad to see Ilmars also began to analyze this defense in Wikichess !

I feel it's a draw on a perfect play, but we'll debate it on the board for sure in future... ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-11 01:36:31)
Your best quotes :)

I just read a great "quote" written by one of my opponents... :)

You saw these quotes about chess, Go and other subjects while playing your moves, actually you probably saw all of them already, so I'd like to gather your favourite quotes here, I'll add the best ones in the file !

Don't hesitate to submit your own ideas ;)


Don Groves    (2007-03-11 07:04:51)
Draw on perfect play?

If this turns out to be true, then Black will never lose another game!


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-03-11 10:40:27)
Playchess Freestyle Tournaments

I'm not that concerned about just bringing a bit of human brain into the game, I'm most concerned about bringing a bit of human brain into the game *successfully* :) i.e. for a start, real chances to beat operated Rybka at this time control. Hope you are right, I am just rather being optimist on your proposed time control.

--The 'money' prizes are now listed as Epoints not Euros, but what's the equivalence between them?


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-03-11 10:41:50)
It's a draw on perfect play.

I agree, in CC 1.e4 is worse by test.


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-03-11 10:43:49)
Anand virtually ranked #1

Maybe he's just started to overcome his I-can't-do-it-at-this-level syndrome :)

-Chess world is full of UnderAchievers: players who can't become IMs, IMs who can't become GMs, GMs who can't become WCs, WCs who can't performe as such --and all that includes both me and you, dear reader lol


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-11 21:05:57)
Shredder 10 vs. Rybka 2.3.1

Quite funny, Harry Schnapp 'organized' a match with the same conditions between Shredder 10 UCI and Rybka 2.3.1 (still playing with 1 pawn less) : Shredder 10 won the match 5,5 / 2,5


Pablo Schmid    (2007-03-12 00:22:02)
Haha

Notice that giving a pawn in the starting position is not necessary a big disadvantage, depending of which pawn. For example I do it "everytime" with 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 (BDG) where after 4..exf3 5.Nxf3, it seems to be a "normal" position, but without the f pawn. And my claim is: White have a dynamical equality with best play against best play!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-12 12:37:20)
A new computer Go era ?

It seems a new computer Go era just started...

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL2053348420070221?pageNumber=1


Quote : "The 19 by 19 board which top players use is still hard for a machine, but the new method is promising because it makes better use of the growing power of computers than earlier Go software."


Quite strange to read about the growing power of computers regarding Go... I suppose programs have much to learn first.. We will see :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-12 15:31:09)
Major update : SSL encryption forms

Hello to all.

This is the last major update before money tournaments can start...


Now you can login through SSL encryption forms, meaning the best security to prevent hacking.

You should use SSL encryption forms only to browse the whole site with HTTPS, particularly if you wish to enter money tournaments later... It is also strongly recommended to change your password regularly (at least 8 characters, numbers & letters is best).

Thus you should always see HTTPS:// before the url after you login.


Feel free to follow this link for more advices about security & phishing :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#security


FICGS now uses SSL data encryption, hash functions and a bunch of other security features...

4 login forms is a lot but thus anyone can connect, even with browsers that doesn't support HTTPS and Javascript.

Also a few minor bug fixes and improvements, komi updated in .SGF files, reinforced hash functions, last connection date displayed in profile and so on...

All feedbacks are welcome :)


Dagh Nielsen    (2007-03-12 03:20:43)
5th Freestyle tournament

Just a short comment on the use of computers in these Freestyle tournaments:

There are two groups of participants:

1) Pure engines (with a book).

2) A somewhat larger group of "centaurs" who play the moves themselves, and use computers to analyse the moves actively.

Please note first, that the engine names behind some of the nicks in the crosstable do not necessarily mean that that participant played as pure engine (it's just an irrelevant effect of the server software somehow, decided by whether the participant had an engine uploaded during registration).

In fact, only two of those 10 who made it to the final (after the playoffs Saturday) are playing as pure engines. All the rest played as centaurs, including Cato the Younger.

This was also the case in the 4th Freestyle tournament: Only two pure engines made it to the final.

However, the pure engines surely made up more than 20% of the starting fields. What is more, these engines are usually operated by engine-chess freaks who have very strong hardware (Hercules01, who made it to the final after the play-offs, is allegedly running a 16-core system).

So my conclusion is: Centaurs perform significantly better than pure engines still. Even at this relatively short time control.

In other words: The human aspect is very much alive and kicking in this kind of chess :-)

I can only recommend interested people to try it out next time. It really is quite a bit of fun!

PS. I was lucky to qualify for the final, playing with nick "Flying Saucers". Also in the final is Corr. GM Arno Nickel (=Ciron) and FIDE GM Yuri Solodovnichenko (2585) (=Engineer). Several finalists have not yet revealed their identities :-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-12 15:35:44)
Google ads

Notice : Ads by Google Adsense are no more displayed when you browse the site with HTTPS.

This may be a reason good enough to use the SSL encryption forms only :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-13 00:37:20)
FIDE about time controls

This topic, very discussed in Correspondence Chess forums (see TCCMB), is also debated in FIDE. We may play games with 1 hour + 10 seconds time control in future open tournaments...

http://www.fide.com/news.asp?id=1288


Any opinion ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-13 20:53:51)
Correspondence Go rules

I read a post at GoDiscussions.com by a player who wondered how to tell his opponent he's lost... That's quite true some correspondence Go games may last (sometimes more than 50 moves) whereas the result is obvious, ie. when a very strong player beats a beginner who even doesn't really know why he's lost.

I was thinking about a rule to solve this problem but I couldn't find one good enough :/

Is it correct to ask his opponent to resign (according to a rule) or simply he's 'most probably' lost ?!

All ideas are welcome.. Thanks in advance !


Don Groves    (2007-03-14 05:52:59)
CG Rules

You could have an expert player act as referee and when this situation happens, the player who is winning easily asks the referee to end the game. If the referee agrees, he/she notifies the losing player of the decision and, if necessary, explains why.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-14 12:05:14)
Correspondence Go rules

Hmm, a problem is that when you call referee, the message is sent to your opponent too. This way, I would feel embarrassed to claim a win, in any game... Wouldn't you ? .. but maybe this is a solution, in this case I have to change the way calls to referee work.

Could other Go players react to this ? .. Thanks for your help.


Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2007-03-15 13:40:45)
Adjudication in correspondence games

I think that you have to be very careful with this kind of adjudication. Even if you restrict this to cases that are 100% clear, you still have to separate them from the 99% cases. I would only consider adjudication if control of the board is completely decided and one player keeps playing worthless moves.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-15 13:59:35)
Lightning chess games

Hello to all.

A new update, you may have seen a new category in money tournaments :

Lightning (correspondence) chess games, time control 30 minutes + 1 minute / move


I think it's a quite interesting time control for chess, it should attract more advanced chess players (or simply strong computers).. Really faster than "blitz correspondence chess".

I updated the server so that it is really easier to play fastly in these games. When you send your move, a new option will appear next to (Flip) and (Next). The link (Wait) will redirect you to the viewer page that will be auto-refreshed every 10 seconds. When your opponent play his move, you'll be automatically redirected to the "move" page to play your move and a pop-up window will appear to warn you (if Javascript is activated)...

Read more about in Time rules - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#time


Money tournaments will start on April, 2


Don Groves    (2007-03-18 00:19:33)
Spassky's reaction

I hope he will laugh in their faces, give them a good spanking, and send them back to the board play some chess!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-18 02:00:14)
FIDE time controls

I agree, actually this is "1h ko" with no loss on time... (less stress and more Fischer clocks, indeed)

That's a pity, I very like 2 hours / 40 moves. Maybe it's useless in some open tournaments, but in others the quality of the games will be affected undoubtly. I hope it will attract more new chess players, I suppose it is the main goal...


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-19 22:52:04)
Blokus

Do you know this fantastic game called Blokus ?

I play this game for several years, rules are very simple (like Go), quite easy to start, and I must say the variety of strategies makes it maybe even more interesting than Go. Intuition is very important too, computers are quite weak.

Just wondering if this game is known worldwide...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blokus


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-19 23:04:58)
Blokus

Blokus was invented in 2000 by a french engineer/artist. Quite recent but it's spreading very fastly in France - at least... Great game, try it ! :)

Actually, I think it's better not to multiply the games at FICGS to concentrate on chess & Go, but it would have been great to play Blokus here... (anyway, trademarked)


Don Burden    (2007-03-20 02:48:09)
French Songs

I know a little French and really like Jacques Brel and Edith Piaf. Are they still popular in France? I'd like to find a streaming French radio station on WinAmp (Shoutcast Radio) that plays that type of music, but all I can find either plays American music, or really awful dance/disco music.

There are a lot of Jacques Brel film clips available on YouTube (www.youtube.com), like "Madeleine" and "La Valse À Mille Temps" that I think are great.


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-03-20 11:47:28)
Nice game and nice site!

Blokus seems really interesting indeed.
And the site with good online play features is very well done.
I can even play from behind my corporate firewall :-)
It will be difficult to resist ...
:-))))

Marc


Don Groves    (2007-03-20 22:30:21)
Blaise Pascal

I just read that Pascal said that all of man's problems arise because we cannot sit in a room alone with ourselves. Obviously, Pascal never played chess or go on FICGS :-)


Nick Burrows    (2007-03-21 01:20:27)
*Go to Pi*

The film Pi is about a mathmetician who is using chaos theory to find a pattern within the stock market. His obsession leads him to observe the mathematical structures underpinning the whole of nature - eg spiral shells.
He visits his old maths teacher. They play Go together. The teacher explains that the ancient chinese saw the Go board as representing the whole universe, and so Go is used as a metaphor to understand chaos theory.
Starting with a very simple set of rules structures of untold complexity can form, systems such as the weather are so complex that they appear to be 'chaotic' or random. Go shows us that although it is too complex to see a game to its end, or understand the whole structure, there is logic or order within the chaos. It is just beyond our humble human limitations to understand it fully.
Go and chess intrigue us because in revealing the hidden truth within a chaotic structure, we are understanding a wider truth of order behind ALL phenomenon in the universe. Peace.


Don Groves    (2007-03-21 05:19:26)
chaos and order

Nick, no other game stimulates me to these thoughts and conversations but then I haven't played them all ;-) Yes, the falling tree does make a sound in the absence of humans -- it may startle a deer for example. Clearly *we* can never know anything outside of human consciousness but to imply that nothing else can exist outside of our consciousness is a bit too anthropic for me ;-)


Lionel Vidal    (2007-03-23 18:59:07)
Not too up-to-date article...

Computers are much better in chess now than in 1998 ( :-) or :-( ... hum maybe :-( for me...). I am not sure that a player, even J. Edwards (very good player and a good chess writer too!) could be sure anymore to CC-outplay an engine running 24h/day on a modern hardware platform. He might win, yes, but might only IMHO.

Nowadays, many CC players (most?) consider that using an engine is *not* cheating, and I am so sure that *most* sites, as said in the article, do prohibit such a use. At least it could be noted that the strongest players seem to play in ICCF (or maybe iecg ... and in FICGS of course :-)) where engines are allowed. (and this is good IMO, not per se but, as it is often recalled, because their ban could not be correctly enforced)

Anyway I am looking forward to reading the next article to use more effenciently chessbase :-)


James McKenna    (2007-03-24 13:00:07)
A new era

will a computer ever beat the worlds top players as in chess?


Don Groves    (2007-03-25 03:10:20)
A new computer Go era?

Eventually computers will be able to play Go on a 19x19 board as well as they can now play on a 9x9 board. It's just a matter of spending the time and money to build a powerful enough computer. But, there's no reason why the Go board cannot grow larger. A larger board, say 23x23, wouldn't change the game much for humans but would astronomically increase the time required for expert computer play. But again, if someone wants to spend the time and money, computers will eventually have the power to be the best Go players, just as in Chess.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-25 04:11:00)
Computer Go

I don't agree with that anymore, unfortunately. The more I play, the more I think Go can be learnt by computers, probably at a 2 or 3 dan level.. maybe more. Of course the speed of processors won't change it much. In my opinion programs playing Go will divide (some probably do it already) better their "thoughts" and the game in several parts, some of recognition [shapes, liberties..] and others of calculation [fights that are often reduced to a ~6x6 calculation, whatever the board size] to evaluate positions... So, the board size might be not so important in future and I don't think it will change their level much...


Lionel Vidal    (2007-03-25 11:24:50)
Computer Go

While I agree that programming Go is much more a problem of algorithm than a hardware one, I think you underestimate the theorical difficulties.

First, a word on the alluded new approach (BTW the french edition of 'Pour la Science' has an article on this algorithm this month, but not very involved): it seems promising only because that program regularly beats other program using what we can call a traditional approach: tree exploration combined with pattern recognition and some clever splitted evaluation function. That is fine, but does not mean much for human, considering the poor level of all these programs.
AFAIY the very best program is said to be at low pro-dan level on a 9x9 (without any concrete real test match, that is with money at stakes... but let's suppose it is true). The problem to play on 19x19 is that the nature of the game dramatically changes: in short the tactics is more complicated and the once very basic strategy of 9x9 becomes overwhelming! There is still no known algorithm to tackle that problem. Such algorithm could exist of course, but don't hold your breath :-)
Now I am quite eager to read the tests and pubications on these researches :-)

The neural network approach is interresting but is more or less stalling (again AFAIY) in recent programs mainly because of a fundamental flaw: the tuning of the gap functions. In Backgammon, where this approach works very well, these functions are tuned by simulation: basically, the program plays many, many games against himself and in a way learns (that is tunes its network) depending on the results. As you may guess, this can not work in Go because of the complexity of the branch tree. So the problem is how to tune the network (and 'by hand' cannot be a soution, believe me, considering the number of nodes and the type of the functions being commonly used!)

Of course I simplified a lot and the maths behind these kind of algorithm are involved enough (and very interresting :-)) that someone may find new ideas that will revive one path or another. But my feeling is that the pros of go have nothing to fear for a long time...
You have to consider that the very best programs are not beaten, but crushed, by multi-dans amateurs, you know, the kind of player a top pro will beat at 5 stones while blitzing and at 9 stones if some money is at stakes :-)

Now I may be wrong, and I remember in the 80s many people saying the same thing for chess, and betting on the fact that a program could never beat a good player in at least 50 years :-)... but at that time, I did not agree :-)) mainly because the algorithms were more or less basically known already... the 80s hardware was a problem, but a technical and not theorical one...

Sorry for that too long reply... I can't believe I typed so much... that must be my new keyboard, and the fond memories of some past jobs ... :-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-25 18:39:15)
Computer Go

Neural networks will be at most an "extra" or a small part of the solution for a good playing Go program IMO. I don't believe much in it until an artificial brain have the "power" of a human one and we're very far from it. But as in chess (and Rybka's coming), a lot of knowledge probably has to be implemented yet and algorithms to be improved before that. That's why I said it could probably reach a 2 or 3 dan level, which still looks a reasonable level (ok, only an assumption) :) ... Then, it should be much.. much harder.


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-03-26 18:15:28)
How Life Imitates Chess

Has it been already published?

To start with, something tells me that the title should have been: How Chess Imitates Life, as it is written by a chess player not a philosopher or politician.

Not just because there is nothing bigger than life, but because we would be in real trouble if we had to make use of chess methodology to find out how to make the right decisions in life.

It can help, true, but no more than it did for Napoleon, for example ;)
(--Wellington would be turning in his grove trying to claim a Master Norm for Waterloo ;)

I have real difficulties trying to grasp the link between chess and politics.

Was Churchill a chess Master? if that is so, then Bush and Blair must be ELO 1200 ;-), and Garry must be declared Russian President ipso facto

Which French presidential candidate from your list plays chess?

Which one is considering learning some chess strategy?

Would they get more votes if they declare this intention? -sort of getting into their rights minds and improving their decision making? Hey, Garry is missing some prospective customers here..8-)


Lionel Vidal    (2007-03-27 15:57:30)
Chess and Xiangqi

A very interresting article in Chesscafe (www.chesscafe.com) by K.Müller on some endgame similarities in chess and xiangqi.

Xiangqi is great chess game (one of the greatest, even if I am quite weak at it; and in any cases, by far the greatest chess game by the number of players :-)): in short time limits (standard is 20 minutes per players) you can't beat that game for a exciting tactical mélée... and then if both palyers survive, the endgame is full of subtilities...

BTW *all* K.Müller articles on that site are a must-read! :-)


Pablo Schmid    (2011-07-13 23:01:37)
Shogi in ficgs?

Thanks for the link, but I think there is no real conclusion. Chinese chess and Japanese are really "classical" boards games that are quite related to chess, maybe it's not a bad idea to include these games, with the hope to get more asian players for example. If you are not convinced by that idea we could do a poll in this site for the inclusion of shogi, chinese chess, both or none?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-27 16:42:53)
Xiangqi

http://www.chesscafe.com/mueller/mueller.htm

I can't motivate myself to learn this game.. :/ .. rules are so strange, even less natural than chess !? Is it really played elsewhere than in China ?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiangqi

"As of 2005, the world's best human xiangqi players remain better than the world's best computer players. The game-tree complexity of xiangqi is approximately 10^150, so it is projected that a human top player will be defeated before 2010."


Elmer Valderrama    (2007-03-27 17:54:12)
Chess and politics

So Bush's national ELO is even lower ;-)

I assumed they may have won some ELO points by kicking Talibans' ass, but lost a lot more for playing dubious lines elsewhere in an otherwise easily won game --and now the opponent is playing the infamous Dead Man defense in the literal sense :((
Very sad and bad.


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-27 20:11:07)
Xiangqi

"Many" players in France, really ? .. I don't know a single one, but you of course :)

I wonder how many players exactly, but anyway I can't believe the popularity of this game will increase in future in and out of China...


Lionel Vidal    (2007-03-27 23:09:46)
Xiangqi

The number of french xianqi players is of course nothing compare to the number of french chess players (which is BTW quite low compared to other country :-( )... but with the increased interest in China, for mainly economic reasons, xianqi may become more popular here too... consider for instance that the number of chinese language students is greatly increasing these last years...
Of course the popularity of chess will remain certainly much higher!


Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2007-03-28 03:16:54)
More links

http://senseis.xmp.net (a go wiki) http://playgo.to/interactive (very good introduction) For books, you might browse e.g. http://www.hebsacker-verlag.de/ Further links can be found at the DGoB-homepage (Deutscher Go-Bund): http://www.dgob.de/golinks.htm


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-28 04:11:59)
Class GM : 2500+ players needed

Hello to all.

Even if the number of very strong players should increase significantly during next months, it may be interesting to reduce the limitation for GM class tournaments from 2600 to 2500... It could return to 2600+ later if there are players enough of this level to fill such a waiting list.

Until this moment, players rated 2500+ are welcome for a bloody tournament :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-28 04:21:32)
100 games per player

With the last update, a new "limitation" appeared on the server : It is not possible anymore to enter a waiting list (but money tournament) if you have more than 100 running games...

Of course, a hundred games is enormous already, actually the aim is not to reduce the number of running games on the server but only to prevent some cases of massive forfeits. Also a few players asked to prevent them to enter too many tournaments at the same time... This site may be too addictive :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-28 04:33:21)
Chess and politics

Obviously nobody else want to play with Bush anymore :)

China is too strong already and others play without any oil stakes or prefer to play other games. Poor boy...


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-03-28 15:16:58)
Droppers kill the fun !

... And this tournament (M 007)is now finished with two additional aborted games through dropping out...

I congratulate the well-deserved winner of the tournament (Karsten Fyhn)

I am sure he must be a little frustrated like I am : both his final game and mine were very interesting ones for which we both got the full point through dropping-out of our opponents ...

This is not funny at all !
I hate analysing a game for months and seeing it aborted because my opponent withdraws without resigning and lets his clock runs for months without a single word of explanation

I suppose i cannot ask for banning such impolite persons ...

But one thing is clear for me : I don't wish to enroll any more in tournaments with droppers.

So for what regards myself either Thibault creates a new kind of tournaments into which former droppers are not allowed to suscribe or I stop playing here

A very disappointed player ...


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-28 15:46:28)
Droppers

I feel that for at least 3 players in this tournament the problem is they had too many games at the same time ! (FICGS + IECG + ICCF ;))

What is strange is they all came back a few months later and registered for new tournaments. This is a real problem... The best answer to this in my opinion is rating that can decrease quite quickly, some will have to fight hard to enter a class M tournament again. In some cases of course there are personal reasons, it is hard to know and that's a pity to ban such players... :/

So it wasn't a good tournament, sorry about that. Still thinking about a new rule.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-29 05:28:00)
Droppers : New rule

Hello to all.

I'm to add a new rule to minimize the effects of silent withdrawals & forfeits without an explanation. The aim is first to guarantee to players they will not play again with droppers before a while... Rule is : "Any player who forfeits (by resignation or silent withdrawal) his games without giving an explanation to referee in a rated chess tournament will get an instant rating penalty of 200 points."

Thus, players go at least one category down. Of course it could be easier to ban players for a while, but just trying to avoid this.

All comments and suggestions are welcome.


Don Groves    (2007-03-29 05:55:31)
Droppers: New rule

This rule penalizes resignations the same as quitting (silent withdrawal) and it seems to me that quitting is much worse. With a resignation at least the other player knows what is happening and can forget about the game. Not so with quitters.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-29 14:48:46)
Another try

Of course there's always a bad part to a rule : finding the way to go round it.. and of course only serial droppers will, so to divide it in 2 parts may be useless :/

Another try : "Any player who forfeits (by resignation or silent withdrawal) his games without giving an explanation to referee in a rated chess tournament could get a limited access to the server and couldn't enter waiting lists anymore during a period of 2 months, at the referee's discretion."

Thus, when a dropper returns (after the next rating calculation), his rating will probably prevent him to enter the same category of tournaments - which is the initial aim.


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-03-29 19:00:16)
Double RR tournaments ?

Seven players in a tournament is a good number

A larger number would lead to longer waiting time before a tournament actually begins.

But with such a small number of players being white or black against a given opponent may be decisive for tournament win.

So my suggestion : double round robin tournaments with a smaller number of players (five ?).

At five players, completing the full list of players is faster than for a seven-players single RR one and everybody plays 8 games with the advantage that no colour advantage/disadvantage exists against any opponent.

Your opinion ?


Charlie Neil    (2007-03-29 19:32:56)
Double RR tournaments

I prefer single pairings. I know double pairings are the norm in postal clubs. 6 games with 6 others as opposed to 8 games with 4 people can make a difference. I'm sure the waiting time for tournaments to start will drop. But...... What about class tourneys being double paring 5 players and rapid tourneys being 7 players single pairing?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-29 19:51:24)
Double round-robin tournaments

Single round-robin tournaments with 7 players remains the very best option in my opinion. Shorter waiting time, more opponents... Playing White or Black against a particular opponent have consequences particularly in WCH tournaments, that is a choice but as there's no perfect system, the idea was to organize more cycles (about one every 6 months) for more chances. This way I'm convinced the best player will reach the final quite quickly :)

Double round robin tournaments with five players will be organized for special events (by the way this formula will not decrease the waiting time before a tournament starts... the more games in a tournament, the longer waiting time to begin another one, it doesn't depend on the number of players only)

Finally I think the idea of double round-robin tournaments with 5 players could be a good one for a new category, with a different time control (maybe longer ?!) .. What do you think ?


Nicola Lupinacci    (2007-03-29 21:01:14)
Double round-robin tournaments

I think it is a good idea.
Playing 2 times against an opponent (whit White and Black) is more exiting, specially in WCH tournaments


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-03-29 23:44:48)
Fast double RR at five players

"Finally I think the idea of double round-robin tournaments with 5 players could be a good one for a new category, with a different time control (maybe longer ?!) .. What do you think ?"

Or why not testing it with faster time controls (5 days initial + 1 day per move, maximum accumulated time 20 days) for example.

Sure I would immediately enroll for a 2200+ tournament on this basis.

:-)

Strongly limiting maximum accumulated time is also a project I would support wholeheartedly !

Anyone for a test ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-30 00:00:10)
Fast double RR at five players

My prediction for such tournaments : More droppers / silent withdrawals (what difference with losing on time then) after the 10 first moves... More unfair rating changes. This is no more correspondence chess IMO.


Wayne Lowrance    (2007-03-30 02:15:30)
Droppers: New Rule

I am wrestling with this new rule a little bit. Cannot make up my mind if I like it or not. I do not like to see games foreited or silent withdrawals in general. But Tribault goes on to amplify "any player who forfeits his games without giving an explanation...." The term (plural) games is one thing. But should I wish to forfeit "a" game based on my evaluation should not be challenged. I would not think I would have to explain why I am doing so. A certain amount of trust is required here on this site as Tribault has preached over and over again...Oh well, either way, fire away. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-30 04:48:24)
Droppers: New Rule

Rules must stay as simple as possible.. not so easy. There will be a council, referees and moderators, but as far as I can easily referee all games played here, it means rules are quite good IMO... This new rule doesn't look so fuzzy to me : "Without an explanation", so if a game is obviously lost or if there's an advantage, that is an explanation and the game can't be considered as a forfeit. Anyway I just added ".. in an equal or winning position". By the way, there must be several games in the same cases, it should be quite easy to make the difference. Actually, there's only one player here I couldn't say if he's a dropper or not (even if he's conscious of that or not) :-)


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-03-30 07:29:57)
why isn't it correspondence ?

"This is no more correspondence chess IMO"

Why so ?

I prefer few games where moves come quickly : I can keep them all in mind and I analyse them almost everyday

That's already the way I actually play : see the state of my clock at the end of my games :-)

At the opposite for what regards myself I feel terribly uncomfortable if I have more than 10-12 games running simultaneously and slowly: when I get a move it's like being in a new game because I cannot remind my former analyses (well they are written down but this is not the same)


Charlie Neil    (2007-03-30 21:13:10)
Time Controls

I think Marc has a point about a cummulative time limit in some time controls. in the class tournaments you could amass a huge ammount of time, if you were a fast player, and then use the clock and play really slowly and upset the rythym of your opponent. I like both time controls available, in Class and Rapid events, but if there is a demand for 5days +1day with a maximum of 20 days should we give it a try. as for drop-outs and silent withdrawals.....that's all in the game. (At least I get 1 point!) I am still dubious about double round robin tournaments but maybe you could try them in the Rapid events first. 5 player double pairings say every second tournament, and back to 7 player single pairing in the other......just a suggestion.


Charlie Neil    (2007-03-30 21:18:33)
100 games

Too addictive? Chess players? Too many games? Too many hours at the board/screen? Too much electricity to pay due to the computer never being switched off? Too many books at home? Now, I find that hard to believe. It's up to you, Thibault, to save us from ourselves!


Don Groves    (2007-03-30 23:11:57)
100 games per player

Charlie, you are talking to a person who spends 20 hours a day online, or so it seems on many days. You expect him to save you from too much time online? Surely you jest ;-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-30 23:18:03)
100 games per player

:o) ... quite ironic or not... anyway this rule also prevents too many forfeits.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-31 16:14:34)
Grand prix attack sac. against Caro Kann

I always look with interest the games played by Wladyslav Krol :)

We discussed last month this explosive variant with 3.Nf3!? in Grand Prix attack, now Wladyslav used the same opening against Caro Kann !

1.e4 c6 2.f4 d5 3.Nf3 ...


I found 3 results on Google about this opening, 2 come from FICGS :

http://www.ficgs.com/game_6886.html
http://www.ficgs.com/game_8263.html

http://www.chesspublishing.com/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1160671893;start=all


It would be interesting to have comments from the players for this interesting opening, out of the books at move 3... Could be a new thematic tournament very soon :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-01 00:35:38)
WCH prize fund - EUR 30,000

Hello to all.

A great news ! .. This is now confirmed just before the start of money tournaments, a german bank joined FICGS to guarantee a prize fund that just increased from EUR 2,000 to EUR 30.000 for the winner of the 2nd FICGS chess world championship !

Ads for both current sponsors will be displayed permanently in a few days on the site, thanks again to them, it will give a new dimension to this chess competition for sure ! .. Still looking for a second sponsor for the FICGS world Go championship, at the moment a japanese firm offers a prize fund of $1,500

Best wishes and have good WCH games !


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-01 19:00:23)
Internet Go vs. Masters

From Goama newsletter - http://gogame.info


How strong are Tygem ( http://tygem.com/ ) stars?

Korean Tygem Go server announced a tournament between top 3 Tygem players and Korean Dream team: Cho Hunnyun, Lee Changho and Yoo Changhyuk.

The results are:


First game: Cho Hunhyun, 9-dan lost by resignation to "spiderman1"

Second game: Lee Changho, 9-dan lost his game by resignation to "GoldHammer"

Third game: Yoo Changhyuk, 9-dan lost by 6.5 points to "gurenarukl"


It's hard to believe it, but they played without any handicap! Each game gathered more than 5000 observers. It seems, that Tygem has lot of other good players, considering that these 3 masters are not undefeatable. Their scores: Spiderman1 , 9-dan on Tygem, W113-L51 GoldHammer, 9-dan on Tygem, W275-L60 gurenarukl, 9-dan on Tygem, W893-L360

Maybe the online Go is far from the offline Go, or do we need a special experience for playing Go on servers? How strong are Tygem star players? Do we know them in real life? There are so many questions.

Chess players will also ask about the possibilities of computer help. Unfortunately they don't have English client available.


Jason Repa    (2007-04-02 03:28:30)
Abuse

How do I report abuse from another player. I took a screenshot but I don't know where to send it. Thank you.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-02 21:52:55)
Anand number 1 !

Here is the FIDE elo, 2007 april list.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3771

1 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2786
2 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2772
3 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2772
4 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2762
5 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2759
6 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar g AZE 2757
7 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2747
8 Leko, Peter g HUN 2738
9 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2736
10 Adams, Michael g ENG 2734
11 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2733
12 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2729
13 Polgar, Judit g HUN 2727
14 Navara, David g CZE 2720
15 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2717
16 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2717
17 Bacrot, Etienne g FRA 2709
18 Jakovenko, Dmitry g RUS 2708
19 Kamsky, Gata g USA 2705
20 Shirov, Alexei g ESP 2699
21 Akopian, Vladimir g ARM 2698
22 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2693
23 Nisipeanu, Liviu-Dieter g ROM 2693
24 Short, Nigel D g ENG 2691
25 Sasikiran, Krishnan g IND 2690


Nice to see a player like Morozevich at this level...


Catalin Ionescu    (2007-04-04 21:49:29)
European Individual Championships

2 rounds played ... who do you think will win?

top seed Jakovenko has 2 points (already); the same is in the women section where Stefanova won the first 2 matches


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-05 01:58:22)
Big Chess championship

Hello to all.

You may have seen in the chat bar the idea to organize a Big Chess championship at FICGS is in the air.

It could be interesting for several reasons, the first one of course is there's no engine to help players :) .. by the way, it may be really hard to program a good Big Chess engine, it should use some Go concepts combined to a powerful chess engine (with quite different parameters).

Now there are some questions :

- What rules for a Big Chess championship ?
- What about a Big Chess rating ?


In my opinion, there shouldn't be a Big Chess rating. That's a pity, but "simple" chess should remain the main rated game here. Actually, the nature of this game (and time control) makes me think it should remain a friendly game first. However there could a championship for fun...

About the rules for such a championship, it could look like the Go championship : A two-stages tournament, first stage would be a single round-robin tournament with the 7 players who won most Big Chess tournaments (will help to promote tournaments ;)), second stage would be a 6 games match against current champion (if the final score is a draw, the current champion will keep his title).

What do you think ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-05 04:17:09)
Links for Go beginners

A few essential links to learn Go (for beginners) :

http://senseis.xmp.net
http://senseis.xmp.net/?BeginnerStudySection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_board_game


This game is definitely great, play Go :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-05 04:22:32)
Go : Simultaneous games with handicap !

Hello to all Go players !

It could be interesting to organize simultaneous games by 1 kyu+ players with a stones handicap against weaker players... or another kind of hard & funny challenge, feel free to make a suggestion if you have ideas.

Any taker ? :) .. come in, more fun !


Don Groves    (2007-04-05 07:51:16)
FICGS Birthdays

I just learned that Alejandro Suarez-Moreno's wife's birthday is also today! I think we should know players birthdays so we can send them greetings on that day. Maybe put them in each player's information. Mine is Sunday ;-)


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2007-04-05 16:06:36)
BigChess Championship

Hello to all.

BigChess is a great game. No books, no engines, and no ratings!

A BigChess Championship is an excellent idea. I think that everyone should be able to take part in this tournament. And - if possible - it should start as soon as possible. If we must wait until 7 different players (not seven times Thibault :-) ) have won a tournament, then the Championship probably starts only in 2009.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-05 18:37:17)
Go : Games with handicap !

True ;-) .. but as this "tournament" would consist in one (or several) experimented player against many others, it's a bit different from regular tournaments, so I don't know how to name it... Also depends on the number of opponents.

Would you play this challenge ? :)


Phil Cook    (2007-04-05 21:28:26)
Easter Holiday

last minute decision here,I'll be away for 1 week +/- 2 days,I've enough time to cover my time,so to players I'm playing @ GO,see you soon :o)


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2007-04-06 00:07:27)
BigChess Championship

Ok, but perhaps you can change the condition to select the seven players. Maybe you can give points for place 1 to 4 (1. = 7 pts, 2. = 5 pts, 3. = 3 pts, 4. = 1 point) in every tournament, which wasn't finished at the start of the last Championship. The seven players with the most points are qualified for your single round-robin tournament. Or is this too complicated?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-06 01:02:05)
FICGS Birthdays

Thanks Wolfgang :)

Don, birthdays are already displayed in players informations ;) .. See mine ! You just have to enter it in "Preferences".

... and happy birthday to Mrs Suarez-Moreno ! :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-06 04:50:07)
Rating calculation (algorithm update)

A small (but necessary) improvement in rating calculation algorithm for chess & Go : "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 350 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Current Rating - 350"

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating

In example, if a player rated 2000 loses to a player - most probably a new player helped by a strong engine - rated 1400, the rating considered in calculation will be 1650. It should help to keep ratings more coherent.

All chess results since March 1st will be affected by this change. Next rating calculation will occur on May 1st.

You can see your future chess rating (calculated on the basis of your results since last rating calculation) by clicking on the magnifying glass in "Preferences", then "ELO".


Jason Repa    (2007-04-07 04:23:38)
Big Chess

This is an excellent idea! I'm looking forward to playing in the next Big Chess tournament!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-07 05:00:31)
Live games (demo)

Hello to all.

I need two chess players who would accept to play a demo game using the "blitz" time control : 2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves.

The game would start today, 2007 April 7 at 16:00 (server clock), thanks to respond to this post if you're interested. Thus everyone will see the last server improvements that will appear with money games.. (that should start next week, a new delay :/)

Among the new features :

- Real time clocks
- Auto refresh for all & auto redirecting for the players
- Pop up windows to warn the players "it's your turn"
- Links for live games in comments on each page.

Thanks for your help !


Jason Repa    (2007-04-07 05:57:23)
Double RR tournaments

I disagree. I think that it has a very significant influence on the result. If you get Whites against the stronger players and Blacks against the weaker ones, you are getting a big advantage over someone who is not. IMO, it greatly adds to the luck factor. I have the most fun from fair competitions where things are balanced.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-07 06:11:03)
Double RR tournaments

The point is there shouldn't have stronger (I mean really) players in class tournaments... Anyway, several players already asked not to change current formula & single round-robin tournaments.

But I'll organize more special events and / or I'll create a new category using double round-robin.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-07 18:52:59)
Lightning demo game

Finally it was a lightning (time control 30 min + 1 min / move) game.

A lot of thanks to Catalin for playing this nice game... another one with this funny thematic opening 1.Nf3 2.Ng1 3.Nf3 4.Ng1

All seems ok, but it would be better if the page isn't refreshed until the position change on the board. I'll make some improvements this way.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-08 00:00:20)
demo

No problem Jason :) .. I enjoyed playing this game. Maybe another time.


Don Groves    (2007-04-09 04:33:46)
Chess movie

"Searching for Bobby Fischer" is about a young chess player. More info here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108065/


Mikhail Ruzin    (2007-04-09 15:40:07)
Go movie

"The Go Masters" (Mikan no taikyoku) 1982. Prize of the Ecumenical Jury on Canadian Film Festival (1983) "The Go Master" (2006) The member of 44th New York Film Festival. The subject of the film is the legendary Go player Go Seigen.


Mikhail Ruzin    (2007-04-09 15:50:04)
Mikan no taikyoku

Ten years before the outbreak of the Second World War in Asia, a Japanese Go master and his Chinese rival meet in China to play a game of Go (loosely described as an Asian version of chess). It soon becomes evident that the Chinese master's son is the most talented player that the Japanese master has ever encountered, and he convinces the boy's father to let him bring the child back to Japan to train him as a professional Go player. Years pass, and as the young Chinese master grows to maturity in Japan, the Japanese invasion of China forces him to choose between his triumphant career and his loyalty to his native country. His decision is complicated by his marriage to the daughter of the Japanese master, with whom he has produced a child. His choice will profoundly alter the lives of two families. Their saga serves as a reflection of the tragic relations between their two great countries, and the possibility of reconciliation and healing. Summary written by Simon Levy {levy (at) cs.brandeis.edu}


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-09 18:20:26)
Chess & Go movies

Luzhin defense is a nice film, but more about love than chess... :)

I heard about "The Go Master" about the life of Go Seigen... Waiting for seeing it !

About french movies, I'll also mention "Qui perd gagne" with Thierry Lhermitte, producted by a good chess player and friend, Daniel Wuhrman, I knew at Fontainebleau chess club :)


Mikhail Ruzin    (2007-04-09 19:17:12)
Internet Go vs. Masters

Answer from Goama newsletter - http://gogame.info Edwon Dimariel (France) wrote: Hello, Many French players on KGS have been wondering if the Tygem story is right. Are you used to make "April Fishes" on April the 1st ? It's very common here, and these results are hard to believe. How much time did they have to play the games ? Answer from Alexander Dinerchtein, the main editor: It was not a joke. I attached some photos in pdf and the game record of Cho Hunhyun's defeat with few comments.


Mikhail Ruzin    (2007-04-09 19:24:34)
Go : Pro vs Amateur on Japanese Agon Cup

Mace Li on go4go wrote: "A contributor sent me quite a few game records from Japanese Agon Cup, the only tournament that reserve some seats for amateur players. The amaturs are doing extremely well!" ... The game records: http://www.go4go.net/v2/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=217&forum=6&post_id=864#forumpost864


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-04-09 23:43:22)
Thematic tournaments suggestion

A small and hopefully interesting suggestion :

When we go to the list of running and/or finished thematic tournaments we just see "tournament 001", tournament 002" and so on.

It would be nice to have the start position (as a PGN line) immediately under each tournament title so as to see at a glance which opening was played.

Marc


Jason Repa    (2007-04-10 00:13:32)
chess movie

I can't speak for Go, but there hasn't been a good chess movie yet. By far the absolute worst was "Searching for Bobby Fischer" which was a predictable prozaic drama that had nothing whatsoever to do with Bobby Fischer, or chess (real chess) for that matter. Dembo's "Dangerous Moves" was a pass. At least it was actually about chess. It was loosely based on a Karpov - Korchnoi championship but the character who was supposed to be Karpov was the older man. Neither of the actors were convincing in their attempt to portray top chess grandmasters. It would be nice to see a factual and well made movie about chess. Perhaps the Bobby Fischer story. I think an actor like James woods would be perfect to play an older Fischer.


Jason Repa    (2007-04-10 01:03:22)
Rounders

I did enjoy this movie. I like alot of Edward Norton and John Malkovich's work. Speaking of Malkovich, did you see the comedy "Art School Confidential"? I thought it was hillarious. It's amazing to see the range of that actor. He's played everything from cold-blooded serial killers to effeminate Fine Arts professor's.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-10 16:57:41)
Improvements

Once more, two chess players are welcome to play a demo game using the "lightning" time control : 30 minutes + 1 minute / move. Thanks to respond here if you're interested.

Now the viewer page checks positions every 5 seconds for players, 10 sec. for observers WITHOUT refreshing itself until the position changed.

Thanks for your help !


Wayne Lowrance    (2007-04-10 20:48:29)
Rating calculation (algorithm update)

I think I will never understand FICS rating system. I gave up long, long time ago. Now it is changed again I guess. No matter, it is what it is. :) Thibault I will play, you and your server rate em.. heheheh Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-10 21:24:09)
Rating calculation (algorithm update)

:) ... the same about FICS / FICGS, obviously ;)

It was a minor change that affects a few unlikely results and actually everyone will benefit (if you meet ie. a new player with a low provisional rating) from that change. The aim is to make the ratings most coherent only.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-11 01:20:30)
Active players rating list

Hello to all.

For information only at the moment but it will replace the current list as the "main" list, here is the active players rating list (displaying players who connected to the server these last 30 days) for chess :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=rating_list&active=1

It is about 1/3 of the members, so not bad "for a start" in my opinion.. :)

To be continued.


Christophe Czekaj    (2007-04-11 13:20:54)
Big chess

I agree with Heinz Georg. First place = 7 points, second 6 for example, etc. We could take the ratio (total of points scored / number of tournament) to qualify 7 players for the championship (double round ?)


Christophe Czekaj    (2007-04-11 13:26:38)
Free Lightning chess ?

What about lightning chess for free ? Is it possible for two player to play for example 10 min or 15 min KO online. Is it possible to play a tournament like this ? The players will take dates to play their game for example.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-11 18:21:53)
Free Lightning chess ?

I suppose FICS (not FICGS :)) / ICC do it very well already. In my opinion, FICGS should stay a correspondence chess [meaning CC time controls] server first. Money blitz & lightning games will be offered to the players who look for more excitement only :) .. thus it should be a casual spectacle, and of course the way to help the server and to provide prizes for championships...

By the way, money games should start in the very next few days. (last step with french administration :))


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2007-04-13 01:20:14)
Active players rating list

Because of the 60-days rule maybe you should display the players who connected to the server during the last 60 days?


Dan Rotaru    (2007-04-13 02:34:33)
Active players rating list

An maybe add one more condition: players who have finished at least one game or have unfinished games. There are players who keep connecting to the server but haven't played a single game yet.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-16 05:44:13)
Active players rating list

Ok, 60 days and 'at least 1 rated game' is probably more logical, it will be updated soon.

Thanks for help.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-16 16:43:15)
correspondence simul

Actually, it won't be lightning 7-players tournaments, but 2 players 1 game matches. See chess money tournament waiting lists.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-16 16:49:18)
next / skip

(Next) & (Skip) go to the game where your opponent played most recently. In my opinion, it's easier to use "My games" to find the one with the most time pressure.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-18 17:18:32)
Next & Download

Hello Graham.

About the (Next) link, the page 'move_send' guarantees to the player the move has actually been sent. It can avoid some complaints. Anyway to skip this page is not easy, you could be redirected to the next game automatically after this page but it could be a bit disagreeable.

Do you use (download) after each move ? .. Just trying to make this part of the window quite 'light'.

Thanks for suggestions.


Achim Mueller    (2007-04-21 09:39:24)
WCH Stage 1 rules

Hi all,

a few words regarding the rules for WCH Stage 1. As far as I know now one player (out of 7) qualifies for the 2nd stage. In case of having 2 or more players with the same points at the top the player with the highest rating will qualify.

This is already difficult enough for newbies (with lower raing) because their opponents will have an advantage of 0.5 points in these 6 games. It's getting nearly impossible if you play in a group, where three players lost all their games on time within 10 moves (so they didn't play a single game seriously).

You can't afford a single draw in the remaining three games then, because in reality you play a tournament with only four players, where at least one player has a nominell advantage of nearly 20%!

I for myself now decided not to play future tournaments having this exceptionell ruling. Sorry to say so, but I don't see a realistic chance of winning all three games in correspondence chess nowadays, but what is needed to have a chance.

Ciao acepoint


Achim Mueller    (2007-04-21 09:59:26)
One additional thought

Take this sample of group 12, where we actually play a tournament with 4 participants. A player with the nominell highest rating can easily play on draw (using todays computer programs) in the one or two important games.

You all probably know how difficult it is to win against such a blocking guy, no matter whether your "realistic" rating would be equal to his or 200 ELO points better.

Ciao

acepoint


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-21 10:08:48)
WCH Stage 1 rules

Hello Achim.

I understand, it may look really difficult at first sight, the ideas behind this are first to make cycles not too long in order to organize a new one every 6 months (so you have more chances), second to have best chances to find the very best players in the final stages - this is the aim of a championship IMO.

Anyway, that's right the fight is often between the 3 top-rated players in these groups. So the easiest way : To get a good rating first (at least you can win some points in these groups).

It could be great to organize another event (like a cup) with different rules. Waiting for more players :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-21 10:13:26)
One additional thought

Blocking for draw is a bit losing already, I don't think it's a good strategy :) .. It is not so easy to get a draw against a good correspondence chess player, even with an army of computer chess programs, so don't trust it too much IMO. There are still many wins at a 2400+ level.


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-21 10:44:59)
WCH Rules

Thanks Jason :) .. Actually I wouldn't say these rules are "best", "logical" or whatever, I just feel it is an exciting challenge and a quite interesting way to see interesting games and find the best player.


Jason Repa    (2007-04-21 12:16:39)
WCH Rules

I honestly can't see a more logical way to deal with a tie. My only complaint, as has been discussed in a previous thread, is that I prefer double RR's. But that's been mentioned already. Baring that I can't see a more fair way to proceed. Are you supposed to advance the lower rated opponent and punish players for doing well and getting a high rating? Alternatively, if you advance all the high scoring players in a group, too many will advance and the tournaments will take too long. What else can be done?


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


Don Burden    (2007-04-21 16:56:18)
WCH Rules

In the first WCH tournament, I had a tied high score (5.5 out of 6), but didn't advance because of my lower rating. With only 7 players in each group, the chance seems to be very high that we will have matching high scores, especially if some players drop out. It makes sense (in my opinion) that the chance could be lowered significantly if the number of players are increased to 11 or 13.


Mikhail Ruzin    (2007-04-21 17:28:02)
Group 02 =)

Fight the 3 top-rated players in group 12? What about group 02? How match players fights in this group? =) Lets play in chess and go! And enjoy the games!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-21 19:46:04)
Rules

Why FIDE didn't use such rules... Interesting question : IMO because OTB (over the board) chess is simply so different ! .. It is quite logical to use SB in open tournaments because it helps the player who is probably best "at this particular moment", meaning the best player of the event. In correspondence chess, it is quite different, I think using SB makes less sense here.

About draws, I think there's a real trap :) .. A player who thinks 'I must draw' will have difficulties against a good CC player IMO. And you probably noticed the players ratings in 7-players groups.. Even if all players fight, in most groups only 2 or 3 players probably really hope to win the tournament, the others have (at least) an opportunity to play stronger players and win some points... And you may be right (Don), 11 players groups may be more interesting. Maybe the next one...


Achim Mueller    (2007-04-22 00:42:15)
Some more answers ;-)

@Don Burden

Full ack! If the rules stay as they are now it definitely makes sense to have groups of 11 or 13 players with e.g. 2 qualifiers.

@Mikhail Ruzin

Believe it or not, I would have been glad to play in group 02! There are seven "life" players and I bet a score of 4.5 or maybe even 4 points may be enough to qualify. In group 12 it's only 4 life players, and a result of 5 points (maybe 5.5 points) won't be enough for one player. There are only two remaining games, and all three strong life players have 4.5(one game to play), 4.5(1) and 4(2).

In this special situation exactly three games will decide who will quailify if you take a deeper look at the results and the contents of the games.

@Thibault

I never said it's easy for a 2300 ELO player if he plays for a draw only. But it's a big advantage for a player in a region between 2200 and 2500 if is aware that a draw will have the same quality as a victory against a certain competitor. Take a look at the world class cc players. There is a ~70% draw rate in the big tournaments, so the probability will be more than 70% if a player seriously tries to force a draw by choosing a certain opening and avoiding complicated variations.

Ciao

acepoint


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-04-22 11:59:10)
win against Anand :-)

Yesterday world number one Vishy Anand played a 90-minute simul against 19 opponents on ICC to raise funds for his favorite charity in India.
I had bought a seat and intended to play an unorthodox opening if possible.
I happened to be lucky enough to get the opportunity to play my favorite Basman-Sale sicilian defence...
... and I won !

In the very next days I will publish the game with a few comments on my site at chessbazaar.mlweb.info

This is the most beautiful day of my chess life :-)

Marc

the game :

[Event "ICC 90 5 u"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2007.04.21"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Anand"]
[Black "Bluesette"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ICCResult "White resigns"]
[WhiteElo "2786"]
[BlackElo "2155"]
[Opening "Sicilian defense"]
[ECO "B41"]
[NIC "SI.41"]
[Time "12:04:06"]
[TimeControl "5400+5"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Bc5 5. Nb3 Bb6 6. Nc3 Ne7 7. Bf4 d5 8. exd5 Nxd5 9. Nxd5 exd5 10. Bb5+ Nc6 11. O-O O-O 12. c3 Bf5 13. Qd2 a6 14. Bxc6 bxc6 15. Be3 Bc7 16. Bf4 Bb6 17. Rfe1 Qf6 18. Be5 Qg6 19. Qf4 Be4 20. Qg3 Rfe8 21. Bd4 Bc7 22. Qxg6 Bxg6 23. Nc5 a5 24. b3 Bf5 25. f3 h5 26. g3 f6 27. Kf2 Kf7 28. Na4 g5 29. Rxe8 Rxe8 30. Bb6 Bxb6+ 31. Nxb6 Rb8 32. Na4 Rb5 33. Rd1 Be6 34. Ke3 c5 35. Kd2 c4 36. bxc4 dxc4 37. Kc1 Rf5 38. Rf1 Re5 39. Rf2 Re3 40. f4 gxf4 41. Rxf4 Re1+ 42. Kb2 Re2+ 43. Ka3 Rxh2 44. Nc5 Bg4 45. Ne4 f5 46. Rf2 Rxf2 47. Nxf2 Kf6 48. Ka4 Kg5 49. Kxa5 f4 50. gxf4+ Kxf4 {White resigns}
0-1


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-22 12:32:08)
win against Anand :-)

Great & congrats ! :) .. such a thing does not happen every day. It's a real honor to beat a top class player, even in a simul - and with Black. (would have been even more pleasant in "real life" for sure)

Do you still play some FIDE events / tournaments, Marc ?


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-04-22 12:58:58)
win against Anand :-)

No I don't play serious chess over the board any more (last serious games were something like ten years ago)

But here I was very well prepared and I have considerable experience with the unusual opening I played, both from blitzes and from my correspondence preparation.

I just counted : there are more than 4900 lines of personal analysis in my Basman sicilian files ;-)

I was just lucky to get the opportunity to play this line...

Marc


Achim Mueller    (2007-04-22 18:10:20)
I still don't see the point

Regarding the rating as a decision maker I have one questions: Who showed the better performance if two players have the same number of points at the end? The player with the higher or the player with the lower rating? @Mikhail Ruzin I don't see what you mean.


Nick Burrows    (2007-04-22 18:55:20)
bravo!

Well done Marc, i for one am impressed! Especially as Anand is such an effective quick player.
How deep did your theory go?
what was his final score? nick


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-22 21:06:10)
win against Anand :-)

4900 lines ?? .. huge !

I just looked at the game a bit deeper. You played it really well... Would you have agreed a draw at move 16 ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-23 01:05:39)
Performance / Rating

Achim, you just pointed it : "Regarding the rating as a decision maker I have one questions: Who showed the better performance if two players have the same number of points at the end? The player with the higher or the player with the lower rating?" .. of course the player with the lower rating :)

Once more, the aim of these rules is to find the very best player, NOT the best 'performer' in a group, tournament, match or whatever... ICCF & IECG do it well already and I thought this system could be more exciting. Maybe there could be some improvements in the rules yet, but the idea makes sense IMO. Does it really make sense to speak of performance in correspondence chess ? .. It makes sense in OTB chess because it reflects the level of players at a particular moment. But you can play a good CC tournament and a bad one at the same time...

Best wishes, Thibault


Nick Burrows    (2007-04-23 01:50:31)
my 64 pence worth...

I must admit that i have always disliked the Fide WC rule. It seems to be there to protect the champion rather than creating a level playing field.
The fide WC is also played over 24 games rather than 5 in the groups here.
My humble opinion is that for the WC groups of 11/13 or double round robin, would be fairer and give the skillfull players more oportunity to demonstrate that skill.
It is quite likely that in a group of 5, with just 1 or 2 critical games - the better player could finish even and be eliminated. Fine for class groups, but surely the in a 'World Championships' its worth exploring a little extra detail to find the real deserving winner.
A healthy debate! No matter what, thankyou for the provision of such a great site :)


Jason Repa    (2007-04-23 10:04:00)
Cheating Accusations

My advice is to take the accusations with a grain of salt. I'm a very good blitz/bullet player and years ago before I found out about ICC and Playchess.com I used to play at the crappy free sites such as yahoo and pogo. I would often be the strongest and highest rated player in the room and would get constantly accused of being a "prog". I would say take it as a compliment but these people are too stupid to understand what a good move or good technique is. They make the accusation based on successful results only.
As for your game with Anand. I think it's ridiculous to accuse you of program assistance. For starters, the game isn't very important. It's just an unrated simul game with no prize whatsoever. It seems to me you should have received some sort of award, not necessarily cash, but something chess related and of value. I understand it's for charity, but I can't see who in their right mind would pay money to play in a simul when there is no incentive to win. You might as well just write a check to send directly to the handicapped children of India.
When Chapters bookstore hired me to do a chess simul it was a fundraiser for our chess club. I didn't lose any games, but the sole person to merely draw me (28-0-1) in the 29 games I played received a free tournament entry ($30 value) to one of our local monthly events. I thought this was a great idea and had the benefit of bringing a new player into our club.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-23 21:34:41)
Deep Fritz vs. Deep Junior

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3802

FIDE will organize a computer-computer 6-games match during the final days of the candidates match in june in Elista.

The "players" : Reigning computer chess world champion Deep Junior and 'reigning world champion' Deep Fritz. Time control : 75 min + 5 sec / move, the winner will get $60,000, the loser $40,000

This match brings a few questions : No particular comment on the choice of the engines, Rybka will wait for a win in a computer chess world championship... However I can't see a real interest for FIDE and for chess in such a match. I mean 6 games of rapid computer chess.. $100,000 !? Of course it will attract a few new players - to beat computers is an attractive challenge. But at least I hope Chessbase is the main sponsor :) .. does it mean a new Deep FRitz and Deep Junior version in june ? .. I hope that the games analyzed by Rybka 2.3 won't reveal the engines too poor.. :/ .. Finally what 'title' for the winner ?! ;)


Phil Cook    (2007-04-25 06:03:35)
Virus

Bad news this end,got a little gremlin in my system,,I'll be outta action till Sunday 30 April 2007 All players I'm playing,Sorry unavoidable,I've enough time to carry me for that period,so wont take vacation.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-25 13:57:32)
Virus

April 30 !? .. Do this virus display a countdown "your system will definitely shut down in 4 days from now" ?? :) .. I hope you can kill it without re-installing your system... What anti-virus do you use ?

Best wishes, Thibault


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-26 17:45:48)
Art and Science...

Sometimes, while filling the registration form, new players just say Hi!, recently one of them wrote : "I like correspondence chess because it is both art and science while chess is art only."

Quite true... I like this new quote, what do you think about it ? :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-27 03:09:26)
Elo calculation

Hello Nicola.

Elo calculation must be a clear and fair algorith as much as possible... These rules are statistically quite good IMO (and I suppose not many players will ask for less points ;)) because rating is quite dynamic (if your rating is really too high, you'll most probably quickly lose points until the next update) then most forfeits are done before the 10 first moves. In a way, you deserved these points because you played moves enough in these games, otherwise ie. what would happen if a player forfeits after 40 moves in a drawn or lost position ? .. Is the game unrated, rated as a win, a draw ? .. It would be unrated in some other places, that's not fair IMO. There are more complex cases. One thing most important is to make rating calculation 100% automatic (no human decision is a very asked 'feature'), this way there can't be any complaint about ratings as the future rating option makes it clear.

Best, Thibault


Matt Lasley    (2007-04-27 15:24:15)
Reward consistency

You could say that the forfeiture points are awarded for consistency. That's a valuable trait. Perhaps such points may not reflect play yet, but the consistency that lead to their award will show up in your game play in the long run. So, the points are deserved either way. And as T said, the algorithm takes care of it anyway. Ratings are a measure of history, not a measure of skill.


Sandor Marton-Bardocz    (2007-04-30 11:54:47)
WCH Stage 1 rules

Hi everyone! Let me introduce my self :-) I'm the highest rated player in the Wch stage 1 group 12 "the blocking guy" how Achim described me...whatever that means.. 1. there is no dead draw in my opinion likewise there is no absolute winning lines, openings in a chess game...And this is most true in our "centaur, human-engine tandem" era where lines are very "unstable" to say the least..so I don't believe that one can play for a absolute draw without any risk..avoiding complicated variations...the variations complexity is very relativ...line can be "cristal clear" for one and most complicated for other..In my opinion high rates of draws among world class cc player isn't because they all play for draws ...It's a tendency..like it was in otb chess among super gm-s...not long ago...until the "no draw alowed" rules were aplied...i don't want to speculate why this happens.. 2. If someone really want to win...then should play for a win ...no matter what regulations are applied for that particular tournament 3. I think that if someone might want to take a look to the game that I played against mister Deeb in the same tournament ...starting from the move 17 of mine...hardly can to argue that I wanted to play for draws just to achieve equal points to advance. I think that none of the engines can even "smell" the outcome of the game in that position after 17..d5!?...so...saying that nowdays it's easier to achieve draws because of engines....it's a little bit exaggerated The plan started with the move 17 ...d5!? that I have played it was an absolute rejection of a drawish (by repetation) position...and it was played just because i wanted to ...play.. not to advance in a higher stage of the tournament or something...even though the final outcome ( just in my opinion! and this isn't an absolute true by far) is probably ...still a draw. 4. The regulations regarding the advance in the higher stages of the tournament..now this are definitly arguable!there are pro's and con's...and always be. We don't have plausible answers for this kind of issues...because it's is a subjectiv matter. I'm not convinced too that "higher rated player advance"is the right regulation..few examples...just look for example ...Kramnik - Leko WCH . a. ..challenger and his fans can say.."hey he didn't beat him...why should remain WChampion?! He didn't proved that he is better!" b. ..Wchampion and his fans can say.."hey u want my crown?! than beat me, and take it! draw isn't enough!" The line of examples doesn't stops here ..i don't want to prolong this subject...No rule can satisfy both sides...polemics, flame are always present :-) 5. None can predict what will be the process in a group...If 2-3 or even 4 players changes they mind and doesn't really play..that's it, and none can't do a thing about that ...maybe some sanctions later...i don't believe it will do any good anyway... 6. In the game betwen me and Achim...I don't think that I choosed a draw line...I think that I had the initiative but probably it wasn't enough for a win, Achim overforced it ....which isn't a bad thing but probably not with the plan he had preferred. good day for everyone!


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-04-30 17:32:08)
Rules and morals

Rules just have to be clear before a tournament starts – whether this rules are bad or good will be defined by the individual sight of everyone, so never mind because the rules are known and accepted by all members. Just a bad looser is searching his lost by the rules! Another thing is the abuse of rules – you can play in accordance with the rules and nevertheless break moral fundamentals. I.e. definitely lost or drawn games (known by both opponents) will not finished (by resign or draw offer/accept) because of the hope that the opponent will have a heart attack before the time control is coming. Or taking care of your rating, it will be done in next rating period later on. Perhaps it is purely a matter of taste!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-30 22:34:37)
WCH rules

Thanks Sandor & Wolfgang for sharing your views.

As you said, there's no perfect rule for everyone, particularly in a correspondence chess championship, where time is a predominant factor. As for me, I like much FICGS rules so far because of these major points :

1) The best players have the best chances.
2) A new cycle can start every 6 months.
3) There's no external influence in a knockout tournament.

I think the lowest rated player has to prove he's stronger than the highest rated player or champion, so it's coherent in round-robin and knockout tournaments. I particularly like the special rule in the knockout tournament (stage 1, 2 & 3). I'm now playing an exciting quarter final against Wolfgang, that I'm to lose because of this rule - the winner is the player with the strongest TER is all games are draw, the player with the lowest TER if not all games are draw - even if it finishes with a 4-4 score. Simply because I'll lose most probably at least one game. I think it's fair ! .. I knew the rule (of course, I made it :)), I knew I had to draw all games or to win by one point at least. Rules are the game ! .. It's not more unfair than to draw a game with one or two pawns more ;)

However I agree that WCH round-robin tournaments should be 9, 11 or 13 players groups to give more place to chess. I'll take care of this in the next cycle.

Finally, not only rules are to be taken in consideration... To attract players, there must be a real challenge ! .. To take the title to the champion will be really hard for sure :)


Jason Repa    (2007-05-01 00:26:23)
No more OTB

Why did you quit playing OTB (think for yourself) chess Marc?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-01 00:57:44)
Achim's answer

Achim Mueller asked to close his account, but he wanted to respond to Wolfgang & Sandor, here's his answer :


"A last clarification:

@Wolfgang Utesch: I wasn't aware of the "ELO-prefering" rule and I still don't find it here on the webpage. I opened a thread here in this forum and besides "then win all your games" or "in this case we ensure that the better player will qualify" there were no substantial arguments for this pretty unused and unknown rule (not that I agree with these two "arguments"!). Nonetheless I accepted the rule for this tournament.

My decision to give up and leave this server is based on an easy calculation how many games I have to play here to get a - what I call - competitive rating that somehow equals the advantage, players with a nominal rating of 2200 - 2500 will have in every tournament where this rule exists. Because my time is limited my decision was to leave the server, that's all. I don't complain, I don't take anything as an excuse. It's simple as it is: I gave it a try here, became aware of the rule and decided this is the wrong place for me, ok?

@Sandor Marton-Bardocz : I didn't say with any word that you are a blocking guy. This was a _general_ thesis how the player with the best rating can take an overwhelming advantage at this ruling. All good players (ask anyone in the region of 2400up at remoteschach, dbf, iecg or iccf) will confirm that it is most difficult to get 3.5 point out of 4 if at least 2 players know how to use computers and choose certain openings.

Finally ... ficgs is a nice place to play, the interface is good and I assume Thibault put a lot of work into it. So, enjoy your games here, but also accept that from time to time there might be players that will leave because of certain issues.

Ciao

Achim"


Rules (and chess WCH rules) - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html

Thanks Achim. Best wishes & have good games :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-01 17:53:22)
Rules

You may be right, we'll see :) .. About the rules displayed on the home page, I'm afraid it's too big :/ .. But it's quite difficult to register without seeing it now.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-05-01 18:19:14)
Display of rules

It is displayed only under MEMBERSHIP (with a lot of scroling). It will be much better you can display it also on the personell sites under the special term RULES!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-01 21:12:25)
Rules

... you can't enter a waiting list without seeing the rules for the tournament. It is visible even when the waiting list is closed. But anyway Wolfgang may be right, "Rules" could probably be displayed in the menu.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-05-02 14:46:08)
Fun and competition

For me is correspondence chess just fun and competition. It is possible, that some of my played games may give others a feeling of art (in this case not in the meaning of artificial :-)), but this is just a result of a random process. A special science of correspondence chess (beside normal chess theory) can I see only in programming chess engines or in finding of Tablebases – both not my skills. I love chess, but I’m too weak playing OTB chess on a high level, possible not by my fundamental understanding of chess positions but by my missing personal power of memory, computing (without computers) and nerves. So correspondence chess is ideal for me, because I can substitute my individual weaknesses by a computer und have no time stress to analyse the positions in all ways – artificial and human – to find out the most efficient chance.


Garvin Gray    (2007-05-02 18:48:43)
sb tie breaks


I notice that for deciding ties for first in the round robin sections of the wch, the sb tie break, followed by number of wins, has only been mentioned once or twice.

I think it really does deserve more consideration. It is my opinion that the current way of deciding who goes through to the next round- higher rating- is patently unfair. While I understand some of the arguments for (higher rating), I still think it is unfair to reward someone for something they did outside of the round robin group play.

In their rr group, they were not good enough to achieve first place on their own, so a player should not advance based on results achieved outside of that rr group.

In my opinion the tie break order should be: 1) Berger tie break 2) Total number of wins in the group 3) Result between the two or more players.

I also noticed that a few people have mentioned that more players are required in each rr group. I certainly agree with this.



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-02 19:10:02)
sb tie breaks

... it will be discussed every 6 months for sure ;)

While writing WCH rules, the main goal was not only (or firstly) to make it fair. It should be a spectacular and exciting challenge first ! .. Nothing was more unfair than the old FIDE WCH cycle and that was great. Once more these rules have not be designed to 'choose' the best player in the tournament, but more probably the best player. Another advantage of rating preference is you know the challenge when each group starts, result is not decided during the tournament, according to the games of your opponents with the same number of points.

At last, I just wanted to make it different. So you may play in the ICCF & IECG world championship tournaments if you prefer the classical round-robin system :)


Dan Rotaru    (2007-05-03 00:32:46)
sb tie breaks

I believe that Garvin’s idea regarding the tie break makes sense. The higher rated player in a group is not always the best player, especially in correspondence chess where it takes time to achieve one’s real rating or players can get an established equal rating from ICCF or IECG. I also believe that games will be spectacular and exciting even with new rules. I played to win in both my games against the highest rated players in my group and wouldn’t have played different no matter the rules. In the end the rules are rules and equal for everybody so we must obey. However from the number of replies it seems that the topic is hot and maybe it is worth debating for the next WCH. I don’t want to play in the ICCF & IECG world championship tournaments because I enjoy FICGS too much :-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-03 01:17:03)
sb tie breaks

"The higher rated player in a group is not always the best player"... I agree of course, no rule can say surely who is the best player at a particular moment or period (in this case I meant during a quite long period), it's a question of probability only !

Ok... In my opinion these WCH rules are great, different and shouldn't be changed. However there should be a Cup multi-stage tournament with different rules to give equal chances to everyone, also a new section for double round-robin tournaments. I must 'finish to' launch money tournaments, attract more players after that, then it could be done...


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-03 02:13:44)
Go championship cycle

1st FICGS go WCH will start in a few months, but I'm still not really satisfied with current rules :

"FICGS world Go championship is first a round-robin tournament, involving 11 players including the 6 players who won or lead most Go tournaments started during the previous year and the 5 highest rated players, among players who entered the waiting list. If more than 2 players win (or lead) a tournament with equal score, no win is granted. A win in a "pro" tournament is worth 9 "kyu" wins. A win in a "dan" tournament is worth 3 "kyu" wins. In case of equality, the next places will be taken in account.

The winner of this tournament is the challenger for FICGS world champion title. In case of equality, the winner is the player with the highest tournament entry rating (TER), If this rule can't designate a unique challenger, current ratings will be considered. If current world champion defends his title, they will play a 6 games match. In case of equality (3-3), the winner is the former world champion.

All games are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. Komi is 7.5 points. Rules for Go are chinese rules, as defined by the Chinese Weiqi Association."


Not clear enough, quite complicate and strange, even if I like the idea of a 2-stages tournament (round-robin tournament then challenger vs. champion match) and to give the opportunity to the best rated Go players to enter it without playing tournaments before... Other questions, double round-robin or not, should it be open to all players.. Feel free to suggest your ideas for a nice Go WCH cycle ! :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-05 15:43:46)
Go championship cycle

Finally ratings could be enough to give the best chances to the best players... Consequently the 9 highest rated players who entered the waiting list would play the round-robin tournament. That's a pity everyone can't play with this formula, but anyway chances to see 'surprises' is much lower in Go than in correspondence chess.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-07 14:22:09)
Help / Rules

Fortunately, a few players who know the site quite well are always around there ;)

Hello Ida, feel free to see help - http://www.ficgs.com/help.html


Nicola Lupinacci    (2007-05-08 00:23:00)
the beauty of chess...

One time a great player (I don't know who is) said:

"Chess is too simple to be considered a science, but too difficult to be considered a game"


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-09 14:16:55)
Re: suggestion

Strange openings :) .. Why should Black play first !?


Nicola Lupinacci    (2007-05-09 17:54:04)
Re: Re: Suggestion

Becuose same gambits or critical openings start whit a white move,
i.e. King gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.f4
and now black can play 2. ... exf4 or 2. ... d6 or 2. ... Nc6 ecc. ecc.
I think that in certain thematic tournament whit opening like this 1st move would be made by black...

but i don't know how thematic tournaments work... :)



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-10 03:21:12)
Thematic tournaments

Nicola, there's no rule for thematic tournaments.. every mad opening is welcome :)

Nick, what are these famous openings played by Mike Surtees !?


Nick Burrows    (2007-05-10 07:24:54)
surtees

He is a player from my home town rated about 2200. He plays many weird and wonderful openings that he's worked out himself (eg French 4 pawn gambit!?) should be some games on Chessbase...


Don Groves    (2007-05-12 03:19:07)
Skip feature

Hi Thibault, The skip feature is nice but it only skips the game one time. If there are 10 games waiting to be played, skip must be used many times if I want to leave that particular game until last. Is there a way to put the skipped game last in the list?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-12 15:44:08)
Money chess and Go tournaments

FICGS money chess & Go tournaments will be open today !

At last, after the next update (in a few hours) including legal informations (home page / rules) and the 'My account' page, the money chess & Go games can start.

Players interested are invited to read rules (updated) in its entirety, particularly 04. Entry fees, 05. Prize money, 06. Warranties, 07. Money transfer ...

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html


Feel free to discuss rules for entry fees and prizes in this thread, some points may have to be clarified yet. It's a long time I think about these rules to make them most interesting at the same time for the players and the server, according to french taxes & laws.

Of course, all free tournaments will remain free. As FICGS becomes a commercial server, the more players will enter money tournaments, the more ads on the internet so the more players :)

Time controls for money chess games & tournaments are 30 minutes + 1 minute / move (lightning), 2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves (blitz), 30 days + 1 day / move (rapid), 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves (standard). Thematic chess money games will be played at blitz time control.

Time controls for money Go games & tournaments are 30 minutes + 1 minute / move (lightning) and 30 days + 1 day / move (standard).


Nick Burrows    (2007-05-12 20:45:57)
money

Im not sure that i follow the formulas correctly.
If i enter a 2 player gold tourney for 100 e-points, and win. Do i recieve a 150euro cash prize and 47 e-points?

What are the alternative payment methods to moneybookers? as i dont have a credit card. Cheers, nick.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-12 23:16:53)
rake

Actually, ie. for a Gold blitz game (chess) the rake is 3 E-Points for White and 0 E-Points for Black !

There are 2 different rakes, a one-time rake on money entry fees (or money prizes) and another one, much lower, on E-Points entry fees : If you play only one game (a win) and ask for a money prize, the rake is the money prize one, 25 Euros (let's call it 'money prize rake') but the more games you play before asking money prizes, so applying the E-Points rake, the more the global rake will tend to the 'E-Points rake' which is much lower.

"Money prizes have to be compared to E-Points prizes that are much higher : A win in a Gold blitz game is worth 197 E-Points, meaning the more games you play before to ask for a money prize, the less charged games are. In example, if you buy 3 Gold tickets (3 x 100 Euros), you'll get 300 E-Points, then you play 30 Gold blitz chess games (15 as White and 15 as Black) : 29 draws and 2 wins with White. Finally you have 300 - (30 x 100) + (15 x 100) + (13 x 97) + (2 x 197) = 455 E-Points. At the end, if you ask for a money prize for the last game you won, you'll get a 150 Euros money prize and your E-Points account will be 455 - 197 = 258 E-Points"


Quite complicate to visualize but as FICGS is not a casino, there's a normal value added tax on money entry fees in Europe (that's why money prizes for gold tournaments can't exceed 150 euros). This way, I think the rule is quite interesting for players who play at least 10 games... Trying to write it in a clearer way.


Albert H. Alberts    (2007-05-13 09:45:39)
shesnikov

ALL: Here is a possible novelty in the Shesnikov:1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cd4 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Bf6 gf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.0-0 Bd5 13.ed5 Ne7 and now tournament lines go say Re1 to respond e4 with Bf1 and win over Nc2/a4 in the endgame. TRY 14. c3 Bg7 15. g4!? e4 16.Bc2 b4 17.cb4!? Bb2 18. Kh1 and now I was able to win for white after both Ba1 or Ba3 having gf5/Be4 or Ba4 and an open g-( and c and b)-file for white.Suppose g4 is healthy no black tournament player will engage in Shesnikov for a while? www.howtofoolfritz.com updated late april. Albert H.Alberts


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-05-13 12:44:12)
Finally!

Hi, Thibault!
Congratulations! ;)

I am interested in money thematic games. :)
I can play in evenings at 6 on clock (server time).

- Traxler counterattack with white (Nxf7 and Bxf7)
- Evans gambit with black
- Latvian gambit with white (I like Svedenborg very much :) )

I offer 30 EUR money stakes. If I win I get some money. If not, then money goes to my opponent.

Can I transfer 30 EUR to FICGS account in moneybookers.com?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-13 14:04:07)
Thematic tournaments

Hi Ilmars :)

Yes, you can now transfer money to FICGS account. (see "My account")

It is not possible to choose your opening in the money thematic tournaments in waiting lists, but I can create the games handly. If you don't find an opponent, I'll play it.

Best wishes.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-05-13 18:36:17)
Thematic money games

I transfered money to FICGS account. Now I must wait only.

I can play every day at 18 o'clock. But not two days in row. :)
If I am in FICGS at that time it means that I want to play.
Does anyone want to play it?


Garvin Gray    (2007-05-14 15:25:46)
suggestion


I have had an opponent say to me that if you want to be a certain colour against another opponent who is already in the waiting list for a tournament, then you have to join the tournament in a specific position.

If this is the case, perhaps having drr's will speed up the nomination process because some players will not be picking and choosing which colour to they want against a certain opponent.

They will just enter because they will be both white and black :P



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-14 18:48:52)
:-)

That's a fine argument ;) .. Indeed, the first player in the waiting list will play White against the second, then colors are alternated. But I can't believe many players take a look at the order before to enter the waiting lists. Anyway, no players enough yet to create a new section for DRR tournaments. Patience !


Don Groves    (2007-05-15 07:21:17)
Double RR Go tournaments

I'd be open to trying this -- maybe with four players, so it would still be six games.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-05-15 12:31:37)
Fighting against Tablebases ...

... is like fighting against windmills (as Don Quichote did)! Why is is so hard for some very good chess players here on FICGS, to accept their looses, to resign and to congratulate their oppenent?


Garvin Gray    (2007-05-15 23:53:11)
order


Hello,

Would it be possible to also show the waiting list in rating order? Not just in entry order.

At least something to click on that will show the players in rating order?



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.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-05-17 10:26:23)
Problem is solved

- time has run out. With the great behavior of a real sportsman my opponent abandons to resign in a normal way. ;( Further on I will abondon to play against him over again.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-05-17 22:52:42)
Challenge!

Who want to defend
- Evans gambit with white
- Traxler counterattack with black?

I will be happy to play Silver Ligting game and try to kill that UCOs.

Wait and I will add more openings to that list. :)



Phil Cook    (2007-05-21 08:56:19)
Challenge

Your 2 games Vs my two games I'll play Petrov,if you accept opening I'll accept Petrov If you play it


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-05-21 19:32:10)
Hi, Phil! :)

I agree.

My suggestion is to play our games in that order:

1- Petrov's defence (I vs You)
2- Petrov's defence (I vs You)
3- Traxler counterattack (I vs You)
4- Evans gambit (You vs Me)

Let me to guess...
You mean that Petrov's defence games will be money games and I must win. And all games will be lighting games.

Four lighting games in a row - it will take at least seven hours. I have so much time only in holidays - Saturday and Sunday.

And we need help of Thibault to organize Petrov's defence and Evans gambit games.


Phil Cook    (2007-05-21 21:44:17)
Ilmars

1- Petrov's defence (I vs You) 2- Petrov's defence (You Vs I) 3- Traxler counterattack (I vs You) 4- Evans gambit (You vs Me) See number 2,That makes 4 games? unless 3- Traxler counterattack (You Vs I) 4- Evans gambit (I Vs You) That makes 6,what time frames are we likely to be playing? As for the money,I think we donate to Ficgs, that way our games are fun,what do you think Ilmars.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-05-21 22:20:10)
Ok.

Experience is good for me always. Even I don't get money.

I suggest play our games without any money stakes. I don't have enough money for donating. (Maybe after some years. :) )


As I understand, you want play all three openings by both side.
IMO Traxler counterattack is 1-0 and Evans gambit is 0-1. I don't wish play openings that I believe to be lost (with losing side).


Don Groves    (2007-05-22 06:40:38)
Dragging out lost game

Just playing devil's advocate here: If a forced mate can be demonstrated, should this be sufficient for a win? On the other hand, should the losing player have the right to play on in hopes of an error by his opponent? It seems one of these questions should be answered with a "yes." That said, what is the rationale for the one month rule? It seems logical that either (a) the game ends immediately upon demonstration of a forced mate, or (b) the game ends normally, most likely when the loser's clock drops or he finally resigns.


Phil Cook    (2007-05-22 08:57:09)
ok

Now to agree on what time limit to play,I'm usually online most (my nights Gmt +10 I'm in aussie till 31st May then back home NZ 1st June-11 June then back to aussie on that night,11 June) I'm not sure about traxler opening,but I think,I could get a drawn game Evens. Btw: The 2 Petrov lines to follow: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 * our 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 * The donate is for Thibault,as he would have to setup the 4 games.


Mikhail Ruzin    (2007-05-22 19:17:13)
Go Tetris =)

http://chesstris.com/2007/04/21/play-go-tetris-now


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-05-22 22:20:20)
Any 2200+ for a rapid double round ?

Hi all, hi Thibault

Would you agree for a five players rated double round robin tournament at rapid timing (30 days + 1 day per move) if four other 2200+ players declare in this thread that they are ready to join ?

I am ready to play...

Marc


Albert H. Alberts    (2007-05-23 14:49:38)
shesnikov

To Wolfgang Utech: ALL openings have more secrets can the engines can detect.Invariant of the program Fritz, Rybka, Junior, whatever.Question is to unveil them.It is more difficult with greater processing speed/deeper depth. In "so-called "free style" chess (allowing use of machines) players go over ELO 3000 no draws, so some of them should be able to beat machines with ease. Albert H.Alberts,www.howtofoolfritz.com


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-05-29 15:28:44)
Chess news RSS / XML

Hello to all,

Feel free to use the FICGS RSS feed for chess news (and Go news) to display it on your own website, like Centurion Chess Club does :

http://www.centurionchessclub.co.za


The RSS feed for chess news - http://www.ficgs.com/news_chess.rss
The RSS feed for Go news - http://www.ficgs.com/news_go.rss


Robert Mueller    (2007-05-29 17:46:55)
This is becoming ridiculous...

Hello Thibault, I understand the one month rule. But this is becoming ridiculous. My opponent in game #5664 is playing on with King against King-Rook (no pawns). He has 98 days left. Still no adjudication?


Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2007-06-01 12:26:32)
Go championship

I think that the current rules are quite good. For the current user base, 9 players round robin is enough.

If the user base gets bigger and stronger, you could introduce preliminary stages. Example: sort all players who entered the waiting list by rating, then the final league consists of the 5 strongest players plus 4 players who placed first in the preliminary (which might be a knockout, or another league).

One thing I would change in the current system: the usual custom for multi-game matches between two players is to determine colours randomly for the first game, then alternate. If an uneven number of games is played, then in the last game, colours are chosen randomly again.

As I interpret the rules in that way that all five final games are played simultaneously, I would propose that one of those games is played with random colours.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-01 17:56:58)
Final match

Hello Svante Carl, thanks for sharing your views !

I agree about the round-robin tournament, it could evolve according to the rating list...

About the final match, I have good reasons for not introducing any chancy factor in tournaments (anyway I think it's better this way), I finally agreed with players about the 5-games match but it was hard for me to consider this non symmetrical schedule... Making it different is not a problem IMO, a (2xn)-games final match with equality favourable to former champion - like FICGS chess WCH - was ok for me but 6 games may be too few, giving a too big advantage to the former winner of the tournament.

Anyway, there will be no final match in this 1st championship, it will be probably discussed again & again :)


Garvin Gray    (2007-06-02 07:43:18)
Wch 3 rules

I think nine players would be a good number. Only two more games for each player.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-02 14:57:49)
Wch older qualification

Hello Marc,

Well sorry, nothing in the rules about that :/ .. Anyway, if you enter the 3rd championship, you would play in a M Group (2300+), so you'll be qualified for the next round or 3rd round if you win the tournament.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-02 14:58:55)
Wch 3 rules

Definitely, 9 players would be better !


Dan Rotaru    (2007-06-03 15:52:53)
World Team Championship

What about organizing a "World Team Championship"? Top rated players from each country willing to play can make a team and register it for the WTC. And than maybe a 9 rounds Swiss? I believe that organizing such an event can generate a lot of interest.


Nick Burrows    (2007-06-05 01:53:27)
Round 3

What a wonderful first round of games! I was lucky to watch them all on icc, and managed to pick 6 winners.
Hats off to Magnus Carlsen, what a fearless display of chess. I now believe he will be a long reigning WC in 3 0r 4 years time.
For the next round i will unadventurously choose Aronian/leko/grischuk/gelfand
they should all be tight, id like to see Gata win, but fear his openings will be too weak against Gelfand.
I eagerly anticipate the games!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-05 18:45:25)
Predictions :)

Ok, I take some risks ! :o)

My favourites are Shirov, Leko, Grischuk & .. Kamsky !

I feel these ones may want to reach the final match 'simply' more, for some different reasons.. (Shirov had a match to play against Kramnik in the past, Leko for a revenge, Grischuk for the challenge and Kamsky because he's the K who was not :))


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-06 19:12:00)
Rybka: $100,000 challenge to FIDE

The author of Rybka - undoubtly the strongest chess engine (Rybka 2.3.1), Vasik Rajlich challenges FIDE for a $100,000 match between Rybka and the winner of the "Ultimate Computer Chess Challenge 2007" between Deep Junior and Deep Fritz, that just started (first game drawn) :

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=1126


Also the match offer to grandmasters is more and more interesting :

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=794;pg=1


I doubt Chessbase or FIDE would accept to organize & play such a match, even if Fritz 11 or 12 can beat the next Rybka... The war of engines is not on the chessboard nowadays but that's quite interesting to follow anyway :)


Nick Burrows    (2007-06-07 00:05:01)
intersting offer!

Thanks for that link Thibault, a very interesting offer. I hope it goes ahead. I think all 2700 players would win, 2600's maybe even. But it is of course very difficult to predict. If only i was a grandmaster...


Graham Cridland    (2007-06-11 18:03:56)
Pirc in Correspondence

Sounds like a good book. Still, I won't buy it, for the simple reason that the Pirc isn't much fun for Black. There are several simple ways for White to get a comfortable advantage, even without a lot of theory. In Correspondence I'd think the problem was worse, since it's harder to arrange tactical accidents for your opponent (sort of the point of the Pirc). I guess the point is that the Pirc isn't supertheory, so you can get dynamic positions without playing the Sicilian. But I'd rather (especially in correspondence) have an extra central pawn than a less explored position, wouldn't you?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-11 21:00:44)
Pirc

I would :) .. Anyway, any opening can be a good weapon over the board, if played by a specialist.


Don Groves    (2007-06-12 09:22:59)
Nigel Davies on the Pirc

Interesting that he would write about the Pirc since I thought he said something in his mailing list a few months ago about giving up on the Modern (a variant of the Pirc) for black which he had played for some time.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-12 19:11:21)
More rating lists ?

What about more rating lists at FICGS ?

- Correspondence chess active & inactive players lists
- Blitz & lightning rating list
- Big chess rating list (class tournaments !?)
- Go rating list

Also there could be casual blitz & lightning chess tournaments with entry fee & prizes, blitz & lightning games with a tiny entry fee (no prize) and more ways to win E-Points...

Feel free if you have any comment or idea...


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-12 21:21:20)
Rating list

I think FICGS needs a rating list for active players with an established rating (more than 15 or 30 rated games) like other organizations.


Dan Rotaru    (2007-06-13 00:50:47)
Rating list

An established rating list would be a very good idea. Therefore maybe people will play more games:-)


Don Groves    (2007-06-13 09:22:01)
Rating lists for established players

I agree with this also. Either that or remove inactive players from the current lists. If a person wants to establish an FICGS rating, let them play some FICGS games!


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-13 09:33:55)
Rating list

Rating of new players is very uncertain before they have finished a limit of rated games. After i.e. 30 games it is stabilized, so you can say more about the real strength. In the WC cycle (k.o. matches) rating has an anormous importance. Now is it often accidentally whether someone is high rated or not.


Ricard Laforgue    (2007-06-13 19:14:00)
Go with handicap.

Is it possible to play go with handicap. I thing could make the games a lot more interesting.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-14 02:43:48)
Go with handicap

Well, it is possible to organize casual matches or simultaneous games with a strong player (any volunteer ? :)) .. but it looks quite hard to organize such tournaments automatically.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-14 10:04:00)
Figlio - Schuster

Before champion a last match has to be played between the final winner of this KO match and the over all winner of the round robin tounaments.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-14 13:55:15)
Figlio - Schuster

Should be an interesting opposition of styles :) .. Congrats to both players !


Jaimie Wilson    (2007-06-14 16:35:03)
Holger

My experience of Holger on Playchess.com (same thing as schach.de) is that he is a very fair and assertive sysop. He takes a very dim view of cheats and rightly so. If you behave yourself properly there then Holger will be helpful and would certainly do no harm .


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-14 20:38:14)
Figlio - Schuster

It has just been updated. Anyway in this list both players are winners of the match, but according to the WCH rule, Peter qualifies for the next round.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-14 22:45:22)
Figlio - Schuster

Have a look into the WCH tournament rules: "The knockout tournament is played into 8 games matches. The special rule (avoiding short draws) is that in case of equality (4-4), the winner is the player with the strongest tournament entry rating if all games are draw, the player with the lowest tournament entry rating if not all games are draw. The winner is qualified for the next stage." Any questions?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-14 23:54:31)
WCH rules

Why to imitate ICCF or IECG, they do it well already... So, quite unusual but interesting IMO. The special rule for 8-games matches is a bit complicate but I think it's fair for both players this way (suggestions are welcome). Actually the more 8-games matches, the more I like this knockout format ;-)


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.


Hannes Rada    (2007-06-15 20:19:19)
Figlio - Schuster

4:4 is imho a draw notwithstanding a rating difference. And both player oder no player should have the right to get to the next stage.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-15 21:29:58)
Dead Man's Defense

Game #11340, my opponent is playing since 10 moves against the tablebases. No comment from me can him stop! Loosing is just to difficult!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-16 02:23:50)
Dead Man's Defense

Ok, that's an interesting topic.. and should be discussed for sure !

Once more, there are 6 pieces on the board and even if it is an obvious win, my engine doesn't say Mate in # moves (so your opponent may not see the mate too).

How to react ? .. No hypocrisy, IMO there's no perfect way to answer this problem. If the DMD doesn't work after tablebases, it will work well before, so players will last the game earlier. Of course it's a way to manage rating and so on... Is it really possible to avoid this ?

Any suggestions ?


Be patient anyway... :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-16 02:26:35)
WCH rules

Hannes, any tournament, any championship, any game (!) is a contract that players accept before to play. As Kramnik said, the same for Topalov about FIDE WCH in Mexico... Peter made it. That is fair ! .. IMHO


Nick Burrows    (2007-06-16 04:01:51)
DMD

I think it is still valid to play on in a 'lost position'. People play for different reasons. Some to improve their over the board play. If you always resign in losing positions, you may never learn how to fight when you still have practical chances.
if he is just managing his rating, this is different, but can you ever force someone to resign over a matter of etiquette?


Dirk Ghysens    (2007-06-16 04:06:23)
Not "dead man's defense"

This is not a case of dead man's defense, since the game started less than 20 days ago and they are at move 86. From international postal games I remember waiting more than 20 days for my opponent's 1st move. While it is allowed, certainly nobody can be obliged to consult 6 men tablebases. I'd also like to point out that the FIDE rules (which are mentioned in the FICGS rules) forbid a player to make disturbing remarks, and that a game cannot end by requesting your opponent to resign. Also posting such comments about ongoing games, trying to discredit the opponent, is unethical. The complainer should forfeit the game.


Hannes Rada    (2007-06-16 07:01:30)
WCH rules

Thibault, of course you are right, because both player accepted the "terms and conditions" of the championship and they have no reason to complain. I just wanted to point out that maybe some players would not participate under such circumstances or rules.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-16 14:00:22)
Dead Man's Defense

Well, as it is 'also' allowed not to use a chess engine or tablebases at FICGS (probably more than half players here), I suppose many players would agree with Nick & Dirk. It is not possible to completely avoid the Dead Man's defense and this is not the case here anyway. The rules say "In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious (...) if a player doesn't want to resign and obviously last the game, his opponent may report to referee". It doesn't apply here.

Best wishes, Thibault


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-16 15:00:35)
Tablebases

I agree, this is not a case of law! ...but, if a player is able to playing chess on so high level (as he did!) without any help of engines/tablebases, then would be no problem for him, to catch the hopeless! Of course, a player playing without chess knowledge and just missing at the end the right tablebases will not catch the situation until his tool will get it. Anyway I have to wait - and I will do it!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-16 15:45:46)
FICGS 3.0 , novelties & advanced chess

Dear chessfriends, the new FICGS version is installed :) ... Improvements :


- New random design (see preferences) after each login, great IMO :)

- Correspondence chess established, preliminary & complete rating lists (user mode)

- Big chess rating list
- http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_big_chess
- Rated big chess tournaments (no more unrated)

- Advanced ches rating list
- http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_advanced_chess
- Rated advanced chess tournaments (money blitz & lightning games)

- New advanced chess games category : CHESS MONEY BRONZE (entry fee 0,2 E-Point)

Advanced chess games are chess games played at Lightning (30 minutes + 1 minute / move) or Blitz (2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves) time control. Computer assistance is encouraged. See rating rules for advanced chess, everyone gets a rating (first estimated from your correspondence chess rating) after you played your first game.

Every member now has 2 free E-Points to play 10 free CHESS MONEY BRONZE (advanced chess) games. Consequently the FICGS advanced chess server is not free of charge after this free trial.


This is a major improvement, so there will be some adjustments during the next days, particularly to reorganize money tournaments.

Feel free if you have any comment or suggestion...


Have good games :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-16 22:00:18)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU

Hello to all.

I'm glad to announce a new match between chess servers, that should start in about 10 days to 2 weeks. The previous match was FICGS vs. GAMEKNOT (we lost :))

The opponent is the russian server - http://www.igame.ru , an opportunity to meet new chessfriends from eastern countries :)

Here is the agreement :


1. Teams should consist of 25 players maximum (an exact number should be agreed later);
2. Number of games on each board equals 2 (one for White and one for Black);
3. Time control is 30 days + 3 days/move;
4. Leaves are provided, 30 days/year;
5. The match is played on www.ficgs.com;
6. Start date of the match should be agreed by both sides after squads are completed;
7. ICCF rules of play are applied.


In this match chess engines are allowed, it goes without saying we need a strong correspondence chess team, but anyone who wish to play may email me (or use the 'message to webmaster' form in "My account"), or just respond to this post.

Best wishes.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-06-16 23:34:52)
I wish to play in it...

... but IMO I am too weak.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-16 23:39:12)
:-)

I don't think so, Ilmars... great, we need 23 other players yet !


Graham Cridland    (2007-06-16 23:51:04)
I would play

My rating probably understates my strength but I suspect you can still do better for a 25 player team. Still, I would enjoy being involved.


Dan Rotaru    (2007-06-17 00:21:41)
Rating lists

Hi Thibault, What is the difference between established and preliminary rating lists? Also I think that filtering players who haven't logon in the last two months is a little bit too restrictive. Maybe 6 months or a year would be reasonable? (just a suggestion). If I win the lottery (and really hope so) and I decide to spend three motnhs on an isolated island with no internet access i wouldn't want to loose my established rating.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-17 01:49:16)
Rating lists

Hi Dan, yes it may be not clear enough yet. I'll add this post somewhere in the rules when I'm sure about this.

- Established rating list displays players who finished at least 9 rated games (or who obtained an established rating at ICCF / IECG) and who connected during the last 2 years.

- Preliminary rating list is actually more an active players list, it displays players who finished at least 1 rated game (or who obtained an established rating at ICCF / IECG) and who connected during the last 2 months.


Well, maybe I should set the filter to 2 years also, or rename the list as active players list, but it's not very coherent too... :/


Dan Rotaru    (2007-06-17 03:10:29)
Rating lists

Thank you for clarification, it makes sense now and I believe it is a nice feature to have these lists. Maybe you should rename "preliminary /active players" list?


Edward Kotlyansky    (2007-06-17 04:24:24)
Edward Kotlyanskiy

I would like to play for ficgs in this team.


Edmilson B. Lima    (2007-06-17 07:16:44)
Match

I would like to play for ficgs in this team.


Mark Noble    (2007-06-17 09:44:55)
I will play

Cheers Mark


Alexander Nent    (2007-06-17 11:00:10)
Thibault de Vassal

I would be very happy if I could play. My rating is lagging behind (ask Nick Burrows :-) ), because I'm new at FICGS.


William Taylor    (2007-06-17 12:30:50)
Me too

I would like to play.


Dan Rotaru    (2007-06-17 13:47:10)
New tournaments

Hi Thibault, What about organizing some Swiss tournaments? I think that a Swiss for Money tournaments would generate a lot of interest because the more players participate the bigger the prize fund would be. I would also enjoy playing a Correspondence chess Swiss tournament let's say: “FICGS Annual Open Tournament”. Therefore players from different rating brackets can play against each other, apart from the WCH. Right now in the class tournaments I keep playing against few players again and again.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-17 15:34:20)
Swiss tournaments

Hi Dan, I think I'll add an active players list soon...

About the swiss tournaments, I'm thinking about such advanced chess tournaments, but it would be hard to organize a correspondence chess tourney with the swiss system... (the rounds can't be played at the same time)

I'm to completely change the waiting lists structure for big chess & money tournaments.


Than Serd    (2007-06-17 17:49:39)
please

...i want to play


Dan Rotaru    (2007-06-17 19:31:49)
Swiss tournaments

That is very true, you can't play more than one game at the time and one single unfinished game can delay the next round for very long time. But maybe once a year, a 5 round tourney played at fast time controls: 30 days / 0.5 day per move, or even faster? I wonder what kind of interest this type of tourney would generate.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-18 01:50:11)
Translators needed - all languages

Hello to all.

Thanks to players who helped me to translate the home page to spanish, italian and deutsch already ...

I still need some help to translate it to all other languages : russian, romanian, chinese, japanese, korean... and so on !

Anyone who have some time to translate these lines can do it by clicking here :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_wiki_en-ficgs_home_page.html

... then following the link to your language.


Thanks in advance !

Best wishes, Thibault


Silviu Nenciulescu    (2007-06-18 05:08:15)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU

I will play. Silviu Nenciulescu


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-18 05:32:40)
WCCC

Hi Wayne.

I mean, WCCC is a tournament like any other (no federations or whatever...), it is a big event and program authors come to play, that's great. But the format with so few interesting games can't provide accurate results :/

I agree that Deep Fritz & Junior are not the strongest chess engines today, but they are a good test for other ones and a way to improve the results of a tournament. IMO a World Computer Chess Champion should be ie. the SSDF 1st ranked program, which is continuous tournament with many games played, or maybe the games played at SSDF should be organized like a continuous swiss tournament.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-18 05:41:30)
New update !

"Tournaments" page and waiting lists have been completely re-organized by time control ! (more coherent and clear IMO)


Also a new rating list : Active players list.

- Active players list displays players who connected during the last 2 months... Right now almost 700 of 2100 which is quite good IMO :)

- Preliminary rating list now displays players who finished at least 1 rated game, less than 9 rated games and who connected during the last 2 years. (which is much more interesting)


At last, the rating rules for advanced chess (blitz & lightning) have been improved. Now a fair performance bonus for Black, see rules :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_advanced_chess


And now, I'm going to sleep... Good night everyone :)


Dirk Ghysens    (2007-06-18 06:11:14)
Top programs

According to the CCRL rating list, the top programs today are: 1 Rybka 2 Zap!Chess 3 Hiarcs 4 Naum 5 Loop 6 Deep Shredder Fritz (7th) and Junior (8th) are so weak, that they cannot play a significant role in a world championship. The latest version of Rybka (2.3.2) can be estimated at more than 200 Elo points above Deep Fritz and Deep Junior. The SSDF rating list is unreliable IMO, as they are using antiquated hardware, and several of the best programs are missing.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-18 06:26:11)
WCCC

Computerchess rating lists are very different from human's ones. Fritz & Junior are not so weak (ok, maybe Junior is :)) .. At least they can beat Loop and Naum. Anyway I meant that more strong programs should play at the WCCC, the results can't be significant this year because too few interesting games will be played (and there was a bug in some Rybka game). At last I agree about CCRL, it is more trustable than SSDF rating list.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-18 15:19:55)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU

Thanks for joining us Janos, we'll need you undoubtly :)

It will be a great match, just looking like Russian vs. The World... About 30 russian players registered these last 2 days, with several FIDE / ICCF masters (GM/IM). We need more 2300+ players !! :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-18 16:50:43)
Rybka vs. Chessbase

Hello Alexander.

Rybka tops all computer chess rating lists for 18 months already, and by about 100 points ! ... It is the best playing program, maybe (I'm not sure yet) the best analysis tool for correspondence chess.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-18 16:55:18)
Go rating lists

Hi Don. I couldn't make an established and preliminary rating list for Go, but an active players list is possible.


Alexander Shalamanov    (2007-06-18 17:02:08)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU

Hello Thibauld, You can surely count on me, in case you might need a guy rated -2300 in your team. Anyways, good luck to you in the upcoming match. I know a lot of the igame team players; it's true that they are pretty strong, but they are as much arrogant and highbrow about their chess skills. It might stand them in bad stead in the long run. Lol!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-18 17:04:12)
Deutsch

Hi Wolfgang, thanks for helping !

There was a deutsch version already :
http://www.ficgs.com/home_deutsch.html

So to players from germany : Is a version better than the other one ?
http://www.ficgs.com/wiki_de-ficgs-home-page.html

Thanks in advance :)


Dan Rotaru    (2007-06-18 18:22:29)
Any spot left?

Hi Thibault, Any spot left, I would like to play. Thanks!


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.


Robert Mueller    (2007-06-18 21:09:21)
Lightning and Blitz Time Controls

Question: Let's say I subscribe to a lightning or blitz time control (30 min or 2 hours) match and I am the first one, when does the game start? As soon as another player signs up? That could be hours or days later. I could be asleep and lose on time. Or am I missing something here?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-18 21:48:26)
Lightning and Blitz Time Controls

Well, as these tournaments are not popular yet, you'll have to wait for an opponent, but you may use the chat bar to announce you entered the waiting list or to find an opponent before to enter it. The game starts as soon as another player signs up.

The point is you can retire from the waiting list when you want, just by clicking on the arrow next to your name in the waiting list (you can try it by entering a Lightning bronze game).

It will take time but it will work :)


Also I'm to organize some "freestyle" advanced chess tournaments at lightning time controls, that should happen from time to time on saturday & sunday.


Wayne Lowrance    (2007-07-12 18:24:02)
game 8029

Responded in international chat, but it is rather cumberson. My thoughts. White still has 10 days on his clock, so I would think he has the right to slow play it here. In addition white has winning chances, that should be considered. Lastly if you do adjudicate it Thibault I guess you would award a draw. If white is holding up progress it would seem to me the fault is not his but in the selection of match time controls. White has every right to expect to use all of his clock, do you not agree Thibault. :) Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-18 22:40:11)
Big chess software

Well, FICGS :)

I hope there will never be such a software, even if I would be curious to see big chess engines playing !


Ivan Poddubnyi    (2007-06-19 00:17:45)
Hello from igame

Glad to create an account on this cite. On igame I am Mobutu Sese Seco, but here I play under Russian name. On behalf of Russian amateurs I wish you good luck in this match. :-)


Dmitry Mendeleev    (2007-06-19 12:00:37)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU

Hi, guys! Nice to meet you here. Hope to play some exciting games


Viktor Savinov    (2007-06-19 15:34:04)
GM_FICGS__CHESS__RAPID

GM_FICGS__CHESS__RAPID (type : rated round-robin, time : 30 days, increment : 1 day / move) entry fee : 100 , prize : 894 Let's play in such structure: Savinov, Viktor; Atalik, Suat; Balabaev, Farit; Figlio, Gino; Sumets, Andrey; de Vassal, Thibault; Vovk, Andrey; Schuster, Peter; +1


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-19 17:57:07)
GM_FICGS__CHESS__RAPID

Hello Viktor.

Well, it would be great to organize such a tournament :) .. But GM Atalik did not connect for at least 1 year.

See active players list - http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=rating_lists

Anyway, if the other players agree, why not (prize would be inf. to 800 E-Points with 8 players)... Also I'm sure that many players would be interested to play a 2, 4 or 8-games match with an entry fee / prize with you.


Viktor Savinov    (2007-06-19 19:05:58)
GM_FICGS__CHESS__RAPID

Let's wait for answers of the invited players


Leszek Tymcio    (2007-06-19 19:32:24)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU

I would like to play.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-20 03:38:27)
Chessbase

Chessbase made a full report on the 15th ICGA WCCC and Rybka's victory, despite half their leading programs did not even participate.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3936

Congratulations to them, that's fair play :)


Albert Popov    (2007-06-20 07:20:00)
Hello Thibault and all!

Hello to anyone in the community! I feel like playing for the FICGS team in the match versus the Russians, if you, folks, really need my participation. Cheers, Albert


Don Groves    (2007-06-20 09:42:19)
Go rating lists

An active players list for Go would be excellent, Thibault. There are so many inactive players at some ratings that it takes a few "page downs" to get through them all ;-)


Garvin Gray    (2007-06-20 13:55:59)
lists

Can the list of proposed players who have said so here please be brought forward so we can all see where we stand? :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-20 15:03:22)
Rybka vs. Deep Junior

We'll have to wait & see :) .. I would be surprised if Junior beats Rybka in a 6-games match or so. In my opinion Junior is the old generation already, playing psychology while Rybka simply plays good chess. But let's wait the next versions, Junior most probably has an excellent software basis to make a very strong engine.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-20 15:46:39)
Players for FICGS team (by rating)

Here is the complete list of players who registered for the FICGS vs IGAME.RU match. Unfortunately, a few players couldn't play :( .. I think our team is strong enough, as rating rules are quite hard at FICGS and some ratings are still provisional.

I don't know how players will be distributed on "tables", if it's freestyle I think Wolfgang should play at table 1.

I am also surprised to see players coming from IGAME.RU or russian forums who entered FICGS team !? .. Anyway, I'm sure there are no spies :)


Thibault de Vassal (2512)
Mark Noble (2496)
Wolfgang Utesch (2466)
Albert Popov (2463)
Michael Aigner (2354)
Janos Helmer (2343)
Miguel Pires (2270)
Leszek Tymcio (2270)
Alexander Shalamanov (2252)
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2246)
Silviu Nenciulescu (2194)
William Taylor (2182)
Poulerik Jorgensen (2168)
Wayne Lowrance (2124)
Edward Kotlyansky (2114)
Christophe Czekaj (2098)
Konstantin Dudulec (2084)
Polina Romanova (2000)
Dan Rotaru (1937)
Nick Burrows (1884)
Garvin Gray (1863)
Vadim Khachaturov (1803)
Janusz Kepinski (1599)
Alexander Nent (1593)
Graham Cridland (1406)
Edmilson B. Lima (1400)
Sasha Lipsits (1400)
Ilmars Cirulis (1305 ~ >2100)
Than Serd (1300)
Charlie Neil (1212)
Phil Cook (1132)


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!


Josef Riha    (2007-06-20 20:28:02)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU

I like to play too.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-20 22:54:33)
Internet chess

Well, the discussion with Tryfon Gavriel continues at TCCMB. As I had to explain the way I make FICGS, I copy my responses here :

http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=109.15


Hello again Tryfon !

That's a very interesting discussion...

Actually I have to explain FICGS in its whole to respond :) .. To be continued for sure..

While registering a new member wrote to me a few months ago "Thanks for creating this ultimate chess challenge" or so... That's exactly what I try to do, mostly with the FICGS championship knockout & round-robin rules... Players just want challenge, that's the only assumption I start with, so I try to create interesting challenges. About the intellectual part, you're right but I'm quite sure that top level correspondence chess players still consider their game as an intellectual challenge, much more than a brute force or computer skills one. That's not the case for Advanced chess with fast time controls.

Let's take a look at the bicycle races again... The "Tour de France" is dying IMO.. because everyone understood we "don't know" if the champion is ok.. If doping was allowed (it would be a scandal for health of course), I'm sure the interest would raise again ! I think it is the same for chess & for everything else... The "Tour de France" syndrom happened in Elista with the match Kramnik vs. Topalov... It will have consequences. We need champions and we want true champions, every means are ok for this ! .. So the "engines allowed" rule is the only one possible or reasonable in my opinion.

Of course, chess & correspondence chess are changing, because these "walls" are nearer & nearer... maybe chess will die, maybe not.. The main problem is that in 1997, a super computer became World Champion... this year a "simple" computer Deep Fritz became world champion, soon Rybka on a cellular phone... :) Who is really interested to be a champion in "human category" ? FIDE world chess championship will continue to progressively lose its interest IMO...

Correspondence chess is just starting to grow in popularity and is told to be dying already. Surely correspondence chess will ask more & more time at a high level to win a few points, but it is possible to create more challenge by ie. changing the rating rules (the "design" of Elo rating system will become a problem).. Then, if it is not enough, we'll look for other challenges... It's told for years that Go (Weiqi) will replace chess in western countries... why not Big chess as the "brain only" game if there can't be doping in it.. just trying, as there's no other solution :)

A word about Poker of course, as it's probably the fastest growing game in popularity : IMO this game is at a stade like chess in year 1900, but the same problem will happen, even quicker. At a high level the game will be just more and more boring (if you wish to win real money) or chancy (in a wch tournament), or you'll have to always find weak players (well, not very challenging).

About the simultaneous exhibition against Alekhine or Capablanca, I'm not sure at all they would crush everyone at our chess servers, they are undoubtly more talented than all of us, but I feel it wouldn't be enough in all cases to win against correspondence chess style of play & knowledge accumulated for 50 years... A few players rated OTB 2000-2200 could draw against them IMO...

At last, yes I'm a fan of Sun Tzu's "The art of war" :) .. I strongly believe that correspondence chess will not die in the next few years because players will follow its principles more and more, as the only way to win ! .. Big chess follows the same principles... and Go is the most challenging game because of it too !

Tryfon, I'm not sure that we're opposite in our vision of chess ! .. Our servers have obviousy different goals, nothing more.. I do enjoy playing mad blitz games without chess engines... I just believe that the future of internet chess is "serious (engines allowed, rated) correspondence chess" on one hand and "human chess for fun (no engines, unrated)" on the other hand... The other ways look like nonsense to me.

I hope it responds.


Best wishes, Thibault


Garvin Gray    (2007-06-21 01:22:46)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU


I don't know how players will be distributed on "tables", if it's freestyle I think Wolfgang should play at table 1.
I would imagine it will be freestyle format. How can it be any different?


Garvin Gray    (2007-06-21 01:24:53)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU


I meant to add to previous post (damn- no edit feature, so now have to make new post).

We should play in rating order, no juggling around. That way it doesn't look like we have tried to be 'smart' and grab a few 'cheap' victories.



Alexander Shalamanov    (2007-06-21 08:13:31)
Nick, your stand is shared!

Jo, Nicky! Thanx for your comment. It's always nice to be appreciated.:) Yeah, I believe tha match gonna be very interesting and breath-taking, but the fair play concern should be the priority. No insult, no arrogance, but high esteem for a chess friend all the way along! Cheers, Alex


Alexander Shalamanov    (2007-06-21 08:46:21)
The rating principle is a must

Hi, mates! I sincerely believe the rating principle should be a concern when arranging the team members in a match challenge. That way we would provide for the fair play principle. It doesn't make any sense to try gaining cheap wins. Remember, honesty is the best policy. Cheers, Alex


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)


Peter Schuster    (2007-06-21 12:34:25)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU

If there's still a place in the team, I would like to play.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-21 15:21:45)
Ratings

Yes, actually I just wanted to order the first players by their future rating. Wolfgang has made a great performance these last 2 months (future rating 2544) :

http://www.ficgs.com/players/utesch_wolfgang/history.html


Salut Sacha-Alexander :) .. C'est agréable de lire du français venu d'aussi loin ! J'avais quelques notions de russe il y a longtemps mais j'ai oublié depuis :/ .. A bientôt !


Denis Stork    (2007-06-21 22:11:39)
from Russia with love

Greetings to all! So here we are, fresh new Russian players, to participate in FICGS vs. IGAME match. I'd like to give a short explanation of our "disguising identities". The thing is that mostly our names really won't say anything to you. iGame is just an amateurs' site and with the upcoming match we have a good chance to find out which material we really made of. :) So show us maser-class. And let the strongest win! :) Good night and good luck ! :)


Nick Burrows    (2007-06-22 00:13:53)
name change

Could i play under the name of Donald Duck in the forthcoming match to neutralise my opponents stratgey? ;-)


Dan Rotaru    (2007-06-22 00:41:00)
Lightning and Blitz Time Controls

I am proposing the following idea to solve the problem of Lightning and Blitz Time Controls: the first person who signs up should be able to choose a date and time when the game should start (use server time to avoid confusion). The player who accepts the challenge should accept that he has to logon and play the game at the established date and time. Of course any of them can cancel the game or ask for a new date and time if for any reason they cannot play.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-22 01:51:23)
Lightning and Blitz Time Controls

That's an idea, but I'm making some changes to help to find opponents more easily. I hope it will help...

First, experience shows that rating rules are still too hard IMO : A player winning or drawing against another one rated 350 points more most often means the lower rated player should be rated higher, not the contrary... A few games only are concerned, but with provisional ratings such results are still not fair, and many players rated 2100 to 2300 fear to lose points in the chess WCH, even if they win their groups. This rule should allow strong players not to fear (too much :)) to play against anyone in rated tournaments without rating restrictions, like blitz & lightning ones.

Consequently, the rule "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 350 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 350" will be changed to "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 200" in a few hours.

The entry fees & prizes (E-Points) will change also, most important is to attract more players to start more advanced chess games.


Denis Stork    (2007-06-22 10:07:59)
Donald Duck :)

I get your point. But I'm Stork on iGame as well as some other sites. So if someone interested in my past games he/she can easily look through them. I don't think Donald Duck has any finished games statistics. :) BTW, as I see, FICGS team has adopted some iGame players, so it's gonna be "FICGS+iGame vs. iGame" match. It's just a joke. lol :)


Alexander Shalamanov    (2007-06-22 10:16:40)
Nick, be alert! :)

The Russians tend to be very resolute and on the look-out. No DD tricks would work well. Just play for high stakes, k? I do believe in ya! Cheers, Alex


Evgeny Kopasov    (2007-06-22 15:42:28)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU

I like to play too.


Garvin Gray    (2007-06-22 16:00:54)
not happy


Got to admit, I am not pleased at the prospect of missing out on a game representing ficgs because some players have suddenly signed up from igame and are going to attempt to represent ficgs.

I think the ficgs regulars should be first picked and if there are any spots left over, they are filled with the other siters



Alexander Shalamanov    (2007-06-22 16:46:10)
Garvin, I side with you

Thibault, I think there is some logics in his comment. That's true that good traditions should be kept; hence, regular members should be given the priority to play vs. the Russians. Of course, you will make the final decision and'll have to balance between the strongest team players' list and respect for traditions, but I'm with Garvin about the issue. Hell, what a puzzle you're now having to guess.:)


Robert Mueller    (2007-06-22 17:10:19)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU

I would like to play for the FICGS team if possible.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-22 17:36:50)
Russian players or not in FICGS team ?

Well, that's very hard to decide. Actually at a first sight I agree with Garvin too, the real fun and the sense of such a match is players from western countries meeting russian players IMO, but no "rule" forbid it.

Whatever the decision, there will be deceived players :/ .. My suggestion is that all russian players who just registered at FICGS should play with IGAME.RU team but it's up to Sergey (for Igame.ru team). I'd like more opinions about this issue, also from Sergey Pligin, who organizes the match for Igame.ru


Denis Stork    (2007-06-22 19:34:13)
Russians in FICGS team

As far as I know, the complectation of iGame team has been completed. Everyone who wished joined it. The rest applying for FICGS team are volunteers and they didn't intent to play for iGame initially. Well, I may be wrong, let Sergey (our captain) speaks.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-22 20:30:57)
Rybka's strength at CC time controls

An interesting poll, following a discussion at TCCMB :

http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=109.msg809


Let's say Rybka playing alone, running 4 days per move (quite useless IMO) on a multi-processor computer, which rating would it/she achieve at FICGS ?

In my opinion, 2200 (with some peaks to 2300) would be great already... What do you think ?


Michael Aigner    (2007-06-22 21:27:50)
Re: Rybka's strength at CC time controls

I think you are right with your Elo approximation (2200 to 2300). There is just a little problem. In the case everybody would know he/she is playing against the latest Rybka version this would be a big problem for the program. In this case Rybka should loose almost every game because everybody would know Rybkas response to any move and could build wonderful traps. Did you hear about the so called "Planetenmatch" (match of the planets) where correspondence Chess GM Arno Nickel played against several Programms of unknown identity (the alias was the name of a planet). I think the engines had 24 hours per move and no chance - a desaster for the programs. That was of course before Rybka appeared, on the other hand he won also against Hydra!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-22 22:35:34)
GM Arno Nickel vs. engines

I heard about this match (that happened on the Chessfriend server if I remember well)... but it seems that actually the engines won 3,5 - 2,5 ! .. A quite surprising result. Hydra was everything but designed to play at correspondence chess time controls, so let's wait for a more interesting experience, most probably with Rybka.


Glen D. Shields    (2007-06-23 00:14:24)
Chess Engine Strength

Thibault - I've been following the TCCMB discussion. I think it's impossible to answer the question what rating Rybka can achieve under the uncontrolled circumstances we play. If Rybka were playing only against humans, it would achieve a 2600+ rating. Since it plays mostly against itself and other top engines (with little human intervention), the typical results are win a few games, lose a few games and draw a lot.

Since tournaments are mostly set up so that players face opponents with similar ratings, a 2220 rated player using Rybka enters a tournament against other 2200 players. That player wins a few games, loses a few, draws a lot and leaves the tournament at approximately 2200. We conclude from that pattern that Rybka can achieve a 2200 rating.

Conversely, a player (like Uri Blass) who enters tournaments at 2600 and plays other 2600 rated opponents using Rybka wins a few games, loses a few games and draws a lot. He leaves the tournament rated approximately 2600. We conclude for that situation Rybka is rated 2600.

IMHO, it is impossible to answer the Rybka rating question under our typical tournament circumstances.

I think an even better question than worrying about Rybka's strength is "does anyone REALLY enjoy CC anymore?" Today's CC's is a race to buy the fastest hardware and make sure SSDF's top rated programs are installed. I'm playing beginners who can't explain what "en passant" is, but by parroting Rybka they compete in top tournaments and claim to hold titles that once upon a time had to be earned through hard work. After passing through the opening, it doesn't take much effort to figure out what program your opponent is using. At that point one can predict with high probablitlty every move your opponent will make for the rest of the game. Rarely do I see a move that I can can beat. The games are boring and pedictable. Those blunders and surprises that we once wrote funny stories about are long gone. IMO so is the fun.

Sorry to sound so "pessimistic," but until these problems are addressed and the fun is restored I find it just as easy to play against my computer. I can play at my pace, chose the engine I want to play, and unless my computer crashes I no longer have to worry about DMD :-)

Thanks for such a well run place to play chess. You do a great job maintaining it.

My best,

Glen


Ivan Poddubnyi    (2007-06-23 00:55:24)
2 Thibault de Vassal:

Unfortunately, IGAME players are not understood here in correct way. Let me clear our position about names.

Of course I respect your idea of creating a friendly atmosphere on your cite by giving real names. If I will decide to stay here, I will play under my real name. But now I am your guest and would like to play under a nick-name. I hope, you can respect our IGAME customs. If you do not like my IGAME nickname Mobutu, let me play as Ivan.

By the way, a lot of information about IGAME players is available on our cite www.igame.ru: games, results, IGAME ratings and so on. Come and see, we do not hide. :-)


Eduardo Alex Baeza Ibanez    (2013-11-05 00:15:00)
About the players

I have a question about how can i play with determinates contacts in this server? Sorry about my english


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-06-23 06:02:44)
Black 20th move...

20.-- Re8 is losing. Search for games and you will see. But 20.-- Rd8 is drawish, IMO. And I don't understand why I don't play it?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-23 06:06:29)
Chess Engine Strength

Hello Glen !

I see your point, that's quite true and a consequence is what I called at TCCMB "the extensive nature of elo rating", however rating rules are more dynamic at FICGS.. So, let's say Rybka playing the FICGS championship against players of all kinds of ratings in the round-robin cycle... Anyway 2200 is only my feeling.

I understand your views about "rybka" [correspondence] chess nowadays, even if I don't agree with it completely. I saw some of your CC games played at IECG, and it looks much more like 'good old' chess with some unusual and beautiful tactical openings than typical 'correspondence computer chess' nowadays. I do believe there will be a place in the next CC years for more weird openings like bird, king's gambit, english... Also take a look at Peter Schuster and Wladyslav Krol games here !? .. Nothing boring with them, chess engine or not :)

Also advanced chess games with fast time controls could be quite interesting to watch in future as a way to see granmaster games with chess engines avoiding blunders 'only' (ok a bit more). We don't know exactly the human part in it, but draws won't be the rule for sure.

What is "boring" at correspondence chess (not new) is that achieving a top rating take a long... very long time ! .. But this is a great challenge yet IMO.

At last, thanks for you kind words :)


Best, Thibault


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-06-23 06:06:36)
Correction

"And I don't understand why I don't play it?"

Right: And I don't understand why noone play it?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-23 06:11:39)
Poisoned Pawn Variation

Was this line often played !?


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-06-23 06:57:30)
?

I am surprised that noone engine play 20.-- Rd8. Why?!


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-06-23 10:00:51)
Nicknames

I don't care about it... I will play as good as I can and try to win. No care who is sitting against me. Even Kasparov with nickname Denis Kuznec. :)


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-23 10:21:35)
Nicknames

It's up to you - I think different! Preparation is an inportant thing in high-level chess (correspondence same as OTB) if you want to win or just to hold a draw against a very strong player.


Michael Aigner    (2007-06-23 12:55:32)
Rybka 2.3.2a would!

Hi! Rybka follws the mentioned game Motley -Anand but finds an improvement at move 24. 24. Bh5 Qf5 26. Bxg7 with an unclear (IMO, according to Rybka equal position. it could follow Nc5 (Kxg7 26.Rf1) 26. Rxd8+ Kxd8 27.Kd6 Kd3+ 28.cxd Qa5+ 29.Ke2 Kxg7 still unclear, but in an otb game i would shourly prefer to play white. I can imagine when you look deeper in the position after Bh5 you might find a win for white - or lets say a variation in which it is almost not possible for black to defend in an otb game even when the objective evaluation says the position is equal. This could be the reason why Re8 is prefered by strong human GMs.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-23 14:08:39)
Nicknames

Haha, good joke :)

But you're right, I said it already in this forum ! .. That's not a secret, but to me a funny enigma that noone solved yet ;) .. 2 years and a half ago, I played under my director's name (I made several 'experimental' movies before), which was my most used name in my work. That's why I don't play with my real name in this other organization. I gave another clue later.. Not so hard, will someone find my previous games ? :)


Nick Burrows    (2007-06-23 14:47:15)
player research

I tried to check player histories on igame as suggested, however the site seems to be entirely in Russian, and so i failed.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-06-23 14:49:01)
player research

I can do it.


Ivan Poddubnyi    (2007-06-23 15:02:23)
2 Thibault de Vassal:

Can I play as Ivan Poddubnyi or shall I change my nickname? If I can't play as Ivan Poddubnyi, please rename me. I agree to play as Ivan Ivanov, for example.


Viktor Savinov    (2007-06-23 15:09:26)
Who organizes this match?

Who organizes this match from Russian party? Sergey Pligin? There Is no such chessplayer. This nickname. If at "Sergey Pligin" of the right to represent site Igame?


Ivan Poddubnyi    (2007-06-23 15:32:59)
2 Thibault de Vassal

Is my name OK or should I change it? If I can't play as Ivan Poddubnyi, please rename me. Ivan Ivanov, for example. :-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-23 18:12:34)
FICGS freestyle cup

Hello to all.

You may have noticed new changes in the waiting lists & tournaments pages. Trying to create more interesting tournaments with entry fee & prize, with different time controls.

The FICGS chess freestyle cup (I did not find a better name yet :)) will be a 6 rounds swiss tournament played from time to time (every month would be great) at a very fast time control : 10 minutes + 20 seconds / move, see the rules in the tournament page in waiting lists. All rounds will be played the same day, about 1 round per hour.

Blitz tournaments have been gathered with lightning ones under the category advanced chess lightning tournaments.

Feel free if you have any idea or suggestion !


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-23 18:35:15)
Rating rules update

Hello to all.

As I said in another thread, experience shows that rating rules were still too hard IMO : A player winning or drawing against another one rated 350 points more most often means the lower rated player should be rated higher, not the contrary... A few games only are concerned, but with provisional ratings such results are still not fair, and many players rated 2100 to 2300 fear to lose points in the chess WCH, even if they win their groups. The new rule should allow strong players not to fear (too much :)) to play against anyone in rated tournaments without rating restrictions, like wch, blitz & lightning ones.

Consequently, the rule "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 350 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 350" has been changed to "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 200"

All correspondence chess results of these last 2 months & in the future will be affected, as well as future advanced chess & big chess results.


Sergey Pligin    (2007-06-23 19:18:53)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU

Dear chessfriends! My name is Sergey Pligin and I am the co-organizer of this match, representing igame.ru. Originally this match was planned as a friendly rivalry of 2 servers which are igame and FIGCS. The 1st one is Russian, the 2nd one is western. The main idea was to make new foreign friends. This match caused a big avalanche of interest at our server. Unfortunately, not each player can play this match for the teams consist of 25 players only. Some players of igame who are not in have decided to play for your team. I don’t know their motives, but it is their right to play for any team they are willing to play for. Their honest play is the main item to be discussed. On the other hand, several permanent players of the FIGCS have lost an opportunity to participate in this match, as, for instance, was pointed out by Mr. Garvin Gray. I sincerely wish to organize this friendly match with no misunderstanding and beg you to pay attention to Russian players whom you’d like to be in your team.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-23 19:27:53)
Startdate

Hello Sergey and thanks for this presentation :)

The startdate of the match has been decided : 2007 june 27, Wednesday.

It has been also decided, for more fun and to favourize meetings between players from different parts of the world, that russian players just coming from Igame.ru and russian forums these last days couldn't play for FICGS team. I would like to thank them anyway, I'm sorry about that but that's the way this friendly match was thought first.

All the best to IGAME.RU team and good luck :)


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-23 19:31:56)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU

If you want to have a fair and friendly match so discover the nicknames of your team and show their real names! I'm not interested to play against Donald Duck or other figures of virtual life!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-23 19:39:41)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU

Actually, I think that only a few players from russian forums registered with a nickname... They still can change their mind, it will be very appreciated, but anyway.. their choice.

If it is a problem for some players, I can organize tables so that they play surely against a player who uses his real name.


Sergey Pligin    (2007-06-23 20:18:55)
Who is Viktor Savinov?

Mister Savinov Viktor has doubted my surname is real. It is not true, I can easily prove it. I am playing Mr. Schuster Peter in one ICCF event. The latest moves, which are now invisible for public, are 46.Rb6 Kf8. Peter will understand me. If there is any need I can show the full score of this game.


[moderator : end of the message deleted, feel free to read rules and particularly membership & netiquette sections]


Pekka I. Turakainen    (2007-06-24 06:17:11)
One variant of BIG CHESS

For one variant of big chess, see http://apollo13.wippiespace.com/doublechess.html ________________________________ Good thing about this version is that it is faster than DeVassal's Big Chess, and that it can be played with two normal chess boards. From the rest I'm not at all sure of...suggestions for improvements?


Daniel Khayman    (2007-06-23 21:11:37)
khayman

hi thibault, i'd like to join in the team and hope not to end up playing myself at gsmrknot..:-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-24 01:35:19)
Reminder : Rules !

11. General rules - 11.1. Netiquette : "No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit."


Thanks everyone not to provocate or insult other players anymore !


Sergey warned me before the match that some players from Igame.ru wouldn't like to play under their real names, I said they could register with other names (not famous names), a few players did it, this is not so important IMO.

Players who absolutely want to play in this match against players using their real name can send me a private message and I'll arrange that.


Thanks in advance :)


Alexander Shalamanov    (2007-06-24 07:12:04)
Hello, chess friends!

Yeah, I've read the polemics, but don't feel like doing that, coz whatever I say would be misinterpreted by Serge & Co. Lol! I've got nothing to do with IGAME now. I've left it forever and explained the reasons behind my move on the IGAME forum. Thibault, I do respect your decision that only western-based FICGS players join your team for the match. I thaink, that is quite right to do in the current situation. Cheers, Alex


Garvin Gray    (2007-06-24 08:20:06)
suggestion


If I understand the current situation, igame have already decided their 25 players and so the ones who have missed out from igame are looking to play for ficgs, which Thibault has said wont be happening.

Since it looks like ficgs will be able to allocate 25 ficgs only players, perhaps a second division needs to be created?

The top 25 from both sites still play each other, but then the ones who missed out from both sites get to compete against each other in Division B.

I believe this would help to stop igame players from trying to join ficgs with the only intention of playing in the team match.



Alexander Shalamanov    (2007-06-24 09:55:59)
Hello, Garvin!

Nope, that's only half-truth. I've no idea of the others' motivation but my signing-up on here has nothing to do with an attempt to play versus the IGAME team. The reasons were somewhat different. I didn't come here solely to play in that match, I just love the friendly atmosphere here on FICGS. Cheers, Alex


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-24 14:39:20)
suggestion

Thanks for suggestion Garvin. A problem is the swiss tournament will occur on a particular day and will take about 6 hours.

I think it will take some time before players be interested to play fast time controls anyway, and I'll probably have to improve some things yet.


Reminder : Everyone starts with 2 E-Points and can play 20 bronze lightning games for free.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-24 17:00:06)
One variant of BIG CHESS

Yes, I saw it before... But I suspect that computers could play it quite well too. Big Chess, like Go, is quite long but it helps to make the game much more complex IMO.


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2007-06-25 03:18:38)
Second division.

If there is a second division, I will be in, I am not a strong player so I cannot participate now.


Albert Popov    (2007-06-25 07:20:58)
Using nicknames or fake names

I presume, it's disgusting to use nicknames or fake names in a friendly match. I find it impossible to shake hands or salute people who hide themselves behind nicknames or fake names. That's not fair play and if it takes place, I'm not into it! It runs counter to the ICCF rules of conduct. Amici sumus! Albert


Andrey Sumets    (2007-06-25 08:20:09)
subject

As far as I understood, it will be only a friendly match between two servers, one of which (ours) is not official. Thus I don't see the reasons why our players can't play under those names which they will find necessary. On igame.ru I also play under an assumed name, however it does not cause any discussions or any other problems from other participants. Moreover, if the person will name Donald Duck or I_can't_play, their skills and opportunity won't change. So considering the friendly status of this match I do not see the reasons to make great problem from this matter.


Sergey Pligin    (2007-06-25 10:13:05)
to Wolfgang Utesch

Wolfgang, it is a pity such a strong player as you are resigns playing this match for the reason you are giving up this opportunity is insignificant, IMO. Several players of our team use nicknames, but not all of them. You may play vs me. I am expected to play on 3rd or 4th board. My games are available on ICCF web server. I hope you will change your mind and play FICGS team. Best regards, Sergey


Alexander Shalamanov    (2007-06-25 13:49:30)
Why nicks then, Sergey?

I just can't get why some of your IGAME team players use nicks instead of their real names? Are there some professional players in your team who do not want to go public on FICGS and elsewhere on the net? If so, that's all right. Otherwise it looks rather weird. Cheers, Alexander


Charlie Neil    (2007-06-25 14:45:39)
Ficgs vs Igame.ru

Is this the most replied to forum in Ficgs history? Regarding nicknames so what? It's a friendly match. Amici Sumus. (And psychology in chess still can win the game before the first move!) As far as I am aware you must give your real name to the administrators on the site before you can use nicknames. So there you go. Now play the board and not the man.........Look at my rating very very low but I have fun! it's only a game.


Albert H. Alberts    (2007-06-25 14:48:57)
Deep Fritz vs. Deep Junior

FICGS: Junior won over Fritz Elista 2007. Very sharp but correct remark by M.Aigner: people that bought Fritz will now want to have Junior too the FIDE-approved champ by K. Ilyumzinov= ICGA=FIDE=CHESSBASE=FRITZ(=Junior?). However: he future champ will be the program with the best BOOK with sharp novelties. The future world tournament champ will be the one who knows/WROTE this book. It is like in cycling: you can have a great "bike" (chess engine) but to win the Tour the France you still have to peddle. That champ/novelty finder/writer/head player can be one and the same person. Great news for the sport I think.The new "Fischer" will come. Albert H.Alberts, www.howtofoolfritz.com


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-25 15:25:58)
Ficgs vs Igame.ru

Undoubtly the most replied in this forum :)

I think that's not so important matter. A few IGAME.RU players registered with other names and were honest by admitting it. Of course a few players here used nicknames before that, that's not a big deal and that's internet chess. The only way to be sure (actually that's wrong, I saw some cases a long time ago in team championships) of your opponent's identity is to play over the board.

Finally, if some players in IGAME.RU team use nicknames, let's say that's a small advantage we give to them :) .. On the other hand, we play at home !

Not a big deal... really.


Amici sumus !


Garvin Gray    (2007-06-25 15:29:23)
to Wolfgang Utesch


Wolfgang,

Please read below regarding your participation and this issue of nicknames.

Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-24 01:35:19) Players who absolutely want to play in this match against players using their real name can send me a private message and I'll arrange that.

Continuing on with my comment- This means that since you have a real issue playing against someone using just a nickname, Thibault de Vassal will pair you against someone using their real name.

This seems a fair compromise to me.
By the way, I would like to play against someone using their real name as well.


Robert Mueller    (2007-06-25 16:57:08)
Ficgs vs Igame.ru

With all the discussion about nicknames we seem to be a bit off topic: when does the match start and who is playing?


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-25 17:48:40)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU

Let me explain – I don’t want to have any exception rules for me! It’s a principle thing: about 35 years ago I played some few correspondence chess tournaments by postcard (naturally with my real name). After a long period of abstinence (since 1999) I played correspondence chess by Email (IECG/Playchess-Server and ICCF/ICCF-Webserver) – new transport medium but with old real name. So everybody can see my chess history: I’m standing (with my real name) to all my many bad or neutral games as same as to my some very good chess performances. I’ve always used tools (first just books and later also engines), but I’ve always played my games alone (without help by any other person). I think there are many other players with FICGS (i.e. Peter Schuster, Hannes Rada, Harry Ingersol or others more) who have done it similar like me. In contrast, if DONALD DUCK wins and has played a very good game, he likes it to say his real name, if he loses or has played poorly, he is just staying DONALD DUCK. He wouldn’t have to fear to disgrace himself, but there is a real chance for him to gleam! Sorry, but this is not my idea from a friendly match between two serious teams.


Garvin Gray    (2007-06-25 18:53:46)
next rating list


Robert Mueller (2007-06-25 16:57:08) Ficgs vs Igame.ru With all the discussion about nicknames we seem to be a bit off topic: when does the match start and who is playing?

I believe that the ficgs team will be confirmed once the new rating list is released on July 1st.



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-26 01:04:56)
Vacation : 1 month / year or 6 months ?

Hello to all.

I've been told that the 30 days leave per year rule was a bit hard (at least harder than ICCF rule). For several reasons, it wouldn't be possible to have 2 months per year but 1 month / 6 months would be ok.

I'm not so favourable to such a change, but I'd like to know players opinion. (please respond if you're not favourable to this change also :))

Thanks in advance.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-26 01:35:03)
A guide to Endgames Tablebases

Endgames tablebases fully explained, a great page :

http://horizonchess.com/FAQ/Winboard/egtb.html


* [A.1] What is a endgame tablebase? How do they work? How much stronger will it make my chess program play?
* [A.2] What are the different endgame tablebases formats out there? What are the differences?
* [A.3] Where can I learn more about the endgame table formats?
* [A.4] What are the Chess programs that support endgame tables? Which format do they support?
* [A.5] Where can I get endgame tablebase?
* [A.6] Where can I buy tablebases?
* [A.7] Where can I download tablebases?
* [A.8] How do I generate tablebases on my computer?
* [A.9] How large are the tablebase files? Can I put then all into one directory? Do I have to use a complete set of 5 men tablebases?
* [A.10] Questions about 6 men endgame tablebases. Which are the most useful?
* [A.11] How do I find out which tablebase is corrupted? How do I know the endgame tablebases are working?
* [A.12] What is datacomp.exe? Where can I get it?
* [A.13] How do I get Crafty to work with Endgame tablebases?
* [A.14] How can I get Fritz to use Endgame tablebases?
* [A.15] What is the difference between tablebases download from Dr Hyatt's ftp site and those on the Chessbase endgame turbo CD? Can they be used together?
* [A.16] What are the files ending with .tbs? What about those with nbb and nbw? Do i need both?
* [A.17] Help, the endgame tablebases are not working properly!
* [A.18] Can I use tablebase files in zipped form?
* [A.19] Where can I get a useful graphical browser to view endgame tablebases? What about an online searchable database?
* [A.20] Misc questions


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-26 04:25:48)
Recently Completed Games

If you did not uncheck the email notification box in Preferences, public comments written by your opponents are sent to you by email, so you can't miss it.

Anyway, here is a way to see your games :

http://www.ficgs.com/players/tamayo_thomas/games.html


Alexander Shalamanov    (2007-06-26 08:38:12)
Vacation

As to me, 2 or 3 months would be fine. This way players wouldn't be put into a corner, especially when one plays a lot of games. Cheers, Alexander


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-26 09:20:54)
Vacation

In my opinion there is no need to change. The argument, then players can play more games in same time can be countered by if they play less games they can speed up their moves. Already in the current situation most time won't be spended for finding best moves, but for stretching lost games!


Garvin Gray    (2007-06-26 10:03:35)
vacation

The current amount of time is fine. On this site you can't play while on vacation.


Alexander Shalamanov    (2007-06-26 11:26:12)
Books or technique?

It's as simple as that: Rybka just outplayed her opponents in middlegames. Books have something to do, of course, but not that much. She just plays better in opening to middlegame and middlegame to ending phases. Oh, Junior, you are still better! And mind you, I'm not betraying while saying that. Amicus (mihi) Plato, sed magis amica veritas! (Plato is my friend but the truth is more precious!)


Nick Burrows    (2007-06-26 14:23:32)
vacation

1 month seems fine to me. most players seem to build time in their games anyway, so if they are away some days over their allocation it should very rarely cause them damage.


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-06-26 15:08:05)
re: nicknames

Now, I might not be a high rated player here, but here's my take on the situation.

What some here don't seem to realise is that one can stand by his results or whatever with his nickname.

On this site I use my real name, but that is only becouse of the atmosphere here. However, on the rest of the Internet i tend to use nicknames, and when I say or do something under a such nickname I stand by my actions with the reputation of that nickname.

This goes to a point where my most commonly used nickname is used almost interchangebly with my real name IRL. BTW, I have friends who can say the same.


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-06-26 15:55:09)
a question

When you designed the Big Chess, did you playtest it much?

BTW, doublewide can be played with 4 boards http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/doublewide-chess.html


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-26 16:06:08)
Ratings

The discussion of ratings is very problematic. Ratings on different sites are depending on different premises. What entry level was accepted? How long did you playing there – how often? How much thinking time did you spent per move? Is the basic rating you earned over years to be caused by old tournaments with postcards (maybe without any help of engines – and your opponents did it the same way)? How much care did you spent ratings (i.e. Norm tournaments?!)? Are you a member of the exclusive cycle of an organisation, getting invitations to closed high-level rating tournaments? Engines (also Rybka) are playing own styles and it depends on whether you can play better or worse against their special styles (knowing their potencies and weaknesses). Old fashioned players (independent from their ratings) will have much more problems to win or to hold draw against engines than players which have positioning themselves at actual situation. In my opinion today Rybka alone with one week thinking time per every move without any other help will reach a rating of about 2.400 at FICGS SM-tournament with an average rating of 2.450. In an ICCF anniversary tournament (average rating of about 2.600) same Rybka under same conditions will reach a rating about 2.550. I for myself wouldn’t play longer correspondence chess, if I would have the feeling that any engine is playing better without my command. How long will it still take? My engine handling is not in this way, that I am waiting for longer times which move is offer by the engine. I have own ideas and I’m trying their possibilities, investigating positions in depth over many moves in all directions. But sometimes engines have the better ideas and I have to accept this!


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-26 16:17:44)
nicknames

"What some here don't seem to realise is that one can stand by his results or whatever with his nickname." I have no problem with this statement! Deciding is whether you are willing to disclose your real identity to your oppenent before playing? If yes, absolutely no problem - if no, .... (see above)


Andrey Sumets    (2007-06-26 16:38:31)
Wolfgang

You can easily recognize your opponent by his games on igame.ru because you will be given also his igame's nickname. All of our players have played a lot of games so far. If you have some problems with russian language please tell me your opponent's name and i'll give you link. According to this I don't understand why you want to now REAL name inspite of this person's games?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-26 16:40:25)
an answer

I didn't playtest it, but I thought about it much... and finally I like the result much ! :)


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-26 19:36:51)
Miguel Pires

Sorry, but for my understanding: You are playing actually in 10 tournaments (34 open games) in same time? You just booked in 2 Rapid (!!) tounaments (12 open games) recently? And now you have problems with your time - really amazing.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2007-06-26 21:41:21)
30 days / year is enough

I think 30 days / year is enough.

If you fear that you could get time problems don't play too many and avoid Rapid tournaments. Nobody forces you to enter every waiting list.

And according to Murphy's Law "such things as computers breaking down, computers hit with viruses, business travel commitments, planning a holiday etc." always happen if you have no more vacation.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-26 22:04:29)
Rapid tournaments

I agree that rapid tournaments (30 days + 1 day / move) may be quite hard for some players, but as Heinz-Georg and Wolfgang said, it's up to you to choose the tournaments that fit to your available time.

WCH tournaments are quite hard to play the same way, but that's a condition to start a new cycle every 6 months and adding days of vacation may last important games and force some adjudications. That's why I'm not favourable to this change.

But I agree, that's quite hard not to enter certain waiting lists too... (it's a fight of every day) :))


Mircea Hrubaru    (2007-06-26 22:40:08)
that is disgusting

Hi Thibault and all others! Given the current circumstances and bad words, I am glad I was not selected to play vs guys at iGame.ru. I will continue playing here, but with a bitter feeling... Best wishes, Mircea


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-27 00:53:38)
Mircea

Hi Mircea. You know, such things happen... That's a pity this atmosphere of suspicion was created because of a few players and a misunderstanding but it would have happened anyway, as it is not possible to verify all names... Most important is to play with clear rules, then (fortunately) we all are different and think different :)


Miguel Pires    (2007-06-27 02:53:26)
Heinz-Georg and Wolfgang and thibault

First I only give my opinion. Second I can't control the start date of the tournements soo i've 2 tournaments that start almost at the same time Third, the point is not if i've to many games, but, in my opinion, if we should have little more time (like in GK) or have the same thing like in ICCF. That's what we are talking in this pool, not any choice of any particular player that gives an opinion, and you don't agree with that and criticises is whay of seeing or conduct thing's Best Regard' Miguel Pires


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-27 03:45:20)
Miguel

I'm sorry if you felt under attack... Of course we're only discussing ideas and I thank you for having submitted this one. I agree that rules are quite hard but it is also quite hard for us to understand how it couldn't be linked to the number of games in any way. There are other factors that we can predict more or less, but it's obviously related IMO. Anyway, maybe 10 days more would help many players to manage their time. Waiting for more opinions...


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-27 07:14:19)
Figlio - Schuster

They've played already a correspondence chess game together: Schuster - Figlio 1-0, 2003. Anyway my favorite is Peter!


Dinesh De Silva    (2007-06-27 07:26:44)
Re:

It seems someone is trying to force issues by always trying to be confrontational. Any player who tries to be high & mighty & aggressive is surely unstable. What people like I & Miguel Pires were doing is just making a suggestion & making friendly debate. Maybe there should be a poll to determine if the vacation period should be increased or not. It's all upto Thibault, of course. Whichever way he decides, we as players would accept it in a friendly, calm, peaceful manner, unlike a very few who try to impose their will on matters by thinking they are ALWAYS correct..


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-27 10:31:35)
Rules

Rules are very immportant! For all the same rules. If rules will changed about actual serious problems by a few players, it will be a disadvantage for all other players, which have arranged themselves with the same rules, independent from their own difficulties with that. Maybe sometimes they have thought less time for a single move as they would have wished - maybe they have lost therefore, but they have accepted the rules - that is the game (and that is life also).


Glen D. Shields    (2007-06-27 12:52:12)
Keep it at 30 Days

I've been in the situation many times of too many games and too little time to keep up. Admittedly very stressful, but I have no one to blame for getting into that situation but myself.

My preference is to keep vacation at 30 days per year. Today's fast pace requires players to be diligent about managing their game load. Giving players more vacation time adds to the time it takes to finish tournaments and makes it even harder for players to manage game loads.

My personal belief is that when I sign up for a tournamnet I'm making a commitment to play my games at a regular and reasonable pace. If I am regularly finding myself with too many games and often wishing for more vacation time, then I think it is my responsibility to plan better and make better personal choices rather than inconvenince everyone else.

Just my opinion :-)


Christophe Czekaj    (2007-06-27 13:33:55)
What a mess !

Hi everybody ! I'm totally agree with Charlie Neil ! What a mess for a friendly match ! I know "chess is life" but before it's a friendly game. So let's just play chess !


Glen D. Shields    (2007-06-27 14:38:26)
Miguel Pires

Miguel - my comments were meant for everyone not just you.

I happen to think long vacations are another way for players to shy away from the committment they made to play. When my opponent takes a vacation and I am ready to play, then the honest fact is he is inconveniencing me while he is away. I accept that inconvenience as part of the game. I would not be happy having opponents have more than 30 days so they can inconvenience me even more. The time rules are slow enough to allow anyone who has other commitments to take time off and still keep their games going. If outside committments are just too great, than IMHO a player should not sign up to play until they have more time to committ to their games.

These comments, like my other ones, are made for everyone not just you.


Garvin Gray    (2007-06-27 17:28:50)
another few days


This site gives 30 days per year. Those are the rules.

I can understand that some players might want a few extra days per year vacation, but where does it end.

If it was to be extended to 40 days, then I am sure some other players would just argue that a few more days above that dont that much of a difference over the 40 days.

If there was to be an increase to 40 days, maybe it should be 20 days per six months, so a player cant take over a months vacation in one straight hit.



Garvin Gray    (2007-06-27 17:29:49)
top 25

I would just like to know who are the top 25 players that will be representing ficgs.


Sergey Pligin    (2007-06-27 19:24:46)
Our team

Here is our squad, in accordance of boards:
1. Sumets Andrey, Member # 2137, GM
2. Pljusnin Ivan, Member # 2147
3. Pligin Sergey, Member # 2189
4. Doinikov Owl, Member # 2191
5. Romitsin Nikolay Sergeevich, Member # 2159
6. Vovk Andrey, Member # 2144, IM
7. Yunusov Adkham, Member # 2124
8. Pavlikov Andrey Nikolayevich, Member # 2182
9. Leskiv Miroslav, Member # 2133
10. Domanov Dmitry, Member # 2130
11. Kragujevcanin Stole, Member # 2148
12. Silkin Aleksey, Member # 2198
13. Orlov Sergei, Member # 2207
14. Kim Vladimir, Member # 2139
15. Gerasimov Vladimir, Member # 2190
16. Larin Igor, Member # 2193
17. Zarullin Ivan, Member # 2203
18. Filimonov Evgeny, Member # 2176
19. Pezikov Evgeny, Member # 2174
20. Stork Denis, Member # 2180
21. Mancubov Boris, Member # 2156
22. Ilyuschenko Yury, Member # 2168
23. Prokopenko Alex, Member # 2182
24. Basiliev Iouri, Member # 2205
25. Shpakovsky Alexander, Member # 2185

The following players will play using their real names:
Sumets Andrey GM
Pligin Sergey
Romitsin Nikolay Sergeevich
Vovk Andrey IM
Yunusov Adkham
Pavlikov Andrey Nikolayevich
Leskiv Miroslav
Domanov Dmitry
Silkin Aleksey
Orlov Sergei
Gerasimov Vladimir
Larin Igor
Pezikov Evgeny
Ilyuschenko Yury
Prokopenko Alex
Shpakovsky Alexander


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-27 21:18:36)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU, the games

Hello to all.

The friendly match between FICGS & IGAME.RU teams just started :)

http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__FICGS_VS_IGAME_RU_MATCH.html


I'd like to thank Sergey Pligin for organizing this match and all players who registered to play. I apologize to the players who couldn't play :/ .. 25 boards was not enough this time. To build FICGS team I selected players with the highest ratings but one cause his rating should be clearly >2000 already. Also IM Mark Noble plays at table 6 because his opponent is another FIDE IM.

I wish good games to everyone, this is a great opportunity for us to meet russian chessfriends.

Amici Sumus !


... quote of the day : "Top boards make the show, last ones win matches." :-)


Here are the complete teams :


FICGS :

1. Thibault de Vassal # 1
2. Michael Aigner # 139
3. Peter Schuster SM # 323
4. Janos Helmer # 47
5. Miguel Pires # 83
6. Mark Noble IM # 1991
7. Leszek Tymcio # 2151
8. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff # 142
9. Silviu Nenciulescu # 1319
10. William Taylor # 1232
11. Poulerik Jorgensen # 940
12. Wayne Lowrance # 135
13. Edward Kotlyansky # 1140
14. Christophe Czekaj # 1193
15. Konstantin Dudulec # 1329
16. Robert Mueller # 1233
17. Josef Riha # 157
18. Dan Rotaru # 1394
19. Garvin Gray # 1363
20. Nick Burrows # 1643
21. Vadim Khachaturov # 1078
22. Daniel Khayman # 1032
23. Gaetano Laghetti # 138
24. Alexander Nent # 1411
25. Ilmars Cirulis # 533



IGAME.RU :

1. Sumets Andrey, Member # 2137, GM
2. Pljusnin Ivan, Member # 2147
3. Pligin Sergey, Member # 2189
4. Doinikov Owl, Member # 2191
5. Romitsin Nikolay Sergeevich, Member # 2159
6. Vovk Andrey, Member # 2144, IM
7. Yunusov Adkham, Member # 2124
8. Pavlikov Andrey Nikolayevich, Member # 2157
9. Leskiv Miroslav, Member # 2133
10. Domanov Dmitry, Member # 2130
11. Kragujevcanin Stole, Member # 2148 12. Silkin Aleksey, Member # 2198
13. Orlov Sergei, Member # 2207
14. Kim Vladimir, Member # 2139
15. Gerasimov Vladimir, Member # 2190
16. Larin Igor, Member # 2193
17. Zarullin Ivan, Member # 2203
18. Filimonov Evgeny, Member # 2176
19. Pezikov Evgeny, Member # 2174
20. Stork Denis, Member # 2180
21. Mancubov Boris, Member # 2156
22. Ilyuschenko Yury, Member # 2168
23. Prokopenko Alex, Member # 2182
24. Basiliev Iouri, Member # 2205
25. Shpakovsky Alexander, Member # 2185


Edit : There was a mistake while building the games, I had to make a replacement at board 23.


Dan Rotaru    (2007-06-28 03:30:01)
IGAME team

Apart from Member # can the ratings be revealed for each player: IGAME rating, FIDE / ICCF ratings if available? It would be fair at least to know the strength of our oponents. The rating registered on FICGS for some players is provisional and it doesn't tell anything. IGAME players have free access to this information so it has to be reciprocal.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-28 04:07:04)
IGAME team

I don't think IGAME team has to provide more information... The match started, once more that's internet chess, we have to accept this part of uncertainty. You may search ratings for players mentioned above (using their real name), but anyway IMO at least 1 player (not me :)) in FICGS team does not use his real name too, moreover a few players in our team still have a provisional or under-estimated rating... Any player can start with a 1600 rating here if he does not mention his FIDE rating, so the same for IGAME players. This is part of the challenge, so let's just play :)


Garvin Gray    (2007-06-28 06:10:18)
board orders


Hello,

I have a real problem with the board orders that igame have put in.

Why is a 2200 elo player on board 25 for igame.

I was not aware that this team match was going to be played in this fashion. I thought it was a simple principle that both sides play in roughly rating order.

Not impressed at all!

If igame wants to win that badly that they are playing one of their best players on the bottom board, they can have two wins right now as far as I am concerned.



Ivan Zarullin    (2007-06-28 07:09:17)
2 Garvin

Hello, Garvin, most of our players have not got fide rating since they quited active chess before acquiring the rating. Even now most tourneys in Russia are not calculated by fide. Our team is ordered by a player performance on igame. Since our players typically played a hundred of games on igame, this performance most adequately shows our correspondence chess skill.


Ivan Zarullin    (2007-06-28 07:34:24)
correction

a typical participant from our team has played a hundred games on our server. Since Russia has its own title system, the absense of international title can be also confusing. In particular some of chess players consider the fide master title not worth paying money. E.g., GM Korneev has never been fide master.


Alexander Shalamanov    (2007-06-28 08:35:41)
FICGS Chess World Championship

Hello dear chessfriends, I regret to inform all of you that, due to lack of time because of my involvement in the Russian Team Cup Final and a lot of time needed to analyse my remaining games there, I find it utterly impossible to play in the global championship on this server. I have to make this move reluctantly, but the circumstances are above me. I might return back later when I have more free time. Hopefully, you will understand why I took this decision. Amici sumus! Alexander


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-28 13:40:40)
Thinking in decades of moves

There are many specialists here who are thinking in decades of moves. I mean not the extreme of this, Dinesh, but many other players do it in a moderate way. I accept in principle that it is more effective to use to full capacity of thinking time, because there is a chance, that some players will forfeit in that more time. I think in WCH-Cycle it is much better, because there is no period to control as every move. Perhaps it will be better, if this method can transfused to all other tournaments without changing the average total time for all different types of tournament we have. Just a question.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-28 13:51:08)
Withdraw

Hello Alexander.

That's ok, it is still possible to withdraw... If other players experience the same difficulties, feel free to warn me. It won't be possible once the games started.


Dan Rotaru    (2007-06-29 00:20:31)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU

Thanks Vadim, My opponent already provided me this information which is very nice of him. So let's forget about all the fuss in this thread and let's play some good games.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-29 02:38:33)
Where do you play Go lightning games ?

This thread may be an opportunity to share the links of other Go servers where you play (and which nicknames you use), maybe a few players met elsewhere already ? :)


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-29 10:14:56)
van Oosterom

Behind name van Oosterom it is rumoured since several years there is a team of top chessplayers and several computer adminidrators (Joop is a millionaire). But for all that he has been a quite good OTB chessplayer in youth and a very courageous and creative correspondence chess player in the beginning.


Ivan Zarullin    (2007-06-29 11:06:24)
russian norms and titles

Dear Thibault, you can find russian national chess norms at http://www.rossport.ru/pdf/chess.xls. E.g., to become a national master a russian player have to reach 2450 ELO and to accomplish IM norm, or to win World\Europe Championship U16 or U18.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-29 18:31:28)
Thibault

If Dinesh is right, we've played already together in one tournament (IECG).


Garvin Gray    (2007-06-29 18:51:43)
digging out old thread


I do remember some discussion regarding group sizes for the 3rd wch. I also remember that it was likely that the group sizes will be bigger than the current 7 player used currently.

Please tell us that each group will be 9 or 11 players, to reduce the odds of players tieing for first :)



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-29 20:26:40)
WCH groups

Hello Garvin, yes there will be 9 players in WCH groups at stage 1 :)


Samy Ould Ahmed    (2007-06-29 23:19:06)
SmartGo

I play in IGS with smartgo


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-30 01:31:59)
SmartGo

You mean that's your username ? :) .. Is "advanced Go" popular in real-time play ?


Charlie Neil    (2007-06-30 09:26:19)
Cheering on Ficgs!

Hi, go to Tournaments, then Special Tournaments, then Ficgs Special Events and there is the Ficgs vs IGame match. There is one King's Gambit already! This is brave play in a strong match or not? Who needs sites covering matches and tournaments elsewhere when we can stay here and cheer on our own players against this strong team. "C'mon Ficgs! Check every move twice and again before sending. Take your time. Good luck!" Unfortunately we cannot pass comment of any kind on any of the games in progress. Rules forbid it...There must be somehow home advantage can count.


Samy Ould Ahmed    (2007-06-30 10:19:50)
SmartGo...

...It's a go program with a playing online option (in IGS) :-)


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-06-30 19:45:47)
Searching for opponents.

I offer to play Lightning Silver Blitz now.

If anyone want to defend those openings, write. And we will find time for our game.

Wishes of happiness. :)


Garvin Gray    (2007-07-02 18:12:51)
suggestion for send button


Not really a time control suggestion, but it seems to be the closest related thread.

When playing lightning and blitz games on here, it would be helpful if the send move button was located directly under the game board, instead of having to scroll down quite a bit to send a move.

Having to scroll down when in time trouble can cost a few precious seconds, which adds up to quite a bit when done over many moves.



Marc Lacrosse    (2007-07-02 18:22:50)
Too fast

10+20 is a timing where a strong engine playing alone with a good book is unbeatable.
No time left for creative human added value ...
That's the reason why Freestyle tournaments on Playchess recently evolved from an initial 45 min + 5 sec/move to a slower timing (60 min + 15 sec/move)

I am pretty convinced that at 10 min + 20 sec increment the one with the most powerful computer will win for sure...

Marc

PS for a mean 60 moves game, 10+20 is equivalent to 30 seconds per move.
Freestyle tempo (60+15) gives a mean 75 seconds per move.


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-07-03 13:08:47)
Small board variations

I know that on this site people tend to talk much about large board variants, but, recently I have gained an interest in small board variants.

The reason is simple. They are fun!

I'm interested in the experiences of other members.

I've so far played only Los Alamos Chess. About 30 games. They were simply fun, regardless of winning or loosing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_chess

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minichess


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-07-04 11:21:08)
send button

Quite true... It's a long time I have to think about this problem.

I'll try another display in a while.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-07-04 11:31:09)
tie breaks + time controls

Garvin, I'll look at this question deeperly soon... Thx !

Marc, I quite agree, on the other hand it takes some time to operate the computer, a good chess player may be "also" required in such games, that would be interesting. Anyway, it would be hard to use longer time controls in a 1-day tournament. Less than 20 seconds per move would be hard with the current interface... How many days a playchess freestyle tournament takes ?


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-07-04 12:07:59)
Montviel

... and where did you play chess with this name?


Dinesh De Silva    (2007-07-04 12:40:35)
Re:

Utesch is correct......there's no trace of any "Montviel" playing at IECG or ICCF. I have a strong feeling that either Utesch or I have already guessed Thibault's real name somewhere in this thread


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-07-06 11:22:37)
Unsolved, definitely + @ Andrew

It seems we forgot the original posts of this sub-discussion :)

Thibault de Vassal is (of course!) my real name... I just said that I played under my director's name [I made movies] in another correspondence chess organization before to play here. I'm quite surprised no-one found it yet :)


Nick Burrows    (2007-07-09 09:21:28)
link

Yes, thanks for the link Sergey! It makes it much easier to skim through the games.
Also thanks for creating such a great match, it's nice in such an individual game to play for a team...


Garvin Gray    (2007-07-09 17:46:17)
Norms and titles

How do players achieve norms and titles at ficgs? What tournaments do players have to compete in to get norms and titles at ficgs?


Thomas Tamayo    (2007-07-10 00:05:19)
I play Real Life games

I mostly play IRL at clubs and tournaments. I need to drive about an hour for a quarterly tournament in Boston. I used to play on KGS, Dragon (PBM), and Little Golem (PBM)... they're all blocked at work now (no lunch playing) and I don't have a lot of free time at home. So I also play a lot at FICGS.


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-07-10 11:11:52)
FICGS Data base of Games

Is there a searchable database of games on FICGS? How can I search for games by a particular player? Compliments to Thibault on an excellent site.


Nick Burrows    (2007-07-10 12:35:13)
Search Games

Hi Andrew,
Click on 'Search Games' in the left hand column, and enter any players name.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-07-11 14:24:13)
A clockwork orange

Olivier Simon is "Alex" in this other 'A clockwork orange' :) .. "Orange mécanique" is the french title translation, but not the real title. This is not exactly a parody of the Stanley Kubrick's one.

A french (good) chess player is also named Olivier Simon... well tried but I'm not Olivier Simon... did you see a trailer for that (my 2nd) movie ? :)


Jason Repa    (2007-07-12 22:15:04)
One more needed for 2200 - 2600 tourney!

We've been waiting for the 7th player for the class "M" section to sign up for about a week now. Anyone interested?


Dinesh De Silva    (2007-07-13 04:48:27)
A certain email chess website.....

Dear chess friends, I want to bring to your attention that there's a certain chess website (which plays only by email) of a certain South American country where the main Arbitor who owns the website cheats and favours certain players in a world championship final. Playing there is at your own risk.

1.He protects certain players by saving them when they even have stepped the time limit twice. (He cunningly sends the game into adjudication etc., instead of dealing with the proof). 2.When requesting that an opponent should provide email proof in certain critical situations, he protects them by refusing that at all times. 3.He blames the persons who make a claim by saying "Don't Be Rude!", instead of taking action against those who clearly break rules. 4.The website keeps popping in and out on the internet, and the website says its under construction most of the time! 5.He does not send monthly reports to players. 6.He does not show finished games. 7.He stays silent for months and says he has lost files due to a virus. 8.He does not include some finished games in some reports. 9.At least 3 other players have already withdrawn from the tourney. 10.He has extended the tourney twice already! obviously trying to favour his favourite playes who are very slow players to climb up in the list. Pathetic!


Dinesh De Silva    (2007-07-13 14:31:34)
Re:

In my opinion, the best chess websites include FICGS, IECG & ICCF, all 3 which I enjoy playing in & where I've never had problems regarding tournaments. Lets hear from other players which good chess websites they enjoy playing in & can recommend.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-07-14 14:10:43)
Rybka vs. Human

That's a quite pessimistic vision of chess today, but maybe I'm too optimistic yet :)

In my opinion it would be interesting to see this kind of match with longer time controls... maybe 30 minutes + 30 minutes / move. The human play could be much more organized and secure, with less time pressure.


Hannes Rada    (2007-07-14 17:17:17)
Austrians :-)

Yes and there are 2 Austrian guys in the semifinals :-) Furthermore I know all players, have played against them, except my fellow countryman W. Riemer, who I am afraid did not realize that he is qualified for the semifinal ... :-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-07-15 12:25:27)
Invitation in WCH 1 stage 3 round-robin

Hello to all.

As I've been asked, in WCH 1 round-robin final tournament there are 2 players from WCH 1 stage 2 group 3 because it was not possible (at least desirable) to adjudicate game 8029 in its current position (move 36)... So it is not possible to tell who wins the group yet. However if I had to adjudicate this game, it would be a draw so Alberto Gueci would win the tournament. As WCH 1 stage 3 must start now and as I needed one more player to fill the group, according to the rules Francois Caire (due to his position of possible -likely- winner in the tournament and his rating) was invited to solve game 8029 problem.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-07-15 15:24:42)
pattern recognition = intelligence?

Best skill for (OTB-)chess is pattern recognition and very hard drill of playing. Not much time for learning other important skills beside!


William Taylor    (2007-07-15 16:47:23)
Go ratings

At the moment only ELO ratings are shown beside players' names when viewing a go tournament. I would prefer dan/kyu rank to be shown than ELO rating (or both). Discuss.


Nick Burrows    (2007-07-15 17:29:31)
intelligence

We see with Aspergers syndrome or autistic savantes super human levels of 'intelligennce' yet at the same time they cannot understand very basic social rules that we take for granted.
A champion chess player such as Fisher shares great similarities with a savante. A very narrow intelligence of great depth.
There are many forms of intelligence. What of Luther-king, Ghandi or Lennon?


Jason Repa    (2007-07-15 18:24:07)
Rybka vs. Human

I just find it quite amusing how some 1900 chess player with no medical degree feels himself qualified to sum up Fischer in a few sentences with some pop psychology labels.

Also, I don't know what you're trying to prove by mentioning Luther-King, Ghandi, etc. They were famous people who were extremely influential in their time. They were certainly no dummies, but I don't know if they had a 180 IQs.
I would mention people like Tesla, Jung, and Von Braun for examples of extremely intelligent people from the past.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-07-15 19:33:36)
Go ratings

Hello William.

Yes, quite hard to find a design with enough place to display all informations :)

The main problem is it wouldn't be coherent with other games tournaments.


Jason Repa    (2007-07-15 20:18:33)
Pure Stupidity!

So what you're saying is that chess alone is a perfect barometer of logic ability, and additionally, that a chess rating on a correspondence site where who knows who or what is playing the moves for you....not to mention you've only gained around 100 elo since you've been playing here compared to my 500+ elo and still gaining is proof of your "superior chess", LMAO!!

Wolfgang, are you pretending to be this stupid or is this really your mentality?


Jason Repa    (2007-07-15 20:45:57)
Hillarious!

This is your "argument"? You copy and paste some drivel where they seem to substitute the word "skill" with "intelligence", or perhaps you did that.
You don't provide any sources or qualifications of the author whatsoever.
This is too entertaining and unbelievable to make up!!



in a statement signed by 52 psychologists, published in the December 13, 1994 Wall Street Journal

"1. Intelligence exists as a very general mental capability involving ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. The brain processes involved are little understood.
2. Intelligence can be measured, and IQ tests measure it well. Nonverbal tests can be used where language skills are weak.
3. IQ tests are not culturally biased.
4. IQ is more strongly related than any other measurable human trait to educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Whatever it is that IQ tests measure, it is very important.
5. Genetics plays a bigger role than environment in intelligence, but environment has a strong effect.
6. Individuals are not born with an unchangeable IQ, but it gradually stabilizes during childhood and changes little thereafter."

I think 52 psychologists might be a bit more qualified than the random blog where you copied and pasted from.


Jason Repa    (2007-07-15 21:18:20)
IQ is intelligence. Skills are Skills

You're resorting to telling blatant lies again eh burrows? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. This is what you were doing before when you painted yourself into a corner.

I in in way, shape, or form said that "chess ratings prove nothing". You need to re-read my post and stop teling lies. That's very pathetic behavoir.

As I said, it's clear now why you're an under 100 BCF player.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-07-17 12:12:43)
Game sorting

The page "My messages" displays only games where it is your move - sorted by 'date of last move played'. I'll probably add this option in september, there will be a (probably long) thread "Wish list" :)


Dinesh De Silva    (2007-07-17 23:46:42)
Re:

Have to cut down playing too many games, for sure. That's the only answer, methinks.


Don Groves    (2007-07-20 07:46:32)
Checkers anyone?

It has now been proven: checkers (draughts) is a draw with best play. Details are at http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook/ Is chess next?


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-07-24 02:14:01)
2200

I like you, Jason Repa. Now I have good stimulus. :)

I need to overreach this limit to play against Jason. :)

Jason, do you agree to post both our one minute games here. I don't understand how to get PGN from all cb* and others strange files. :)


Andrey Vovk    (2007-07-25 22:08:14)
WCH tournament GROUP M 01

I was not registered to play in this tournament!


Garvin Gray    (2007-07-26 05:01:18)
too fast, too hard


I have a recommendation that the time control be extended. 10 min + 20 secs is too short.

I played one game with this time control to try it out and found that it just felt like a 5 min blitz game, especially since we have to scroll down to confirm our moves.

I agree that another way has to be found to allow people to put money into their accounts. It took me three days because I had to wait for notification of the exact euro amount.

If I wasnt keen on entering the freestyle cup, I probably would not have bothered.



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-07-26 12:27:10)
Changes

I suppose there could be another time control for this tournament, maybe 30 minutes + 15 seconds... 6 or 7 rounds to be played during a single day. Any idea ?


Andrey Vovk    (2007-07-26 14:10:29)
Thibault de Vassal

I will not play.


Garvin Gray    (2007-07-27 18:51:31)
competition


I think one of the concerns for this competition is that it could very much start to just look like a smaller PAL playchess competition, except that the entry fee is the same but the prizes are way smaller.

Higher chance of winning those smaller prizes though lol



Garvin Gray    (2007-07-28 03:58:25)
Rapid tournament games


I would like to propose a change to the rapid tournament time control.

Currently it is 30 days plus 1 day per move.

From the games I have been playing on here under this time control, I have noticed that as soon as you get to about 20 days left, it seems very difficult to get any higher than 20 days or so.

When you have a few games with this amount of time, it feels like not much time left at all.

I would like to propose that a new time control be made of 20 days plus 3 days per move. This still guarantees that a player will have 3 days to think of a move regardless of how many initial days they have used up.



Wayne Lowrance    (2007-07-28 04:05:14)
Rapid

This proposal is not rapid ournament. It is almost is rapid now. Since i do not play I have no say Wayne


Garvin Gray    (2007-07-28 04:47:26)
a new time control perhaps


Well it could be for a new set of general tournaments with different rating bands than the current ones.

Perhaps a wider rating band to provide opportunities for more opportunities to play different people.

We shall see what Thibault says.



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-07-28 15:12:08)
Rapid tournaments

It seems this time control is ok for most players who use it (sometimes even too slow yet)... If you feel it's difficult, more reasonable would be to play standard class tournaments.

Still thinking about a longer time control.


Nick Burrows    (2007-07-28 22:41:30)
a question

Is it possible that after playing too much chess, the intense desire to win seeps into all areas of life?
So having the effect that a conversation becomes something to win, rather than a means to understand each other better.


Garvin Gray    (2007-07-29 07:40:12)
another idea


Thibault de Vassal- It seems this time control is ok for most players who use it (sometimes even too slow yet)... If you feel it's difficult, more reasonable would be to play standard class tournaments.

Another suggestion is that I make sure I play the opening moves of any rapid game rather quickly, so I dont get into time trouble early :)



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-07-30 23:19:04)
Rapid tournaments

:-)

Anyway this time control is quite difficult IMO.

About rating bands, unrated and WCH tournaments are a way for players with different ratings to meet themselves.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-07-30 23:23:52)
Checkers

Quite strange that it has been "proven" (I mean 100% sure) that draughts is a draw with best play without analyzing all possibilities... Anyway chess shouldn't be solved before a while ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-07-31 00:02:27)
WCH tournament GROUP M 01

Hello Andrey.

Sorry, rated tournaments rules are quite hard (no withdrawals) but it applies to every player. It would be hard to keep this server free otherwise.

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#withdrawals

Best wishes, Thibault


Garvin Gray    (2007-07-31 06:38:35)
date change please


Can you please change the proposed date of the competition?

This date directly conflicts with the playchess freestyle tournament. Which is being held on 7/9 - 14/16 September.

I dont think it helps to have a clash of dates.



Samy Ould Ahmed    (2007-08-01 02:00:21)
Go Server

A great go server : http://world.cyberoro.com Do you play in this server ? What do you think about it ?


Polina Stefanova    (2007-08-02 16:13:21)
Threatened to kill the person

...in Moskow.

Unfortunately I inform, that --- [moderator : name deleted] from Ukraine promised to employ killers and to kill in Moscow the strongest chess player Igame - Sex God (2 place in rating Igame).

Sex God should play for command Igame against ficgs on the third board.

Sex God was against participation --- [moderator : name deleted] in match Igame – ficgs, because he supports addicts and played for a command which captain is the sick person and addict R2.

In Russia against a narcotism, including this illness a harm, however the command headed by addict R2, exists on Igame till now :(

As a result captain Igame, being afraid for a life and health Sex God has been compelled to exclude Sex God from a command.

Best wishes, Polina Stefanova (the leader of rating Igame)


Iouri Basiliev    (2007-08-03 12:30:25)
re

Just to stop the flux of stupidity. There is a notion - "Team Spirit". And if someone, even great player, isn't correspond to this notion - he is pist off. Sorry. Point.


Ivan Pljusnin    (2007-08-03 14:06:28)
My offer

I offer to play some interesting chess matches between strong igame player Sex_God and his enemies.

1. Sex_God - --- [moderator : name deleted], his would-be killer.

2. Sex_God - Sergey Pligin, who did not let him play in the igame team because of the conflict with --- [moderator : name deleted].

3. It is also interesting to see the match Sex_God - some strong player from ficgs. If Sex_God had stayed in the igame team, this match would have already started.

Best wishes, Mobutu (on igame) aka Ivan Pljusnin (here)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-03 17:20:49)
Your opinion

Hello Samy, I didn't play there... The website announces 1,5 million players (wow) !? Does it look like another well-known server ?


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-08-03 17:59:45)
Algorithm

It provides the algorithm for best play in any position.

An ultra-weak solution is not really a solution, it's only a proof that a solution exists and what properties it must have (draw, first player win most commonly). Such solutions tend involve the strategy stealing argument.

It is essentially proving a mathematical theorem.


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-08-03 18:01:53)
IE, yeah right

It requires the use of Internet Explorer. No way I'm going to play there.


Ivan Pljusnin    (2007-08-03 21:35:57)
:-)

Thibault, but you are agree that murders of strong correspondence chessplayers bring some excitement into their boring life, aren't you? :-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-04 15:27:03)
Re:

I don't play "World Of Warcraft" :)


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2007-08-05 07:38:46)
Translation (most accurate i could do)

"The ending is clearly drawn. There is no way to force in as the white king is badly placed and could not escape the black queen's checks. Luzuriaga's analysis starts with 48. Qe5+ so we assumed that would had been the move he played if the game had continued. If black's reply 48. Kg8, a bad move (Luzuriaga's analysis) that will result in a lost position for black. De Silva analyses that 48. Kh7 will result in a drawn endgame. I have checked all the variations in the computer and the result is the same for all of them DRAW."


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-05 13:12:04)
Unrated

Cause many strong players from Igame started with a 1600 rating... (it would have been unfair to play rated 2 games matches IMO)


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-08-06 00:06:41)
Algorithm

It seems to be implemented with Chinook. It offers perfect play. Like when knowing the solution to tic-tac-toe, play is perfect.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-06 23:42:20)
future rating

Hello Dwight.

According to the rules, the game is not rated if less than 10 moves have been played by your opponent.


Garvin Gray    (2007-08-07 18:32:38)
Challenge game

I would like to make some arrangements to play a game of FICGS__CHESS__BLITZ_SILVER__000002 if someone is interested. Please just reply to this post to start arranging a time.


Sergei Ivanov    (2007-08-08 10:23:10)
curator

It is very sad, that a known chess player threatens to kill the person. The application for murder needs to be transferred in court, it is impossible to disregard such things.


James Breeden    (2007-08-07 12:38:47)
score sheet, history, replay...

might any [all] of these (score sheet, history, replay, side to move) be useful on the main page with the board?


Artur Saigakov    (2007-08-08 23:13:50)
Re

Hello! Please, calm down! I am a command captain on the site of igame.ru of which --- [moderator : name deleted] consisted before. I'm sorry my English is terrible! Paulina and Sex-god (SG) are one person which thus make his own PR and shows the personal offense to --- [moderator : name deleted]. --- [moderator : name deleted] anyway is not connected with drugs, he simply played in my command. I want to underline that my command is AGAINST drugs! Name of command - STOP Narkotics! Motto of our command you can read on igame.ru : "" If you found forces, or search it to give up drugs, this command is for you! This command exists for everybody who gives the vote for nature, for peace, for understanding of our existence, for light ideas, for helping each other, for healthy children and their parents!"" --- [moderator : name deleted] never was drug addict but he just agreed with a command idea. He is 17 years old, he is IM, that's why he was taken in command of igame, and SG wasn't included. SG said that he is gay, then added to the repertoire a word is a drug addict. certainly, he was offended and he said that he would beat SG or he would ask somebody to do it It is not serious, but I think that this fight wouldn't stop even after this speech.


Ivan Pljusnin    (2007-08-09 01:49:06)
Igame ratings

In order to make this topic more exiting I give the igame ratings of the opponents:

Sex_God: 2463 (+111, =63, -3)
RODINKA (aka ---): 2369 (+69, =29, -3)

Polina is our rating-leader (2536; +173, =1, -1), but most of igame players consider her rating unfair because she have played many games with weak opponents. Some people also say that she is another nickname of Sex_God but I don't believe it.

There was a conflict between Sex_God and RODINKA (aka ---). They have abused each other, and our cap decided to expel Sex_God from the team in spite of his higher rating. Unfortunately, this strong igame chessplayer does not take part in our great match.


Dinesh De Silva    (2007-08-09 06:51:22)
Real names in chess websites

I have some critical suggestions: 1. Chess websites should allow players only to play under their REAL NAMES. Using any nicknames or fake names should be prohibited, as it leads to all sorts of confusion at one point or another. 2. In chess websites, whenever a question of which player to give captaincy arrives, the highest rated player should always be given first choice, UNLESS that player declines or that player has been proven to have broken rules or rules state a specific way of choosing a captain. 3. In chess websites, accusations against any player should be rejected IF there is no clear proof. 4. Players who still continue abusing each other after some warnings should be disqualified/thrown out. There should be no favourations whatsoever. 5. When awarding titles, it should be clearly stated from where the title was earned fom. For example, if a player gets an IM title at Igame, it should be stated as Igame IM.


Sergei Ivanov    (2007-08-09 11:44:34)
Re

Polina the truth speaks.
Ukrainian chess player --- [moderator : name deleted] threatens to kill Dmitry and even now writes letters that Dmitry will soon kill. Here one of letters which was sent by --- [moderator : name deleted]
" I already has employed killers, they will kill you "
Also it is known that --- [moderator : name deleted] not only accepts drugs (heroin, &#1082;&#1086;&#1082;&#1086;&#1080;&#1085;, marihuana …), but also sells drugs.


Ivan Pljusnin    (2007-08-09 18:58:05)
2 Rodolfo d Ettorre

"I van see IGame is a big happy family ..."

The forum of igame is very popular. Some topics there contain several thousands responses and more than 100000 views. Sometimes murders of igame chessplayers are discussed, it usually makes a topic very popular. Unfortunately, some moderators do not like that, and most interesting authors are banned. :-(


Jason Repa    (2007-08-09 21:18:31)
real names

I like your idea, and agree. But don't you think it would be a formidable task to authenticate people? The poker sites sometimes get people to fax in a copy of their ID, but that might be a bit difficult to get chess players to do.


Ivan Pljusnin    (2007-08-10 01:06:34)
2 Dinesh De Silva

As an IGAME player I express my opinion. Everything is not so simple!

1. Some strong chessplayers like Morozevich on ICC would not like to show their real names. Should they all be driven away from all chess cites? I am not sure. :-)

2. Your rating-leader is Viktor Savinov, he have not played a single game here. Our rating-leader is Polina. Are you sure that they should be the captains of our teams?

3,4. Legendary chessplayers like Viktor Kortchnoj or Bobby Fischer are sometimes abusive. But I am not sure that they should be driven away.

5. There is no any titles on IGAME. We are anonymous Russian amateours.

In general, I think that chess cites of all kinds are necessary and useful. And a chessplayer must have a choice: FICGS, IGAME, ICCF, GAMEKNOT, PLAYCHESS.DE, CHESSHERE and so on. Each cite has its own customs and traditions.

By the way, it makes matches between them more interesting. I believe in IGAME anonymous fighters. :-)

Best wishes, Mobutu (my IGAME nickname)


Charlie Neil    (2007-08-10 19:06:19)
Real Names

"Play the board not the man!" Is that not an old proverb? I play on another site, (or two) under a nickname. Chess should be fun and then a serious sport/game/art/science, Morozevitch and those like him play on those sites for 'fun'. And they relish the anonymity. Every large tournament will see a corner occupied with players having 'fun' blitz games between rounds. Legends such as M Tal, Karpov even Fischer had their 'fun' games. (Sorry for calling Tolya a Legend, but he is a living legend.) We all come here for our own reasons but mostly to play chess, (and Go) We know when we sign up here it must be on our real names. What's the problem? Some Websites charge a Fee, ICC for example. Ficgs doesn't.


Artur Saigakov    (2007-08-10 08:25:15)
re

The players of FICGS correctly react on a situation and not added on provocation. Prosecutions toward --- [moderator : name deleted] look funny and child.


Sergei Ivanov    (2007-08-10 10:46:17)
Ilmars

That it will kill --- [moderator : name deleted]'s message of Dmitry, has been placed at a forum:
http: // igt.forum24.ru
It is a forum of command Igame, he closed.
The given message was seen all command Igame.
After the message on murder - captain Igame, has requested acknowledgement of the person who promised to kill Dmitry, that the given message was written by --- [moderator : name deleted] and has received the certificate of master FIDE IM --- [moderator : name deleted].
So there are no doubts, that chess player --- [moderator : name deleted] threatened to kill Dmitry.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-08-10 15:06:49)
?

Ja nje nasjol njiodnovo igroka v IGAME c (2536; +173, =1, -1)... ?!
Pomogitje pozjalsta!

I can't find any player with (2536; +173, =1, -1) in IGAME... ?!
Please help!


Ivan Pljusnin    (2007-08-10 16:21:13)
IGAME ratings

Polina is not published in IGAME rating-list because she has finished her last game more than three months ago. Here is her last game:
http://www.igame.ru/chess/gm.htm?gid=350240

Full IGAME rating-list looks as follows:

1. Polina (2536)
2. curator (2513)
3. GipsyFlame (2495, plays as Sergey Pligin)
4. Mobutu (2476, = Pljusnin Ivan)
5. Many (2475)
6. Sex_God (2463)
7. abc0123 (2461)
8. owl (2461, plays as Dojnikov)
9. klio (2457)
10. Vovanchiki (2455, plays as Kim Vladimir)
...

I do not think that IGAME ratings show real chess strength. For example, Polina and Many haven't played any games with serious opponents. curator, abc0123 and some other players have high ratings because they have finished many hundreds games. And some really strong players have comparatively low ratings. For example, our first board in the team, Vladimir_Lenin (=GM Andrey Sumets) has IGAME rating 2403, #35 in the full rating-list.


---    (2007-08-10 22:34:03)
to Thibault de Vassal

Hello, Thibault. 1) Thibault, I am a professional chess-player. I do not have a necessity to put to death anybody! :-) You can talk with a captain is Sergey Pligin &#8211; he will confirm. You can talk with the administrator of site http://igame.ru/ &#8211; Dmitriy Matrosov &#8211; he will confirm. You can talk with the representatives of Chess Federation of Ukraine &#8211; they will confirm also! I only want to play a chess - on Your beautiful site! Do not I know, who such Sergei Ivanov!??? Do not I know, who such Polina Stefanova (or Romanova)!??? It is obvious impostors which have the fictitious names. I only want to notarize these people, that I am a chess-player, in place of killer! --- [moderator : name deleted] gets victories in chess games, and does not kill people! :-) 2) Do not I understand also, what these people want &#1086;&#1090; the site of http://www.ficgs.com/? Did they create this theme, to slander me? It seemed to me the page of humour at the beginning. But I see that it tired me already. I ask you to take measures! thanks a lot


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-11 04:43:43)
Warning : forum rules !

Hello to all.

It is time for this thread to end, so...

Reminder : No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit.


In other words I'll apply the rules letter by letter from now :


ANYONE WHO WILL POST SUCH ACCUSATIONS AGAIN WILL BE BANNED FROM THE SITE.


PS : The name has been deleted in the whole discussion.

Best wishes, Thibault


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-08-11 13:42:50)
Hi!

Post your best times (using server time, of course), Garvin, please.

If I know it some days before, I can play anytime. :)


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-08-11 23:40:27)
IGame ratings

Just curious but is the player curator listed as no 2 in IGAME ratings (2513) the same player curator on chess-mail.com rated at no 3 (2530)? On chess mail curator plays under an israeli flag.


Ivan Pljusnin    (2007-08-12 03:39:21)
2 Andrew Stephenson

I think, curator on IGAME and curator on chess-mail is the same person. Here is his IGAME info:
country - israel
city - natania
bitth date - 13.03.1963

As far as I know, he was invited in IGAME team but refused to play. However, I am not sure that he is stronger than some of our team players. For example, look at this:
http://www.igame.ru/chess/gm.htm?gid=219934
or at this:
http://www.igame.ru/chess/gm.htm?gid=195761
GipsyFlame (=Pligin) and Red (aka Orlov) play in the IGAME team.


Garvin Gray    (2007-08-12 15:35:05)
me black.

I remember us previously playing a game where I was white. So you can be white this time.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-12 16:17:18)
Contest : Your best quotes !

Once more it would be funny to add new quotes from FICGS players to the site... Feel free to create your own quotes and submit it in this thread ! .. The best ones (best play on words, most funny and so on...) will be displayed [with names] with the famous ones !

Have good quotes :)


Dinesh De Silva    (2007-08-13 06:11:01)
Re: Your best quotes!

"The 'MOVERS & SHAKERS' Of This World Are Those Who Play Chess In The Mornings & Go To The Disco In The Evenings."


Garvin Gray    (2007-08-13 11:42:10)
blitz silver time control


I wish to confirm how this time control works:

(time:0 day,02:00:00, increment:0 day,02:00:00/40 moves)

Does this mean that each player receives two hours initial time, then receives another 2 hours after 40 moves, and then receives no more time after that? Which would mean that each side receives 4 hours total and no increment after move 40.

or does it mean:

That each player receives two hours initial time, then receives another 2 hours after 40 moves and then keeps receiving 2 hours after each further 40 moves made?



Marc Lacrosse    (2007-08-13 11:53:27)
(Unfair) partial withdrawal


A few weeks ago IM Andrey Vovk had a discussion in the forum with Thibault regarding the fact that he did not wish to play in the new WCH although he had formerly enrolled on the waiting list.

As Thibault confirmed that he had to play in tournament FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_M_01__000003, IM Vovk announced that he would forfeit all his games in this tournament.

That's what he seemed to do for more or less 30 days as he let his clock run and so lost five games on time.
Then he seemed to change his mind and began to play in his three remaining games where his flag had not yet fallen.

Although I admit that anybody may decide to play or to resign whenever he wishes, this seems a bit problematic in a qualification tournament : five players got a full point whereas three have to fight one more opponent (and presumably a very strong one)...

For what regards myself I am very happy to play a game against IM Volk but I feel that three of us have not the same chances anymore as the five other ones for qualification ...

I think this situation calls for establishing new rules for qualification tournaments : if a player clearly forfeits a given number of games, then all his games in this tournament should be withdrawn.


Your opinion ?

Marc



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-13 14:03:37)
Sergei Ivanov

1) I didn't say the contrary about this particular point, actually I don't know anything about it... but some private messages were posted (and of course deleted) during the discussion.

2) I didn't say the contrary about this particular point, actually I don't know anything about it... but there were some slander about drugs, weapons or mafia... no proofs, finally this is definitely the place for such accusations.


WARNING :

Writing the name of the accused player in this thread is a way to accuse him again, it will lead to be suspended during a while.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-13 15:05:19)
New rule ?

"If a player clearly forfeits a given number of games, then all his games in this tournament should be withdrawn."


I was to write a new rule to clarify this point but it will be always possible to turn around, and there may have some circumstances. All is in "clearly" but that's no more server decision but human one.. that we try to avoid as far as possible.

We have to make a choice or keep current rules... Any suggestions ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-13 15:09:50)
blitz time control

"Each player receives two hours initial time, then receives another 2 hours after 40 moves and then keeps receiving 2 hours after each further 40 moves made" is correct.


Garvin Gray    (2007-08-13 15:27:50)
new rule wording?


I will admit I didnt reply with the intention of wording a new rule. Was just showing what I thought of the claimed actions.

Current server policy is that any games under 10 moves are not rated. So that seems like a good place to start.

If a player fails to make ten moves in 50 per cent or more of their games in a tournament, they will be withdrawn from that tournament.

The tournament will continue as though the withdrawn player was never part of that tournament.



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. :-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-13 17:16:34)
2 Ivan & Sergey

"pig" doesn't look like much "pig-headed fan" IMO... but of course I may be wrong :)

Anyway, playing with the rules is a tough game where nobody wins, ever.. quite obvious.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-13 17:20:46)
Go Search Engine

From IGN Goama newsletter - http://gogame.info


Go Search Engine, created by Alexander Dinerchtein

There are many sites on the Internet dedicated to Go. The majority are non-profitmaking. They were created by people who enjoy playing Go strictly as amateurs. As a result, they don't invest much money or effort in making their sites popular among search engines, so it's hard to find their sites using Google, Yahoo! or other common tools.

Of course, it's not easy for them to compete with online gaming stores and gambling sites, which spend thousands of US dollars monthly on advertising and optimizing their sites for search engines. The verb "to go" makes the situation even more difficult. If we search for "go magazines" or "go news" on Google, we may find only a few Go-related resources on the first few pages. It's terrible!

The situation with Asian Go masters who have short and common names is also confusing. It's almost impossible to find their games, biographies and photos on the main search engines. We have decided to solve this problem! We have made a special search engine, based on Google Custom Search, which searches information only on Go-related sites.

Right now there are more than 500 sites in our database (99% of all Go-related resources) and we are trying to increase this number daily. We allow people to suggest new sites to crawl. Each site passes moderation, so you can be sure that each side is relevant to the subject of your search. We exclude non-Go related sites, doorways, sites with hidden text and dishonest competitors.

Dear Go-lovers, we hope that our system will be helpful for you!

You can find it here: http://find.gogame.info


Wayne Lowrance    (2007-08-13 18:37:13)
General comments

Hi all. I really enjoy playing here at FICGS. It is really one of the best places for CC. Recently there has been a lot of junk discussions, accusations and unfriendly talk. Only in the last couple of months I guess. Some preety bizzare talk. I hope it gets cleaned up and I feel confident that Thibault has taken notice and does not approve. On the recent post of "unfair withdrawals". My opinion is that players games should be forfeited across the board in a situation like this. Just my thoughts. I really like this team concept. I am enjoying playing very much. I expect to get our team 1 1/2 points. Those of you who might be interested please check out game number 11987. It is/was really loaded with threats and tactical chess right out of the get go. I cannot and should not comment about it now, but will at its conclusion, I think some of you will get a kickout of it. :) bfn Wayne


Garvin Gray    (2007-08-13 20:51:16)
further information


Let me think about it and I will get back to you. I do think that I am on the right track though.

My train of thought had been that in most round robin competitions, if a person withdraws from the tournament before they have played 50% of their games, all their results are wiped for the tournament and the tournament is decided with one less participant.

Secondly, if a player does not appear at the board within one hour of the starting time, they lose (fide otb rule), so I had just extended that to a ficgs equivalent, which is timing out.

As has been said by Marc, Vovk did not play in any of the five games that he timed out in, so he did not 'appear at the board' so to speak.

Thirdly, ficgs does not rate games which last less than ten moves.

What I had done was combined these three areas into a quantifable rule that is 'easy' to enforce.

I was specific about saying 50% or more, instead of over 50%, because all the tournaments here have odd numbers, so each person potentially players an even number of games in each tournament.

This all being said, I think it really only applies to the World Champ sections and maybe to norm tournaments.



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-13 21:00:29)
Ouch...

That's definitely the main fear of correspondence chess players :/ .. and a part of the game. One should always verify a move twice at least...

No move can be taken back, it would be unfair to all players who resigned games before, sorry about that :(


Wayne Lowrance    (2007-08-13 23:40:48)
Obvious blunder

I always feel bad for a player who has done this. In my many years of playing CC I have done this on rare occasion. I remember a game in particuliar. I was playing this very excellent player (2300+) but very very arrogant. I had an easy but complicated clearly won end game. I copied the wrong move and resigned immediately. My Arrogant opponent as it turns out offered a take back, which was within the sites rules. But I declined telling him to me it is the same thing as "touch Move" in OTB chess. So my friend I know your feeling, I think we have all touched this base somewhere along the line. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-14 03:22:05)
General comments

Hi Don.

I fully agree with this... The same problem may happen in OTB swiss tournaments when a few strong players agree results in advance to share the money prizes. That's probably very hard to avoid it, that's why I prefer knockout tournaments. And after all, according to the current rules, nothing prevents to ban systematic abusive players, which is probably enough...


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-08-14 14:19:26)
Playing with rules

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-14 19:45:25)
Chessboard serial killer of Moscow

Source Chessbase - http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4047


Guardian Unlimited: Along the leafy lanes of Moscow's Bitsevsky Park, Alexander Pichushkin was a familiar figure. The 33-year-old supermarket worker played chess under the trees and even invited his opponents for a drink afterwards. But yesterday Mr Pichushkin was in court accused of murdering 49 people and attempting to kill three more, a tally which would make him one of Russia's most deadly killers. According to the prosecution, Mr Pichushkin lured his victims, who were mostly elderly men, to a quiet part of the park. He then attacked them from behind with a hammer. Mr Pichushkin boasted that he had killed 63 people. He said he drew a cross on his chessboard after each murder. His plan to fill all 64 squares came unstuck in June 2006 when he went for a walk in the park with Marina Moskalyova, 36, a supermarket colleague.

Times Online: The prosecution claims that [Pichushkin] wanted to kill more people than Andrei Chikatilo, Russia’s worst known serial killer, who murdered 53 people. “He dreamt of surpassing Chikatilo and going down in history,” said Yuri Syomin, the Moscow prosecutor. The Russian press suggested last week that he would enter Guinness World Records by being charged with 62 murders. But in the event he was charged with only 52 killings over a five-year period. That compared with the 53 murders of women and children in the Rostov area of southern Russia for which Chikatilo was executed in 1994.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2252021.ece


Ivan Pljusnin    (2007-08-14 23:32:50)
:-)

By the way, Andrey Chikatilo was the first name of Sex_God on FICGS. Then he had to change it because it was too famous. On another forum he used a photo of our "chessplayer" Pichushkin as his avatar. So this topic will please him, I think ;-)


Thomas Tamayo    (2007-08-15 14:22:19)
Possible solution...?

What if a forfeit of all games occurs as soon as one game is lost (on time or resignation) without at least 2 moves (one by B, one by W). It would be easy for an abusive player to get around this rule by playing a move before forfeit. The benefit would be that this offense is bannable (easier to find abuse). It seems fair - players in a tournament should be prepared to play!


Thomas Tamayo    (2007-08-15 23:35:43)
Dead groups

The typical process is to enter a scoring mode with both players. Each player marks dead stones (if there is a disagreement play can be resumed or the game can be adjudicated). Once dead stones have been marked manually the game can be scored, though it is important to keep in mind special circumstances such as seki - the only way to have dame (zero value) points in Chinese counting AFAIK.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-16 03:23:47)
Dead groups

That's a bit harder at correspondence Go since players may be not connected at the same time to discuss the dead groups. But anyway that's not a big difference, players can use the 'Score' function, remove dead groups then eventually write the score in public comments. By the way, is the score so important for spectators ? .. Knowing W+12,5 may not help to understand why White won :) .. Moves are all IMO.

I'll add the "lost on time" SGF comment tomorrow.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-16 14:29:07)
RE[B+T]

Ok, the SGF tag RE[] ie. RE[B+T] or RE[W+R] will be displayed in a few minutes. Available in SGF files (download) and SGF java viewer.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-18 02:46:19)
Yes

Hello Ulrich, see 'Lightning tournaments' it is possible to play ie. chess blitz bronze (2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves), lightning bronze (30 minutes + 1 minute / move) or bullet bronze (10 minutes + 20 seconds / move) games.

You just have to find an opponent... (you may try the chat bar)


Charlie Neil    (2007-08-19 16:56:18)
Draws and wins

Hello Everyone. I have just checked my chess rating and win/loss/draw ratio. I haven't 'won' that many games. The vast majority are 'time-outs' as my opponents silently withdraw. Well, that's how it is at the bottom of the table. Are there a lot of 'time-outs' elsewhere on Ficgs?. You can expect that in a free site and players do go for whatever reasons. But my number of draws, 6, I think. Very low. I don't engage in chats with my opponents very much, just because I can barely concentrate on the game. anyway the question(s) is(are) why so few draws? Are Ficgs players so good?


Philip Roe    (2007-08-23 17:31:35)
draws and wins

Those statistics might have some curiosity value but perhaps not much deep meaning. Especially in the lower sections, all of the games defaulted in ten moves or fewer give a false impression of decisive play. Even if they are excluded, I feel sure that the proportion of draws is much higher for stronger players, so I dont know what an average percentage would tell us.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-27 02:27:07)
Go-Endgame at ficgs-GUI

Hello Ulrich.

This is the current message displayed before to enter a Go tournament :

"Rules for Go are chinese rules, as defined by the Chinese Weiqi Association. Both players must play until one resign, both players pass (then resign or call referee) or game is adjudicated. It's up to the players to discuss the score at the end of the game, so calling referee should be exceptional. Scoring method is area scoring with chinese counting. Positional superko rule apply, it's impossible to repeat a previous board position ('incorrect move' message would be displayed). Please note that you can pass, just entering 'pass' [then push 'move' button and 'confirm' your move] but one player has to resign or call referee to end the game."

Best wishes, Thibault


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-28 12:42:38)
Who is chess champion in your country ?

Maxime Vachier-Lagrave just won the France chess championships in Aix-Les-Bains, after a great tournament (other players in National A tournament were Vladislav Tkachiev, Andrei Sokolov, Christian Bauer, Josif Dorfman, Robert Fontaine, Laurent Fressinet, Jean-Marc Degraeve, Anatoly Vaisser, Igor Nataf, Olivier Renet, Laurent Guidarelli)... Thal Abergel won the National B tournament.

Now the question is :

Do you know who is champion in your country ? .. Not only to know who is champion, but to see if this information is well known or not...


Andrey Sumets    (2007-08-29 09:46:38)
Ukraine

GM Zahar Efimenko I'm sure because I played in this tournament:)


Christophe Czekaj    (2007-08-29 13:42:09)
Correspondence Chess without computers ?

Is there anyone interested about this topic ? Could we imagine a tournament in wich players agree to play without search engines ? For example, with a sort of gentlemen agreement to not use computer's help ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-29 14:15:49)
Correspondence Chess without computers ?

Hi Christophe !

I still don't believe anymore in this human-only correspondence chess, maybe that's why we play Big Chess ;)

But we could create a new unrated category in Chess Special Tournaments : FICGS__CHESS__NO_ENGINES_TOURNAMENT__000001

I'm not sure... Anyone interested ?


Charlie Neil    (2007-08-29 23:23:43)
UK

Jacob Aagaard, playing under the Scottish flag!. (C'mon!)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-30 16:05:11)
Without chess engines

It has been discussed here in the past, including this thread :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=2094


Letsplaychess.com, Itsyourturn.com, Gameknot.com and other chess servers & organizations offer correspondence chess games without chess engines, simply by 'forbidding' it...

We'll see, I will create a new unrated category (probably next week).

Best wishes, Thibault


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-31 09:40:32)
Neuroanatomy of a chess player

http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/chess

http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/files/maverickphilosopher-IMG_0256.JPG


Quite funny, and interesting blog :)


Christophe Czekaj    (2007-09-01 12:43:09)
Free of chess engine

Thanks Thibault for reconducing me to this past forum. Very interesting. The part about "real" elo and correspondance elo is edifying. I know correspondence players could have a huge better elo than their real life one (if they have any) : more time to think, no stress, no pressure (or less) but I believe players who play without engines have a coorespondence rating approximately equal to their over the board one. Personnaly, I play coorespondence chess to try new opening, to train generally since I cannot play over the board so often since 2 years. I often play from the office, wtih sometimes a couple of minutes on a move, or sometimes I go home with the moves to think about my response in over the board conditions (30 minutes maximum on one move). My correspondence elo is around 2000 (with a good start with a peak to 2098, but declining since ;-D) and my over the board rating is now 1990 (with a peak to 2040 last year, and a rapid elo around 2100). So I sometimes feel a bit fed up with playing against chess engines, notably, but perhaps I'm wrong I have remarked that since I got an advantage, often opponents defend very very well, like computers in fact. Ok it's part of the game, and I know t could be a good training, fight hard to win a game, display a good technique, etc. but it could be disappointing to have the impression of play with a human opponent and have to finish with an another, i.e. the computer. Perhaps could we compare over the board elo, with correspondence elo to know if there is computer help or not ? Anyway, a special category of tournament will be great, and I'm eager to play with other ficgs "OTB-correspondence" players.


Philip Roe    (2007-09-01 20:04:25)
engine-free chess

When I started playing here about three months ago I did not realise that engine use was allowed (or even encouraged, according to some) What did attract me were some features like being able to see ongoing games of other players, which makes the experience more like a "real" OTB event. I have played on other sites (IECG,ICC) where engines are forbidden, and ICC at least claims to have software that detects cheating. I play without an engine (but using books)simply because I enjoy it more. I dont care all that much what you do as long as you play interesting moves. It seems very clear from the games that lower-rated players certainly dont use engines and higher-rated players probably have to. At my kind of level (1900ish) it seems optional, but the suspicion that my opponent analyses with an engine steers me away from certain types of position (speculative sacs, or clear strategy but complex tactics) which is a shame because that may be where the position wants to go. The previous thread got very heated, and Im not sure why. One suggestion was to let non-computer users go away and play funny little unrated games by themselves. That is not attractive. Im not interested in playing walkover games against weak opponents. Rating is essential. Other than that, Im very interested to find out what other people think. That will determine whether or not I come to feel at home here.


Philip Roe    (2007-09-01 22:01:21)
quotes

As the days dwindle down.. to a precious few...(Maxwell Anderson, September Song.. or any CC-player)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-02 13:26:25)
Ratings

Christophe, do you use no chess engines here ?

About ratings, probably most 2000+ correspondence chess players use chess engines whereas 1800- don't, so OTB players shouldn't play rated games with centaurs so often. Maybe new players should start with a 1800 rating (like ICCF) instead of 1600 so that most OTB players can't meet centaurs, what do you think ?

"ICC at least claims to have software that detects cheating" : You mean 'obvious' cheating... :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-02 14:21:35)
China, chess and Go champion ?

The match between chinese and russian chess teams just ended in Nizhniy Novgorod. Both russian men and women teams lost to chinese by, respectively, a 24.5-25.5 and 23-27 score. Finally, China beat Russia by 52.5-47.5 points.

More details - http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4084


Chess seems to be much less played than Xiangqi in China, the chinese are probably able to take the crown in every board game, soon a chinese world champion for chess ? Practice, practice and practice... Their only secret ? :)

... or was the russian team simply not strong enough ?


Still waiting for more chinese friends here at FICGS, but internet seems to have its own limits too :/


Viktor Savinov    (2007-09-03 12:27:34)
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000001

Two months tournament FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000001 is not formed. Perhaps, to lower a rating of the admission up to 2490-2470? To admit in tournament of GM FIDE & GM ICCF, having put them a conditional rating 2500? Perhaps, to dispatch players personal invitations?


Christophe Czekaj    (2007-09-03 12:53:52)
no chess engines

Hello Thibault, I play here without chess engine. Anyway, recently I tried to play "hippopotamus defence", (with no good result yet, I have to admit) so a computer is no use, it doesn't understand anything, but perhaps it's hippopotamus which is wrong, not the computer ;-D. Anyway a difficult defence in correspondence play). I began on this site with 2000, and so my elo was too high to play against human only ? I don't see how it's possible a sofware detect computer use ? Ok we see strange, computer-like moves sometimes, but... Perhaps two players, at the beginning of the game can agree to not use computer. Again about chess engine, I use a computer to record the moves (chessbase),to gain time, and replay fast the moves to get to the actual position, but my chess engines (an old fritz (5) and chess tiger (14) all that on a old PC) would certainly suffer a lot use against more recent chess engines ;-D Like Philip, I like to play on ficgs and it would be nice to plmay against more human opponent. I play one tournament on itsyourturn since last year, and I saw a lot more human mistakes than on ficgs. So, how explain it, I sometimes feel more comfortable on itsyourturn, but still I do like the spirit of ficgs, match against RU, the tournaments, forum, nice people to meet on the board, and so on


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-03 18:25:05)
Ajudication

Thibault is there any way for the sever to link to table bases and automatically give a result? I face playing 39 moves to give mate in a queen v R + P ending


Philip Roe    (2007-09-03 18:59:27)
CC without engines

Thibault, Christophe, All I did was to pass on that ICC CLAIMS to be able detect computer use. They dont say how they do it. Maybe they are just bluffing, or maybe they have an algorithm that kind of works and they dont want people to work around it by knowing how it works. The reason I dont use engines is because I want to take full credit for any wins I get. I can imagine using an engine and telling myself that I will just use it to prevent oversights. But I cant control what the engine will tell me. It might recommend a move that tells me that I am planning to attack the wrong target. If I then switch plans and win, what is left for me to feel proud of? But I can understand that others may feel differently, and there is much to be said for a site where everything is allowed because it gets around the issue of making a rule that is certainly very hard to enforce. But just because that rule does not exist on FICGS, it seems to me that if somebody on FICGS says that they are not using an engine, then you can probably believe them. The problem with other sites is that if a player with an umimpressive rating fires back a series of accurate moves very quickly in a difficult situation then you suspect that he is using an engine (although he promised not to) and there is not much you can do about it. If the same thing happens on FICGS you are pretty sure that he is using an engine, but you have already agreed that he can, so it doesnt irritate you. For that reason, I think that a computers-barred tournament might actually make sense on FICGS because those who want to use engines can legitimately do so. But for me, it would need to be chess that means something, with at least rating points at stake. Interestingly, Christophe and I are drawn in the same tournament, so we can declare at least that one game computer-free!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-03 23:41:38)
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000001

Actually this waiting list was initially open to 2600+ players. As there was too few players of this level, the range was changed to 2500+ a few months ago.

Now, as Viktor is the only player rated 2600+ who entered the waiting list, I suppose we could change the range one more time...


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-04 10:54:46)
Adjudication

There are still players here that don't even know what actually is a chess engine (true)... Even if the rules must avoid human judgement as much as possible, I think the main 'referee' should remain a human, not a program. Do we play correspondence chess for the result only ? What program could say what endgame is beautiful and worth to be played...


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-04 10:56:11)
2470+

The waiting list will accept players rated 2470+ in a few minutes.


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-05 05:04:29)
Adjudication

Thibault I understand that to some players it might be unacceptable to have the game suddenly declared lost or drawn in a Q v Q+P ending or R+P v N+p ending. In my view these players should opt for the non computer tournaments you are going to set up. To cover the point raised: yes there can remain a need for a referee which should be human. Linking to table bases does not affect the beauty of an endgame Thibault its just a small range at the moment of 6 piece endings. There is no aesthetic value in following the moves advised by the tablebase the value is in getting there. Every strong player is consulting the tablebases when analysing positions leading to 6 piece situations so automating table base adjudications in say A M and WCC tournaments seems completely logical. Yes strong tournaments are played only for the sporting result Thibault I dont think anyone would choose an inferior move for the beauty they might try it to take a risk to win by complicating the game. I have seen 30+ moves games of yours of absolute poisened pawn Najdorf theory leading to a dead draw ..... I guess what I am trying to avoid is opponents dragging out games which are table base won. In the case of reasonable strong opponents 2100+ in my view this is because they just dont want to resign. by the way how do you call for the referee?


Garvin Gray    (2007-09-05 06:38:59)
engine use


I find this thread and interesting and surprising.

I joined this site specifically because it allows engine use and that is what I was after.

I play in otb tournaments and dont really enjoy playing 'human only' chess on the net. I guess that is just me :)

Now I feel a little uncomfortable because the two main posters in this thread are opponents in a couple of my games.

On a different note, I wish posters would learn to separate their paragraphs :P



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-05 12:42:02)
Adjudication

Hello again Andrew, thanks for discussing this interesting point that is a part of the discussion about the Dead Man's Defence. See this thread :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=2828


There is no way to avoid a player to last a game IMO... New rules first mean new ways to get round it and too many rules should be avoided. I still think there are some 'tricky' moves in tablebases, at least beautiful moves so it should be up to the winner to call the referee or not and it should be up to the referee to adjudicate it or not.

Maybe time will make me change my mind, but not today I think :)

Best, Thibault


Jason Repa    (2007-09-05 15:11:44)
HAL9000: "I think you missed it Dave"

The fact of the matter is that you'll never be able to tell for certain if someone is consulting a program or not in corr. chess, so why fret about it?
You have several options:

1) There is otb chess. Unless your opponent is pulling out his palm computer with pocket fritz in the washroom, you can be reasonably certain it's a mano e mano game.
2)There is also fast internet chess on a secure server such as playchess.com. I'm not sure how secure ICC is these days. If the games are 3 min or shorter you can be pretty certain it's human chess at least 99.9% of the time.

If you want to play corr. chess, fine, but why play a game called "let's worry about whether or not my opponent is making good on his promise to not look at the rybka engine suggestions". Just use it for what modern corr. chess really is...which is an excellent form of group study to prepare for REAL chess, ie, OTB chess.


Garvin Gray    (2007-09-05 16:07:52)
hmmm


I think this adjudication argument takes on a whole new perspective now that some players have said that they dont use computer engines.

I was all for adjudication when I thought almost all players on here used engines (and hence tablebases), now I am not so sure cause some players are not using engines.



Glen D. Shields    (2007-09-06 04:20:15)
Engine Use - My Take

The switch from postcard to server chess has been a wonderfully positive experience.

The transition from human chess to silicon chess on the otherhand has left me bored and wondering if there's still a purpose to the game.

Every tournament is the same. The tournament starts with 6 to 10 players. The moves transition out of the opening at lightning speed, then "Fritz and Rybka time" begins. Turn on your favorite engine and there's a >95% probablitity that your opponents' moves mimic the top engines. There are no surprises, nothing interesting, just boring repetition.

Only a few percent of the chess world can outplay the top engines on fast hardware. Human intervention is like adding a drop of water to a bucket of water and thinking you've made a difference. Most matches are one computer versus another computer and the results are predictable: 1-2 wins, 1-2 losses, most of the games drawn.

I don't oppose engine use. There's no way to enforce it, so there's hardly a reason to forbid it. I do question, however, its purpose. It's just as easy and entertaining for me to play against my computer as it is to play your computer ... and I can do it on my timeline not yours.

I played a friendly young man earlier this year in the ICCF. He was vocal and proud of his high rating and good reults. He'd been playing for less than a year. He eventually admitted through our friendly chat that he hardly knew the moves and rules. He had no idea what "en passant" was or the basic theory of the openings. It took everything I had to save my position and earn a draw from him. That game was "my epithany." I made up my mind to take a break and reconsider what CC is all about. Engine use has been a great technical accomplishment, but has it made CC more enjoyable? Not for me. I hope most of you feel differently.

Good luck and good chess to all :-)


Garvin Gray    (2007-09-06 07:36:52)
engine use


Jason- Thibault already spelled it out for you in pretty simple terms that he doesn't believe in human-only correspondence chess. I guess if there are enough people who don't want to deal with reality whining about it he'll cave in.

Hello Jason,

I think the better response is if someone wants to play 'human only' correspondence chess, there are plenty of other sites 'out there' to satisfy.
Rather than 'cave in' I am most likely am wrong as Thibault is of course not keen to lose members, but I can see more bitching if human only chess is specifically catered for as players will 'bitch' about other players who they suspect of using engine assistance.

I enjoy the freestyle component of play is what I enjoy here and the good nature of the site. I think a main part of this is that there are no misconceptions about what the rules are regarding engine use.



Jason Repa    (2007-09-06 08:15:18)
engine use

[moderator : partly deleted]

I explained quite clearly in my previous post that.... "you'll never be able to tell for certain if someone is consulting a program or not in corr. chess, so why fret about it?"

The truth is, there are no corr. sites that can satisfy a desire to play non computer-assisted chess because corr. chess doesn't work that way anymore. Anyone can simply say they aren't consulting a program but unless they are right in front of you as they are making the moves you'll never know for sure. (...) Just accept reality for what it is. Are you going to try to have a footrace with someone on a scooter? Of course not. So why complain about computer use on corr. chess? Re-read my previous post in this thread a few times until you understand.

There is something to be said for human only chess. It is my favourite form of the game. Really, the only form. All else is just study and analysis. You can call it "playing" if you want, but unless you're making the moves strictly on your own brainpower, it's not playing chess.

I play rated OTB tournaments at time controls ranging from 5 minutes to 6 hours. I also play hundreds of bullet games a week online where I am certain that there is no computer involvement. To me this makes allot more sense than whining and crying about the advent of Fritz (and other programs). It's called accepting realilty.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-06 12:29:10)
Glen D. Shields

Hello Glen !

We had this discussion before, indeed chess engines killed imagination and a part of the fun. The game has changed a lot, more since Rybka appeared. Correspondence chess is now how to beat Rybka, that's a fact... and a new challenge.

Did you try another game, like Big Chess or Go (I really enjoy playing these games), where engines are completely useless and now both rated at FICGS ? My two cents ;)


Garvin Gray    (2007-09-06 17:35:00)
Playchess freestyle tournament

Am curious, how many of our members are playing in the playchess freestyle tournament, starting in about 24 hours: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4093


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-06 17:41:43)
Playchess freestyle tournament

Yes, it would be nice to follow them... I remember that at least 2 of us played in a previous playchess freestyle tournament.


Hannes Rada    (2007-09-06 21:19:59)
Who is cc champion in your country ?

This should be the right topic, because we are playing correspondence chess :-) Austria: Rüdiger Löschnauer won the 27th and the 28th correspondence chess championship of Austria. This is a novelty for our country because no reigning champion could defend his crown so far !


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-06 22:10:04)
Rybka

Hi Thibault Could you say a bit more about Rybka how it has changed things? I have only ever used Fritz. CC for me is about chess research finding the truth about certain positions and openings and it helps in "real" chess. Its a fairly level playing field as all the programs are affordable but it sounds like us non rybka folk are at a disadvantage! And in the real chess world computer assisted work is obviously a huge part of the game.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-06 22:48:47)
Norms

Actually, title norms (ie. FICGS rated chess tournaments) depend on the number of points achieved in a tournament by a player and generally the elo average of the players in the tournament (that define the number of points required in the tournament for a title norm).

I have to update the rules to explain how it is calculated exactly.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-06 23:29:46)
Rybka

In my opinion, the whole correspondence chess level has improved with Rybka. So it is probably a new step towards the 100% draws also (at the highest level)... Fortunately the last step will never happen ;)

Anyway that's why some strong players are bored with correspondence chess.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-06 23:45:06)
Chinese counting

The counting is the main and best point of the Go game IMO. With chinese counting, Go looks to me less material, more abstract and is probably most difficult to understand and program (Go engines). That's the only reason why I chose this counting.

By the way, does anyone know some statistics : How many players use chinese counting, japanese counting or another one ?

Do you agree with this point of view ?


Garvin Gray    (2007-09-07 03:31:59)
entering

Well I am playing under the name pawntobewild.


Christophe Czekaj    (2007-09-07 12:44:20)
To Jason

Hello Jason ! It’s just a question to have the possibility to play correspondence chess (for fun, not neccesarily studying or analysis, just the pleasure of finding moves, ideas (you know, what Bronstein called imagination) not rating, not to be classified as expert, or I don’t know what…) with people without computer. If they lie and use computer ; OK, we can’t be sure, but I’m certain you could accept that some players can trust other players when they say they don’t use computers. For example, I trust Philip when he said this, it’s just a question of being a gentleman. If there are cheaters ok, so what… Rybka will win And I don’t undestand your topic about class of players : I hope I‘ve the right of posting some commentaries on this forum, despite the fact being largely behind you in term of rating… I think we can still play chess without computer, and with rating or not, it’s the same game for me. Philip and I just think it could be kind to play with other players with a kind of gentleman’s agreement. Sorry if it bother you


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-14 02:33:32)
FIDE World Championship 2007

The FIDE World Championship 2007 just started in Mexico. A double round-robin tournament with 8 players and a US $1.3 million prize fund. Players are Vladimir Kramnik, Peter Svidler, Alexander Morozevich, Levon Aronian, Viswanathan Anand, Boris Gelfand, Alexander Grischuk and Peter Leko.

Round 1, all games drawn... Any favourite ?


Johann Piek    (2007-09-07 23:23:24)
Enrolment Cancellation

How do I cancel if I enrolled for a tournament, and I don't want to play in it anymore?


Phil Cook    (2007-09-08 05:04:08)
Long Shot

AB's of course,but will be on the look out now France lost,They will play one another in the semi's


Jason Repa    (2007-09-08 08:27:57)
To Christophe

[moderator : partly deleted]

You refuse to accept the reality of the modern corr chess experience and prefer to bicker instead of simply seeking OTB (or fast online) chess to get exclusively human vs human play. I've spelled out this theme repeatedly here.


Dirk Ghysens    (2007-09-14 08:56:24)
Blondes

Why don't blondes play go?
Because they prefer coloured smarties.


Dirk Ghysens    (2007-09-14 09:28:07)
Openings

Why is the Indian Defense so strong?
Because there are more than a billion Indians.

What is the best weapon against a Sicilian?
An AK47 ... or fleeing.

Why doesn't anybody play the American Defense?
Because its moves are 'classified'.

Why wasn't the Scotch popular in the 1920's?
Because of the Prohibition.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-08 12:19:39)
self removal

It shouldn't be possible for a player to change several times his position in the waiting list. Like any chess move it should be the responsability of the player IMO.


Jason Repa    (2007-09-08 12:26:56)
"No engines" Tournaments

I suspect you'll get a whole new breed of forum posts where accusations will be disguised as compliments such as: "Johnny So and So really played an excellent game! He was accurate like a machine against me", etc.
You'll also hear allot of twisted soapbox rants about how "morally superior" the allegedly non engine consulting players are.
This is what the forums on second rate sits such as RedHotPawn, ChessHere, etc are filled with, in addition to absurd claims of so-called "engine detection technology", which is obviously impossible. On RHP in particular, the site admin are software developers with extremely modest uscf ratings in the C-class range, yet somehow they deem themselves qualified to make such difficult judgment calls, which are at best a probability guess, even for a strong chess player.

I thought it was precisely this kind of nonsense you were trying to avoid when you decided to make it an up front policy of "freestyle" chess at will at FICGS.


Johann Piek    (2007-09-08 18:27:23)
Thank you

Hi Thibault ... it's all right ... I'll play it ... cheers, anyway ...


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-09 15:28:33)
FICGS update & wish list

Hello to all.

You probably noticed a new extension to the chat bar, it delivers some random messages and news (forum, problems, public comments, entries, login). It also automatically warns a player if he started an advanced tournament [bullet, lightning or blitz games], which is more convenient... As it refreshes every minute, you shouldn't log out automatically anymore until you close the chat bar.


Other changes :

- Serbia & Montenegro (SCG) has become Serbia (SRB) and Montenegro (MNE).
- New players will start with a 1800 chess rating.
- Lightning tournaments become Advanced tournaments (blitz, lightning, bullet)
- New quotes added from the forum :)
- Some Google optimizations...
- Waiting list for unrated no-engines tournaments is open !
- Minor bugs corrected.


I did not implement the private messages facility yet... I feel it could create some problems (not technically), I still have to think about it.


This is probably a good moment to open a wish list and discuss all changes you'd like to see on the site...

Best wishes, Thibault


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-09 16:17:20)
Waiting list is open

The rules are : "FICGS chess no engines tournaments are unrated single round-robin tournaments, involving 7 players. The special rule for these tournaments is that chess engines, databases and opening books are strictly forbidden. All games are played in 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves. Norms are not possible."


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-09 16:59:52)
2 games matches

In this "case", you may also choose rapid or standard silver tourneys that are 2-players 2-games matches :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-09 21:43:59)
board diagrams + conditionals

I understand that some openings are quite "boring" to play :) .. and I saw conditional moves on Chessfriend server. Why is it disabled at ICCF server ?

Conditional moves is a quite difficult feature to implement, that's true (even more with several games). Also there are many ways to imagine it ! .. But the main question is "would it be fair" ?


Jason Repa    (2007-09-09 22:48:45)
To: Garvin Gray

I don't "think" you're a troll my mentally challenged little friend. I KNOW you're a troll. This thread was about FICGS Hardware + Software. Your post here had nothing whatsoever to do with that. You posted only to harass and annoy. That is what a troll does.

Gray, I'd play you for $100 a game anytime, but playing against your program is not playing chess with you. You would never dream of playing with me wtihout having your program make the moves for you. You know it, and I know it. I'd beat you even easier than I beat llmars Cirulis, when he decided to try some HUMAN ONLY chess with me.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-09 23:47:20)
unfair

:) .. I saw that in ICCF forum / TCCMB.. But that's interesting anyway.

Conditionals may be unfair because ie. it will be easier for one player to use it in some lines.. anyway this will be discussed to death also :)


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-09-10 00:55:51)
Rating lists problem

The rating lists no longer display all of the players that should be displayed. Even with all filters off it only displays 518 players. Is this intentional?


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-09-10 01:54:09)
Confessions of a Magic 8 Ball ;)

Well, first off I started with the provisional rating of 1200, then I signed up for a bunch of tournaments and started playing 60+ games. Next, add irregular Internet access with no conditions to perform any reasonable analysis of games in progress and the pressing requirement to answer 40 moves in one go, only to go trough the same at the next soonest opportunity.

I "solved" the problem by not playing and forgetting about the server for about a month (needed that). For that reason I lost more than 250 points (254 to be exact).

Needless to say, the recovery of my rating to any decent level is slow, as, in the meantime I have gone trough periods when I played little chess here, or even none, with games in progress.

Your speculated reasons for my supposed intrusion here (it might be argued that your first post here is the real intrusion) are just plain wrong.

I also don't find ELO ratings to be a valid measure of a man. The real reason I "intrude" in the matter is that I like the general atmosphere here. I am also quiet aware that I am probably the lowest rated poster here, but, before few minutes ago, I was not aware of your rating (good job, while we're on the subject) or Garvin's, for that matter.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-10 13:32:41)
Netiquette (rules update)

11. General rules

11. 1. Netiquette

Computer assistance is authorized, as any other kind of help but in the "no-engines" tournaments.

It is possible to leave public comments for your games. No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and will lead to get a limited access to the server during one month a first time, two months the second one and so on. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-10 14:43:59)
Discussing the new rule

About this rule : "Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and will lead to get a limited access to the server during one month a first time, two months the second one and so on. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private."

As a player pointed out that this rule was really hard and suggested to me to punish verbal attacks only, here's my answer (to be discussed, of course) :

I did not ban provocation, I just try to limit the "discussions" that follow... Provocation calls provocation and progressively more and more, I don't think that any argument is useful when the aim is not to convince but only to provoke... So, how to limit that with clear rules ? What's exactly a verbal attack, where is the limit ? Quite hard to say... How to avoid such discussions to burn quickly ?

If you have any idea of a better rule, feel free to suggest... What most players like in this site is the friendly atmosphere... Such discussions are boring for most of them IMO.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-10 15:41:00)
"FICGS Hardware + Software"

I'll delete insulting and provocative posts if concerned players ask for and "at the moderator's discretion". Otherwise, this thread will remain as the explanation of this rule.


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-10 18:20:05)
Insults

Thibault you have been over tolerant of abusive posting in the forum already and that has contributed to the situation. Sorry to say that but it must be obvious to anyone who has read the discussions. The key problem is personal attacks on people and not provocation. It is not acceptable to respond to a point with a string of insults denigrating person. Incidentally Thibault is it not possible simply to deny someone access to the blog so there posts cannot be seen by anyone as a punishment and they receive a message to that effect? No need to deny or retrict them access to the server as a whole. This is what ICC do in the same situation. Also if someone is punished in this way there is no need for it to be broadcast it is enough they know that their posts or responses cannot be read. So the offender carries on using the server and playing chess but cannot make posts - but of course they can read them!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-10 18:39:27)
Insults

Hello Andrew.

"Limited access to the server" means (like ICC) that a player still can play his moves, but can't post anymore, ie. on the forum. About tolerance, I have been less tolerant in the past, but like in any game, some turned round the rules and the result was not so good. Trust me, it is not possible to say after 15 messages (provocation -> insults) who "started" and who must be banned.

Anyway, "I will always beat you ! - Show me, let's play a game !" won't be considered as provocation, but provocation about the person (including the IQ / rating 'formula') has not its place in this forum IMO.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-10 22:42:32)
chess engines

First of all, every chess engines is a choice, ie. about selectivity, and has consequences & weaknesses in particular positions. Fruit/Toga algorithm is really good but it has probably still much less chess knowledge than Rybka. I think Rybka's algorithm is really better also, Vasik Rajlich added some "human features" while other programs still think about chess like mathematics.

Rybka changed correspondence chess because Fritz or Junior (very strong chess machines) added to a good chess player makes a good centaur while Rybka is "almost" a centaur itself... Consequently a weak chess player can reach quite easily a 2100/2200 rating. That's the main reason...

Of course Rybka will always make some bad moves, but it/she builds an advantage move after move against other engines in most cases in 'calm' positions. HIARCS, that was told during a long time to think most like a human, was not a strong 'chess machine'. I don't know much about Hiarcs 11/12, but Rybka is a major improvement in this way IMO.


Jason Repa    (2007-09-10 22:48:06)
chess engines

I don't think it's a coincidence that the strongest commercial program was designed by a strong IM chess player.

It's always amazed me that the majority of chess engine programmers know very little about the game of chess itself, such as Stefan Meyer-Kahlen's Shredder. I think there comes a point in the decision making process where your human chess knowledge because an important factor.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-10 23:12:01)
Chat Rules

That's why I think this rule is quite good... ;)

The starter (provocation only, insults leading to be permanently banned) may just see his post deleted, nothing more. Of course, provocation shouldn't lead to get a limited access immediately !

The one who responds, particularly with insults (even ie. "hypocrite", or "thief"), has a greater responsability IMO. This remains a judgement and this has nothing to do in this forum. Better is to warn a moderator.


Mladen, this is not irrelevant because provocating posts will be deleted, such discussions won't happen anymore and noone will (should) get a limited access !

Trust me, my aim is not to ban players... I and other moderators will be fair, so let's try this rule, I'll change it if it doesn't work.

Jason, insults are insults, rules are rules : No reason & no evidence will allow anyone to insult anyone in this forum anymore.


Graham Woodcock    (2007-09-11 16:59:01)
My two penneth

I've never used a chess programme to help me (as anyone that's played me will probably be able to tell!). Unless there's money at stake, what's the point? I would have thought that the idea of playing chess online is to keep your mind active and to improve your own play by playing more frequently...but I guess there are probably a few cyber warriors around that will do whatever it takes to win... But I don't see what pleasure they can take from winning if some highly advanced chess engine has done all the work.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-11 17:24:22)
"Why to use a program"

Some elements of answer :

http://www.ficgs.com/forum_read_857-Why-do-you-play-corrchess.html


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-12 07:36:30)
chess engines endgame play

Right Thibault! I am becoming more impressed with Rybka's endgame knowledge. It seems to have the extra pawn on just one side situations well understood. Is there any engine that is recognised as being the strongest at endgames? This is certainly an area where cc has helped me enormously as it has forced me to get some endgame books (and actually study them!)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-12 07:36:52)
chess engines endgame play

" It seems to have the extra pawn on just one side situations well understood." .. It is undoubtly one of the keys of its success.

As far as I know, Shredder has always been said to be the strongest engine in the endgames.


Gene Sensabaugh    (2007-09-12 16:18:56)
Gene Sensabaugh

I am still trying to make a decision to use a chess engine or not.If for example my moves are the majority of the time according to Fritz10 are inferior I can't see how it's going to help me accept to gain rating points.Say during a game I consult Fritz and for example I have overlooked a mate in 10.Which move would you choose?I have serious doubts that many people on here can beat Fritz10 unless they are grandmaster class.In a game you consult your engine select between it's choices and select one of"it's" choices.You receive a move and the process repeats.So why compete against human players most likely inferior to engine analysis?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-12 16:37:07)
Advanced chess

Gene, I don't see your point ?! .. Why centaurs compete against humans players.. There's no answer, it just happens because rules 'also' allow not to use a chess engine.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-09-12 14:11:13)
Respect to Christophe Czekaj

No matter - are He only human player or not. :)


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


Philip Roe    (2007-09-13 00:37:23)
Andrew Stephenson

You post makes a lot of sense, and I can absolutely agree that being a centaur can be fun and educational (Centaurs in Greek mythology, by the way, were a highly respected race, and usually described as happy) However, I am puzzled by something which maybe you or someone else can explain.

You and others assert that playing the engines first choice every time will drop points against an intelligent centaur. Does it not follow that a centaur should have a higher rating than its engine? But in fact the ratings quoted for the top engines are substantially higher than the ratings of anyone on FICGS, which seems a paradox.

Does the explanation lie in unsynchronized rating systems, or am I just missing something? This question has nothing to do with value judgements, merely with satisfying a curiosity.


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-13 06:35:12)
Ratings

Hi Phillip I don't know what "an unsynchronised rating system" is. However at the rate of play 40/20 for example I am not sure I would be able to improve so much on the engines first choices. At the free style tournament stand alones do pretty well. If I needed 45 minutes to find one best move in the Topalov Kramnik line..... So yes a centaur can easily have a higher rating than the engine(s) he is using at cc time rates (on the same hardware). For one thing the centaur can use different engines and for another its a bit like taking a move back all the time and pushing past any horizon limitations plus there is the restrictions of opening books that all engines have. However I am not going to play my own cc games against Fritz 10 (Fritz 9 in my case)by giving it 1 day or even 10 minutes per move because I am not motivated - you need the human element for that. Hope that helps.


Philip Roe    (2007-09-14 17:53:56)
Andrew Stephenson

Thanks for your explanations. They were helpful. Let me try to say what I meant by unsynchronised rating systems (maybe I could have found a better word)

The difference between your rating and mine is a measure of how likely you are to beat me, and that relationship between rating difference and percentage score is similar for any system I have come across.

However, the absolute numbers mean little if anything. There was a widespead belief for some time that US players were overrated, even though the system worked fine internally. My understanding is that from time to time organisations check to see if they have drifted too far from FIDE standards.

This sort of calibration works fine for human OTB games, but for anything else it is not easy to see how to "set the zero", and that possible mismatch is what I called "unsynchronised".

I think that standard CC practice is to try to give each player a rating similar to their OTB rating. I do not know how the engine ratings quoted were tied down, and I imagine that centaur ratings are very difficult to calibrate.




Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2007-09-13 16:15:49)
What is the difference...

What is the difference between a japanese joseki a korean jeongseok? ... After a japanese joseki, both players have an equally good result. After a korean jeongseok, both players have an equally bad result.


Garvin Gray    (2007-09-14 18:37:01)
another idea

A possible answer is that once a player has withdrawn themselves from the waiting list for a tournament, they cannot re-enter that same tournament.


Edwin Dabbaghyan    (2007-09-15 03:09:57)
how can I enter (or qualify for) ?

Hello :) I am new here and I am going to start my first games.... I wonder how I can enter the world championship cycle? where should I start from? and...how can I enter the freestyle money tournament? do I have to qualify or just paying is enough? how much should I pay? I appreciate any help :) by the way, I live in sweden, stockholm... I have played all of playchess freestyle tournaments but the first one and am playing in the current one too...( 2,5 of 5 so far ) ...anyone from sweden, stockholm here in Ficgs? we can drink a beer together in Medborgarplatsen och snacka lite om schack :) I appreciate any help :) regards Edwin


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-15 12:59:08)
IECG WC 2006 final

As the IECG WC 2006 final just started, this is a good time to end the game. Quite surprising but finally, after 2 or 3 discussions about it, noone solved it and found me (some really looked for though) ;)

Clues were : Playing this year in a world championship final, birthdate (1973-04-13), first FICGS rating (2407, IECG rating), movies (a few players at IECG and FICGS knew about it, the trailer of 'A Clockwork Orange' where the other name is mentioned...


Here is the message I sent to my opponents :

"Dear chessfriends,

That's a real pleasure and honor to play my first IECG WC final with you all. Dinesh, Carlos, Farit, Massimiliano and John, nice to play again :)

I'm 34, single, living in the center of France... I play correspondence chess since 2002, IECG is the place I started with.

I made a few strange movies and videos a few years ago (soon available on the internet) :)

http://www.ficgs.com/psi/download/psi_divx411_vost_720x360.avi
http://www.ficgs.com/psi/download/A_clockwork_orange_2005__teaser.avi

http://www.ficgs.com/psi/download/Aphex_Twin_-_Inkeys_video_clip.avi


I wanted to play correspondence chess under my director's name but I'm now more known in our small CC world as Thibault de Vassal... I'm the webmaster of FICGS - http://www.ficgs.com , another Correspondence Chess Server, where I knew some of you :) .. Sorry about the confusion. I don't know how IECG rules will apply, I hope I can play this tournament anyway.

Best of luck to all !

David Gordh."


TS: Gordon Evans
+---------------------------------+---+----+----+---+---+----+----+------+-----+
|IECG WC-2006-F-00001 1 1 1 1 1 1 | | | |WC 2006 Tournament # 00001 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 | Tot | Plc |
+---------------------------------+---+----+----+---+---+----+----+------|-----|
| 18149 Robson, Nigel ENG 2646 | # | 0,0 | |
| 16702 Sirota, Anatoli AUS 2553 | # | 0,0 | |
| 19142 Pappier, Carlos ARG 2518 | # | 0,0 | |
| 18096 Chovanec, Milan SVK 2508 | # | 0,0 | |
| 15446 Makovsky, Petr CZE 2500 | # | 0,0 | |
| 11273 Blanco, Cesar GUA 2451 | # | 0,0 | |
| 13336 Gordh, David FRA 2443 | # | 0,0 | |
| 17738 De Silva, Dines SRI 2425 | # | 0,0 | |
| 10969 Rocca, Horacio ARG 2422 | # | 0,0 | |
| 17342 Perez, Brigilia PHI 2410 | # | 0,0 | |
| 16273 Fiala, Jaroslav CZE 2406 | # | 0,0 | |
| 13552 Claridge, John WLS 2403 | # | 0,0 | |
| 21524 Balabaev, Farit KAZ 2398 | # | 0,0 | |
| 15174 Massimini Gerbi ITA 2363 | # | 0,0 | |
| 18311 Bendig, Frank GER 2341 | # | 0,0 | |
+---------------------------------+-------------------------------+------+-----+
Rating Average = 2452 Category = 9 Start date: 12.09.2007


I didn't know that I would create FICGS when I registered at IECG and I prefered to use my director's name. I hope you don't mind. Sorry to Igor Khokhlov, Harry Ingersol and Farit Balabaev (I played them under both names).

Best wishes, Thibault


Ulrich Imbeck    (2007-09-15 16:54:00)
Komidashi

Komi is the short word of komidashi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komidashi It means points added to one player's score as compensation for playing as White.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-15 17:46:41)
Go tournaments

This message is displayed before to enter a Kyu/Dan/Pro tournament... (by the way there's a mistake, it will be corrected soon) I hope it helps.


"All games are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. Komi is 7.5 points.

Rules for Go are chinese rules, as defined by the Chinese Weiqi Association. Both players must play until one resign, both players pass (then resign or call referee) or game is adjudicated. It's up to the players to discuss the score at the end of the game, so calling referee should be exceptional. Scoring method is area scoring with chinese counting. Positional superko rule apply, it's impossible to repeat a previous board position ('incorrect move' message would be displayed)."


Glen D. Shields    (2007-09-16 18:43:13)
Explains Much

Dear Thibault -

Your "confession" explains a great deal. Twice you mentioned in posts your awareness of my IECG games. Since I am no chess celebrity, that left me quietly puzzled both times. Now I know why! You and I played twice. You won both games. Both encounters reamin as a couple of my favorites. Your 90 move victory required outstanding end-game play and you played it perfectly! Well done my man :-)

Now to my confession. I am actually Brad Pitt, no, not the real Brad Pitt, but a close good looking second. I have beautiful women walk up to me all the time asking for an autograph. Amazing that I was able to find time for chess all these years ;-)

My best,

Glen (aka "Brad")


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-16 19:05:35)
:o)

Hi Glen, my new 'old' friend :) .. Yes, our games were very interesting, particularly since you played a funny & tactical but quite unknown Sveshnikov's variation, that is theorically a draw anyway, but great to play over the board :)

So you're Brad Pitt's double ? .. You can see Leonardo Di Caprio's double in PSI trailer (true ! quite funny), maybe we'll work together ;)

Best, Thibault


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-18 15:55:07)
Major update : New interface !

Hello to all.

You may have noticed that the way to send moves has changed, at least the way by default (you still can choose to play through the old - HTML only - interface by clicking "slow moves" in My games).

Please note that there are no more confirmation pages when using the new Javascript interface, meaning your moves will be sent as soon as you press the Send button. Also Javascript should be activated in your browser, that is generally the case.

Other changes :

- My games display only games where it's your turn, you can change it by clicking 'display all games'.

- It is now possible to download all chess games (PGN format) in a particular tournament, see the bottom of the page.

- To avoid massive forfeits, the number of running games is now limited to 60.


... and hundreds of other small improvements :)

Feel free to report possible bugs or if you have any suggestions. Thanks in advance !


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-09-16 20:45:57)
Schuster-Figlio

Playing in accordance with the rules can't be dishonor!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-16 20:56:42)
Schuster-Figlio

I agree with that "Playing in accordance with the rules can't be dishonor!", but that's good fighting spirit :)


Gino Figlio    (2007-09-17 03:24:19)
Schuster-Figlio

I wasn't trying to come up with a quote :)

But again, the rules are created to allow the game to progress to its end without difficulties, prevent conflict and in our case to break a tie.

Obviously, in this case I'm in advantage from the start given the tournament rules.
That's why if Peter evens the score and it looks like the match will end in a tie, I will resign the last game even if it is a draw.

These methods to break ties are ok in blitz or OTB games but in our type of matches where we want the superior player to qualify, it would be a dishonor to take advantage of them. At least I could not do it.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-17 05:35:42)
To tie or not to tie

Hi Gino !

"I'm in advantage from the start given the tournament rules" : Untrue IMO, according to the current situation (not all games are draw), if the match ends at tie, you'll lose it - at least qualification - in all cases ;)

In 8-games matches, like every WC round-robin tournament, fighting for the score and (&&) for ratings looks quite normal, there's no dishonor to tie, winning or losing the right to move to the next round. Definitely rules have something to do with honor, at least with victory. Is there no honor to win a chess game with White pieces and its small advantage ?

What about ICCF WC tournaments and Sonnenborn-Berger ? .. Somewhat more complex, but ratings decide according to the situation also. What about FIDE World Championship ? .. Did Kramnik win his title / tie his match against Leko without honor ? .. FICGS rules are not more unfair than FIDE WCH ones, I'm playing an 8-games match against Farit Balabaev, his strategy is clearly to draw the 8 games and it may work, there's no dishonor in it, only good strategy IMHO.

But, of course, that's more a question of human feeling than mathematics, so only my point of view :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-17 16:18:47)
Schuster-Figlio

I have... Definitely I don't like the "speed up" formula, that happened ie. in the Kramnik vs. Topalov match, it changes the nature of the match and adds some more 'random' factors, up to sudden death - White must win - which is no more chess. In our case this wouldn't be correspondence chess anymore (added to potential difficulties to play blitz games).

Anyway no rule can break the tie "properly", at least this rule allows the strongest player by rating (in case of 8 draws) to move to the next stage, which is quite logical IMO.


Rodrigo Jaroszewski    (2007-09-18 06:20:30)
Hmm...

Wouldn't it be better to ask Peter what he thinks about this? I know some people that would actually be offended if the opponent withdrew, even if they took the upper hand because of that. This is an issue that should be discussed between Peter and Gino only, IMHO.

And for the next championship (and I'm just one guy rambling here, with hardly any chance of getting there), perhaps it could be arranged that the opponents just played 8-game matches until one of them is won. It'll take more time, but it it seems the only way it won't look fishy for one side or the other. (And sorry if fishy is a strong word.)


Gino Figlio    (2007-09-18 06:53:43)
Tie breaks

Rodrigo, I agree there must be better ways of doing this.

As far as the current match, the rules cannot be changed and I guess I will not have to withdraw since I will lose with the tie. I can see the challenge for the tournament organizer but we have to also realize that FICGS is relatively new and its ratings do not necessarily reflect player strength.

How can we decide a match based on something less than representative even if we don't have anything better?. I believe for the future ties must be broken playing chess even if it's "blitz" cc.

I also would like to stop making comments on this unfinished match, I don't want to get distracted nor distract Peter from our competition.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-18 14:38:19)
Knockout matches

FICGS champion will be crowned by a knockout match, the best rated player has few more chances to reach the final, this is fair and his result in each match do not depend on results he's not involved in (like round-robin tournaments), which is the most interesting point IMO.

Another interesting discussion about this issue :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=2584


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-19 01:20:50)
Missing game(s)

Hi Wayne, that's normal ! .. The last update avoids many scrolls, with the new interface to send moves, also in My games page. You can click "(display all games)" at the top of the page to see your games displayed like before.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-19 14:02:54)
longer time control

Definitely I need more players opinions about that. Two days is probably a lot of time for many players, as there's no big prize added to the entry fees yet, I'm not sure it would work...

Any opinions ? :)


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2007-09-19 18:02:57)
New options in Preferences

Hello Thibault!

Nice update, but ...

Is it possible to set in the preferences how to start a FICGS session? I would like to have "display all games" and "slow moves" as default ...


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-19 22:29:19)
New update

Now you can choose in Preferences if you want to use the fast interface (Javascript) or the slow one (HTML) by default, also if you want to display all running games or pending games only in My games.

Two sizes for gobans are now available in Preferences, the smaller one may be better to see the form without scrolling with the fast interface.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-20 12:21:28)
One more thing...

Hi Don, I'll add an explanation about this below the form... As said Josef, you just have to click once more on the board to reload the page.

About the clock in My games, should I understand that you never used this page before, after one year playing at FICGS ? :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-20 12:33:12)
Japanese, Polish, Ukrainian, Romanian...

Thanks Pio, I'll correct it soon :)


... and thanks to any player who may help to translate the home page by going to :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=encyclopedia

... then entering "FICGS home page" as keyword and choosing your language. Original english version is here :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_wiki_en-ficgs_home_page.html


Thanks in advance !


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-20 13:58:05)
chessfriends

I remember that chessfriends.com used to have the opposite rule ie the player with the lower elo advanced in the knockout. I guess their reasoning was if your better rated you should be able to prove it. As Thibault mentioned he may be a victim of the FICGS rule in his match against Farit Balabaev. He has the higher TER and his opponent as taken 4 draws as white by repeating the same 15 move sequence in his 4 white games (1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd 4 Nxd Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bg5 e6 7 f4 Qb6 8 Qd2 Qxb2 9 Rb1 Qa3 10 f5 Nc6 11 fxe6 fxe6 12 Nxc6 bxc6 13 Be2 Be7 14 0-0 0-0 15 Rb3 Qc5+ 1/2 1/2) Not the greatest advert for cc games! It requires cooperation for this to happen although its dangerous for black to deviate after 9 Rb1. Still there are perfectly viable alternatives IMO in the Najdorf against 6 Bg5 other than this line. I suggest going to a 2 game mini match play off series at 5 days reserve and 1 day per move increment until there is a win. This would provide incentive to go for a result for the higher rated player in the main match. I would retain the lower rated player wins rule for decisive games (but overall draw) for the main match but leave it equal for the playoffs.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-20 16:06:36)
Chessfriend.com

That's right, I remember this opposite rule at Chessfriend server. By the way it may have incited players to lose games to decrease their rating, which is somewhat easier than to increase it.

About my quarter final against Farit, it seems we both had really too many games at this moment, that explains (from me at least) these 4 short draws.


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-20 19:32:38)
chessfriend

I dont think its plausible that the rule inspired anyone to lose Thibault -it was for a memorial tournament and although there were (supposedly) cash prizes (which never trasnpired)I think it just inspired the people with the higher rating to try to win. As for your explanation as to why you just bailed out on 4 games its difficult to respond other than to say it doesn't show you supporting your own concept of an 8 game match or the importance of the FICGS "world championship" stage that you had reached. I guess you will take the IECG "world championship" more seriously. I think having 2 game play offs at a fast time rate to a decision is a better way to go.


Than Serd    (2007-09-20 19:38:32)
10-2

why are players forfeits?


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


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-20 21:30:15)
Chess Friend

I did not think there was ever any money paid out in chess friend but I never played in any round robins so I can't comment on the tie break being used in them. As for repeating the same 15 moves in 4 games because you had too many other games it just seesm farcical to me. Everyone is a strong player at that stage but still .... My point about IECG is just that perhaps (understandably) you take that more seriously and would not agree to 4 short meaningless draws because the others are strong and you have a lot of other games going on. The point i was making is that these 4 draws resulted from your tie break system having a higher TER as your opponent attempted to draw his way to victory and you went along with it. You have set up a system that encourages this sort of approach which is anti chess and , arguably, devalues the concept of a "World Championship" What is your objection to 2 game tie breaks involving accelerated cc rates that I suggested?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-20 21:54:21)
WCH knockout vs. round-robin

I don't know about finished money tournaments at Chessfriend, this was just the available rules I read.

About FICGS & IECG WCH, the point is one don't play the same way a knockout or a round-robin tournament, this is not a question to play seriously or not. In every FIDE WCH (knockout) final match, Kramnik and maybe even Kasparov would accept an easy draw with Black, simply because they have to save energy, as chances of win are generally defended with White (actually Kasparov even offered a short draw with White against Kramnik's Berlin defence). In IECG or ICCF WCH round-robin tournaments, draws are to be avoided at any price but many strong players think the same way: White must win, Black must draw. That's very different in matches, so the strategy. I did not play drawish openings in IECG WCH, and I'll accept short draws if I can't expect more, but it doesn't mean I take it more seriously. According to the situation, these 4 draws were quite a good choice for both Farit & me... in a way :)


Hannes Rada    (2007-09-20 22:37:49)
Chessfriend and money

I received 2 times money for winning and for 2nd place in a chess friend round robin tournament. But this was only small money about EUR 100,00 :-) And there was no tiebreak at these tournaments. In this case the players hat to share the prize money.


Don Groves    (2007-09-21 04:31:25)
One more thing...

Thibault escrit: "About the clock in My games, should I understand that you never used this page before, after one year playing at FICGS ? :)" I've always used the "My messages" page instead ;-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-21 14:52:53)
60 minutes + 15 seconds

Ok Garvin, you convinced me :) .. Finally it will be play on 2 consecutive days (october 20 & 21 - 14 pm, 17 pm, 20 pm)

This format is longer but definitely more interesting.

I'll start (at last) to promote it today, feel free to announce it in forums & websites :) .. Now FICGS account at Paypal is available to send & receive money.

I'll start a new topic about Freestyle cup... Too many out-of-date informations in this one.

Thanks for your help !


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-21 18:32:12)
Break the tie

I don't consider "I'm a victim" of this rule :) .. Actually if my match finishes with 8 draws, I'll have simply failed to qualify. Farit's semi-final match with Peter shows this rule is not so unfair, they both won one game. That's probably one reason why he used this strategy against me, which may work but may not work every times. To draw all games is not so easy, it's often quite a losing strategy. Due to the fast time control, the advantage given to the highest rated player is not so big IMO.


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-21 18:52:24)
Tie Breaks

Farit just to clarify things, you lost your drawn match against Peter Schuster (despite being the higher rated player) because of the rule that the lower rated player wins in the event of a drawn match, where there has been at least one win by the lower rated player. So the 4 draws by you are drawing attention to the problems with the tie break by rating approach (albeit the higher rated player wins if all games drawn part of the rule) Well at least we understand your side of it - that you were actually making a point. Wolfgang I understand the rule is a compromise no need to cry however surely its right to review the experience and see if we can improve? The problem I have, based on the experience, is that it just makes the site look bad and silly to have 4 identical 15 move games. Thats not chess - in my view its absurd. So lets examine the experience and refine the process. A 2 game play off series at a very fast cc time rate ( 1-5 day reserve + 1 day increment)would, I believe, get a result. Its still a compromise because the time for cc is very short. At the same time lets re -think having the championship every 6 months idea - I think thats a big factor behind Thibault's tie break by rating rule. Its leading to overcrowding and its pretty hard to follow perhaps 1 every 9 months or year? Incidentally Thibault how do you break the tie if both have the same TER? Just a thought!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-21 19:57:01)
Tie Breaks

A 2 game play off series at a very fast cc time rate ie. 1 day + 1 day / move would delay the next stages by up to 6 months (by stage)... I think that players would prefer to defend their chances - as you understood it - more often, and simply would prefer to play !

In case of equal TER : "If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account."

Finally, draws usually happen more often in matches, that's a fact. The special rule, at least, force one player to avoid it. We'll see if these short draws happen again and what are the consequences. At last, as Wolfgang said, the tie break rule is not "unfair", it is only a rule.


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-09-21 20:34:37)
Tie Breaks

Thansk for the reply Thibault. on the delay front I think it would be less than 6 months maybe 1 or 2 months. First the effect of this delay would impact on only very few top players in completing the final stages. Overall the quantity of chess games and opportunities would be unaffected as new championships start every 6 months so the amount of playing is the same. Second "If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account." Ok this will be rare but you cannot really be saying that a match would be decided perhaps 1 or 2 months after completion when the next rating is done? Third "The special rule, at least, force one player to avoid it." yes but it didn't did it? You took the 4 draws in 15 moves because you had too many games and your opponent was a strong player! My point is not about the unfairness of the rule Thibault its the effect of it - in this case 4 identical 15 move draws is not a good advert for the site, the World Championship FICGS or the players.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-21 22:00:03)
Tie Breaks

There are 8-games matches since the very first round, so this extra delay would happen each round (1d+1d/move means at least 4 months, also add vacation) :/ I think too long cycles is a problem. With the current formula a complete cycle (including the final match against previous winner) lasts 2 years and a half. If we add tie breaks, it could last between 4 & 5 years and more players may forget to play next rounds... I don't feel it, definitely.


Dan Rotaru    (2007-09-22 01:16:27)
Games download

Excellent update and new interface, thank you very much Thibault. I really like the new feature which allows to download all games in a particular tournament. On this note it really would be nice to be able to download all one's games in progress. If playing few tournaments in the same time it is not practical to download all of them. Also what about being able to download all the games finished on FICGS from the beginning to date?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-22 01:36:25)
Rybka vs. Zappa Mexico

While Anand, Kramnik and the other top chess players fight for the FIDE crown, it seems that another match is taking place in Mexico : Rybka vs. Zappa "Mexico".

http://www.chessvibes.com/?p=1239#more-1239


More info at Rybka forum - http://rybkaforum.net


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2007-09-23 17:24:17)
50 moves rule

Hello Wolfgang,

look at the Playing rules (http://ficgs.com/membership.html#playing, 11.3.a.)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-24 01:04:39)
Rybka vs. Zappa

What a surprise... Zappa now leading the match 3,5-1,5

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=2228

Even if Rybka plays without tablebases, the point is "The match will be played on two identical 8-cores computers"... So it probably means that Zappa's author Anthony Cozzie did it really well while implementing multi-processors engine. It would be interesting to know the performance of both engines compared to single processor version. Can Rybka be improved significantly this way ?! .. We'll see it soon, anyway nice to see a "real match" :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-24 02:13:51)
1st FICGS freestyle cup

Dear chessfriends,

The 1st FICGS freestyle cup waiting list is open ! .. This advanced chess or more commonly said "freestyle" (computers, teams, everything allowed) swiss tournament will happen on 2007 October 20 & 21 (14 pm, 17 pm, 20 pm server time), time control : 1 hour + 15 seconds / move. Entry fee is 10 E-Points (10 Euros), prize is 100% of E-Points (see rules/membership).

Thanks to players who broadcasted the news on the web already !


Garvin Gray    (2007-09-24 15:52:26)
wonderment

Wonders when Thibault will describe how players exactly reach these titles? :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-25 21:03:09)
Title norms

Hi Garvin, sorry for the delay :)

A title norm (FEM, FIM, FSM, FGM) can be achieved in a correspondence chess tournament with at least 7 players and 6 games played per player.

More explanations and % table :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#titles


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-25 21:53:58)
Extra rule

A new rule to motivate more players before the start of the tournament :)

"An extra fee, usually 30% of the entry fee, will be added to the entry fee 7 days before the start of the tournament."


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-26 12:46:06)
Mexico, round 11

Unless an earthquake, Anand should win the FIDE WCH tournament... now leading with 7,5 / 11, by one point and a half, after another great game against Morozevich. That's a very impressive performance but not a real surprise, as he's always been able to play very well... and less sometimes (unlike Kasparov).

What could happen in a 12-games match against Kramnik if he plays at this level ?!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-26 18:45:47)
Chess, love... ego

In a discussion where Susan Polgar (in her new forum, see link below) encourages members to ask questions to strong OTB GM & IM, I suggested to ask them :

"...how the venue of Rybka and other engines crushing them OTB (ie. Hydra-Adams) in classical games affected their love of the game ! .. More than learning us & them humility, obviously noone can feel the same than Bobby Fischer in front of the chessboard anymore (and probably before him also). How can a human player love the game like he did, nowadays ? .. What is the place of the ego in this strange relationship ? Finally... do they play other games more and more as time passes ?"

An interesting point, undoubtly to be discussed, is the place of ego in the love of the game IMO. Go players may have an interesting point in this discussion ;)


http://www.chessdiscussion.com

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=196


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2007-09-28 00:36:03)
Comment

This remark was made by past freestyle winner Equidistance in the rybka forum: "This FICGS site is very unclear, impossible to find anything. No clear summary about what these e-points are all about, very long terms and conditions, really I doubt anybody will spend so much time to even find the page about Freestyle Cup, which is hidden under one of many menus." Maybe navigation could be made easier for new players interested in the tournament.


Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2007-09-28 01:07:38)
empty page

This is just a little issue: When I submit a move, and no game with pending moves is left, an empty page is displayed. I think it would be better to return to the games page immediately.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-28 02:56:48)
E-Points

A summary about E-Points has been added to the terms and conditions :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#epoints

"E-Points : To summarize previous Entry fees and Prize money sections, you can buy E-Points (1 E-Point is worth 1 Euro, see My account after you connect to the server) then play money tournaments with entry fees and prizes (bronze, silver, gold) with low rakes in E-Points, finally ask for money prizes instead of E-Points for the tournaments you choose : According to the prize won, you'll be paid 0,75 Euro per E-Point remaining in your account. Consequently the more tournaments you play before to ask for a money prize, the lower is the cost per game (prizes in E-Points reach up to 99 % of the entry fees, 100 % for the chess freestyle cup)."


Feel free to tell me if it is not clear enough... I've also updated the Help section about how to enter the freestyle cup & E-Points.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-28 03:01:14)
Invitation to FIDE, FICGS, ICCF GM & IM

Just added to the FICGS chess freestyle cup rules :

"FIDE GM & IM, FICGS / ICCF GM, SM & IM are invited to enter the waiting list for free until one week before the start of the tournament ! .. Please just send a message to webmaster through My account page to register. You may be asked to send a copy of your passport or ID card."


Strong titled players may be interested in winning the title & prize, other players may be interested in playing them...


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2007-09-28 08:09:33)
Question about e-points

A quote from the rules: "When you buy tickets, a virtual account in E-Points is created (or modified) with a limited lifetime of 2 years, meaning the account will be emptied at the end of this period. Member's account lifetime will be reconducted each time tickets are bought by the member. The number of E-Points added to the account is the amount in Euros paid to FICGS. Tickets are not paid back." This means i lost the E-Points after 2 years? So what i do with E-Points if: "Tickets for tournaments (E-Points) can't be sold to other members, exchanged with cash money or paid back" In the summary that you wrote you said: "... then play money tournaments with entry fees and prizes (bronze, silver, gold) with low rakes in E-Points, finally ask for money prizes instead of E-Points for the tournaments you choose" This is not clear. For example, I join a gold tournament i must choose before hand if i want E-Points or a money prize. Also why i want to play more tournaments before redeeming a money prize if i could do nothing with my remaing E-Points (see above) Any help in my queries will be appreciated.


Gregory Ross    (2007-09-29 01:01:39)
2-player match?

Is there no way to play a simple two-player match here for free?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-29 13:37:42)
2-player match?

Hello,

It is possible, but limited... With the 2 free E-Points, you may play 20 bullet (10 min+ 20 s.) or lightning (30 min+ 30 s.) bronze games.

There are no 2-player match without entry fee & prize at standard & rapid time controls.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-30 12:06:30)
new entrants

Hi Garvin :) .. Don't worry, we're 3 weeks from the start of the tournament yet, the extra-fee rule (1 week before the start) and the invitation to titled players should help... 2 players more just bought E-Points, so it's on the way for an interesting tourney ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-01 19:43:30)
Kasparov CC

I wonder what would look like a Kasparov correspondence chess game !? .. I think he would feel frustrated quite quickly :)

By the way, I remember that Peter Leko played some correspondence chess games at ICCF... Well, a first Google search "Peter Leko correspondence chess games" gives a thread at FICGS without the information.. those spammers are annoying :) .. Also this page with a CC game (unfinished) of Bobby Fischer :

http://www.uschess.org/cc/dunne/alexjul01.html


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-02 03:45:44)
Update : Crosstables and Big Chess

A new update, now tournament crosstables link to games (in a new window), which is a more convenient way to find a particular game in a tournament. Click the magnifying glass next to the tournament's name, then on a symbol (1, 0, =, *) in the crosstable and a new window will appear with the game.

Also a new category in special tournaments : Big Chess masters (2000+), waiting for a complete category for Big Chess. Reminder : Your first Big Chess rating is your current Correspondence Chess rating - 300 (see your ratings in Preferences), so a player CC rated 2300+ without a Big Chess rating can enter the Big Chess masters waiting list.


Don Groves    (2007-10-02 05:32:52)
Rating lists

It is good to have a rating list now for active players, that list is much shorter. But still, I see a problem. I checked only one person for this but I'm sure there are others -- this person is playing several games of Chess and no games of Go, yet is on the list of active Go players. IMHO, the active players lists should be limited to those currently active in each game.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-02 13:11:47)
Kasparov CC

Hello Viktor ! So Garry Kasparov did play correspondence chess ?! Do you know where one can find some games (maybe you can post some here) ?


Hannes Rada    (2007-10-02 16:06:09)
CC Kasparov and other OTB GM's

Viktor, What kind of Russian tournaments did he play ? I played at chessfriend against OTB Elo > 2600 GM Daniel Fridman from Latvia. At CC he was only around Elo 2300. But I could not communicate with him to ask about his motivation for cc


Thomas Tamayo    (2007-10-02 18:14:11)
Chess & Go Terms

I needed to look up these terms as I'm not familiar with chess, but no... there's no direct equivalent. Zugzwang might be "time to resign" in Go, but typically tenuki (playing elsewhere) can get you out of situations. "Joseki" might be on-track (a fixed sequence of play), but still isn't very close. Zeitnot is simply "overtime" in Go. Go is played on a longer time frame. Although time pressure can exist there's no special word for it.


Hannes Rada    (2007-10-02 21:16:11)
GMs + engine vs amateur + engine

However it would be interesting to know if Kasparov or any other strong OTB GM + strong engine would play significant better chess than an amateur + strong engine at cc time control.


Hannes Rada    (2007-10-03 19:49:56)
Kasparov vs the World

Thank you for the interesting link. It is quite an interesting game and when playing without further and depper analysing it looks like the World did a very good job, which should at least be sufficient for a draw.


Garvin Gray    (2007-10-04 02:19:36)
5 entries

Need more players :)


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-10-04 20:45:13)
Schuster win

Witty ending to the Schuster Figlio game. I always feel very uncomfortable as black in this line if e5 or c5 cannot be played. So 15 ..c5!? might do the trick eg 16 cxd5 exd5 17 dxc5 Bxc5 18 Nxd5 Nxd5 19 Rxd5 Bxe3 and it looks like black can hold this. It also gives some point to 6..Be4 inducing f3 and creating a weakness on e3 - although I have never understood why black wants to make white play f3 anyway!


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-10-06 19:20:34)
Slave

Definitely thibault is a slave to this site - the amount of time he must spend on it and play cc, mind boggling. Thibault do you actually have a full time job as well as all this?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-07 15:22:25)
6 entries

We always need more players :) ..


FRA de Vassal, Thibault 2478
AUS Gray, Garvin 1857
DEU Mueller-Toepler, Michael 1997
ITA Gueci, Alberto 2037
ITA Riccio, Eros 2518
USA Fuller, William 2000


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-07 18:36:20)
increment : 40 days / 10 moves

Hi Wayne, time control is 40 days + 40 days per 10 moves, meaning 40 days will be added to your clock after move 10, move 20, move 30 and so on... You just have to play your next (tenth) move to gain 40 days more ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-09 14:49:05)
Cracking Go less than a decade away ?

I just read this astonishing article in the last American Go E-Journal :

“I believe that a world-champion-level Go machine can be built within 10 years, based on the same method of intensive analysis—brute force, basically—that Deep Blue employed for chess,” wrote Feng - Hsiung Hsu (r) in “Cracking Go,” a provocative article in the October issue of IEEE Spectrum, published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). (...) "with some optimization a machine that can search a trillion positions per second would be enough to play Go at the very highest level."


Looks serious... Any opinion ?


Don Groves    (2007-10-10 00:59:50)
Cracking Go?

As I've pointed out before, unlike Chess, the Go board can be made larger without seriously affecting the game for human players. Making the goban 23 by 23 (Big Go?) would multiply the number of possible games by 3.74e+50 and render brute force algorithms ineffective once again. This would also stimulate Go research as new fuseki and joseki would need to be discovered. Sadly, the day will come when the computer will dominate Go -- and every other human endeavor, except maybe for sex ;-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-10 22:19:16)
Supercomputers

Definitely, I don't believe in brute force calculation. If we see in a near future a Go engine playing at a master level on 21x21 goban, it could play the same level on superior sizes...


Don Groves    (2007-10-11 01:03:35)
Cracking Go...

I don't agree, Thibault. If your statement were true, how do you explain that computers can play at nearly the highest level on a 9x9 board today, yet not on the larger sizes?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-11 12:43:33)
pinot noir, knowledge & 9x9

I agree with that :)

Don, I mean 9x9 should be compared to checkers, it is "chess" at a size where brute force is enough, so a 'particular case' only. But just like Rybka/Hiarcs playing at master level even thinking a few seconds per move by imitating (knowledge + algorithm) an international master's way of thinking more than calculating trillions of positions, why not a Go engine built the same way, much more complex though. Actually Go engines do not calculate much, they try to 'see' already but sure these programs will be improved significantly soon and it could play about the same level (without joseki databases) on different goban sizes. I feel a Go engine could reach a 1 dan / 2 dan level on our small computers, whatever the size of the goban... But it should be incredibly harder to beat stronger players, which is great for Go :)


Don Groves    (2007-10-11 23:33:36)
knowledge and 9x9, etc...

My 0.02€: Chess has rules which make it easier to program than Go. Just one example, when the King is in check, the search tree of possible moves is pruned enormously. Go has no analog to this. Until the endgame, even when several pieces are in atari there still may be a better move than saving them. As for "playing like a master...," Chess is far more local than is Go. In Go, the whole board must be nearly always in focus, not so in Chess where losing a local battle can spell almost certain defeat. Another factor in making Go so difficult to analyze is the evaluation function which the program uses to decide on the best move. This is far easier to do for Chess than for Go. Maybe I'll start working on a Go program, just to prove myself wrong ;-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-12 22:11:47)
Reminder : Invitation to GM, SM, IM

"FIDE GM & IM, FICGS / ICCF GM, SM & IM are invited to enter the Freestyle Cup waiting list for free until one week before the start of the tournament ! .. Please just send a message to webmaster through My account page to register. You may be asked to send a copy of your passport or ID card."

One more day for titled players to register for free !


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-13 19:17:27)
Freestyle tournament

A new player may enter the Freestyle Cup waiting list soon... So we'll be at least 8 players, anyway only 6 rounds will be played, I can't change the rules now.


Garvin Gray    (2007-10-14 01:29:13)
Re: 1 round


The reason I asked about the extra round is in case we only get one more entry.

Means that we would have 6 rounds for eight players. This risks no legal pairings in the final round.

Adding one further round would solve this. Only needs to happen if we get 7/8 entries.



Sergey Pligin    (2007-10-15 12:27:24)
match

My opponent Peter Schuster has made a blunder in a game he plays for White, playing with the other knight. Having made this mistake he resigned in both games. I should note the result in the second game is unclear now. Taking into consideration the match is friendly, understanding my opponent's mistake I ask Thibault permission to cancel results of my finished games and recover a position in the Schuster-Pligin game after 23rd Black's move, i.e. one full move back.
I hope the players of the iGame team will understand me and accept my decision.
It's important for me to continue playing the both games, especially the one I am playing for White.
Best regards, Sergey


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-15 14:51:38)
pligin-schuster

That's great fair play, Sergey. Well, this is an unrated & friendly match, so if your team is ok with that, I'll restore the games.

Best wishes, Thibault


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    (2019-06-28 00:27:36)
Android App not working

Thank you all for your help, now I just updated all FICGS apps at Google Play Store. It could solve the problem for everyone (at least it worked for one user already)...

Any feedback is welcome! As you can see, it really helps :)


Garvin Gray    (2007-10-15 17:49:02)
slippery slope


Sorry to say, but I am against this re-instatement. Main reason is the slippery slope effect.

Also what happens if in another game a player claims that they moved the wrong knight and the opponent says too bad or your responsible for moving correctly?

The recriminations and ill feeling could result.

Sorry but Peter is responsible for the moves he makes and his actions towards those moves.

It should be a double win to igame.



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-15 22:15:50)
slippery slope

Garvin, I fully agree with that, generally speaking. Well, this is a friendly team match where such behaviour makes things even more friendly and games more interesting, everything is quite clear in this case, Peter asked nothing & Sergey offered it of his own, no player of any team is supposed to do the same...


Andrey Sumets    (2007-10-16 14:00:03)
....

I have no any objections to allow recovering of both Pligin - Schuster games. Moreover, I think that this fair play will comletely corespond to the frienly status of this match. Both games between our captain and the finalist of your world championship are extremely interesting and wish them to be recovered a.s.a.p.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-17 02:42:45)
2 more entries

Two international masters will probably enter the waiting list soon. If other titled players want to enter the Freestyle Cup waiting list for free, please just contact me.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-19 22:18:09)
Freestyle cup starts tomorrow, 2 pm.

10 players entered the waiting list !

As we still need more players, titled players (GM, SM, IM) may register for free until saturday 1 pm. server time, please email me. Prize is 80 E-Points at the moment.


Edwin Dabbaghyan    (2007-10-20 11:14:42)
where?

Hello everyone...just got back from a 3 drunk days cruise trip and am quite beatable ;)....where exactly do we play the freestyle? on a server client or on this website like any other game? Hej, William, Eros and Alberto...good luck friends:)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-20 13:19:52)
where?

Hello Edwin :) .. Of course it is played here, like any other game (interface is a bit different for games played in less than 1 day).

Have a good tournament & good luck to all !


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-21 01:07:45)
Go freestyle tournament

What do you think about a Go freestyle tournament, just like FICGS chess freestyle cup ?

A problem is to define the best time control and number of rounds... With about 100 to 120 moves per game & per player, time control 30+10 means 2 hours per round. As there's no draw at Go, 5 or 6 rounds played in a single day could be ok to find a winner. Any opinion ?

Another question is : Are there players interested to play it ? .. Entry fee would be 10 E-Points / 10 Euros, prize 100% entry fees in E-Points (or 75% for a money prize). It may attract some strong players for interesting games :)


William Taylor    (2007-10-21 01:47:07)
Nice idea

I'd be interested in playing. 5 or 6 games of go in one day sounds a bit tough, unless they were blitz/fast games (considerably quicker than 30 + 10). Go tournaments can be played with fewer rounds than chess tournaments - I'm playing one next weekend which is only 3 rounds, but that does seem too short to guarantee a clear winner.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-21 02:12:36)
Time control

True :) .. It is a lot of energy, 5 games in one day is really hard already. Maybe 15+10 could be ok with 1 round per 90 minutes.

A knockout tournament could be another solution ! .. 8 players means 3 rounds, 16 players / 4 rounds and so on... but less games for most participants.


Don Groves    (2007-10-21 04:25:53)
Go freestyle tournament

Another consideration is which time zones the players are in. Standard tournaments around here are two hours per game (1 hour on each player's clock plus five, 30 second extra periods.) Even being all in the same time zone, it's still difficult to play four games per day.


Lionel Vidal    (2007-10-21 11:24:52)
Is a one day limit mandatory?

Playing three rounds in one day is already very hard. What would you think of running a tournament for several days (like one round per day): that would mean, say, 4 or 5 days that could be picked from 2 ou 3 consecutives weeks?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-21 13:52:04)
Is a one day limit mandatory?

No it isn't, but unlike "real" tournaments, I assume that players prefer to spend 1 day hard in front of their computer than a whole week end or more for a tourney... But I may be wrong ;)


Garvin Gray    (2007-10-21 20:54:55)
round times.


Only one serious suggestion at this stage.

If all games finish very early, I would like to see the next round start earlier.

Makes the tournament a bit easier to play for those of us who are starting the tournament at 10pm approx :o



Dinesh De Silva    (2007-10-22 09:27:29)
Re:

Haha!!! You might be correct after all. Lets keep a look out for a humorous guy who likes to dabble in a lot of political talk & who has immense playing skill.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-23 02:59:46)
Time zones

I'm to add the waiting list, Go "freestyle" cup will be a 6 rounds swiss tournament... Chess & Go freestyle tournaments will occur at the same time. Rounds will start at 15:00, 18:00, 21:00 server time on 2 consecutive days.

Time zones are a problem for players from ie. New Zealand, but it should be ok for players from Moscow to New-York.

Time control will be 1 hour + 10 seconds per move.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-23 23:36:17)
Go freestyle tournament rules

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#go_freestyle

Players ranked 3 dan or higher are invited to enter the waiting list for free...


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    (2007-10-25 01:17:16)
Go freestyle cup

Hi Edwin, this topic is about the Go (another game) freestyle cup. See both chess & Go freestyle cups in Waiting lists. Anyway, I'm already thinking about faster chess freestyle tournaments :)

Knockout format could be lots of fun too, but players will probably prefer to play all the games to try to catch the best ones.

Let's discuss about the chess freestyle tournaments in the other thread :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=3987


William Taylor    (2007-10-25 16:29:24)
Chess and go at the same time?

Why have you decided to hold chess and go freestyle cups at the same time? I'd expect this to reduce participation in both events, as obviously nobody can play in both.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-25 17:09:00)
Chess and go at the same time

That's right, I'd like to play in both events too (maybe I'll do it :)) but anyway probably not many players would play a chess freestyle then a Go freestyle 1 or 2 weeks later, and again and again... !?

Why ? .. Simply because it takes me one week end instead of two.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-30 04:16:49)
Go tournaments : New categories

I'm to add new categories for Go tournaments and to change rating ranges for PRO, DAN & KYU tournaments, it should help players to get a more accurate rating.

FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_PRO : 2600+
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_DAN : 2100+

FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_III : 1600-2600
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_II : 1100-2100
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_I : 0600-1600
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU : 0000-1100


Feel free if you have any suggestion...


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-10-30 20:30:55)
New Go categories

It has been updated... Now we need more players :)


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-11-01 15:56:06)
Tournament categories

In the list of players having enrolled for tournament Rapid M 000009 there are two players with 2174 and 2147 elo points.
The tournament is supposed to be reserved for 2200+ players

Is this OK ?

Marc


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-01 21:56:57)
Ratings in waiting lists

Hello Marc,

As Don said, ratings displayed in waiting lists are current ratings, so it happens when players enter a waiting list before their rating decrease.

Anyway, I changed the rating range for CHESS RAPID M category to 2100 to find more players, if this is not ok for you, I can remove you from the list.

Best wishes, Thibault


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-02 00:36:19)
Rating range restored

Hi Wayne... Okay, I restored the initial rating range. Just tried to fill this waiting list, which is usually quite slow. Anyway, it was a bad idea as 5 players were already in.


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 !


Wayne Lowrance    (2007-11-03 16:46:00)
Interesting

20 years from now the kids will be playing "samo samo stuff" more advanced, convienient and realistic. gaming sports etc, as for example. For me it is hard to predict about OTB chess in 20 years, I have some mixed feelings about it and what comp chess is doing to it. For sure the structure I believe will change. Perhaps a different sort of world championship definition will appear. I mean in 20 years gm's will be completely subjicated to mere mortals in competition to the comp. It is a shame really, My two bits worth Wayne


Michael Mueller-Toepler    (2007-11-04 13:03:40)
New tournament

Dear Chessfriends, I have an idea for a new tournament. Swiss System: 20 players, 12 rounds 2 games at saturday, 2 games at sunday over three weeks. What is your opinion to my proposal? Greetings from Munich Michael


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-04 15:32:57)
Swiss tournaments

Hello Michael, more rounds probably means less players and less tournaments (freestyle cups), it is a quite hard format, also for the organizer :)

By the way, why 20 players ? An advantage of swiss system is it doesn't depend on the number of participants.


Michael Mueller-Toepler    (2007-11-04 15:45:16)
Swiss tournaments

20 (16) players to avoid that every player has to play against the other


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-04 17:06:41)
Swiss tournaments

Ok, anyway 30 or 50 would be better :) .. A problem with such a 12 rounds tournament is to be sure to find enough players.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-06 15:41:01)
Go categories

In response to a french player who thinks that it could be harder to reach the 600 points mark (15 kyu) in the Kyu category :

Bonjour... A propos des catégories Kyu, je pense au contraire que ce sera encore l'une des catégories les plus jouées, sinon la plus jouée. L'écart de 500 points par catégorie est encore un peu grand mais devrait permettre l'accession assez rapidement à la catégorie au dessus car : 1. Les classements pris en compte à chaque résultat sont les classements en cours (non TER). 2. Le calcul fait en sorte que le classement des vainqueurs progresse assez rapidement. 3. J'enregistrerai plus de nouveaux joueurs à 17 ou 18 kyu au lieu de 20 kyu... 4. S'il y avait des catégories jusque 30 kyu, il y aurait moins de joueurs dans chacune... En bref, je pense que dans la pratique cela ira.


Michael Mueller-Toepler    (2007-11-06 16:28:01)
FICGS freestyle cup

For more players: The winner is qualified for: FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000004 Regards Michael - muetoe


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-11-07 09:41:40)
I know...

...exactly what you're saying. I have a backlog on computer games so long that I find it hard to find time for correspondence chess.

I can't even find time just for computer games I really want to play.


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-11-07 15:03:22)
New category (chess rapid 2000-2200)

Thibault I think there may be a case for rapid tournament category 2000 - 2200 as there may be enough players in that category at the moment who might not feel very motivated to enter the 1800 - 2200 but would go for a 2000 - 2200 event. In the available tournament 1800 - 2200 for example no player above 2000 has entered. Just a thought.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-07 15:21:35)
Wayne...

We need more Big Chess players, no chess engines there :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-07 15:37:51)
New category (chess rapid 2000-2200)

Hello Andrew. True, but I don't think it is good to develop rapid tournaments too much, simply because it is quite hard to play, the risk is to see more forfeits on time & to concurrence the chess world championship as it is really hard to play 2 or 3 rapid tournaments at the same time. Also the more categories & players in rapid tournaments, the less in standard ones. Rapid tournaments are designed for players rated 1400-2200 who want to establish their rating quickly or to try the chess wch time control.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-09 01:05:28)
Chess sponsorship

An interesting discussion about chess sponsorship started on ChessDiscussions.com (Susan Polgar forums)

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=504

Several issues : "How to bring chess to the masses ?", "How to make chess a show ?", "What kind of sponsorship is possible ?"

Susan obviously thinks that OTB chess still has a great potential and that organizations could do much better to promote it... Here's my last response in the thread (reminds some old threads here) :

<<<

In other words, you say that chess has a show-potential like any other sport that could be used and that isn't...

For sure traditional marketing methods could help to promote OTB chess, and chess organizations could do much better... but is chess "bankable", just like an actor ? .. I just saw one more comparison between chess & poker in the thread "How to bring chess to the masses", but there's a major problem in chess that doesn't exist in poker or soccer : "everything can't happen", at least at a first sight, actually the way people can see it...

FIDE tried to change some things, ie. time controls, wch cycle but that's not enough, obviously. Anyone can win a lost hand at texas hold'em against any professional player, like any 2nd division soccer team can beat the Real Madrid once... Of course long-time statistics will be always favourable to the best players, but it takes a much longer time... Everything can happen in any event in these games (poker wch, soccer world cup). The probability for a real surprise that makes buzz is much lower at chess, the same best players invariably play the best tournaments, won statistically (ie.) 20% by Anand, 19% by Topalov, 18% by Kramnik and so on... quite boring.

The only interesting chess events follow the same scheme : David vs. Goliath, the buzz-genius 12 boy vs. Kramnik, mystery-Deep Blue vs. Kasparov, Anna Kournikova vs. Fischer & so on... nowadays the man vs. machine match is no more interesting since any home computer is stronger than HAL 9000 or Kramnik and there's no clear world champion (too many FIDE wch, different cycles..)

Chess needs real events and I'm curious to see the ones "that could bring chess to the masses" in the future... Maybe I'm a bit pessimistic, at least for OTB chess, but I'm very interested to see how good marketing methods will be able to transform our chess world... Just wait, hope & see :)

Best regards, Thibault

>>>


I'm now working again on SEO (Search Engines Optimization) for FICGS, more and more players find us via Google... Of course one next step is to sponsor the FICGS WCH & freestyle tournaments but it is a hard task for sure... All comment and suggestions on this issue are welcome :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-11 05:08:02)
Number of games limitation

Hello all.

The current number of running games limitation before the program blocks the access to new standard or rapid tournaments is 60 (which doesn't mean the number of running games is limited to 60)

After having experienced myself the "too many games" effects (more than 80 games, quite stressful and time consuming), and after a few general forfeits by players who probably reached the overdose, I decided to change some parameters to prevent such consequences. In a previous discussion, it had been concluded that it was up to each player to manage this and eventually to take the risk, but definitely too many correspondence games is not the same than playing chess all day.

The number of running games limitation before the program blocks the access to new standard or rapid tournaments (but world championships cycles) will be 30, once more it doesn't mean the number of running games will be limited to 30... Of course faster tournaments will remain unlimited. It should accelerate running games, prevent general forfeits, and help us not to become chess machines, at least "correspondence chess machines" :)

Best wishes, Thibault


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-11 15:46:30)
30, 40, 50... ?

One player (only) said to me that the 30 running games limitation before the program prevents to enter new standard or rapid tournaments [but wch cycles] was probably not enough. I think 60 is definitely too much...

Poll : What do you think about a reasonable number ?


Harry Ingersol    (2007-11-11 16:05:14)
Number of games limitation

I like the IECG Server practice of different levels based on number of games completed on the server. Beginners are limited to a few games while experienced players can have as many as 50 games in progress at a time. It is clear that players like Peter Schuster and Farit Balabaev play high-quality chess even when they have many games in progress. One limit does not fit everyone and experienced players can make an informed decision.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-11 17:53:24)
2nd FICGS chess freestyle

The 2nd FICGS chess freestyle cup waiting list is open. This 6 rounds swiss tournament will start on november 24, 15:00 server time. Time control is 1 hour + 15 seconds / move. Entry fee is 10 E-Points (10 Euro). Prize is 100% of the entry fees in E-Points.

FIDE GM & IM, FICGS / ICCF GM, SM & IM are invited to enter the waiting list for free, please just send a message to webmaster through My account page to register (you may be asked to send a copy of your passport or ID card).

Definitely we need strong players to rivalize with SIM Eros Riccio :)


Philip Roe    (2007-11-11 19:16:42)
cui bono?

Thibault,

I'm not at all clear what your proposal is intended to achieve.

Are you trying to save us from ourselves? Ruined careers, failed marriages, social withdrawal, vitamin deficiency...? If so I can't imagine a one-size-fits-all solution.

Or are you protecting other players from the phenomenon of a player who takes on a large number of games and then, for whatever reason, forfeits many of them? This seems to happen regrettably often and for that purpose it seems perfectly reasonable to ask people to qualify before managing a large number of games. Can you pull any statistics that might be revealing?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-11 19:33:21)
Save our souls :)

Hi Philip... No, the aim is not exactly to save carriers, marriages or whatever, but it may help in some cases :)

The main problem is to see general forfeits from serious players who were playing 60, 80 or more games.. I have no statistics but I see every game result, so it is quite obvious to me when a player forfeits all his ongoing games. So in a way, I'd like to protect everyone, players and their opponents, from this.


Lincoln Tomlin    (2007-11-12 00:06:07)
How about...

Hi Thibault and all, I'd agree that 30 games at a time seems reasonable and should be fairer for all with regard forfeiting games. But how about setting the ceiling to, say, 30 games max and then if a player achieves, say, 1.5X their ceiling in unforfeited games then the ceiling rises, say, another 10 games? 30 games to start with and when 45 games have been finished they may play 40 games at one time. The when 60 games have been played.. etc etc. Just a thought. Some responsibility seems reasonable. Regards, Link


Dan Rotaru    (2007-11-12 01:14:40)
Number of games limitation

I think that limiting the number of games is a good idea, and I have a feeling reading the posts that the issue is not if to do it but the number of games. 40 seems to be a reasonable number. FICGS is still free for corr chess and people are tempted to play too many games at once which not only dilute the quality of the games but leads to too many forfeits. I was horrified some time ago when one of my opponent confessed that he had about 230 games in progress on various sites including FICGS. I believe that even for very strong players too many games will reduce the quality of some games and I am not talking about chess knowledge but about the possibility to do a mistake as the good move in the wrong game.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-12 14:33:45)
Chess promotion

http://www.kcbd.com/global/story.asp?s=7342103

"People have played chess for over 2000 years and still every game is different from another,"

"It's a great tool for children. It's also a great tool for older people to prevent or delay Alzheimer's disease,"

For sure Susan Polgar do a great job to promote chess in the whole world...


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-11-12 15:41:17)
In my experience...

Anything above 40 games is too much.I peaked at about 60 games (IIRC), for me, that is too much, and, IMO, anything above 40 games is too much. Others might be able to play more with no problem, but still...

I think 40 games might be ok, 50 maybe, but no more.

You might consider giving players some control of the limits.


Don Groves    (2007-11-13 22:59:04)
Number of games limitation

Hi, Thibault -- I agree with a limit but not for the reason of protecting a player from himself (or herself) because that cannot be done ;-) But to protect the rest of us from long waits between moves, unnecessary forfeits, poor quality games, etc., it is a good idea.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-14 02:35:38)
Best Go games played at FICGS

As there's no best game section for Go (Weiqi, Baduk.. as you like) only yet, it could be interesting to share & gather the most interesting games played at FICGS in this thread.

Feel free to post a link to your favourite game and a comment about what makes the game interesting.

In example :

http://www.ficgs.com/game_9314.html

In this one won by Claude Brisson, several ko & superko rule made the position really hard to understand...


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-11-14 12:54:32)
new rapid category

Thibault please reconsider your decision and set up a 2000 - 2200 rapid tournament which I think will fill up quickly. there are about 60 active players rated 2000 - 2200 and of these about 5 have more than 10 games going. 2 of these (Jason and Sandor) probably wont enter a 2000-2200 rapid as they are qualified and down for higher level tournaments.If the rapids are for players up to 2200 why have you got higher rated rapid tournaments? Lets get more chess played isnt that what its all about? Incidentally the standard ratings of 2000-2400 and 2200-2600 seems a mistake as no one above 2200 will enter the 2200-2400 tournament. Has anyone else got any views on having a 2000-2200 rapid category?


Garvin Gray    (2007-11-14 18:26:42)
related issue


I think there is a bigger issue here. It is very rare to see a player who is just under the rating cut off enter said tournament.

For example: Tournament rating range is 1600-2000. It would be very rare indeed for a 1950+ player enter this type of tournament.

Maybe all the rating bands for tournaments need to change ie be moved to 200 points difference, with no cross over.

So the standard tournaments are:

1600- 1799

1800- 1999

2000- 2199

and so on upwards.

Rapid tournaments are:

1700-1899

1900-2099

2100-2299

and so on upwards.



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-14 18:47:42)
Cross over & rating cut off

Hi Garvin, that's an interesting idea to have different rating cut off for Standard & Rapid tournaments ! .. Cross over is not a problem IMO, but Rapid tournaments could be displayed this way :

1) Rapid M (2300+), Rapid A (1900-2300), Rapid B (1500-1900) ... ~400
2) Rapid M (2300+), Rapid A (2100-2300), Rapid B (1900-2100) ... ~200
3) Rapid M (2100+), Rapid A (1700-2100), Rapid B (1300-1700) ... ~400
4) Rapid M (2100+), Rapid A (1900-2100), Rapid B (1700-1900) ... ~200

Make your choice :)


Lincoln Tomlin    (2007-11-14 19:40:32)
The thing is...

If even fewer ~2000 players enter rapid tournaments won't that make it harder for those who enjoy rapids to rise through the ranks, improve their rating to similar levels and even improve their play in general?


Lincoln Tomlin    (2007-11-14 19:43:16)
oops..

I meant to say rapids with 'lower rated' players in. Regards, Link


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-11-14 20:32:07)
New Category

I agree with Garvins point completely. I think there are crossover probs. I like Thibaults suggestion for the display of Rapid tournaments - people can then choose there category - great idea. There is plenty of scope for sub 2000 to progress under this format and I dont see any downside.


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-11-14 20:38:49)
New category

Sorry I should have said I like the 200 band ranges options 2 and 4 - preferably option 2 as under option 4 I doubt you would see any 2200+ players entering. Wayne why do not want the bands to be reduced to 200 point differentials? dont you think there are a lot of players 2000 - 2200 who would like to play rapid?


Garvin Gray    (2007-11-15 04:54:50)
Option 2 for me

Option 2 for me. That being said, the rating cut offs should be 1799 and then the next group starts at 1800. Currently some players could have the option of two groups.


Wayne Lowrance    (2007-11-15 17:37:28)
Not 400 window tho

I think a window of 400 as suggested is bad, too wide...a player of 1900 playing a 2400 player is not conducive for advancement of the 2400 player, hence he would not enter. for example to be honest, I a 2200+ player would not enter such a category, just being honest. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-16 21:52:04)
option 4 -> option 2

My choice is option 4 in a first time.. Option 2 will be ok as soon as we have players rated 2300+ enough IMO, the waiting time is too high at the moment. So I'll change the rapid chess tournaments this way as soon as the next Rapid M tourney starts.. and I'll add a higher category as soon as the waiting time for Standard (Class) M decrease.

Thanks for your suggestions :)


Robert Mueller    (2007-11-18 08:52:18)
Class M Waiting List

Hello Thibault, I noticed that in the Chess Class M (ELO 2200-2600) Waiting List there are two players with a rating of well under 2200 (2174 and 2147). I suppose, they had a rating higher that 2200 when they signed up, but dropped under 2200 before the tournament was started. Shouldn't they be removed from the waiting list now?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-18 15:21:04)
Class M Waiting List

Hello Robert, it wouldn't be conventional to remove players from waiting lists IMO. These players just lost their 2200+ rating but they probably deserve to play this tournament. Rating considered is the one you have when you enter a waiting list. Kind of "last chance" :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-18 15:29:10)
6 days

... time to promote the tournament !

I feel it's a bit early for a freestyle Go tournament, so only the chess tournament may happen (if we have 9 players at least). The next one could happen not during a week end and with a faster time control.

3 players are in, join the fun :)


Wayne Lowrance    (2007-11-18 23:00:53)
Remove me please

Thibault please remove me from Rapid M waiting list #9. I give up on it and I entered standard class M # 15 and it opened up and were playing too my delight. I do not want to be overloaded, I am sorry to ask this,. thank you Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-19 01:52:29)
how to start a Go game

Hello Xuan.

This server is mainly a correspondence chess & Go server, then a real time chess & Go server.

You may enter a tournament in "Waiting lists", Go tournaments are below chess tournaments. "Advanced tournaments" are real time tournaments, but most are tournaments with entry fee & prizes, you can play 20 "bronze" games free with your 2 E-Points.

Feel free to enter a Dan, Kyu III, Kyu II, Kyu I tournament, according to your provisional rating.


Xuan Feng    (2007-11-19 02:00:07)
so

you guys play games by email ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-19 02:07:51)
server based games

No, of course :) .. there are interfaces for each game played here, see tournaments & games. When a tournament starts, your moves can be notified to you by email but you have to connect to the server to play your moves.

See also Help - http://www.ficgs.com/help.html


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-21 04:14:33)
19-7

IGAME.RU team now leads by 19-7

I just drew my King's gambit against Andrey Sumets, a hard game... I saw that Peter won his mini-match against Sergey, congrats to you Peter and once more it was great fair play from Sergey and Igame team !


Garvin Gray    (2007-11-22 06:38:17)
more players, more players, calling more

Two and a bit days to go. Looking like it is going to be double round robin the way we are going. More entries required.
Thibault, if we do end up only having three or five entries, can I please have the bye in round three as it will be 5am here in Australia?



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-22 18:07:25)
Freestyle tournaments

Hi Garvin, indeed 5am is a bit hard to start a 2 or 3 hours crazy chess game :)

Anyway, this tournament may be postponed (E-Points given back), I did not spend time enough to promote it 'cause I'm working to sponsorize it by all ways, so I hope it will be more attractive in a few months :)

Also, I feel that a whole week-end each time is a bit hard for most players interested in this tournament, so the formula may change regularly, we could try next time a faster tournament not during the week end, then alternate...


Dinesh De Silva    (2007-11-22 21:12:35)
Re:

I still can't log in. It's been almost a day now. Attempts to login to the server results in the login page being redisplayed without any error message. Attempts to open forum.chess-server.net results in "MySQLi error: 2002 Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/opt/lampp/var/mysql/mysql.sock' (111)"


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-11-23 21:00:02)
Any strong player for Rapid class M 00 ?


... Three players are awaited for completing rapid class M tournament 009.

There are already four players enrolled (2147-2215 Elo)

I (2373) would be pleased to join if two 2300+ do come with me for completing the table.

Anyone interested ?

... We need more strong tournaments.

Marc



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-24 04:23:35)
Next thematic tournament

We need five more players to start the next thematic chess tournament, then we could organize a few ones on Traxler again !


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-11-24 07:00:38)
:P

I'm in!! I'm in!! Can I play with white only? :P :P


Garvin Gray    (2007-11-24 11:55:20)
filling the field

I would be interested, but I am only 2034 but would be willing to play to see how I go and to complete the field.


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2007-11-24 12:07:32)
:P

I have an idea, can Mr. Cirulis play only with black?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-24 16:13:26)
:P

Ilmars tries to prove that Traxler counter-attack is dead for Black... Anyway the only to play White only is thematic silver games :)

Graham, did you have a look at Ilmars analysis in Wikichess ? See http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=wikichess&article=611

You can analyze some lines with other players...


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-24 16:33:54)
SC. von Erichsen is FICGS Go champion !

Svante Carl von Erichsen 4d is the first FICGS Go world champion, congratulations :)

According to the rules : "In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage."

As Svante Carl now leads the tournament by 7/7, even if he loses his last game and another player also finishes with 7/8, the TER decides. And as there's no previous winner to defend his title...

After the second championship (the level should increase), we may have the first 5 games match between two very strong players :)


Hannes Rada    (2007-11-26 19:23:10)
2nd Chess Final H. Ingersol - W. Utesch

Both player won clearly their semifinals. Any predictions for the 2nd final ?


Graham McGrew    (2007-11-26 22:33:50)
Wilkes-Barre Furor

Thanks for this wealth of responses, all. Thanks too for the tip on Ilmars' analysis. I will check it out. Thibault, what is the next thematic tournament for which you need five more players? Ilmars, I would love to play a game with you as white, me as black. Being new to FICGS, I'm not exactly sure how to start a game with you . . . ?


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-11-26 22:40:10)
Hi, Graham!

We can play bronze lightning.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2007-11-26 23:04:26)
ok.. :)

I see - you don't have enough time today. Or something else.

Post time, when you can play. I hope we will find best for both time.

:)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-26 23:36:46)
Wilkes-Barre Furor

The next thematic tournament is a very interesting line of the Sicilian poisoned pawn variation : 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.e5

See in Waiting list >> Special chess tournaments

If you want to play a "one-game" match with Ilmars, you may try in Advanced chess tournaments >> Bronze lightning .. and play Traxler, if you don't care about your blitz chess rating :) .. or Thematic lightning but with entry fee & prize (10 E-Points) & White must win rule.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-27 22:37:57)
Baduk and chance : 1dan in LG cup final

A Go player ranked 1 dan is about 800 elo points below a 9 dan player (whatever the ranking system ?!), meaning about no chance to win a game against such an opponent, right ?! .. How is it possible to see a 1 dan player at this level in one of the main Go tournaments in the world ?

Of course everything can happen in a Go game, but I suppose it is not the case during a whole tournament...


From IGN Goama newsletter - http://gogame.info

"An interview with Han Sanghoon, 1-dan, the first 1-dan in Go history, who entered the final match of the World Go Championship (LG cup)

- Congratulations! What was the most difficult game in this tournament?
- The last one with On Sojin, 4-dan. It was really close finally and I think, that I was slightly behind until the endgame stage
- You became a professional about 1 year ago. Did you think that you can reach the final match of the World Go Championship so quickly?
- I remember that it was very hard to become a professional. I was almost 18 and it was my last chance to win the qualification among inseis. Of course, I did not think, that I can show good results quickly. I was surprised, that professional tournaments are not much harder than the insei league :)
- What are your weakest and strongest parts in Go?
- I am weak at the opening, but I feel myself confident in middlegame fights. Usually I try to defend my groups solidly, before fighting
- Who is the hardest opponent for you?
- Yun Junsang, 6-dan. I lost him twice and feel that he is much stronger than me. Also his Go style is very impressive
- What do you think about your final match with Lee Sedol, 9-dan. How big are your chances?
- I never played him before, but I saw lot of his game records and I know that Lee Sedol, 9-dan is much stronger than me. Any way, I will try to win the match! Usually I am not afraid of the star opponents at all!"


Pekka I. Turakainen    (2007-11-27 22:44:48)
Can u figure this out?

Some time ago we played a game of chess with my friend and after 66. move reached the following position: 6k1/5b2/8/4q3/1K6/8/1RR5/8 w - - 0 1 We agreed that it's a draw. No it isn't! It's white's move and the material looks balanced, but black will have his win after 53 moves (if white has an ideal defence). This is what the almighty Nalimov says. Don't bother to check this out with your multiprocessor chess software...it'll probably take months before it finds the right combination. What to speak of the poor human brain. Feeling humble now....


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-11-29 05:32:28)
Chinese, Japanese, Turkish, Portuguese..

Thanks to any player who may help by translating the first lines of the home page in these languages by going to :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_wiki_zh-ficgs_home_page.html - (Chinese) http://www.ficgs.com/user_wiki_ja-ficgs_home_page.html - (Japanese) http://www.ficgs.com/user_wiki_tr-ficgs_home_page.html - (Turkish) http://www.ficgs.com/user_wiki_pt-ficgs_home_page.html - (Portuguese)


Original english version is here :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_wiki_en-ficgs_home_page.html


Thanks in advance :)


Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2007-11-30 02:00:56)
attempt at clarification

First, the professional ranks cannot be compared to amateur ranks. A few years ago, the general assumption was that a difference of one professional rank was equal to about one third of a stone. The EGF assumes 30 ELO points between pro ranks. Recently, however, especially in Korea, there are many aspiring young players trying to become a professional, but only a handful are promoted each year. As a result, the competition for _becoming_ pro has become so fierce that any player who passes these tests is all but guaranteed to be already able to give the established players a run for their money. Another point to note is that while amateur ranks try to depict the _strength_ of a player, professional ranks are based on _merit_.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-01 15:02:34)
time counting

Hello Ulrich.

Yes, this is the only tournament where this problem happened, simply because the thematic opening starts at Black move number 10 :/ .. So the program added time to player Black when playing his first move, not to player White (at move eleven). I did not think about that when the tournament started, but anyway this advantage or disadvantage is shared (3 games with, 3 games without). Sorry about that.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-03 03:04:56)
"Chess is like" series

Just tried a Google search on "chess is like" :


- Chess is like life (Spassky, Kasparov, Polar or so.. Fischer said Chess IS life :))

- A game of Chess is like a sword fight ! You must think first, before your move...

- To some extent face to face chess is like poker in that it can help to "read" your opponent's body language.

- Chess is like a box of choclates, once you start a game you never know what your gonna get.

- Chess is like body-building. If you train every day, you stay in top shape.

- Chess is like marriage. You cannot have a mate without a check. (Brian Wood)

- To me chess is like a patient and faithful lover; I may not always be there for her - er, it - but it is always there waiting by the phone for me to call and start up with the affair all over again. (Graham Moore)

- Chess is like snooker: once you slip a little it is very hard to get back because there are so many good young players fighting their way up.

- Chess is like golf, 50 percent mental, 50 percent physical.

- Chess is like the saxophone. You can pick it up and learn it, but it takes a lifetime to become any good.

- Chess is like tug-of-war, but it's also like "a cork bobbing up and down."

- Playing chess is like looking out over a limitless ocean; playing checkers is like looking into a bottomless well.

- Chess is like a symphony. The first phase of this piece was a furioso, leading to a quiet second movement, a positional struggle between two very different personalities. (about a Fischer's game)


... and so on. Finally anything's like everything :)


Garvin Gray    (2007-12-12 14:38:00)
5


I would like to offer that perhaps five player tournaments should be considered instead of seven player, at least on a trial basis.

This would have two effects:

1) Less waiting time for tournaments to start

2) Players have to enter more tournaments to get the same number of games, increasing the amount of players entering tournaments.



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-12 16:14:36)
5 vs. 7

5 players would be great this way, but it has many other effects including on tournaments results & cheating attempts.. 7 players is best for fair ratings IMO.


Garvin Gray    (2007-12-12 16:40:02)
5 over 7 as a trial :)


7 players is best for fair ratings IMO.

I do not disagree one bit. The more games and more players in a touranment, the better rating outcomes and fairer tournament all round.

That being said, I think this does need to be balanced against both how long it takes to get a tournament started (which can be quite a while in some cases) and keeping new players on the site by being able to get them some starting games sooner. This has to also be good for accurate ratings as it increases the pool of potential players.



Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2007-12-13 12:06:00)
Just an idea ...

What ever categories we decided, maybe we could add in some cases a "wild card", I mean, allowing one player with lower rating.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-13 17:59:07)
Wild cards & cheating

I don't think wild cards are useful (but wch cycle, maybe) cause ratings move quite fast, simple rules is best IMO, also to let the program apply accurate rules without human decision, as far as possible...

About cheating, if a player manage to play from several accounts that the program couldn't detect, the effects are negligible in 7-players tournaments, even more at a high level, so he'll stop quite quickly as it requires even more time.


Garvin Gray    (2007-12-15 17:28:26)
wild cards


I think a wild card would be a good idea for the higher rated tournaments if there was a rating limit to the wild card.

For instance, after a certain amount of time for entries, entry is allowed for one person rated less than 100 points below the lower rating cutoff.

This wild card player will not be outclassed and if a new player might even be quite under rated and competitive in the tournment.

The point is that after a certain time given for normal entries, I think most players already registered in the tournament would rather the tournament to start than to keep waiting around.



Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-15 17:51:51)
50 moves rule

Absolutely.

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#playing


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-16 16:31:33)
Make your chess variant :)

"Too many draws, chess is dead", one read such things quite often for a few years. True or not, what about to imagine a new variant like Chess-Vodka (one move or capture, one mouthful.. funny games :))

Ok, I can't implement Zubrowka on this server :) , but we could imagine a funny rule that would let the game rules very near classical chess but with more mad games, less drawish & giving equal chances to both players (main point being FUN)?!

Any ideas ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-17 02:42:31)
FIDE world cup / WCH

Gata Kamsky (2714) just won the FIDE world cup final match against Alexei Shirov (2739) : 2.5 - 1.5 in Khanty-Mansiysk (Russia).

According to a recent FIDE rule, he should challenge the former world champion : Veselin Topalov. So he may play the reigning world champion after that (if he wins of course, if Anand keeps his title until there and if I understood well, not sure). Okokok...


Garvin Gray    (2007-12-17 06:12:46)
iccf

it is not standard at iccf for webserver play.


Dan Rotaru    (2007-12-17 17:41:55)
FICGS World Cup

Hi Thibault, What is the difference between FICGS__CHESS__WCH_TOURNAMENTS and FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP ? Is the latest supposed to be a Knock-out tournament? There are no games displayed under this on the Tournaments page. Anyway a knock-out tournament would be interesting. Something like the FIDE World Cup.


Gino Figlio    (2007-12-17 19:53:21)
MPT

Hi Glen,

There is one type of ICCF tournament where conditionals are officially allowed, the money prize tournaments (MPT). Their time control is 10/30 and it was found reasonable to activate conditionals in order to allow players save some time.

Best regards,

Gino


Lincoln Tomlin    (2007-12-18 20:54:43)
Too many draws

In over the board play, I like Yermolinsky's idea of when two players agree that a position is drawn then the board should be turned around and play continue for at least a preset number of moves. When accepting a draw sometimes a player can see, or thinks he can, some advantage in his opponents position and both players would also have to be confident in what is going on in the position from both sides before offering or accepting.


Hannes Rada    (2007-12-18 21:57:02)
conditional moves and ICCF bureaucracy

> ICCF decided to turn it off for all > ICCF tournaments. I don't recall the > exact reason for doing this, but it > has something to do with concerns > about time abuse. How can conditional moves be considered as "time abuse" ?? What is the rationale behind this ? Chessfriend.com had a perfect implementation of (secret) conditional moves. But ICCF is a slow, conservative and bureaucratic organization. Why not making a poll to find out if the players want this feature ....


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-12-19 22:40:38)
Small board

I was about to propose recently an implementation of a small board variant, just for fun that wouldn't be counted against the game limit.

Such things tend to be just plain fun.

With a small board variation you would complete the offer along side of Big Chess, Chess regular, and Chess 960.

You might want to consider some of Gardner's variants. I've played Los Alamos chess, and it's FUN.


Dan Rotaru    (2007-12-20 03:46:23)
FICGS World Ch.

OK, now it makes sense. Maybe you should have few links: WCH_001 followed by sub links: preliminaries, then Stage 2, candidates final and so on. What about a knock out tourney? Do you think it would be a good idea? I would personally like to play such a tourney. Cheers, Dan


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-20 18:44:21)
Kramnik vs. Anand 2008

Vladimir Kramnik, Viswanathan Anand, FIDE & UEP (Universal Event Promotion) have come to an agreement : The next FIDE World Chess Championship will take place from October 11 to 30, 2008 in the National Art Gallery in Bonn (Germany). Reigning world champion Viswanathan Anand will play challenger Vladimir Kramnik in a twelve-game match. The prize fund is 1.5 Million Euro, the main sponsor is an industrial enterprise, Evonik Industries, located in Essen (Germany) which was the exclusive sponsor of the 2006 World Chess Challenge between Vladimir Kramnik and the most famous chess program distributed by Chessbase, Deep Fritz.

Any predictions ? .. (may Anand lose his title before that date ?)


Garvin Gray    (2007-12-20 20:28:01)
needs new glasses :)


But I can't see yet how it adds some work to a tournament director (Garvin ?!)...

I have not played on a server with conditional moves, but I would imagine that there are times when the two players disagree over what conditional moves were proposed and so the td has to sort it out and maybe 'offend' someone with a ruling against.



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 02:19:32)
Yalta

Yugi, do you know Yalta ? (chess with 3 players) .. Actually alliances are almost impossible to avoid in this game.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-21 20:42:31)
conditionals

Hi Gino,

So it's up to the other player, who's almost forced to use conditional moves to save time also. But there are forced lines where only one player has "no choice", that's what I meant. Well, conditional moves could be implemented in many ways, with several lines, a complete tree and so on...


Dinesh De Silva    (2007-12-22 09:22:06)
Re:

I think the player with the higher entry rating in that stage.


Lincoln Tomlin    (2007-12-22 13:56:15)
What will happen...

Is that fair? I mean, in that case it's the lower rated players that have performed better overall?


Andrew Stephenson    (2007-12-27 09:44:35)
option 4

Thibault please consider implementing option 4 now. I cannot see the current rapid M 00009 tournament filling up for a long long time but there are IMO plenty of 2100 players who would sign up for an option 4 tourney who are not going for the rapid A 000035


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-28 14:11:54)
option 4

I tried to change the rating ranges but a few 2200+ players would retire from the rapid M tournament... I'm afraid we have to wait. Anyway I'm to make a major update (challenges) and other improvements on the server, so I can't do it right now.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-29 23:27:34)
Major update : challenges

Hello to all.

Now it is possible to challenge connected players for bullet / lightning / blitz games (advanced chess tournaments - note : please verify time controls, ie. blitz games are played in 2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves) with White or Black.

Many improvements to come (when I find some time), to display ratings and so on... All feedback welcome.


Garvin Gray    (2008-01-06 14:28:36)
hmm


Has anyone played a game using this challenge system.

I have made a few offers and never even got a reply. Don't even know if it was received?



Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-06 17:05:31)
Challenges

Yes, I made and I'll make updates to avoid such aborted games... Now players are warned if they receive a challenge but as this is a web server and not a software, players still have to check if a game started (ie. by email or in the message box)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-06 20:27:23)
IGAME wins the match !

Congratulations to IGAME.RU team for winning the match ! :) They scored over than 25 points out of 50 already...

Thanks also for the great fair play !


Wolfgang Utesch    (2008-01-07 06:34:46)
First FICGS GM tournament

There will be a forfeit by Viktor Savinov (Rating 2668 !!!) - good for ratings of the other players in this tournament! :)


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-01-07 07:37:49)
holidays and forfeit

Yes wolfgang he will forfeit although he still has time left he is on holday until Feb 1 and the clock will still run. I never understoofd the logic of running the clock and allowing holidays. This rule is misguided and unecessary I wish Thibault would get rid of it. I think victor does not realise he will forfeit and this will lead to a set of stupid losses I do not see how that helps good chess to be played nor do I see allowing clocks to be stopped would prolong the games to an unnacceptable length. Clearly a very unsatisfactory situation.


Michael Aigner    (2008-01-07 14:03:08)
Possible to stop the clock?

I do not know if Viktor did not know his clock will keep running during his vacation - but if so and this would be the reason he is ging to loose his games,i would prefer to stop his clock and keep him playing the tournament. Nobody has anything to win when he is loosing on time because he did not know this (slightly unlogical) rule - but to loose a chance to play a very strong player and an interesting tournament. Would this be possible - OK with all other players of the tournament - OK with Thibbault - OK with Viktor ????


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-07 14:54:59)
Possible to stop the clock

Ok, definitely I have to update this feature right now, but the 60 days limit per move should remain IMO, so it won't be possible to take too many days of vacation according to the clocks (or the player will be warnt that he'll lose some games)...

Well, if all players in the tournament agree to stop Viktor's clock, I'll arrange that.


Peter Schuster    (2008-01-07 17:05:55)
Stop the clock

My opinion is, that we stop his clock and continue the game after his vacation. I hope that all players agree with this.


Garvin Gray    (2008-01-07 18:21:04)
conditional move tournament


Can we have a conditional move non rated tournament to test out the differences as I have never played on a server with conditionals?

Might give some of us more idea of whether to be in favour of it or not.



Hannes Rada    (2008-01-07 20:04:20)
Stop the clock

I agree. It does not make sense to get a win without playing. Because we are here to play chess .... :-) However I saw that the game with H. Ingersol is already over ... So I would stop the clock, if every participant in this group agrees. But we need a more simple solution concerning the reflection time. I would propose: After 10 days without playing a single move: 1st warning, after 20 days: 2nd warning, afer 30 days: the game is automatically lost for that player. Warnings should be sent to both involved players be email. During 30 or 40 days holiday during a year the refelection time will be stopped. That's how it worked at chessfriend.com and this is in my opinion the best and simplest solution.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-08 00:50:55)
Incomes of top Go players

One more interesting article from the IGN "Goama" newsletter - http://gogame.info


Incomes of Top Korean Professionals in 2007:

1. Lee Sedol - $600.000
2. Lee Changho - $400.000
3. Park Yeonghun - $360.000
4. Cho Hanseung – $180.000
5. Kang Dongyun - $150.000
6. Mok Jinseok -$148.000
7. Lee Yeongku -$122.000
8. Won Sungjin -$116.000
9. Yun Junsang - $113.000
10. Kim Jiseok – $113.000

Japanese players, even who is not famous on international arena, makes more money, but it's still hard to compare their tournament incomes with top football or hockey players.

Maybe better to compare chess and Go players: "As sports go, chess is not lucrative for the average professional. The well known top players who have been able to achieve millionaire status (Karpov and Kasparov) are the exceptions. Aside from them, there are only about 20 players world wide who do well financially from chess ($100,000+ per year income), and another 100 or so that make a comfortable living ($50,000+). The next 1,000 players, on average, come out about even -- earning in prizes what they incur in entry fees and expenses. Then come perhaps 10,000 players who invest several thousand dollars more per year than they earn." -- from "GM RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge" by Rashid Ziatdi and Peter Dyson, PROChess LLC, New York, 1998


Glen D. Shields    (2008-01-08 03:36:15)
What are the Costs I Wonder?

This lists income ... I am equally curious what it might cost to play full time. Unless a player has a sponsor surely there travel expenses and tournament fees to cover. Then, of course, there's all the behind the scene preparation to become the best.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-08 03:49:08)
Cost of passion

Hi Glen !

What are the costs to play full time, what's the cost of time, good question. One parameter is passion for sure, so the price may be not so high during the first years, but it is possible that the cost increases quickly as soon as a player reaches the top !? :)


Glen D. Shields    (2008-01-08 04:10:25)
Other Expenses

Happy New Year Thibault!

Besides time, fees, travel there is also taxes and depending on where the player lives there may also be a need to pay towards retirement pensions, healthcare, etc.

My point ... $600,000 sounds like a lot, but when one factors in the whole enchillada, it's really not much money at all to be the very best in the world at your profession!


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-01-08 08:37:49)
Lost on time

Well I think it maybe too late to save Victors participation as the game against Harry Ingersoll is already declared lost on time. Its an interesting position and game, Victor is a pawn down but has active play as compensation its not lost at all. I expect when he sees this game lost he will just resign the rest. So we will lose the participation of the highest rated player because of a rule that is not well understood and occurs without warning. The only way to save that and play chess is if Harry agrees to play on I would understand if he didnt but its a mess frankly


Hannes Rada    (2008-01-08 18:33:08)
Income of top Chess players.

That seems to be peanuts compared with the top Chess players. Any ideas about the income of Kramnik & Co ? > it's really not much money at all to be the very best in the world at your profession! > What's the income of the best cc-player ? van Oosterom's income will be zero ...


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-08 19:04:50)
Today...

... most probably ;)

By the way, more accurately the "WC-2 knockout final"..

In the WC-1, it seems Gaetano is now in good place to win the round-robin final and to play Gino, who won the knockout final, let's see how the last game Pichelin-Laghetti will finish, then the first final match will start :

http://www.ficgs.com/game_13145.html


Don Burden    (2008-01-09 02:02:20)
Incomes of top chess players

For a regular GM, my guess is not that much but they seem to make enough to live on. I find it interesting when playing in a chess tournament to look at the type of cars the GMs arrive in. Here in the USA, there was a regular GM tournament player who drove a car that looked like it was ready to break down any moment.


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2008-01-09 02:26:36)
Income ....

If chess were as popular as Tennis, we would see the GM's with advertisements on their clothes when they are playing tournaments.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-09 04:08:20)
Incomes of top chess players

"lol", Don ! .. show me your car and I'll tell you your rating !

Actually, it is quite possible that the most dangerous cars could be found in average between 2400 and 2500 elo :) .. just joking ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-09 05:06:16)
The games will continue !

All players in the tournament agreed to stop Viktor's clock so that the games can continue... Thanks to all for the fair play and sorry about that problem, I hope it won't happen anymore after the update.

Best wishes.


Dinesh De Silva    (2008-01-09 11:42:24)
Re:

"Viva!!! It's great to see top players with such integrity here in the First FICGS GM tournament."


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-01-10 07:31:34)
Thanks

Thanks to Wolfgang for pointing it out to Thibault for reacting so quickly and flexibly and to the players for being so sporting - chess is the winner!


Philip Roe    (2008-01-11 20:49:15)
game search

At present the "search games" facility allows to search by player's name or by opening. It might be convenient also to be able to search by game number. For example when a particular game is mentioned in the forum by number.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-01-14 10:08:25)
challenges

Thibault I must confess to being mystified by this: a name appears in the box entitled challenge a player, the name varies. Whats happening? does the system generate random names of those currently on line to offer up in case I want to challenge?? Or is the player challenging me?? Out of curiosity I have occasionally pressed the challenge button but nothing appears to happen. All in all quite baffling - now I ignore it!


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-14 16:19:56)
challenges

Hi Andrew, yes players are ordered by login time (then roll so looks like random) while they most probably should be ordered by rating. Maybe soon... If a player challenges you, a line with an "accept" option appears below the box. If you challenge a player, a line that you can remove by clicking the double arrows appears below the box and your opponent is warned. But I have to make new improvements to increase the interest of these bullet/blitz bronze games - maybe it should be free after all :) .. Now, the empty games (without any moves) will be deleted by new ones...


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-15 05:13:17)
"No games to display"

Did anyone notice a strange bug, ie. "Sorry, there's no game to display" (when actually that's wrong) in My games, while other pages, ie. the forum, work correctly.. this bug looks like to happen after a long time without loading a new page.. (so only the message box automatically refreshes regularly)

I'm not sure where's the problem yet... Thanks for feedback.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-15 20:31:55)
analyze board : update

The analyze board is online for classical chess, click the A option (available in "move_express" page only) then play your own lines :)


Konrad Hornung    (2008-01-16 07:11:38)
Games Database

Having a user friendly games database, showing the board and position and listing the options of moves played in that position by users of the database, with the option to filter games below a particular rating e.g. 2000, is my next idea to improve this site.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-16 19:32:31)
FICGS rules

Hello Peter, I understand your point of view. Correspondence chess is not OTB (over the board) chess and rules may not go the same way.

FICGS WCH rules can be found here :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=entry_tournament&tournament=ficgs_chess_wch
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#chess_wch

... so you should have seen it before to enter the waiting list.

The idea in this correspondence chess championship is to find the best player, of course. In correspondence chess, rating is much more important than in OTB chess to know the "current" level of a player, and should be taken in account, just like performance. This rule is quite hard but this way we can organize a new cycle every 6 months, so more chances to reach the final stages. Anyway this issue will be discussed again and again.. and rules are just rules.

Best wishes, Thibault


Philip Roe    (2008-01-17 03:05:06)
Excellent enhancements

Thibault,

Many thanks for the work you put into this!

I have one minor complaint. I think it is very unlikely that I will ever want to respond to any of the displayed challenges, so for me that is just clutter. Is there way to opt out of having this feature displayed?


Don Groves    (2008-01-17 03:33:19)
Same here...

Hi, Thibault -- Since I only play Go and the challenges are only for Chess, I will never use this either.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-01-17 14:04:20)
Result

TER stands for tournament entry rating ie the rating you had when the tournament starts. It is shown in the tournament crosstable along with the current rating. This TER is what decides in the event of a tie. However there is a slight contradiction when this rule is applied in matches. In this situation in the event of a tie the higher TER wins EXCEPT if there has been a result on both sides ie not all games were drawn then the lower TER player goes through. By analogy with Peters situation I think the rule might be ammended so that the higher TER goes through except when one of the tied players has beaten another tied player and in this situation is deemed to have a higher TER (as between them)for the purpose of the tie break. The point of this ammendment is that it still gives a tie break winner BUT it reflects the result bewteen individuals for tie break purposes as the result might indicate that the entry TER is not reflective of current relative strength. To late for you Peter I am afraid but worth a thought.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-21 05:18:05)
One way

Hi Wayne, one possible way already (at least for finished games) : you may download the full ficgs chess database, then filter games played by you... anyway you're right, it could be a next update ;)


Garvin Gray    (2008-01-21 08:02:03)
database

I have a database of my played and ongoing games in fritz. I just download each game after a few moves and add it to the database and then keep refreshing the game each time a move is made to keep the position and my analysis current.


Gaetano Laghetti    (2008-01-22 09:00:36)
congratulations

Dear Philip, it is very kind of you. Thank you also to Thibault for giving me the chance to play in this match. Ciao Gaetano


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-22 18:30:35)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU

My pleasure, Gaetano :)

This match was really interesting, and the result quite surprising even if our "team" is quite young yet, some forfeits, and some of our strongest players did not play. The russian team played good chess and logically won the match. Moreover, I'm to lose my second game against GM Sumets who did it very well since the opening... Gaetano's result, once more, is not just luck ;)


Wolfgang Utesch    (2008-01-25 11:59:22)
Rating rules

Hi Thibault, will games rated also if one player withdraws without any move (or only a few moves < 10)? I can understand that the withdrawing player should be penalized by negative rating, but not if the "winner" will get positive rating! Otherwise the FIGCS ratings will be a farce or better a gamble! i.e. Ingersol - Popov 8:0 without any move by Popov (TER 2463) in WC quarter final 4-000003


Christophe Czekaj    (2008-01-25 13:04:00)
In Fischer's honour

Hello everybody ! What about a special Fischer tournament ? Or thematic tournaments, on line he used to play, for example : spanish exchange, or sozin against sicilian... And yes, thanks for your wonderful play, Bobby.


Mladen Jankovic    (2008-01-25 13:39:03)
Sounds good

We can just sign up for a Fischer Random tournament in the special tournaments category and just play.

I'm considering my game load right now.


Mladen Jankovic    (2008-01-25 13:54:07)
Ok, I'm in

Looking for players in:
FICGS__CHESS_960__TOURNAMENT__000025


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-25 16:20:55)
10 moves rule

Hi Wolfgang, of course the 10 moves rule applies to the winner (the withdrawing player will lose points in all cases) !

"Games are not rated for the winner if less than 10 moves have been played by his opponent (most probably forfeit, silent withdrawal or obvious cheating) or in global forfeit cases against the same opponent, ie. 8-games matches, but games where an advantage is obvious."

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#withdrawals


Ivan Pljusnin    (2008-01-27 03:52:54)
23-th board

Looks like Gaetano Laghetti is one of the best players on ficgs. He tears to tatters our fighter (2-0) and beats the players from his own team.

http://ficgs.com/game_13133.html - 1-st board
http://ficgs.com/game_13138.html - 2-nd board
http://ficgs.com/game_8043.html - 4-th board

I wonder why he was given only 23-th board. Looks like a very tricky decision of FICGS captain. :-)

Mobutu Sese Seco


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-27 14:54:30)
WCH final

Right, now things look really hard.. so we may have 3 players with 4/6.. and the not less dangerous Xavier to qualify :) (with quite the same statistics)

To be continued.


Ivan Pljusnin    (2008-01-27 16:43:11)
Team complectation

FICGS team could be much stronger, I think. Some of your players have lost their games by time. Imagine, you replace them with winners of FICGS World Championship and other strong tournaments of FICGS. FICGS result would be much better...

In fact I do not believe neither in official correspondence chess titles nor in ratings. They do not show real strength very often. On IGAME the best part of our team is anonymous players, I think. Their achievements in this match are just fantastic. 9 members of IGAME team who play under imaginary names have now 14.5 of 17! Owl (here he is "Dojnikov") is going to win his last game. Probably he is our best fighter.

P.S. If I was allowed to play as Mobutu, I'd play stronger!:-)


Mladen Jankovic    (2008-01-28 17:55:36)
Tried YINSH

I tried YINSH, just enough to pick up the rules. It seems to be that good. It swaps first place with Go from time to time on boardgamegeek.

I never got around to trying GIPF, but I've heard it's well suited for correspondence play.


Hannes Rada    (2008-01-28 18:58:35)
Chess, Chinese Chess, Go

Thibault, have you ever tried Chinese Chess ? I've a book about the rules with some games, but I do not have a board. Maybe there is somewhere a Chinese Chess pgrogramm for free download. What do you like more Chess or Go ? Some years ago I tried to study Go, visited a Go Club. I tried to play a few games but did not realy realize what's going on. I was even not in the position to find out if my position is better or worse :-). Shogi - Japanese Chess, and Korean Chess, many chess variants and board games ....


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-29 02:36:57)
1st WCH candidates final started !

Finally, the 1st WCH round-robin final tournament finished with the 3 most dangerous fighters at tie, Xavier Pichelin, Gaetano Laghetti and Alberto Gueci (4/6). Congratulations to them !

According to FICGS chess WCH rules, the player with the highest TER qualifies for the first candidates final against the winner of the knockout cycle.

The first FICGS WCH candidates final just started !

Gino Figlio (2568) - Xavier Pichelin (2355)

http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_ficgs__chess__wch_candidates_final__000001.html


Good luck to both players and be careful, we're watching your games ! :)


Hannes Rada    (2008-01-29 18:30:38)
It's not there

Why dont' we find it under Candidates final ? http://www.ficgs.com/category__ficgs__chess__candidates.html "There's no tournament to display" ?


Nicola Lupinacci    (2008-01-30 12:18:55)
Under-10-move checkmate

I think checkmate under 10 moves will be counted in rating variations, becouse if you checkmate a player you do not win automatically the game: he has to resign.

I don't now perfectly how rating works but in my opinion rating variation is not cuonted only in games that endend before the 10th move with one player losing on time

Is it correct?


Christophe Czekaj    (2008-01-30 13:34:08)
Chinese Chess

I played some games of chinese chess on itsyourturn, and it could be fun ! I was totally crushed bya asian players :-D But I found a player in Rotterdam who was on the same level (just beginners ;-D) and we had some interesting games. I think its a good idea to play chinese by correspondence because, to say the least, it's not easy to find players in "real life" !


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-30 19:25:07)
Chinese Chess

Maybe this game will have a second life on the internet soon.. We need more players from China :)

What about kurnik.org ? .. or did you try www.clubxiangqi.com also ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-01-30 19:31:12)
Under-10-move checkmate

To resign or not to resign, is that the question ? :) .. Such case is quite unlikely to happen : If a player resigns in less than 10 moves, it is most probably a forfeit, if the game is lost anyway his rating is 'most' probably 350 points below his oppoent's rating, at least it should, so this game won't be rated for the winner, too easy :)


Nicola Lupinacci    (2008-01-30 21:40:50)
Something strange inside...

I have played 2 CHESS BULLET BRONZE at 21.00 today (unfortunatly I win both without moving).

The first game appear as "Game 12143", and the second as "Game 18538".

Something strange inside... :D


Julien Coll    (2008-02-02 01:47:00)
can great board game classics...

...like Shôgi and Xiangqi be too many? ;) Shôgi is also a fun, exciting and very different game comparing with the two others ;-) . I've seen only a few people playing to shôgi and xiangqi (I've tried the two games... and prefer Shôgi :) ) in kurnik (15 persons maxi)... but that was a couple of months ago :) Bye :)


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-02-02 19:15:42)
Rating from the other side

Congratulations Hao, when I joined I had a CC rating of 2300 at another CC site that I played at for years and years. I started here at 1400,,,,did not know any better. Wayne


Wolfgang Utesch    (2008-02-03 14:00:21)
First FICGS GM tournament

again - There will be a forfeit by Viktor Savinov (Rating 2668 !!!) - good for ratings of the other players in this tournament! :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-02-03 22:36:45)
Xiangqi

Only 15 Xiangqi & Shogi players in Kurnik ?! .. so is there a big internet club for these games ?


Julien Coll    (2008-02-04 08:11:23)
hello :)

I mean: 15 people maxi for each game, each time I connected -that's not enormous anyway... :) some months ago some members of the the ASA (the french shôgi association) used to meet all monday evenings in Kurnik -I don't know if they continue doing it again. If you're able to understand chinese, korean, japanese, etc... perhaps you'll find plenty of very good internet clubs devoted to these games :o) There is a shogi club called ISC, but I don't know if it is active. about shogi and servers: a good server for OTB play is Shogidojo... but the level is quite hard for beginners. there are other sites for differed play (ex. in Brainking you can play to the two games).


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-02-04 14:28:15)
mystery

Ok, I'm done... Don's right, actually each week I add some new rotating bugs so that players don't use FICGS excessively :o)

(next one: disconnection just before to post a long message in the forum - called the "Don's bug" :))


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-02-07 03:43:44)
Tie break rules

This set of rules favour the players with the highest TER at the start of the cycle (or CER - cycle entry rating), who play the knockout cycle, anyway the challenge for a player coming from the round-robin cycle - so difficult already - is just even more interesting :) .. looking at the first candidates final, I'm not sure at all who's favourite according to these rules. Xavier Pichelin is a dangerous player with an under-evaluated rating yet, he had to win (several) games in all stages of the round-robin tournament and he did it well, now quite the same situation but only one win could put him in a favourable position. He's used to this challenge, I think it is just more challenging and interesting this way. But the main idea is always to favour the highest tournament (here I should say cycle) entry rating.

"Victory belongs to who wants it more" (Bobby Fischer)


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-02-07 09:33:55)
cycle entry rating??

Thibault now your really confusing me?? I do not think there is any concept of cycle entry rating being followed in your WC system! In the knockout stages players ratings change so there entry rating changes in different stages. eg Wolfgang entered the quarter finals for 000002 with a TER of 2460 he was successful (against you)and played the semi final with improved TER 2523 and for the the knockout TER was the same 2523 with Harry had TER with 2456 for quarters but went to semis with TER 2459 and for knockout final his TER changed again to 2555. Now if CER is operating Thibault, the knockout final match should contain entry ratings at the start of the cycle ...this is extremely important because that would have wolfgang on 2460 and Harry on 2456 which will make a difference as it reverses the TER at present showing in that match leading to opposite results in the event of a tie. The same occurs for the stages and round robin finals - updated ratings are used for tie breaks at each stage. Anyway for the next cycle why do you not just change the candidate tie break rule to make it consistent with all the other tie break rules ie based on TER at the time the stage commences. It does not make any sense to give an advantage to say the no 8 rated player at the start of the cycle who goes into knockout over the no 9 rated player going into the stage and round robin. Both players will benefit from improved TER during the course of the cycle before they meet in the candidates final where there strength at that entry point should be a tie breaking factor and not where there rating was 1 year or more years earlier- the more so as their changed ratings since will/may have been used as tie breakers along the way anyway. Either that or introduce cycle entry ratings concept and keep ratings fixed for the duration of the cycle for tie break purposes for all matches and stages!


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-02-07 18:50:03)
Candidates final tie break rule

I vote for 1 consistent single tie break system for all matches and round robins: player higher TER at the start wins if all games drawn loses if not all games drawn. The tie break rule is complex enough without suddenly switching. To answer your 2 points Thibault: 1) The round robin winner is a sort of "challenger" to the knock out winner thus its right to give the knock out a tie break win if all games drawn and require the round robin winner to win a game to go through on a tie. But the whole process is a method of determining a challenger for the WCC not a challenger to one of the top eight. 2) Tie break system is different for WCC challenger ie champ keeps title in the event of a draw. Well this isdifferent and its easy to understand that its necessary to beat the champ to take the title. This difference does not explain having a different tie break system in the candidates - there is no challenge here and no title at stake. Each cycle is a challenger selection process and we need 1 consistent tie break method for each stage.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-02-08 00:57:29)
Candidates final tie break rule

"But the whole process is a method of determining a challenger for the WCC not a challenger to one of the top eight." << Well, actually it is also in a way, why not ? :) Anyway, thank you for discussing this point and trying to improve the rules, it would be great to know the opinion of other players !


Philip Roe    (2008-02-09 18:01:20)
Moving advertisements

Thibault,

I understand your need to generate revenue, and I may be the only one to feel this way, but I find it very irritating to have advertisements displayed that employ dynamic graphics.

They are, of course, designed to be eyecatching, and I find that they make it almost impossible to focus on the analysis board, which was a very welcome recent innovation.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-02-11 02:07:18)
Next thematic tournaments

Any suggestion for the next chess thematic tournament(s) ? The full list of all thematics played at FICGS is available here :

http://www.ficgs.com/wiki_en-thematic-tournaments.html

Thanks for your ideas :)


Iouri Basiliev    (2008-02-11 14:15:32)
Next thematic tournaments

I would propose to play Sicilian Dragon or so in memory of Robert Fischer.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-02-11 14:57:36)
Icelandic gambit

Okay, let's start with Icelandic gambit (sicilian dragon was played a few tourneys before), thanks for suggestions ! :)


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2008-02-12 13:32:16)
Icelandic Gambit ...

i have an old opening book, semi open openings written by Ludek Pachman, and it does not mention the Icelandic Gambit, so there must be plenty of "unexplored country" in it, so ... I am in!!!

Can we one day have a Centre Opening thematic ? I used to play it very often when I was young, happy and unemployed.


Iouri Basiliev    (2008-02-12 14:51:08)
Icelandic gambit

Ok. :) havn't seen the Dragon has played before. Icelandic gambit do the topic in memory of RJF!


Iouri Basiliev    (2008-02-13 16:40:48)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU, the games

I don't pretend to make the conclusion, but looking for the games quality i must admit the very high average level of play. Nearly all the tables! Fantastic! I personally think it's a historical (sorry for the overpathetic) event in the life of both sites.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-02-14 13:40:04)
ratings

Hi thibault some time ago I think you suggested that you were going to start people at a higher rating? Maybe 1800? At present you have some players starting at very low ratings who are obviously going to be strong cc players. One outstanding example is Zack Stephen at 1300. He won the PAL/CSS frestyle advanced chess tournament in 2005 and as ZackS has remained at the top getting high places each year Just a thought .....


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-02-14 15:02:47)
provisional ratings

Hi Andrew, yes new players usually start with a 1800 rating, but if the player specify a rating below (or an official rating). I did not notice Zack's provisional rating, quite strange, but anyway it should increase very fast.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-02-14 17:10:57)
Rule

Hi Thibault just to clarify your answer there IS a draw by 3 fold repetition rule at FICGS? What happens if the server does not notice? As an insurance should the player making the claim notify the referee that he intends to play a move that will lead to the the same position appearing on the board (with the same player to move) for the 3rd time?


Garvin Gray    (2008-02-14 19:00:38)
draw claims


Hello Andrew,

A point about the laws of chess from your last post.

The player who is claiming the draw via three repetition of position does not actually play the third move on the board. They are to get the arbiter (in this case referee) and indicate which move they wish to play.

The arbiter then makes the required ruling (draw or incorrect claim).

By the laws of chess, if you were to play the move on the board, it is then your opponent's move and you can not make any claim for a draw.

So taking this for server play, the server should not say draw until one person has made a successful claim. The reason for this is that both players may still want to play on after the third repetition.



Garvin Gray    (2008-02-14 19:02:16)
re-ratings

Hello Thibault, In these cases, cant you re-rate these 'type of players when you receive further information regarding their standard of play?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-02-15 01:03:12)
ratings

Well, it should be really exceptional, actually I don't understand why so strong players did not ask for this provisional rating change before starting to play (volunteer ? ;)) .. Anyway, as no rated result has been recorded in this case, a standard 1800 provisional rating seems ok.


Johnathon Ballard    (2008-02-15 01:22:36)
ratings

It would be nice to have frequent rating updates besides every 2 months, like once a month. In 2 months some players ratings change quite a bit. Like playing an opponent who is rated at 2000 but is actually 2120 when it is updated.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-02-15 14:36:07)
Kamsky vs. Topalov 2008

FIDE has announced its decision to accept the US $150,000 bid made by the Bulgarian Chess Federation, unless a country comes up with a US $250,000 bid by April 11th. The Kamsky vs. Topalov match is scheduled for the end of year 2008, after the Anand vs. Kramnik match.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4448


Now, a small test : Who is the current chess world champion ?

(you could also ask to 5 people who don't necessarily play chess around you and leave the results here.. could be interesting :))


Amir Elnemr    (2008-02-15 15:21:30)
Thank you

Thanks Thibault this is exactly what I needed, now it will be much easier playing.


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-02-15 18:57:08)
ratings

Thibault you say you don't understand why a strong player would not ask for a provisional rating change when coming aboard.... Easy to answer Thibault, most people feel like rules are rules, and won't challenge them. At least that is why I didnt ask for a rating upgrade when I first came aboard. As I said earlier that when I came aboard my rating was 2300+ on another CC site I played on for humpteen years. Anyway I was confident in my CC chess ability and figured it would not take long to get to a decent rating, I wanted to more or less prove my self here. I guess that is basic to what you have answered. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-02-15 21:31:39)
ratings

Hi Wayne. About provisional ratings, you started with the default rating at that time (1400, max. provisional rating was 1700 though), as every player do in any organization, now why a strong player delete the default rating (1800) when registering ? .. I understand this as "no rating, beginner", this is most probably what happened with Zack's rating.


Mladen Jankovic    (2008-02-16 15:00:33)
re:

The new interface seems to be mainly graphical, and I doubt that Links has JavaScript implemented. I prefer to input moves using notation manually, regardless.

The command line browsers I used so far were various variants of Links. I use those if I'm stuck with just the terminal for one reason or another. Or if I'm playing certain openings and don't bother switching to graphical interface.


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-02-18 23:00:14)
ratings

Thibault, it is not important anyhow, but I do not know exactly what you mean. In my case I didnt delete 1800 provisional or override anything. I just play chess. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-02-27 12:55:45)
Morozevich on FIDE Grand Prix

An interesting interview of Alexander Morozevich in Sport-Express (russian) translated in Chessbase.com

http://www.sport-express.ru/art.shtml?154431
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4477

Morozevich shares his views about the new FIDE WCH cycle, its length (that can be compared to a correspondence chess championship) & the lack of informations around it. Anand, Kramnik & Topalov wouldn't play FIDE Grand Prix also. One more call to get back to the original chess world championship format...


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-03-03 12:38:05)
2nd GM standard tournament

Hello Marius, yes it is closed now. The reason is it (most probably) won't be filled before a very long time - we have more and more 2300/2400+ players but not enough yet. Maybe we can change the rating range but it is quite difficult already to fill the next SM tournament waiting list. Any opinion welcome.


Miroslav Leskiv    (2008-03-16 18:02:47)
35-14

My opponent resigned in his "white" game. He could offer more persistent resistance if played 32. Qh6+ Kg8 33. e4. Anyway, I would like to thank him for the co-authorship. So, only one game remains :-)


Mark Hailes    (2008-03-17 09:45:08)
Leave waiting list

Unfortunately, I put myself on both Rapid A and Rapid B waiting list. Can I leave the Rapid A one? Currently there are no other players on that one. I still have a bit to learn...


Garvin Gray    (2008-03-17 11:35:42)
freestyle and seedings


While I am just another user of this forum, I can answer both of these questions as they come up regularly.

Hailes- My understanding is once you sign onto a waiting list, you cant leave it.

The reason being is players could enter, then see another player enter, then leave the tournament and rejoin in another slot to get a better colour, as your entry position determines your seeding in the round robin draw.

Also regarding chess engines etc, as long as you play as an individual, anything goes. Most of the players on here are using engines and it is fully endorsed.

Basically this is a freestyle chess site.



Thibault de Vassal    (2008-03-17 15:08:09)
Chess rapid tournaments : Rating ranges

Chess Rapid M waiting list has been deleted in order to change rating ranges for all rapid tournaments (increased by 100 points), sorry about that.

It should help players to reach the 2400, 2000 and 1600 elo barriers...


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-03-18 08:00:21)
Rapid categories

Well thibault we had a long discussion about this with a lot of input and agreement you stated that you would implement the following: "Rapid M (2100+), Rapid A (1900-2100), Rapid B (1700-1900) ... ~200" you have completely gone back on this and your new range is hopeless - you will get 1900 and maybe some 2000 players thats it nowhere for 2000 +_ - 2300 players to go Please check the archives reconsider and implement the range agreed to


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-03-18 19:43:35)
Quote festival, part 4

Now everyone (but newcomers) know the principle :)

Feel free to let your madness go and share your own quotes about chess, life and whatever.. The best ones will enter the FICGS quotes files :)

... just like in this previous thread :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=3448


- Hello Thibault, if I have had a plan (and I had one, I hope), I have forgotten it during the last week... - Hello Heinz-Georg. What do you mean a plan ? :)

(Anonymous players during a Big Chess game)


Don Burden    (2008-03-19 19:59:11)
Quote festival, part 4

Playing chess on FICGS without computer help is like being a one-legged man in a butt kicking contest!


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-03-20 18:27:02)
Voting for best game

A confirmation dialog is a good idea... but voting will be just more "difficult", so I'm not sure. Any opinion ?

There's no criteria... 'best' game, according to each player :)


Mark Hailes    (2008-03-20 23:23:16)
Voting For Best Game

Hi thibault------ I’m a bit envious of those carriage returns you manage to get in your posts... >>>> Voting will be more difficult <<<< I do tend towards laziness in my daily life (I can’t imagine life without a dish washer for instance). But even so the fractional mouse movement & additional click would not I think cause me such effort as to eschew voting, but it might make it more likely that I’d vote for what I consider to be the best game rather than a random one :-). So that’s one vote for the confirmation! >>>> There's no criteria... 'best' game, according to each player :) <<<< I assume then (from this somewhat enigmatic comment!?) that voting is for the best game in the tournament. Perhaps it might make sense not to allow voting on a game until it is finished? It may be that after playing well in the early part of the game, the player/s collapse later and mess it up. BTW. If I vote again for another game, is my vote removed from the first game I voted for? or not counted? Or can I in fact claim that multiple games are the best game in the tournament? What happens if I vote for the same game more than once?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-03-24 01:37:15)
voting

Votes are removed after 50 new votes, voting for running games allow to follow interesting games before and whatever the end... Well, I suppose players don't make the error twice about votes but you are probably right about this confirmation dialog, I may change it soon.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-03-24 19:11:34)
FICGS 2nd Freestyle Cup

The tournament will be played on April 6, 2008.

All questions and feedback are welcome here.


Don Groves    (2008-03-26 06:00:24)
Teaching games?

Go teaching games would be way for FICGS to improve the caliber and possibly the number of Go playing members. How about it, Thibault, and other top players?


Vjacheslav Perevozchikov    (2008-03-27 11:14:31)
Ratings

I have played more than 40 games. 30 wins & only 1 loss (misclick :)), and don't understand one simple thing: why my rating is so small - 1867 points. I saw other members with much worse performance & much more rating? What's wrong here? Thanx


Lincoln Tomlin    (2008-03-27 19:31:52)
RAPID_A__000041 points error

Hi Thibault, Myself and two other players finished the first 3 games against each other in FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_A__000041, all games being drawn. We have all been awarded 1/2 point in total instead of 1 point each so far? Regards


Lincoln Tomlin    (2008-03-27 22:26:36)
2 x 1/2 = 1. No?

Hi Mladen. I have so far played two (2) games and drawn (1/2) both. 2 x 1/2 = 1. No?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-03-27 22:53:50)
1 / 2 = 1 :-)

Quite funny... In the right column are displayed the number of points / the number of possible points. 1/2 = 0.5 but 1 / 2 = 1 meaning 1 out of 2


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-03-27 23:03:53)
Future rating & statistics

Hello Vjacheslav, everything's ok : Your rating first depends on your opponents ratings, obviously it will increase during next months :

http://www.ficgs.com/display_history.php?member=2290

ELO : 1867
Future rating : 1922
Games calculated : 9
Result : 77 %
Elo opponents : 1809
Performance : 2020

Rating history (from first to last) :
1600 1696 1740 1823 1867


Garvin Gray    (2008-03-28 15:41:07)
4 entries so far.


Well everyone, get your entries in. We have four entries so far.

Two decent players and two rabbits, so to speak.

More entries, the better the tournament.



Yugi Inving    (2008-03-29 19:09:43)
performance.

How does the performance is calculated. like me Games calculated : 7 Result : 92 % Elo opponents : 1299 Performance : 1700 from this 1700 come from, from my victories and the elo of opponent or the types of games i play.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-03-30 07:25:30)
Freestyle cup : Rules & start

There was a small conflict in the rules, now corrected : The first game will start at 13:00 server time, not 15:00

Current rules :

FICGS advanced chess "freestyle" cup is a 6 rounds swiss tournament with entry fee and prize, played in a single day. Entry fees are E-Points that you can buy in 'My account'. Read carefully terms and conditions, particularly Entry fees & Prize money sections before to play tournaments with entry fees.

All games are played in 30 minutes + 15 seconds / move. Norms are not possible.

The first round will start at the date and hour (13:00 server time) indicated as "deadline". Next rounds will start at 15:00, 17:00, 19:00, 21:00 and 23:00 server time. Please register carefully as it is not possible to retire from the waiting list. It is strongly recommended to display the chat bar to communicate with the tournament director.

If several players obtain the best score and the best Sonnenborn-Berger, they will share the prize. It is possible to forfeit all next games (that will be unrated for the advanced chess rating list) during the tournament.

FIDE GM & IM, FICGS / ICCF GM, SM & IM are invited to enter the waiting list for free.. Please just send a message to webmaster through My account page to register. You may be asked to send a copy of your passport or ID card. The tournament might be cancelled if less than 7 players registered before the deadline, in this case entry fees will be given back to the players.

An extra fee, usually 30% of the entry fee, will be added to the entry fee 2 days before the start of the tournament.


Garvin Gray    (2008-03-31 10:42:37)
sign up sign up

Four more players needed at least for a decent competition. I do wonder though, how many people on here have enough e-points to play?


Lincoln Tomlin    (2008-04-02 03:38:45)
Unsporting behaviour

It would be respectful if players who have no intention of making any more moves in a game would have the decency to resign. Some players on here are carrying on with other games at the same time so are obviously ignoring these games on purpose. It messes around with your grading cycle if you only have a few games awaiting results and I personally find it very rude behaviour. Rant over :)


Dirk Ghysens    (2008-04-02 10:50:03)
Joke?

All information seems correct.

The only upsetting thing is that Judit Polgar is missing from the Players list.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-04-04 03:53:14)
Freestyle registrations

We need at least 3 more players in the waiting list before saturday (april 5) to play this freestyle tournament !


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-04-05 02:43:40)
FICGS 2nd Freestyle Cup

Obviously the tournament won't probably be really interesting before I can sponsorize it and find additionnal sponsors... Ok, I'll make some important changes during the next weeks, this 2nd freestyle won't start this time again, we need more time anyway. Sorry and many thanks to the players who entered the waiting list !


Garvin Gray    (2008-04-06 14:02:58)
not a fan


Now that the tournament has been cancelled, I have a couple of comments regarding what was the proposed format of 6 rounds of 30 + 10 in one day.

Players on here previously objected to this type of 'fast' time control as
it gave too much advantage to engine only players over freestylers. This point was also discussed heavily when 45 + 5 was used in a playchess freestyle tournament.

I will not be participating again in a tournament under this time control when for me play starts at 9pm and will finish at about 7am with 6 rounds in one sitting.

I would find it much easier to play one round per day at 90 + 30 over a few days, with play starting at 1300 server time.

While this may seem like a big commitment, I would think that more players can make a few hours commitment each day, than a 12 hour or so commitment on one day. Especially when trying to run a tournament across 24 time zones.



Thibault de Vassal    (2008-04-06 18:06:20)
time control

Once more, you are probably right about time controls.. just tried, but anyway, no formula will fit to everyone :( .. IMO the main points are the site has to improve yet and we need more players, then things should follow. Of course, feel free to make suggestions...

Two points :

- I just wonder if an 'open' waiting list is ok for such a tournament : Maybe players shouldn't be able to see the players who already entered the waiting list (cause of course everyone may wait to see who registered before to register...)

- Following some improvements, bronze games may become free soon. More players could familiarize with short time controls.

What do you think ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-04-06 20:39:41)
Unsporting behaviour

Hello Lincoln. Of course this issue has been discussed here before, in my opinion it is not possible to avoid every unsporting behaviour. This is "included" in correspondence chess rules... If a rule says "checkmate -> game is over", a player would just have to last the game one move before checkmate.. If a rule says "one move before checkmate -> game is over", a player would just have to last the game when his engine says +1.87 .. and so on :/


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-04-06 23:50:54)
checkmate

Hi Thibault I think in the case of checkmate the system should end the game there and then. I say that not because it would necessarily reduce players spinning out games but because playing on a server this should be automated. Isn't checkmate always the end eg in email (ie non server cc)chess?? I had no idea it wasnt here it is on other servers I have played on. actually I think many players dont know that checkmate does not end the game here and that they have to wait for time to elapse so I dont think players would all stop the move before checkmate abd it would reduce time in some games. Incidentally stalemate should also be an automated draw


Garvin Gray    (2008-04-07 12:47:43)
freestyle


- I just wonder if an 'open' waiting list is ok for such a tournament : Maybe players shouldn't be able to see the players who already entered the waiting list (cause of course everyone may wait to see who registered before to register...)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I would not recommend denying access to the waiting list. The reason is two fold:

1) Players will be regularly asking, who is playing and how many entrants so far? If these questions are not answered, then it either looks like there is something to hide or that the tournament is not going well.

2) It will just increase your work load of answering more questions.

- Following some improvements, bronze games may become free soon. More players could familiarize with short time controls.

It might be an idea to try the next freestyle tournament as a free entry tournament with the one game per day/long time control idea.

As for the bronze games being free, a trial period has already been offered and success has been limited. This gave everyone a chance to familiarise themselves with how the timed games operated. I do not think many players took this up.

As for paying for competitions, the payment options must become a lot more simple and obvious.
A simple paypal option would probably be best.
From my otb organisational experience, even offering a bank deposit option is beyond some players. And this is in competitions where the players know the organiser in person.



Lincoln Tomlin    (2008-04-07 13:07:31)
...

Hi Julien. Each cycle requires that you play at least 9 games otherwise you will have an 'estimated' rating. This could prevent you entering certain tournaments for another couple of months because of games hanging in the air through no fault of your own. Yes, it should be a friendly game and people leaving games hanging is not really solveable. However, games that have checkmate positions when the ratings are calculated every 2 months should automatically be ended, imo.


Garvin Gray    (2008-04-15 11:46:49)
otb v iccf ratings


To add a bit more to Andrew's answer.

While ICCF is fide recognised?, it does not mean an online player can turn up to an over the board tournament and use that ICCF rating or ICCF title in an otb tournament.

Only ratings attained over the board can be used for other otb tournaments.



Arnab Sengupta    (2008-04-16 18:58:26)
FIDE

guys, wont it would be great if FIDE starts a correspondence game system or server play, which it will recognize....well someone should raise this issue to FIDE


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-04-19 08:20:38)
Alberto Guecci

I see Alberto has got into the round robin final of the 8th Freestyle chess tournament under the name Spaghetti chess - congratulations Alberto and best of luck in the final which is showing on the Playchess server on April 25-27th


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-04-19 14:05:51)
Playchess freestyle

Congrats guys & good luck ! :)


Benjamin Block    (2008-04-21 15:29:49)
Free rated tournament on iccf!

Now you can play free in the 3rd WebChess Open Tournament. A.Players without ICCF ID or, B.Players with ICCF ID but who never played a rated game in the past. Read more here. http://www.iccf-webchess.com/Message.aspx?message=210


Hu To    (2008-04-21 16:21:04)
GoChild 2.0 is available

For kids who loves to play web games, GoChild 2.0 can use their favorite website as reward.


Gino Figlio    (2008-04-22 04:39:58)
3rd Webchess Open

Multiple entries allowed means that you may register in more than one group, but for new players only one section is free.


Benjamin Block    (2008-04-28 16:20:51)
How do you play correspondence?

Hi, In bigchess i use my own brain because i don´t know if there is any computer i think around 1 min in the moves. In Go i am a beginer and i just think 10s. In corrspondence chess i let my computer think 0-1 min. How do you play corrspondence? Do you use Deep position analysis?


Marc Lacrosse    (2008-04-28 23:12:00)
Is it a joke ?

" In correspondence chess i let my computer think 0-1 min "

In correspondence chess I never let my computer(s) think less than several hours on one move.
I also analyse on my own with computer use for at least 30-60 minutes per move.
I also prepare openings for at least one hour per day _everyday_ even when I have no game at all running in the opening phase.
I built one of my computers specially for chess, an overclocked quad with efficient watercooling.
I will go for an eight-processors one in the very next months.
My main weakness is that I like playing unorthodox openings
So it's a bit difficult to go higher than 2400 elo here ...

So if you let your computer go 0-1 min per move we probably do not play the same game ...
But I cannot imagine your pleasure when playing a move that has been decided by a "0-1 minute" engine analysis.

Marc


Benjamin Block    (2008-04-29 17:32:19)
Is it a joke.

No i don´t need more to get i play vs low rated player my future ELO is over 1700 so i don´t need more time. I will analysis more and more when i get higer rating.


Dale Leisenring    (2008-05-01 10:00:26)
What ever happened to the "FREE"

Internet chess server"? FICS? Now Ican't play online for free after playing on FICS for over 11 years!! What a RIP OFF!! - Jedi Dale


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-01 13:42:03)
time controls

The server is accessed on the site, you can tick the box on log in and then your password will come up automatically, once in you go to waiting lists and enter a tournament that your starting rating permits, the time controls are described under the categories (world championship is the same as the rapid time control), check the my games to see when you have games click on the game and you can play with the server keeping all the records. Hope that helps


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-01 13:50:35)
hours for the computer

I don't se much benefit to letting the computer think for hours frankly wants it gets to 20 + ply. There all sorts of horizons in positions that letting the computer run for a year wont sort out. Marc why are you playing this c3 stuff against the sicilian with such great kit? You play the same openings all the time and I thought it was because you had not much time!!!


Marc Lacrosse    (2008-05-01 18:03:17)
to Andrew

"I don't se much benefit to letting the computer think for hours frankly wants it gets to 20 + ply. There all sorts of horizons in positions that letting the computer run for a year wont sort out."

There are other ways to use engines than letting simply one of them run for hours.
You may interactively walk along the various branches of the tree going from current position with one or several engines running.
You may also have engines playing some kind of test matches against each other from the current position or from any critical position that you identify along the possible continuations.
You can use Rybka randomizer against itself or against other engines for more exhaustive evaluation through test games
And so on ...

"Marc why are you playing this c3 stuff against the sicilian with such great kit? You play the same openings all the time and I thought it was because you had not much time!!!"

1. I never played this disreputed c3 stuff against the 2..d6 sicilian (with or without the 4.Be2 pawn offer) before january 2008 in my 140+ former serious correspondence games
Indeed I did choose it because I erroneously enrolled in three new tournaments simultaneously and I feared to miss time for serious analysis due to heavy workload at that time.
Results are a bit disappointing with it : five draws so far and two unfinished games that I should win (one win is sure and the other one is probable).
This should lead to a 64% result and a 2333 elo performance. Not shining but not that bad insn't it ?

2. I like playing unorthodox openings in correspondence play.
I do not see any interest in beginning my games with 30 moves of overanalysed theory.
Most often I decide for a side variation and I do play it in as many games as possible simultaneously : I do the analysis job once for all while being fully "in the mood" of a similar set of positions.
Then I change for something else
I won't probably ever play any more game with the line I played against you.

3. An exception is the Basman-Sale Sicilian (2..e6 4..Bc5).
I like it a lot and even have a web site devoted to it (http://chessbazaar.mlweb.info/basmansale/index.html)
I am in a running series of more than twenty corr. games without a single loss with it and decided not to stop using it until defeat happens
I probably analysed it more than anybody : I have several thousands of analysed lines in my files.
I am just busy to consider switching to something more agressive for cases where I need to play for a win as Black.

Regards

Marc


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-01 18:56:08)
8th Playchess Freestyle

Congrats Eros :)


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-01 19:50:21)
Marc

Thanks for the informative reply! I do the interactive walk thing you mentioned its very useful though you need reasonable power to have several engines running at once - this you have! I am afraid I dont know how to organise test matches but sounds good. same with Rybka randomiser I have the engine but no idea how to use the randomiser and get it to play itself. 2 wins from the c3 is good as I think it gives white nothing ..but in the line I chose I noticed that after Gelfand (as black) got a draw against Adams with this line Adams repeated it aginst Kasparov who varied. So I guess Adams had an improvement perhap it was what you played? - as black has to find some very accurate moves . Incidentally I very nearly played 5..g5!!? which is really interesting but as my other games were promising decided to settle for taking a draw I like the Basman-Sale and although I have given up e4 in cc will play e4 if we play again as I have some ideas against it. Thanks for the reply


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-03 06:22:50)
Arena

I have loaded Rybka into Arena and it seems to be performing at a superchetged rate - unfortunately I cannot make sense of its analysis out put. I am used to a Fritz environment where you can select how many different moves it displays and it ranks them and assisgnsa value + 1.1 etc. it does the same for other uci engines. In arena hoe do I get this kind of output??


Jason Repa    (2008-05-03 07:23:18)
Rating List

Only players 2400+ are shown now?


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!!!


Josef Riha    (2008-05-03 15:48:18)
Arena

Hello Andrew, try out the following:
Open the Engine-Paramter dialogue of Rybka and then:
Display PV Tips...on
Win Percentage to Hash Usage...on
Display Current Move...on
Preserve Analysis...on
For more information look at www.rybkachess.com and click on Parameters FAQ on the left side of the screen.
With best wishes, Josef.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-04 07:45:33)
From??

I agree with most of what you said, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to conclude that all variations of the From's Gambit are busted. We might end up finding out that some variations of it are fine for Black.

I also disagree with your statement that "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". Assuming I'm willing to hypothetically go along with the argument that there's supposedly something "wrong" with 1.f4, even though it's at worst a Dutch Defense a move up......you're not taking into consideration the fact that some people actually do more than "play" correspondence chess and want to practice lines they play in live tournaments. 1.f4 has been played by many of the world's greatest players, and in serious competitive tournaments. Fischer, Kasparov, Lasker, and many others have played 1.f4 occasionally, and there are many current IM's and even a GM (Henrik Danielsen) who have played it quite frequently.

Perhaps your idea of "playing chess" is to simply plug a position into various chess engines and mindlessly relay the moves your program suggests, but as for myself, I use the data I acquire from my cc games to prepare for my real chess (chess between human mind vs human mind). Anything other than that is just analysis or group study at best.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-04 08:17:16)
From??

FYI,

5...Nc6 doesn't "put up more of a fight". It loses immediately to 6.Bxg5. I rarely have anyone play that badly against me in an online bullet game, let alone a cc game.

and in the line with 4...Nf6 (called the Mestel Variation), there is no clear way for Black to win his pawn back.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-04 11:54:53)
Lasker Variation of the From's Gambit

One correction. My comment about 5...Nc6?? 6.Bxg5 was from the line:

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4

But I still don't believe that 5...Nc6 holds any more promise than 5...g4, even from: 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.g3. The reason 4...g5 is played is to play to "g4" and dislodge the knight on f3. I don't believe delaying "g4" is going to benefit Black, as was evidenced in:

Malaniuk,Vladimir P (2600) - Tseshkovsky,Vitaly (2510) [A02] RUS-Cup Krasnodar (3), 1998 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.g3 Nc6 6.c3 g4 7.Nh4 f5 8.d4 f4 9.Qd3 Nf6 10.Bxf4 Bxf4 11.gxf4 0-0 12.Nd2 Be6 13.0-0-0 Bxa2 14.h3 Nd5 15.Ng2 Qe7 16.hxg4 Rad8 17.e3 Rd6 18.Rh5 Ncb4 19.Qe4 Qd7 20.Bb5 c6 21.Bc4 Bxc4 22.Nxc4 Nf6 23.Rg5+ Kh8 24.Qf5 Nbd5 25.Nxd6 Qxd6 26.Rh1 c5 27.Nh4 1-0


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-05 11:07:56)
Chess Titans

I just played my first games versus Chess Titans on Windows Vista :> .. what a joke, a way to tell Vista customers they are smart ? :) Ok, Microsoft's goal wasn't to rivalize with Chessbase engines or Rybka but they could have chosen another name... The program most probably don't reach a 1800 level.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-05 12:50:53)
From here to eternity

Yes there might be some variations that are survivable especially OTB but at cc its tough to give up a pawn so early on. I think f4 is a perfectly ok first move (like b4) I just think it does not give any prospect of an opening advantage at cc because there is no surprise value and the black player has the time to research and find a response that equalises fairly quickly. That is why very few GM's have F4 as a main white weapon - it does not give enough prospects for an advantage - at the highest levels. Please note that qualification. I quite agree real chess is between people in real time and cc is a form of research competition. Getting experience for real world chess is a great reason to play a line at cc. There are exceptions OTB I often play the exchange french and have had good success (played by Kasparov Tal Morphy and others) I would not play it at cc though! In fact OTB I always play e4 but at cc gave it up because I see no way to get any adavantage against the caro kahn. Just relaying the moves the computer suggests does not, I think, give much chance of success against good players at cc. As for the From I do not believe in g5 white has to avoid the tricks and develop and is a pawn up. Not so easy otb!! - but at cc not so much of a problem. As for Nc6 yes I was talking about this move after 5 g3 and you are probably right I will try to look at the game you gave and do some analysis. As for the Mestel variation I thought black would get the pawn back unless e3 and d4 are played but again that was based on a quick look. Anyway perhaps the thematic tournament wil provide some answers.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-05 14:18:51)
Will follow

Yes actually I did not find the way either - but got the feeling their might be a problem like win somewhere!! Good luck to both players


Jason Repa    (2008-05-06 03:59:45)
Bird's Opening

Comparing 1.b4 to the Bird's Opening is just revealing your lack of chess knowledge. There have been many books written about the Bird's Opening. It has it's own discrete chapter in MCO, and its played in serious games in professional chess still today, as I've already mentioned to you. I wasn't making an argument that it should be someone's "main weapon", and I don't use it as a "main weapon" myself. Your original statement that I was contesting was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white".

I'm significantly higher rated than you are on this site, and I beat you quite easily when we played last year (only took me 33 moves if I recall), so I don't think you're any authority in cc either.

And you shouldn't equate a lack of an "opening advantage" with winning potential. Chess is a complex game, and its not about simply trying to make the best theoretical move all the time. It's about defeating your opponent. Theory suggests that 3.Nc3 is the strongest objective continuation for White against the French Defense, yet you still see 3.Nd2 quite regularly and even 3.e5 sometimes. There is more to think about than trying to get an opening advantage when it comes to winning a chess game. There is positional maneuvering and jockeying, as well as psychological factors to consider.

Additionally, trying to win the most games on an online correspondence chess server isn't everyone's goal. Some of us play real chess and use the information garnered here to assist us in our over the board play.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-06 04:24:31)
Bird's Opening

Here's a few more wins played on this site I obtained with 1.f4 http://members.shaw.ca/winnipeg_chess/birdsopening.htm I've actually never lost a single game with this opening. Hardly seems like a "waste" to me.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-06 12:10:33)
Strictly for the birds

Thanks for the link for the games they are nice. Obviously playing the From or the approach adopted by black in these games is not an accurate response! Better to play like Of course 1f4 does not lose or lead to a worse gane for white - it just allows black to get equality very quickly and easily. The "waste" is that white has the first move and a lead in development and chances for an advantage. 1 f4 doesnt develop any piece (except the king!) and is a bit committal and slightly weakening of the king side. I would like to show with analysis exactly what I mean. Black has many good systems here is one. 1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 g6 3 g3 (e3 is the other way to play more on that) Bg7 4 Bg2 Nf6 already black is equal IMO. GM Jakubiec (2524) played this position 3 times last year as white against Rozentalis (2581), Bartel(2608) and Kadziolka (2295) and won all 3 games! He would 0-0 play Q-h4 and g4 f5 and roll them over! In every game black got an advantage in the opening and lost but at cc thats not going to happen. In each game it was easy to see blacks mistakes and to see the right move to maintain an advantage for black. The other set up for white is to play 3 e3 (instead of g3)Bg7 4 Be2 (4 c4 is interesting)Nf6 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3 and now after c5 its level but I would rather play black. Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta. These Dutch reversed attacks can be scary to face otb but they are harmless at cc. Conclusion: 1 f4 is a dangerous move otb especially where the opponent is not expecting it but against an accurate cc player it does not offer any hope of an opening advantage - its a waste if the goal is to get some opening advantage - its productive if the goal is to gain experience and insight into f4 for use in real chess.


Pablo Schmid    (2008-05-06 14:33:19)
Jason,

I would like to know how you refute the line which begin with 10..Bf5 instead of your opponent's move 10..Qe7. It usually continues with 10..Bf5 11.e4 Qe7 12.Bg2 0-0-0 and now what? And when you say that after 4..Nf6 you don't see how Black can get the pawn back, I want to say that chess is not all about material but activity. So it might be possible that with best play, even if Black can't get the pawn back, they could reach a dynamical equality.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-06 15:01:06)
A bird in the hand

I think comparing f4 to b4 is quite reasonable - they are both off beat openings. On the question of chess knowledge I do not know how much he knows about b4? It can also be a dangerous practical weapon and can pose the black player more problems than f4. It is played by serious professional chess players in tournaments eg GM Christian Bauer (2626) has played it several times successfully this year and quite a few IM's regularly play it with success. Now to comparing rating sizes something I confess to not having done since I was in short trousers. My current rating is 2225 with a future rating of 2247 but with 2 rapid games in the pipe line this should be a future rating of 2300 + shortly lets see. Mr Repas rating is 2281 with a future rating at the moment of 2316. How significant is that? Well I had the opportunity to look at his games to see what his rating is made up of. 10 of his wins have come against the same opponent Sandor Porkolab and in 7 of these Mr Porkolab abandoned the games in level, drawn or in some cases better position for him. Given that in these "wins" he was often rated over 2100 or in one case over 2200 this has boosted Mr Repa's rating significantly. He has not so far had much success in WCC not having got past stage 2. As reference to my loss was made I can say that this was in a variation (the Prins of the sicilian) that I believe is unsound. Actually I overstepped the time limit while on vacation although I think the game could not be saved I learnt my lesson and do not play dodgy openings any more. I have never on the other hand been busted after 17 moves in a main line opening at cc as sadly Mr Repa found himslef against Bucsa Loan (Game 1249),then rated 1700. Then again I have stopped trusting the books and analyse for myself. Still less could I imagine being lost in a cc game after 16 moves in an exchange French (by tranposition) An instructive loss to Torsten Opas ( game 4388)- won with simple developing moves - worth playing over. Incidentally proves what I was saying about the exchange french it can be dangerous - although not of course, at cc. Finally there is Mr Repa's pet Bird shot down by Mr Kotlyansky in the approved way as follows 1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 g6 3 e3 g7 4 Be2 Nf6 5 0-0 0-0 6 d4 c5 7 dxc5 Qc7 and Black was fine winning in 72 moves. Never having lost with f4 did not include this because I suppose it was a bullet bronze game. I am afraid I am naive enough to think that people play chess on the server to win and increase their rating - clearly there are people who play to learn and strengthen their game and for whom results and rating are secondary. No doubt such people would not be interested in anything so vulgar as comparing ratings. Neverthe less its all just opinion and we are all free to express it within the rules of the server. So: f4 is a waste of time at cc little more than an invitation to draw and the From is unsound and almost like resigning.


Pablo Schmid    (2008-05-06 20:13:21)
To Andrew

I would play 13..Bd7 to leave the e-file open. If 14.Bf2 then I play 14..f5 and I see nothing wrong for Black for the moment. 14.Kd1, I didn't look at that move, it seems interesting but really, Iam not that afraid. RIP? Easy to say...


Jason Repa    (2008-05-06 21:54:09)
Bird Brain loses in 33 Moves!

"Obviously playing the From or the approach adopted by black in these games is not an accurate response!"

That's not obvious at all. What's obvious is that I beat you quite easily when you and I played cc so you're far from being any kind of authority whatsoever!

"1f4 does not lose or lead to a worse gane for white - it just allows black to get equality very quickly and easily"

I just finished trying to explain to you, in the way a young child should be able to understand, that there is more to think about in chess than trying to play what current theory considers to be the best try for an opening advantage. Yet here you are rambling on about the same nonsense you were in your previous posts. Was Fischer's 2.d3 against the French the objectively strongest move? Even against (and perhaps especially against) computers, it can sometimes be better to play sidelines or moves which may serve to confuse an opponent. Is the King's Indian Attack the best try for an opening advantage for White? Probably not. But it was used by Kasparov to defeat Deep Blue. If you still can't understand the concept I've been trying to teach you, after several posts, I don't know what more I can do for you. Just keep mindlessly playing what established theory tells you are the strongest lines,(without having even the incipience of an understanding as to why) and keep mindlessly trusting the evaluations your program gives you, and you'll keep getting CRUSHED by guys like me.

"1 f4 doesnt develop any piece (except the king!) and is a bit committal and slightly weakening of the king side."

After this statement, if I didn't know better, I would have thought you were someone who just learned how to set up the pieces. It might be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard anyone say. Does 1.e4 develop a piece? How about 1.d4? I suppose those moves are "a waste in cc" as well. We should all be playing 1.Nf3 and 1.Nc3 according to you, lol.

1.f4 grabs space. It stakes out influence both in the center and on the kingside. It effectively prevents 1...e5 (lest White goes into a dubious gambit system) as an alternative to other moves which achieve this. There are also other intangibles that are part of the picture, such as the psychological effect the move may have, the lack of preparation an opponent may have against it, etc. If you ever began to understand chess at a level beyond just plugging moves into a program, you might start to appreciate that allowing concessions (such as the slight weakening of the White kingside resulting from 1.f4) is all part of the game. Fischer's famous quote: "you gotta give squares to get squares" is a famous example. If allowing static liabilities were something to be avoided at all cost, you'd never see a Sicilian Scheveningen. It allows all sorts of weaknesses.

As for your so called "analysis". It's a complete joke! For starters, you're "analyzing" a game resulting from the Leningrad Variation of the Bird's Opening. I line I've never played in my life, let alone here on FICGS. Is this how you try to win an argument/debate? By misrepresenting the facts? An intelligent person who genuinely felt that their argument had a leg to stand on, would simply take one of the 4 games I provided to you and do some analysis from there. Showing where Black could have improved. Then finally, after trying to "score points" with examples of the Leningrad Variation of the Bird's Opening, which I have never played, you post a game where White played poorly and lost to a lower rated player. As if that's never happened before in chess, lol. You don't even know enough to post the date of the game. I couldn't find this game on any of my databases(totally over 4,000,000 games), so if you didn't just make it up out of thin air, perhaps you got more wrong, such as the actual moves that were played, in addition to incorrectly stating:

"Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta."

Is it Black that lost here or White?

I took a brief look at the game, and it's hardly representative of proper play by White. 7.h3 was dubious at best. I prefer 7.Ne5. White then misses another opportunity to play the knight to e5 after 7...c5. Then 9.g4? is a gross thematic mistake. The only thing this game proves is that you're completely incapable of discussing chess in an intelligent way. Real chess players look for games that illustrate the critical lines for both sides, and try to arrive at some actual insights.

There is a reason I crushed you when we played cc last year.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-06 23:08:30)
Bird Brain loses in 33 Moves!

"I think comparing f4 to b4 is quite reasonable"

You would. But we all know what happened to you when you and I played chess. I beat you in 33 moves. And we can see how not only do you not provide a game that's at least somewhat representative of the critical lines of the opening, but you can't even figure out when the supposed game was played, or whether or not White or Black won, and you only post a tiny fraction of it to boot. So evidently, what YOU think is not exactly to be regarded in high esteem here. Most people wouldn't have required my explanation where I described quite clearly how there have been many books written about the Bird's Opening. It has it's own discrete chapter in MCO, and its played in serious games in professional chess still today. They would already understand on their own, or would at least be intelligent enough to look up the information without having to have their hand held and have it spoon fed to them. But even after all this, you STILL don't understand. And you mention Christian Bauer who only pissed around with 1.b4 when he was playing opponents 400 elo LOWER RATED! One of his fabulous wins this year, that you were alluding to, was against 1861 rated Jacques Decamps, lol. The rest of the time they were 2100-2300. Has he ever played 1.b4 against another GM? (never mind super GM, as 1.f4 has many times been played against)

An opening move like 1.b4 might be fairly compared to something such as 1.g4. You won't see any dedicated chapter in MCO to either of those openings, but they're at least interesting enough to warrant some discussion in the "misc flank openings" chapter. 1.f4 might better be compared to something like Larsen's 1.b3. A sound sideline.

You want to talk about ratings? I've had to build up my rating from starting at the default of 1700, by winning 117 games (one of them against you), because I wasn't aware when I opened the account that the admin would let you start with your established elo. It's not surprising I played Sandor Porkulab a lot of times, as we both were very active playing a lot of games. Unlike you who started with the advantage of an inflated rating, which was somewhat tempered after that beating I gave you last year.

Sometimes in correspondence chess people abandon games and don't log in again. This was the case with Sandor Porkulab, although I had already beaten him a few times in games that were played to completion, and he wasn't better in any of the games that were abandoned. You're lying through your teeth there, or perhaps you're just too incompetent and dishonest to assess the games objectively. Why would Porkulab have 7 games against me where he was "level or better" when I had already beaten the guy every time we played before that? Did you even look at those games? Or is this just your pathetic way of trying to "score points" by using lies and deception? Additionally, the way the elo system works is that even if you do get a few easy points from say a win from an abandoned game that perhaps might have ended in a draw, that gain is quickly diluted and your rating naturalized as you play more games, because you win less points when you win,(or draw a higher rated opponent) and lose more when you lose (or draw a lower rated opponent), than you would have if you didn't receive those points. I've played many games since then and my rating here is probably where it would have been If I had not played Porkulab at all. Or if not already will soon be. So this is a pretty weak argument from you. A better argument is the fact that I CRUSHED you in 33 moves when we played. Porkolab at least gave me a decent fight when I played him. That's more than I can say for you. I felt like all I had to do was outsmart a machine when you and I played. I didn't have to worry about any human judgment from a real chess player getting in the way of my victory!

As for me getting a lost position after 17 moves against someone? For starters, I've played about 190 games here. What have you played.....32? And I think that's a testament to the fact that, unlike you, I'm a REAL chess player, so my goal here isn't to simply try to win the most online CC games to try to give myself some artificial illusion of ability. I don't always play what I consider to be the objectively best moves because I like to experiment and LEARN SOMETHING from the time I spend here. But having said that, I STILL outperform you greatly, and crushed you when we played last year. I'm also higher rated with a higher future rating, even though you had the advantage of started with a boosted initial rating. So much for what you "think" you know about the strongest moves in cc, lol. And your future rating is only 2247, not 2300+. If you want to discuss what might happen after some of your current games are resolved, don't sell me short at 2316, which is already a given. Talk about the 2370+ I expect to have after some of MY current games are resolved. If you want to argue/debate with someone, learn to do it in an intelligent and fair way. So far all you've accomplished is to lose the paltry amount of credibility you once had.


Pablo Schmid    (2008-05-06 23:13:38)
Jason,

"I realize that Pablo, probably a lot better than you do" What? How do you know? You know nothing about me and you say that... "We were discussing whether or not Black gets his pawn back" Is that question more important than "Does Black have a sufficient compensation for the pawn"? "For example; 10...Bf5 11.e4 Qe7 12.Bg2 0-0-0 13.Be3!+/-" Easy response when I already said that I would play 13..Bd7 here and now what?


Pablo Schmid    (2008-05-07 00:34:11)
...

"Actually you're wrong once again Pablo. I know that you're only a 1912 rated player on this site" Yeah, on this site... I began here as a 1700 (the first rating here) and I lost many games on time or because I was very busy and in a hurry to play a move without checking seriously to not lose on time. And corr rating does not mean everything. I play OTB too. Do you? I would be happy to play with you, even if you seems a bit arrogant when I see the way you speak in general. And still, when I read that: "FYI, 5...Nc6 doesn't "put up more of a fight". It loses immediately to 6.Bxg5. I rarely have anyone play that badly against me in an online bullet game, let alone a cc game. and in the line with 4...Nf6 (called the Mestel Variation), there is no clear way for Black to win his pawn back. " There is not discussion about material, you seems to judge the position on the fact that Black could not regain the pawn, so they are worse...


Jason Repa    (2008-05-06 23:41:40)
Pablo

"I realize that Pablo, probably a lot better than you do. 'What? How do you know? You know nothing about me and you say that...'" Actually you're wrong once again Pablo. I know that you're only a 1912 rated player on this site. And I also know that you have difficulty understanding the difference between a discussion of dynamic compensation for material, and one of simply whether or not material can be recovered. Only in your mind is there the implication that "chess is all about material". Material is one parameter, and that is the parameter that was being discussed. You need to learn to understand that. Nobody was saying that was the only parameter to consider, or that it was the most important parameter to consider.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-07 01:09:36)
Step up, or shut up!

"I know that you're only a 1912 rated player on this site" Yeah, on this site... I began here as a 1700 (the first rating here)"

Join the club. I started as a 1700 player also. You've lost over 25% of your games. And to weak opponents at that. So I'm quite justified in assuming that I'm a better chess player than you, and by a very wide margin also. The fact that you couldn't figure out on your own why 10...Bf5 is no improvement over 10...Qe7 is just icing on the cake.

But anyway, I've had enough of you whining about your low rating and making excuses for your poor performance in chess. Excuses are for losers.

And there was nothing "arrogant" in any of my statements. The problem here is your stupidity and incapability at understanding what has been said to you. I've already explained to you TWICE that you were wrong in assuming that there was an implication that "material is everything" when I was discussing the recovery of material. That was not said nor implied. What part of this isn't sinking into your skull? How many more times does it need to be repeated for you to be able to understand???

I don't normally give free chess lessons to insolent patzers like you, but I'd be willing to have you a few bullet games on a secure server like playchess.com where in bullet time controls you won't be able to use your chess program to do the thinking for you like you do here. I've already had this type of thing go down with another motormouth on this site. I beat him 100% of the games and posted a link to them. At least he was man enough to step up to the plate and play me. You made the challenge so don't back down with any excuses, like the excuses you used to explain your paltry 1912 rating. And obviously if we're going to play real-time chess with the assumption is that its going to be human mind vs human mind chess, it's going to have to be fast bullet games. Not standard blitz where you have time to see what rybka running on your other computer suggests. Let me know what your playchess.com account name is and when you're able to play.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-07 05:15:58)
f4 or not f4

1.0 Pablo here is a link you should read: http://www.avlerchess.com/chess-analysis/A_BRAND_NEW_Chessbase_9_for_sale_on_eBay_92649.html 2.0 Mr Repa here is a comment about the Dutch defense: "Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4 3.0 Mr Repa's chess federation of canada rating is listed as 2010 with an active rating of 1737. If he reaches am expected rating here of, by his account, 2370+ then everyone will be impressed particularly as Mr Repa says "I think I'm a bit out gunned here.I'm running BATTLE CHESS on a Commodore 64. I believe its running at 1.023 MHz." 4.0 It might be battle chess that accounted for the following cc (!) game as black he played against Torsten Opas 1.e4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bb5 Be7 7.Ne5 Bd7 8.O-O O-O 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bh4 a6 11.Bxc6 Bxc6 12.Re1 Re8 13.Qf3 Qd6 14.Re3 Qb4 15.Rae1 Bd8 16.Qf5 Qxd4 (oops)17.Bxf6 Bxf6 and the game is already lost 5.0 Together with his loss with 1f4 that he forgot about here is another example of the correct treatment of f4 by black against Mr Repa 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 g6 4.b3 Bg7 5.Bb2 O-O 6.Be2 b6 7.O-O Bb7 8.d3 c5 9.Ne5 Nfd7 10.d4 e6 11.Nd2 Nc6 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 completely dead for white no prospects and duly drawn. Like I said 1 f4 is a waste at cc. I doubt we shall see Mr Repa use it again against a good opponent on this site. 6.0 All the games I referred to were white victories OTB with 1. f4 "Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny - thats the whole point. At cc Sengupta's play would not be impressive but otb it was effective. Incidentally the game was played in 2004 in India 8.0 1 g4 is like 1 b4? Well that is clearly wrong. There have been no GM - GM encounters with 1 g4 there have been several with 1 b4 including Topalov v Malakhatsov. Over 50 IM's and a dozen GM's have played 1 b4 very few have ever played g4. 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly. 9.0 "What is weird is that the conversation began with quite civil exchanges before tiny criticisms quickly escalated to nuclear mode despite my genuine and exhaustive efforts at diffusion and removal of misinterpretation" Can anyone guess who is being written about here on another chess site?


Jason Repa    (2008-05-07 06:46:43)
Bird Brain loses in 33 moves!

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the behavior of this lowlife. After all, I beat him in chess and beat him in debate. I also caught him RED-HANDED telling lies and exposed him for what he is. What else is a sniveling coward to do but dig up old flame wars on the internet from four years ago, that have not an iota of relevance to any of the topics being discussed here. I bet his parents are real proud of him, LOL!

"Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4"

Another typical tactic from a chronic liar....to change the very premise of what was being argued. I'll refresh your memory since you don't have the mental capability of remembering your own words. The statement you made was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". That is what I contested. I never disputed that there is some weakening of the kingside involved here. But some weakening of the kingside doesn't mean it's a poor opening choice. You're trying to win an argument with lies and misrepresentation. Try being honest and sticking to the facts for once in your life.

My otb tournament rating is currently 2010, but my active rating is not anywhere near what you're suggesting. I'm actually much stronger in both 30 minute active and blitz chess. I won more blitz tournaments in 2007 AND 2008 than anyone else in my region, ahead of 2 FM's. And my performance in active events is in the mid 2100's based on all the otb active events I've played in over the last 5 years.

In the region I play in we don't have many active events. So I've only played in 2 that were rated, and that was over a decade ago. The provisional ratings used were far below what everyone was worth (not just me). We had a strong FM who was competing at 1800 and change, while both his FIDE and national rating were in the neighborhood of 2300. Stranger things have happened in small clubs.

Did anyone notice how the coward won't discuss what HIS national otb rating is? We don't hear a word from him about that. Very telling indeed!

Then the little weasel reposts a game that he already posted in this thread earlier. Could it be that the poor loser whom I CRUSHED in chess, has run out of ammunition with which to compensate for the fact that he lost to me? I've lost 6 games, drew 59 and won 117 on FICGS, including the beating I gave to you. I beat you EASILY and I'm HIGHER RATED than you. Keep crying about that. Its entertaining.

Again, crybaby, if 1.f4 is a waste at cc, why did I gain rating points here playing 1.f4. And why did I beat you so easily at chess? I think I proved on the chess board, that you don't know what you're talking about. All you have is lies, slander, and random usenet group flame wars from 4 years ago. I have FACTS:

I BEAT YOU IN CHESS AND I'M HIGHER RATED THAN YOU ARE.

""Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny "

You're copying and pasting the same nonsense you posted earlier. Did you even read the words you typed? You're saying "look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as Black", as if he's the one who lost. Then You switch it around and suggest that Evgeny Alexseev was White and say that he played 9.g4. Are you pretending to be this stupid or is this really how you are? As I said earlier, you're probably making the whole game up, or at least changing moves around, etc, because it doesn't appear anywhere that I could find, and you're still not bright enough to figure out how to post the whole game as you were asked to do earlier. It's a pretty sad state of affairs of that's the ONLY game you can think of to try to smear a legitimate and recognized opening such as Bird's Opening. Whoever played White played very poorly. I spelled out for you the moves that White played that were very poor. Did I use any words too complex for you to understand?

" 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly"

This is also pure nonsense. There are MANY strong GM's (and super GM's)who haved played 1.f4 in serious games. GM Henrik Danielsen used it as a MAIN MOVE for many years also.

Keep posting lies, slander, and irrelevant 4 year old flame wars from the internet little man. I defeated you in chess and in debate. I proved that what you said is pure nonsense. All you have is hot air!


Jason Repa    (2008-05-07 06:57:07)
Bird Brain loses in 33 moves!

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the behavior of this lowlife. After all, I beat him in chess and beat him in debate. I also caught him RED-HANDED telling lies and exposed him for what he is. What else is a sniveling coward to do but dig up old flame wars on the internet from four years ago, that have not an iota of relevance to any of the topics being discussed here. I bet his parents are real proud of him, LOL!

"Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4"

Another typical tactic from a chronic liar....to change the very premise of what was being argued. I'll refresh your memory since you don't have the mental capability of remembering your own words. The statement you made was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". That is what I contested. I never disputed that there is some weakening of the kingside involved here. But some weakening of the kingside doesn't mean it's a poor opening choice. You're trying to win an argument with lies and misrepresentation. Try being honest and sticking to the facts for once in your life.

My otb tournament rating is currently 2010, but my active rating is not anywhere near what you're suggesting. I'm actually much stronger in both 30 minute active and blitz chess. I won more blitz tournaments in 2007 AND 2008 than anyone else in my region, ahead of 2 FM's. And my performance in active events is in the mid 2100's based on all the otb active events I've played in over the last 5 years.

In the region I play in we don't have many active events. So I've only played in 2 that were rated, and that was over a decade ago. The provisional ratings used were far below what everyone was worth (not just me). We had a strong FM who was competing at 1800 and change, while both his FIDE and national rating were in the neighborhood of 2300. Stranger things have happened in small clubs.

Did anyone notice how the coward won't discuss what HIS national otb rating is? We don't hear a word from him about that. Very telling indeed!

Then the little weasel reposts a game that he already posted in this thread earlier. Could it be that the poor loser whom I CRUSHED in chess, has run out of ammunition with which to compensate for the fact that he lost to me? I've lost 6 games, drew 59 and won 117 on FICGS, including the beating I gave to you. I beat you EASILY and I'm HIGHER RATED than you. Keep crying about that. Its entertaining.

Again, crybaby, if 1.f4 is a waste at cc, why did I gain rating points here playing 1.f4. And why did I beat you so easily at chess? I think I proved on the chess board, that you don't know what you're talking about. All you have is lies, slander, and random usenet group flame wars from 4 years ago. I have FACTS:

I BEAT YOU IN CHESS AND I'M HIGHER RATED THAN YOU ARE.

""Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny "

You're copying and pasting the same nonsense you posted earlier. Did you even read the words you typed? You're saying "look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as Black", as if he's the one who lost. Then You switch it around and suggest that Evgeny Alexseev was White and say that he played 9.g4. Are you pretending to be this stupid or is this really how you are? As I said earlier, you're probably making the whole game up, or at least changing moves around, etc, because it doesn't appear anywhere that I could find, and you're still not bright enough to figure out how to post the whole game as you were asked to do earlier. It's a pretty sad state of affairs of that's the ONLY game you can think of to try to smear a legitimate and recognized opening such as Bird's Opening. Whoever played White played very poorly. I spelled out for you the moves that White played that were very poor. Did I use any words too complex for you to understand?

" 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly"

This is also pure nonsense. There are MANY strong GM's (and super GM's)who haved played 1.f4 in serious games. GM Henrik Danielsen used it as a MAIN MOVE for many years also.

Keep posting lies, slander, and irrelevant 4 year old flame wars from the internet little man. I defeated you in chess and in debate. I proved that what you said is pure nonsense. All you have is hot air!


Pablo Schmid    (2008-05-07 08:29:01)
My last message to you

Too much insults. My OTB rating is stronger than yours, but I don't wanna tell you my life. But even the level is not the problem. Every GM that played against me always respected me, so they can be better and sympathic. Before a chessplayer, I am an human and I hope in real life you don't speak like that to the people. No need to insult, I never did to you and I won't even if you did. Now I won't speak with you anymore and if I play with you one day by the server, I will try my best to beat your machines. Thibaut De Vassal, j'espère que tu vas réagir face à un tel comportement, car je pense que tu es d'accord avec moi que c'est intolérable, un tel manque de respect.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-07 12:45:03)
Pablo BACKS DOWN!

Your OTB rating is NOT stronger than mine, liar. If it were you'd step up to the plate and play me, instead of backing down as you're doing. You're probably a 1500-1700 elo OTB player. Considering your rather beginnerish question about the Lasker From, I might be giving you too much credit at that. You know as well as I do that you'd be lucky to get a single draw in ten games against me. I'd probably just win all ten.

Do you always run around challenging people to a chess match on the internet, then retreat like a frightened animal, with your tail between your legs, when they accept your challenge? How pathetic is that? I was looking forward to playing some human mind vs human mind chess with you, but the idea of actually having to THINK and use your own mind to come up with the moves was too much for you to deal with, so you BACKED DOWN like a little girl!


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2008-05-07 13:01:32)
From's Gambit ...

Hi, is there a valid way to decline the From's Gambit without falling onto the Kings Gambit? Even if the Froms Gambit may not be sound, I do not like to be defending, especially against players stronger than myself.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-07 13:10:18)
Declining the From

"From's Gambit ... Hi, is there a valid way to decline the From's Gambit without falling onto the Kings Gambit?"

That's the usual way. Although I can't see why anyone would want to decline the gambit. All variations indeed seem to be quite good for White.

"Even if the Froms Gambit may not be sound, I do not like to be defending, especially against players stronger than myself."

In that case you might want to switch to 1.Nf3 or 1.b3 with the idea of transposing into the Bird's Opening later. This is what I often do in OTB play. Of course Black doesn't necessarily have to allow you to transpose, though.



-------------

Moderator : This topic is closed. As a reminder :

11. 1. Netiquette

(...) No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and will lead to get a limited access to the server during one month a first time, two months the second one and so on. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private.

-------------


Jason Repa    (2008-05-07 13:43:09)
Lasker Variation of the From's Gambit



[moderated : rule 11.1 Netiquette]

My correspondence chess game with Marc-Eric Plante finally wrapped up after over a year. It was an interesting game, IMO, and I thought that Marc had made some improvements over what had been played before by Black, such as 10...Qe7!? (instead of the usual 10...Bf5). However, it's been my thought that the Lasker Variation of the From's gambit might, at the end of the day, be lost for Black with perfect play. I'm not sure of Black could have done anything different in this game. http://chessmusings.blogspot.com/2008/05/from-night.html


Jason Repa    (2008-05-09 06:13:49)
Chess Titans

I didn't even know about that. I just tried it at level 8 (advanced) lol. I won fairly easily, although it played the first 5 moves like a GM. I hate that annoying ICC whistle sound when the computer moves. The should have went for Chessbase sounds IMO.

There is a game I noticed in the Vista gallery that is definitely worth checking out called DEFCON. It's a game of nuclear war inspired by the movie WarGames.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-07 19:34:00)
Reminder : Forum rules

Hello all. The previous thread about From's Gambit has been closed.

As a reminder of the site regulations :

11. 1. Netiquette

(...) No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden (...). In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private.

Provocation is just ridiculous when alone...


Jason Repa    (2008-05-08 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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-08 20:29:35)
Rating calculation & categories

Hello to all, I think it is a good time to gather feedbacks about chess (& Go) rating calculation and tournament categories. A player reported to me it was very difficult for a 2200-2400 player to reach the 2400 mark. Now we have a 2300+ rapid category, it may help but it is not very popular yet...

All feedbacks welcome :)

Best wishes, Thibault


Don Groves    (2008-05-09 07:02:53)
Go categories

Hi, Thibault -- I think the Go categories need to be looked at. We don't have enough players in the 5 Kyu to 10 Kyu range to fill the Kyu II groups, making it difficult to continue to improve after reaching 10 Kyu. Maybe combining Kyu II and Kyu III would help? One can only continue to improve by playing against stronger players.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-12 01:14:13)
Rating changes

Could you write a script that removes players whose rating falls below the requirements before the tournament starts? It doesn't seem fair that a 2100 player should be playing in a tournament intended for 2200-2600 players.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-12 10:14:41)
Rating changes

1) There was never a "rule" stating that a player has carte blanche to drop as many rating points as they want and still enter a tournament for which they do not meet the rating criterion.

2) Thibault has already manually removed players from rating lists for this reason. Nobody is being "penalized" except the players who are legitimately qualified to play in that category and who must play with the lower category player. The rating average is being erroneously brought down. The player who's rating was lowered is free to enter the correct waiting list for which his rating qualifies.

3) Your "C" class rating category is hardly comparable to the "M" class category where this has been an issue, so your opinion, even if it did have a shred of merit, which I proved it doesn't, is moot anyway.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-12 14:40:08)
Rating changes

"11. 1. Netiquette (...) No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden (...). In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private."

Don the more I think about it the more I think your view is correct there is no need to make the drastic change that was proposed. I have a current rating of 2225 and future rating of 2247 but have no problem with a person whose rating falls after they enter a 2200 tournament I am in. However it would be good to get other players views as this proposed change would affect players of all levels.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2008-05-12 20:02:28)
Rating changes

Hello to all,

I think a player should be removed from the waiting list if his rating is out of the restriction of the tournament.

In my opinion TER means the rating at the start of the tournament not at the entry into the waiting list. If the tournament starts the current rating is used as TER.

For example in FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000015 the games with Jason (!) and Sandor were rated with 2174 and 2147 and not with >= 2200 (their ratings when they entered the waiting list).

No words in the rules about this theme?

Best, Heinz-Georg


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-12 20:39:45)
Provocation

Thanks to all for helping, but please be careful about the rules :

>> "Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden (...). In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private." <<

Of course there was a provocation and it is enough. You noticed that I don't ban easily, provocation is a tough game that a few ones like to play here (not so well) but moderators can play with rules too, I may decide to ban a player definitively with no discussion anymore, but it is better that before everyone definitely understand that provocation is just ridiculous when alone... and when alone I can apply rules for this player only.

Best wishes, Thibault


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-12 20:43:04)
Rating changes, TER

About TER, it is fair IMO that a player who entered a waiting list with ie. a 2200+ rating can play the 2200+ tournament even if his rating decreases before it starts. There will be no change (it would have too many other bad consequences anyway).


Jason Repa    (2008-05-12 21:42:44)
Rating changes

Nice of you to quote the one single solitary "M" class tournament that I was a few points short of 2200, out of the 7 such tournaments that I've played in, Mr. Lehnhoff, But my point stands. I would have had no problem waiting one more rating cycle back then if the rules were such to maintain the integrity of the rating categories.

As for the provocation that's going on here....It's amazing the lengths someone will go to for petty "revenge" after you beat them in chess.

Also, there is no point in quoting a "future rating" if you're not taking into consideration your losing games, some of which may end before the next rating cycle begins, that may indeed put someone under 2200.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-12 22:10:21)
Rating changes

Thibault, I'm curious as to what the bad consequences you speak of are, with regard to removing players who's rating falls short of the category requirements?


Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 00:43:41)
How to Win against the Pin!

This was an interesting game I played last year. My opponent blamed his tardiness for the loss, but the position seems quite resignable for Black as far as I'm concerned.

http://members.shaw.ca/winnipeg_chess/beating_internet_trolls_at_chess.htm


Jason Repa    (2008-05-12 23:25:56)
Rating changes

It's amusing to witness the hypocrisy of someone who is perpetually provoking, ridiculing, and abusing to speak of there being no place for such offenses. And anyone who resorts to posting links to random, off-topic internet conversations from half a decade ago that have no relevance to the thread they are posting in, in order to try to get revenge for losing a chess game to the thread starter, is the lowest form of troll. I don't doubt that Thibault is aware of the intent of such an element, or the numerous and sundry ways they continue to try to provoke. In the end, we have to look at the results on the chess board. The fair medium for settling disputes. After all, that's why we're here in the first place (no offense GO players)....to play chess. In this arena, I have soundly defeated my opposition.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 08:25:55)
When will this troll stop?

This is hilarious! You've got a guy (and I use the term loosely) who goes WAY out of his way to insult, harass, and annoy, now trying to pass himself off as holier-than-thou. He's even following me around from thread to thread with the sole purpose of abuse and provocation. If I say the sky is blue, he'll say green. If I say 2+2=4, he'll say there is no proof of that. This character will not stop trying to provoke, as this thread proves.

I start an innocent thread describing an interesting game I played with someone. He immediately starts criticizing my choice of chess openings, made all the more laughable because I CRUSHED the guy in chess, and am significantly higher rated than he is. Perhaps this is what is fueling his little tirade. He then proceeds to post links to off-topic discussions that occurred 4-5 years ago as further harassment. And this is the same individual who is whining about, of all things, Netiquette? Irony to the EXTREME!

His latest tactic is to incessantly suck up to the site admin by making repeated hybrid posts which are intended to harass me while worshiping the admin. We'll see his signature phrase "I agree with Thibault" over and over again ad-nausiam. As if this somehow buys him respite for the provocative and abusive comments he CONTINUES to make towards me.

Although you're probably used to being in that position, please get off your knees and stop brown nosing Stephenson. It's pathetic. And before you start talking about Netiquette, please learn what the term means yourself. We wouldn't be having this discussion if you did.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 11:30:35)
French traps

The French defence is one of the best replies to 1 e4 - accidents however are always possible as the following correspondence game shows with black playing into a lost position after just 13 moves: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Qb6 9.Qd2 Qxb2 10.Rb1 Qa3 11.Bb5 Nxd4 12.Bxd4 Bb4 13.O-O O-O ?? (black had to play 13 ..a6 although he will still be under pressure) 14 Rb3 Qa5 15.Qe3 Nb6 16.Qg3 Nc4 17 f5! and the correspondence game finished Rd8 18.Rf4 Bf8 19.Rg4 Kh8 20.f6 g6 21.Rh4 h6 22.Kh1 Kg8 23.Qh3 Kh7 24.Bc5 Rd6 25.g4 Qd8 26.g5 h5 27.Rxh5+ These things happen OTB but French defence players have known of this since Rechlis (2525) - Zueger (2448) 2001 which went 19 f6 g6 20 Rh4 a6 21 Qh3 h5 22 Rxh5!! gxh5 23 Qxh5 axb5 24 Kf2 and white won. since then 13 0-0 has been avoided. Of course at cc a player has time to research the databases and access to powerful chess engines at no cost.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 11:57:26)
How to Win against the Pin!

It was a pretty easy and straightforward win for me. I didn't have to worry about human intelligence and judgment getting in the way of my victory, as is normally the case in correspondence chess. All I had to do was outsmart a chess program being run by a very weak chess player.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 12:07:15)
Trusting engines

I should add that if you play through the game with an engine it will show black doing ok and even better some time after the position is lost. So its a good example of not just playing the move the engine suggests but actually analysing the position.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 12:32:23)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

What's clear, Stephenson, is that you're a very sad and pathetic individual. You obviously have no life whatsoever. You've been harassing me and trying to provoke me nonstop. First you start this troll behavior in the other thread....now you're doing it here as well. Is this what you do to everyone who outsmarts you and beats you in chess, as I have done?

It's one thing to follow me around from thread to thread and harass me, but the brown-nosing and whining to the admin you've been doing has made me lose all respect for you entirely. Not that I had much to begin with.

You even go so far as to obsessively comb through all of my games, just to try to find one that you think will someone embarrass or offend me. You even start a thread featuring one of my games. Obviously none of your own games are worthy of mentioning, so you focus on me and my chess games, lol. Well I have news for you Stephenson, I'm not embarrassed at all about my correspondence chess game losses (or any losses in chess for that matter). I've learned a lot more from my losses than my wins. My 6 losses on FICGS have taught me more than my 118 wins here, including the easy win against you and your chess program.

Perhaps others can benefit from my 6 losses as well. Do the FICGS community a favor and post my other five losses, not just the French Defense I played against Bucsa Ioan, that you felt warranted starting a thread to discuss.

Unlike you, I'm a real chess player. I enjoy learning and wish to take my OTB game to the next level and I believe that correspondence chess is helping me to do just that.

What is YOUR OTB chess rating? Interestingly you didn't respond to that question when it was asked of you more than once previously, lol. Big surprise!


Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 12:54:06)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

My obsessive fan is quoting my game with Bucsa Ioan played last year. Actually you have it backwards Stephenson. I trusted my database, which wasn't up to date. I wasn't even consulting an engine until around move 18, when it's already lost for Black. I thought quite a bit about alternative lines in this game, but found myself agreeing with the Psakhis analysis. That line is recommended by Psakhis in his book "French Defence - Steinitz, Classical, and other Systems". Additionally, 13...0-0 has been played by the likes of GM Dreev, as well as GM Marjanovic, as recently as 2003. But alas, it pays to keep your databases up to date for correspondence chess.

The game was a valuable learning experience for me. I'm very happy that it occurred. My otb opponents will never get me in that position as a result :)

I can't help but feel sorry for you Stephenson. Firstly I'm sorry that you don't have any of your own games worthy of publication, and that you need to vicariously live through me and post my chess games. Secondly, I'm sorry that you don't play otb chess and appreciate the joy of playing chess using your own mind. But then again, in your case, maybe that's a good thing. :)


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 13:22:56)
Provocation

I am sorry I cannot respond to a lot of what you have posted as such a response would breach the rules. I have not examined all your losses - just the French games - so I do not know how instructive they are I will try to review them later but I can't promise anything. However I am a great believer in checking lines I play with the database to see whats been learnt and how the top GM's handle the particular lines. All I learnt from my loss was not to play that particular line and to cut out all dodgy openings. In fact the line you played is not the strongest and I believe black can equalise - unfortunately I found an even stronger line for white which seems to refute the entire variation. There is however a book by an english GM from 2007 which looks at sicilian side lines and claims that there is no refutation. When I have time I will stick all the analysis up and people can make up their own minds. On correspondence taking someone's OTB chess to the next level I am a bit sceptical. It definitely has a significant effect on the accuracy of opening play and this can get some valuable wins by itself. But other progress needs separate study and training. Silmans Reassess your chess for example will increase the rating of any one below FIDE 2300 if studied intensively IMO.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 13:57:40)
Databases and books

Well I dont think a book should ever be trusted for cc no matter who has written it. It should always be critically examined - playing 18 moves from the book without switching on the engine seems very risky. I think the position is lost after 13..0-0 14 Rb3 Qa5 15 Qd3 and I see no defence here. The only Dreev game I have in this line continued .. Nb6 16 Qg3 Nc4 and a draw was agreed.(Ivanchuk-Dreev 1993) Chess engines were not as good then and 17 f5 wins as was later discovered. Where are these GM games from 2003?? Its strange that your database does not have Rechlis (2525) - Zueger (2448) 2001 In fact an earlier game Ernst - Grigutavicus (1999)had seen white crash through with 15 Qf2 Nb8 16 f5 - although Nb8 does not look a very good move. Whats the date of this Psakhis book? I hope its not after 2001!


Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 14:17:46)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

I really couldn't care less what an internet troll with a <1500 otb chess rating, whom I've already crushed in correspondence chess, thinks about anything. Send emails to GM Dreev and GM Marjanovic, who have also played 13...0-0 and see if they feel differently.

Re-read my post a few times until you're able to understand what I said. Everything I stated is correct. I'm not going to hold your hand and spoon-feed everything to you.

As I said before Stephenson, it's sad that you don't have any of your own games worthy of publication, and that you need to vicariously live through me and post my chess games. I've never met anyone this obsessed with me. I don't think it's very healthy for you. In more ways than one.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 14:22:42)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

Actually, you really don't have a point Stephenson. You're a <1500 otb player with delusions of grandeur, nothing more. I've already beaten you and your chess program in correspondence chess, and I'm more than 500 elo stronger than you in otb chess, so what exactly was your "point" again?

I can't speak about what correspondence chess could do for a <1500 otb player such as yourself. But for someone with an otb rating >2000, such as myself, cc chess is valuable in many ways, not just for opening accuracy.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 14:43:09)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

No, it looks like my comment was a bit over your head, once again. By keeping databases up to date, I don't mean just mindlessly adding random games, as perhaps a <1500 otb player might do. I was talking about updating the database with current theory and critical lines.

What you're sure or not sure of is of no consequence. This is what chess players do.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 14:50:21)
ELO ratings

I believe ELO ratings are used for FIDE ratings I did not know you had a FIDE rating. I must say that ELO 2000 is an average to good club player and over 2200 in my experience is a good OTB rating. But looking at some of your OTB games between 1900 - 2000 seems to be the level of chess that I can see. Its ok - but the reality is that players do not improve very much after a certain age ...... Anyway at cc people tend to have it both ways if they win its because they are better players if they lose or draw its not real chess its just computers and it does not mean anything. I am sure we will play again at cc and then you can demonstrate your skill. If I win I will not place a great emphasis on it. It not difficult to draw a cc game if you have the resources to hand.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 14:57:54)
Updating databases

The professional chess players I know down load TWIC then filter the stuff they are interested in into sub-databases. But what has this got to do with not having a 2001 game in 2007??. Unless a person has some ancient chess base data base - but then why would they not look online and cross check?? It took me about 3 minutes to find some relevant games including the 2001 game showing 13 ...0-0?? as losing.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 15:08:20)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a <1500 otb player, such as yourself Mr. Stephenson, wouldn't be able to figure out something that any normal 6 year old child would have no difficulty with. But then again, during our chess game in which I crushed you, I had the feeling I wasn't dealing with a mental heavyweight, to put it mildly. I'll hold your hand and explain it to you since there is probably no 6 year old child where you live to help you:

The Elo rating system is a method for calculating the relative skill levels of players in two-player games such as chess, GO, backgammon, etc."Elo" is often written in capital letters (ELO), but it is not an acronym. It is the family name of the system's creator, Arpad Elo (1903–1992, born as Él&#337; Árpád), a Hungarian-born American physics professor. The Elo rating system has been adopted by many different organizations, including the USCF, CFC, FIDE, and others, as well as various online gaming servers.

My national elo rating is indeed over 2000, Stephenson. And yours is under 1500, as you've already confirmed.

I already beat you very easily in chess Stephenson. You're the little guy with something to prove here, not me.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 15:15:32)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

You don't know any professional chess players Stephenson. Who are you trying to kid here? You don't even know that the word is "download" not "down load", and "database", not "data base", lol. This is the problem with a mental midget mindlessly trusting machines, as you are doing with the spelling software. It is for this reason it was so easy to beat you in chess. I only had to outplay a machine, not outsmart a human who has the ability to THINK.

If you're such a "whiz" at correspondence chess, as you keep trying to convince me, and have such wonderful databases, why did I beat you? I think saying that I beat you is even a bit of an understatement. It was more like a slaughter!


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 15:47:39)
Mr cfc

Frankly I have alway taken someone saying they have an ELO rating to refer to having a FIDE rating and not a national rating I understand that you need to deduct about 35 points from sub 2200 ratings to get a FIDE equivalent. Well I have never met anyone before who thought that FIDE 2000 was such a high rating I dont mean that in a bad way I am just surprised that you think this is high. As for beating me at chess I thought this was not real chess? Well like I said there is a sense in having it both ways. Look we could easily organise a money match at cc say for Euro 1000 6, 8, 10 games whatever you want, rapid time limit you can have white in every game and I can give you 3 to 1 odds. You win 1 game you get Euro 3000 you fail to win a game I get Euro 1000. All you have to do is win a game you can even lose all the other games. Well like I said it does not prove anything - its a research competition. I dont want to hustle you but you have been making a lot of statements so if you are interested ....... But please dont challenge me to bullet games on playchess......


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-13 16:00:22)
ELO

Well like I stated elsewhere talking of ELO points I take to refer to FIDE rating not national ratings irrespective of the underlying methodology used to calculate the national rating. I guess we will have to agree to differ on that one. Sorry I cannot respond to the grammer stuff - its against the rules. On the game we played check out the available database games and that may give you an answer. Like I said in another post the line I believe is the refutation is not what you played - I will put up the analysis when I have more time. At the risk of repeating myself I still dont understand why you cannot find a 2001 game or what sort of databases you are looking at but I guess we have reached a dead end there too.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 21:16:02)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

No, as I just explained to you in the way a small child should be able to understand, elo is not exclusive to FIDE ratings. Not even exclusive to chess in fact. I realized you weren't overly intelligent when we played chess and I crushed you, but this is ridiculous. This has been explained to you already. Do some research and see for yourself.

I normally don't go after someone for grammar, but when I'm dealing with who says down load and data base, I ask myself who's wiping the drool from their chin.

I'm not about to do any serious chess analysis with you. I don't give free chess lessons. Post whatever you like. It won't change the fact that I CRUSHED you in chess. Fair and square.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-13 21:36:18)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

What a <1500 player like yourself "has always taken" is meaningless. What is objectively true and factual is what counts. As has been explained to you repeatedly, elo is not exclusive to FIDE ratings, not even to chess in fact. Are you beginning to understand or still confused?

Also, there is no simple (deduct x) formula to get a FIDE equivalent. Sometimes a national rating is worth more than a FIDE rating. There are various factors to consider.

There is no "magic" about a FIDE rating. You just need to play in FIDE rated events. I've beaten many FIDE rated players otb, including FMs. It's really no big deal.

I never said 2000 was some sort of "high rating", so don't start with the lies again Stephenson. But compared to a guy like you who is rated under 1500, I'm like a more evolved being. Is that why you're so frustrated to the point of stalking me as you're doing? Is it a combination of that and the fact that I CRUSHED you in chess? When are you going to get over that? When are you going to stop whining and crying?

Why don't we play fact to face otb chess, if you have lots of Euro to throw around as you're claiming. Fly to Canada and I'll play you a match for 5000 euro. First to win 6 games or something like that. I'd probably have to spot you 5/6 just to make the match somewhat competitive.

I never challenged you to bullet chess, my <1500 rated acquaintance, but that would be the only other way to play human mind vs human mind chess. I'm certainly not about to fly to the third world country you live in, just to beat some "C" class chess player in person.

Let's take a little tally here. I've already beaten you at correspondence chess, and you've made it clear you want no part of playing chess at time controls that doesn't allow you to consult your program, so I've effectively won that as well. What is left? Arm wrestling? I kinda like my chances there too!


Hannes Rada    (2008-05-13 23:53:25)
childish and offtopic

After posting No. 4 this thread becomes a childish and offtopic guerilla battle .... < It doesn't seem fair that a 2100 < player should be playing in a < tournament intended for 2200-2600 < players Are you afraid of losing so important FICGS - Elos when you have to play against lower rated opponents ?? If you want to play correspondence chess at top level than you have to sign up at ICCF.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-14 00:35:54)
Re: Hannes query

I'm not "afraid" of playing anyone, and the FICGS rating points are only a means with which to play the stronger players. As I stated earlier, and in other threads, my primary interest in correspondence chess is to do research for my otb chess. Having said that I'm interested in playing the strongest players possible.

It's simple common sense that if a rating category says 2200-2600, then it should have players who are rated 2200-2600. Lower rated players are free to sign up for the category that they qualify for.

Do you play otb chess Hannes? You don't seem to have any otb rating as far as I can tell.


Hannes Rada    (2008-05-14 20:10:41)
Jason's query

Jason, I gave up OTB chess some 20 years ago. So I have no OTB rating (anymore) Playing in my chessclub was not and ist not compatible with my working hours. CC is perfect for me. Analyzing and making move later in the evening when I am returning from work, or whenever I can find time. It's wise to play the strongest possible opponents. But cc rating does not implicitly say anything about chess strength. Too many variables may influence the players chess abilities. (Too many games at the same time, lack of motivation, ....) On the other side an ambitious 1800 Elo newcomer can sometimes more dangerous than an "old" CC-GM. FICGS is quite a nice community. Here you have the chance to raise your rating and play against the higher rated players pretty soon compared with ICCF. But your "strong opponent experience" will end here around 2500 - 2550. Raising your rating in ICCF takes much more time (because tournaments are slower) but when you've established yourselve at a certain level than you have the chance to play the > 2700 guys like van Osteroom & Co :-) But at this level correspondence chess is no fun anymore. I've talked to GM Peter Hertel from Germany several years ago and he told me that he had to analyze and work on his cc - chess positions around 10 hours per day to compete at this level .... if you are retired or jobless and a billionaire (van Osteroom) than you have the best chances of winning an ICCF championship final .... :-) Do you think the playing cc helps to improve your otb abilities ? I've talked to several players regarding this issue and I received different answers. From: Yes I benefit from my cc-opening experience To: No, these are absolutely different stories. OTB requires the abilites to calculate deeplines correctly and to maintain concentration for a couple of hours. All things which are absolutely not necessary for cc. My experience for the short time frame when I played both otb + cc is that for the purpose of improving the otb abilities it would have been better to study chess books and solving tactical exercises than playing cc.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-14 21:31:38)
corr. & otb

"But cc rating does not implicitly say anything about chess strength."

I disagree. But first be clear that I'm talking about correspondence chess strength. I never said that corr. chess strength has a 1 to 1 relationship with otb chess strength. I know too many guys who are better corr. players than me that I could mop the floor with at any time control in a live chess game.

But having said that, I believe that people have high corr. ratings for a reason. At a minimum they're good at employing interactive chess engine research and have good updated databases. I think overall chess knowledge and judgment are factors as well. Stronger chess moves win more games. Yes, I understand that sometimes an ambitious 1800 can beat a higher rated opponent, on occasion, but it's overall results that are important, not anomalies. The same is true otb. Sometimes experts and national masters beat GMs. That doesn't mean they're a stronger chess player than the GM.


"Do you think the playing cc helps to improve your otb abilities?"

I'm not surprised you're getting differing stories. Like anything else, it depends on how you use the experience and of course on your individual aptitude. Some people will just memorize the opening theory they learn from corr. chess, if that. Others will do much more with those games, such as developing technique, increasing their strategic knowledge, learn more endgame theory, etc. I think it is without question that corr. chess can have great benefits for your otb chess game, if used properly. Just being forced to comb through opening books and game databases alone is useful.


"OTB requires the abilities to calculate deeplines correctly and to maintain concentration for a couple of hours"

I agree that the ability to concentrate well is important for otb chess, but I think you're overvaluing calculation. The reality is that otb is all about COMPETITION. It's a mental fight. I know guys are are great analysts, and with the right hardware/software would probably be great corr. players, but they don't handle the pressures and stresses that go along with competition very well. Judgment and competence, especially while under stress and duress, are of the utmost importance in otb. You can calculate as deeply as you want, but if you're expending energy calculating lines that you should have rejected, or mismanaging your time by thinking too deeply in a spot where it's not necessary, you won't get good results in otb.

I don't have any desire to try to get anywhere near 2700 level in corr. chess. And I agree with your analysis that it would not be fun anymore and become a huge drain of time sitting behind the computer. Perhaps not unlike what a professional chess player has to go through in order to prepare for their tournaments, with the chief exception that the professional chess player gets paid for such a sacrifice.


"...for the purpose of improving the otb abilities it would have been better to study chess books and solving tactical exercises than playing cc."

I don't see why these things have to be mutually exclusive. For me I get more motivated to study my chess books and look through my databases when the positions occur in games. I also think about what I'm doing and analyze the positions using my own mind when I play corr. chess. Maybe that's not the case for everyone, but it is for me. As for tactics, I think blitz/bullet against strong opponents can be very useful for developing that.


Hannes Rada    (2008-05-14 22:04:53)
Opening Favorites and taboos in cc chess

It's quite interesting to look at the top level cc - player's opening favorites. Against 1.e4: Almost everybody is playing Sicilian, Sveshnikov and Najdorf No more Dragon oder other Sicilian lines seems to be playable at top level. 1.... e6 (French) and 1....c6 Caro Kann are rarely played. A little bit more frequently is 1....e5. But I think that also the old Ruy Lopez is not really popular among the cc cracks. Against 1.d4: Here seems to be more diversity: But I think The Slav is definitely the most popular Black's defense, followed by Nimzo Indian, Kings Indian and Queens Gambit. Benoni and Wolga Gambit seems to be dead here. What do you think, is there no more space for French, Caro Kann and Aljechin Defense in todays cc practice ? Is Dutch and Modern Benoni no longer playable ? In the sixties Hans Berliner won the ICCF championship with Aljechin Defense


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-15 04:10:11)
Openings

Hi Hannes I think the Modern Benoni is playable but needs a lot of work. Hector Walsh 16th on the IECG list (2497) used it in the IECG Cup 2002 final (just ended!) with games that started in 2006. He played it 3 times including the critical line 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 d5 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 etc and got 3 draws against opposition of 2150, 2300 and 2400.


Garvin Gray    (2008-05-15 05:56:12)
Modern Benoni Taimonov variation

Hello Andrew, So Hector allowed white to play the Taimonov variation in all three of those games, is that correct?


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-15 10:11:02)
Benoni

Hi Garvin No f4 occurred in just 1 game but Hector played the sequence Nf6 and e6. This year Topalov, Aronian Malakhov and Gashimov have all allowed f4 in the Benoni but it only happened in the Gashimov game. Top GM games seem to have a bias towards Sicilians Slavs and Semi slavs. Is it true that the Ruy Lopez is not so popular at top cc? It is extremely popular at GM level perhaps this reflects a bias at cc at the top level for Queenside openings. It certainly seems a lot easier to get a draw against e4 at cc.


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-05-15 19:45:42)
Rating calculation

Hello all. I have been reading the discussions here and did not intend to add my t hought. But I guess I am anyhow. Chess is about having fun, making new friends, competing with your peers, last but not least improving your skill. I am playing in several M tournaments, a couple have players whose ratings have dropped below 2200. This not a problem for me. I think they should be allowed to play. With respect Wayne


Hannes Rada    (2008-05-15 23:06:25)
Openings

Hi Andrew, " It certainly seems a lot easier to get a draw against e4 at cc." I've the same feeling. But the top player vanOsteroom prefers definitely 1.e4 ! Does anybody know if 1.e4 or 1.d4 is played more often here at FICGS ? "He played it 3 times including the critical line 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 d5 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 etc and got 3 draws against opposition of 2150, 2300 and 2400." Can this be considered as a success ? 50 % against lower rated opponents ? Normally Benoni is played when you want or have to win with black ... However Hector Walsh seems to have some fighting spirit. Andrew do you know the IECG server ? From time to time I get invitations from the IECG guys for their tournamengs, but never played there.


Marc Lacrosse    (2008-05-15 23:29:59)
no taboos !

Hi Hannes

Although I am not a top level cc player, I still feel I do not too badly here (I will be over 2400 at next rating)...

... and I _never_ play main stream openings!

In fact I played quite a few disreputed lines here like these:
- 1.Nc3
- 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d3?! Nf6 4. Be2 ?! or 4.Bd3 !?
- 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3. d4 cd 4.Nxd4 Bc5 !?
- 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 Nbd7 4.Qd3 !?

My one and only loss in 43 games at FICGS was in a very doubtful but interesting gambit against one of the strongest players here.

So I cannot see why such evidently interesting openings like non-Najdorf-non-Sveshnikov sicilians should not be played at cc chess any more...

at least at my modest ~2400 Elo level ...

Marc


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-15 23:36:07)
IECG

Hi Hannes Your right Hectors Benoni didn't draw blood but I guess its playable. Actually I dont like to play against it as it provokes a crisis very early on and the hard work starts quickly! On FICGS I think queen side openings are preferred by the top players eg WCH knockout matches - the exception is Peter Schuster who seems to play e4 a lot and is successful with it. Thanks for telling me about Van Osteroom's e4 preference I am keen to see what he plays against c6! - I mean the classical variation. Sorry I dont know too much about the IECG server.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-16 00:15:26)
Openings

Here are the current openings statistics (see /about.html) .. sorry, it is not Chessbase but I'll try to improve it with ie. a formula with ratings to see better what is played most at top level.

Chess openings :

Opening_name #games Line

Scandinavian 310 1.e4 d5
Modern 127 1.e4 g6
Pirc 260 1.e4 d6
Alekhine 208 1.e4 Nf6
French 674 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5
Caro-Kann 487 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5

Grand prix attack 91 1.e4 c5 2.f4
Morra gambit 173 1.e4 c5 2.d4
Alapin 196 1.e4 c5 2.c3
Closed sicilian 228 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3
Sicilian ...d6 1323 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6
Sicilian ...e6 243 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6
Sicilian ...Nc6 759 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6

Petroff 355 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6
Spanish 1038 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5
Italian 354 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4
Ponziani 18 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3
Scotch 224 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4
King's gambit 207 1.e4 e5 2.f4
Vienna game 89 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3
Other e4 ... 1524 1.e4 ...

Dutch 181 1.d4 f5
Slav 353 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6
Queen's gambit acc. 181 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4
Queen's gambit dec. 353 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6
Albins counter gambit 18 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5
King's indian 203 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7
Grünfeld 104 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5
Catalan 36 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3
Nimzo-indian 302 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4
Benoni defense 136 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5
Budapest gambit 22 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5
King's knight opening 601 1.d4 Nf6 (... d5) 2.Nf3
Other d4 ... 1442 1.d4 ...

Reti opening 691 1.Nf3
Sleipner 136 1.Nc3
English 858 1.c4
Bird 177 1.f4
King's indian attack 84 1.g3
Orang Utan 143 1.b4
Grob's attack 12 1.g4
French attack 21 1.e3
Mieses opening 10 1.d3
Anderssen 21 1.a3


Jason Repa    (2008-05-16 00:23:32)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0

Geez Stephenson, I thought you were done stalking and harassing me and had found something else to amuse your little mind with. Something shiny and metallic perhaps? But here you are continuing your trollish ways.

Actually, what this thread is REALLY about, is a pathetic little character who doesn't handle losing at chess very well. As was stated before, it's pretty sad that you don't have any chess games of your own worthy of publication or discussion, so you post one of mine and continue to rant, and rant, and rant about nonsense. I already BEAT YOU in chess. Quite easily, in fact. Could there be anything more ridiculous than a guy who loses at chess criticizing the play of the victor?

Normally when someone obsesses over me like this it's a female doing the obsessing. But hey, each to their own.

And yeah, it's pretty obvious you're someone with a lot of time on your hands. Nice of you to share that with us. But you only speak for yourself in that regard. Even with all your free time I was still able to beat you easily when we played chess.

Just look at this latest drivel you're posting. You go on and on and on about why I shouldn't have lost a chess game I played a year ago like this is some life and death event for you. It's really not a big deal to me. So why is MY game such a big deal to you? If you're trying to make an argument that I'm such a terrible correspondence chess player based on this game, why did I beat you so easily when you and I played? I'm also higher rated than you as well. If you're going to harass me with one of my losing games, at least have enough intelligence and imagination to vary the game once in awhile. You have 5 more to choose from.

Sorry but I've never met anyone clued out enough to put DOWN LOAD and DATA BASE before. This isn’t a minor spelling mistake or typo. This is a surprising lack of education. What’s next, “COMP -UTER”? A chess player should especially be familiar with the word DATABASE. But as I said earlier, some people mindlessly trust machines, and don't have the capacity to think for themselves. People like that like to brag about their meticulous spelling, because even a chromosome-deficient inebriate can figure out how to use spelling software. Most of us couldn't be bothered, because we realize that spelling is not important when making casual internet forum posts.

And no, Stephenson, the "point" about ELO is not dead. It's your ability to learn and understand simple concepts that appears quite dead here. This has nothing to do with me not "agreeing" with you. This has to do with objective fact. An ELO rating could be talking about GO, Backgammon, or other games, that FIDE has absolutely nothing to do with, in addition to national rating organizations. You were wrong. End of story. Continuing to defend your ignorance of the meaning of ELO is just making it all the more obvious what it is you are to everyone reading this. Again, Stephenson, LOOK IT UP.


Joaquim Malpalma    (2008-05-16 10:42:29)
Rated Chess 960??

Any chance of being able to play rated Chess 960 games on Fics? I would be for it, any others?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-16 14:05:58)
Rated Chess 960

Hello Joaquim, I don't think we would have players enough to create rating categories, so it would be difficult to obtain significant ratings :/


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-16 18:32:40)
ELO ELO

"I was talking about updating the database with current theory and critical lines. " So what are you doing if not examining the latest games played and what better source is there than TWIC? How do you examine these if not downloading and filtering out the openings you are interested in by high rated players? Anything else is going to be taking other peoples selections eg New In chess opening surveys or subscribing to a chess opening service. Even then the best way of keeping a database up to date is with TWIC.


Lincoln Tomlin    (2008-05-17 19:07:03)
Don, Thibault, Jason...

Thanks. I usually do make a habit of copying to the clipboard before hitting any butons but, well, you know that ONE time you forget etc. :) Not to worry. I just wanted to add what a powerful study tool FICGS can be in analysing structures, plans and ideas in openings for your OTB repertoire. I really think that this form of chess is undervalued in really trying to get an understanding of target middle and endgame positions for use in club and tournament play. I use a lowly 1.7Ghz Celeron based laptop and Chessbase along with an older version of a 'weaker' (not telling which) engine for checking line and ideas but mainly try for lines that I want to head for in games against humans. Unless they prove to be truly disastrous of course. 8|


Benjamin Block    (2008-05-18 16:33:33)
New idea!

Hi, I often use the search game button to learing from better player. But i often found a lot games that i don´t want games with lower rating then me. So what about more functioning. examlpe filter game under 2000. and filter game with draw and white in and so on....


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-19 06:35:14)
Major update (may 2008)

Hello to all, a new update including :

- Regular tournaments with prizes (see thread "Free tournaments with prizes")

- Norms, titles and prizes are now announced by email.

- Players with Epoints are shown in the connected players list (My messages).

- Affiliate links : For each new player referred by your link (see My account) posted on the world wide web, 1 Epoint will be added to your account.

- Search games function improved : You can now search games by opening and by rating (White & Black)


All feedback welcome :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-19 06:49:44)
Free tournaments with prizes

Hello to all.

You may have noticed that some free tournaments now have prizes :

FICGS__CHESS__CLASS__SM : 15 Epoints
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS__M : 5 Epoints
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS__A : 1 Epoints

FICGS__CHESS__RAPID__SM : 7 Epoints
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID__M : 2 Epoints
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID__A : 1 Epoints

FICGS__BIG_CHESS__TOURNAMENT__M : 15 Epoints

FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_PRO : 45 Epoints
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_DAN : 15 Epoints
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_III : 5 Epoints
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_II : 1 Epoints

Membership and Help sections have been updated, see :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#prize

"When a player wins a free tournament with a prize in E-Points, the current prize displayed for that tournament when the winners list is updated is added to his FICGS account. Prizes may change (most probably increase) during free events at the tournament director's discretion."

Previous chess class SM winners and a few others have received these prizes already.

It is also possible to win free Epoints by posting your affiliate link (see My account) on the web. For each new player referred by this link, 1 Epoint will be added to your account.

Thanks to all, I hope prizes can grow in the near future, also for the WCH cycles :)

Best wishes, Thibault


Richard Blank    (2008-05-19 16:24:57)
Chess player in Costa Rica.

After reading a few threads, I wanted to introduce myself to this community. I look forward to sharing ideas with other forum members on how to improve my game. I am new and have played very little. Yet, I find the game stimulating and very competitive. Hats off to those that are masters. Quite a gift. Best regards, Richard http://www.costaricascallcenter.com


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-19 17:00:20)
Chess player in France

Hello from France, Richard. Welcome to FICGS !

Feel free to post your link in the FICGS directory.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-19 17:05:27)
Class GM

Hi Benjamin, I can't provide a 45 Epoints prize for 2500+ free tournaments at the moment and we still need more 2400+ players to start class SM tournaments, so class GM is still like closed at the moment.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-19 17:16:47)
Note

The last finished games will be displayed at the bottom of the page.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-20 23:58:25)
3 fold repetition

Hmm.. The server most probably replaced the last move played by Farit (which actually provoked the threefold repetition) by the final result, sorry about that, I'll correct this bug soon - and the game.


Arnab Sengupta    (2008-05-21 18:21:19)
game

well Cirulis, i know that game...... i dont need the moves played in it....i want to ask if anybody has any better variation in that position.


Arnab Sengupta    (2008-05-21 20:04:20)
hmm

well because i'm playing this position in a game.......


Arnab Sengupta    (2008-05-21 22:39:50)
dxc5

but what after 16.dxc5 Rxc5 17.b4 Rc8 18.Bb3 Bc3 actually i'm playing this game, and i'm white here, well i put up a fight here, but is it a draw or there are some chances


Garvin Gray    (2008-05-22 15:16:00)
ruling?


well because i'm playing this position in a game.......

-------------------------------

I think this is a bit of a no-no ie asking for the advice of others. My understanding is that the games are meant to be individual, not consultative. So you can not ask for the advice of others.

Thibault? What is your opinion/ruling?



Benjamin Block    (2008-05-22 16:03:24)
Understand right?

If i win a free prize tournament i get E-points. But if i want money i need to play in silver or gold tournaments?


Arnab Sengupta    (2008-05-22 17:50:45)
ruling?

Chill guys!!!!!!!!!!! i'm not playing this game in FICGS or any server.....i'm playing it with my brother and we wanted to find some good defense for Balck, thats why i asked for your help!!!! Now if you people have so much problem with it, then i'll take that blame from you.....Whats the use in discussing chess position then???


Benjamin Block    (2008-05-24 16:22:36)
New idea

In tournamens if i understand right the player with the best points win but if some have the same the highest ELO win. Why not use the Sonneborn-Bergers (you add oppenents whole points and the half points if it is a draw.) If the Sonneborn-Bergers points is the same you can take the moste wins in the tourney and if they are the same you can use the highest elo win.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-24 16:36:19)
Tournament winner in WCH

This is true in WCH round-robin tournaments only !

I explained why I've chosen this rule in previous threads, ie. :

>>

As you noticed, rating is quite important in FICGS world championship cycle (particularly established ratings, obtained from IECG / ICCF or after 9 games finished in FICGS) !

I think these rules are really the best choice in order to designate a world champion. It's more logical IMO to favour players who obtained previously the best results at FICGS and recognized organizations, and consequently a high rating. It takes time, of course. Even very strong players starting with a 1700 rating won't achieve a 2300 established rating before months !

Criterias in FICGS wch are (from most important to least) :

1) Winner of the previous cycle (qualify for the final match)
2) The eight best established ratings (play the KO tournament)
3) Points obtained in the wch tournaments
4) The tournament entry rating (TER)

<<


Joseph Costello    (2008-05-25 04:18:56)
rybka vs rybka at full preformance

Anybody have this program working at its full capacity who has made it play itself and has it recorded you could post ?


Benjamin Block    (2008-05-25 13:44:22)
Draw!

In playchess.com the computer play against each other the fastest computer+the biggest opningsbook win. But if both computer have the same book and the same fast computer it is draw.


Benjamin Block    (2008-05-25 15:34:04)
Why?

Why should it not be draw? it is like playing agains youre self.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-25 16:18:49)
Engine vs. Engine

A chess engine doesn't know who is its opponent, and playing against yourself does not finish in a draw in all cases.


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-05-26 05:14:25)
Rybka vs Rybka

Thibalt your wrong !. If enough games are played to get rid of the noise and is statistical relevent then it will be a draw, period Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-26 12:19:28)
Rybka vs Rybka

Ok, we all know that engines are not free will. With no randomizer, the regular start position, "normal" settings (do not avoid a draw at any price, regular values) and a large opening book [which is a quite good randomizer itself], I'm quite sure statistics after 500,000 games will look like 50% if Rybka 3 #1 & #2 play as both White & Black, 51 to 53% if Rybka 3 #1 play as White only while Rybka 3 #2 play as Black only, about the same (but not exactly) for Fritz 11 or other engines.


Benjamin Block    (2008-05-26 17:12:58)
Why can new player choose elo?

Some players just choose ELO? Some players just take a very low rating even if they have a real high. Why not let the people choose a ELO only if they already have a ICCF rating or fide?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-26 17:37:24)
Provisional rating

"Some players just take a very low rating even if they have a real high", well that's a quite strange choice but at least it helps to start tournaments quickly :)


Arnab Sengupta    (2008-05-27 16:53:56)
help

ok! so we came up with this variation- 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 10.O-O Nbd7 11.Ne5 Bg7 12.Nxd7 Nxd7 13.Bd6 a6 14.a4 e5 15.Bg4 exd4 16.e5 c5 17.Re1 Nxe5 18.Bxe5 O-O 19.Bxg7 Kxg7 20.Ne2 f5 21.Bh5 f4 22.b4 cxb3 23.Qxb3 Qd5 24.Qh3 Bc8 25.Nc3 dxc3 26.Qxc3+ Qd4 27.Qf3 Ra7 28.axb5 Rf6 29.h3 but now what? what should BLACK play here? Please i need your opinion to finish this variation. Do you think Black has any chance of Drawing the game here?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-27 17:18:27)
Provisional rating

Not so big IMO. Ratings move fast, it doesn't take a long time to move to a higher category at this level (for a strong player / centaur).


Benjamin Block    (2008-05-27 17:58:30)
Provisional rating

But bad players how choose a high rating? They will give other players lots of rating.


Mik Kris    (2008-05-27 19:01:02)
i am a go player looking for some thing

i know there arent so many of us here but one thing i wuld like to be able to do is to say chalnge some one for a game also how about behing able to bet E-Points on a normal game without having to make a turnemant just to bet aginst my oponent


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-27 19:02:42)
Provisional rating

1800 is quite usual as a provisional rating in correspondence chess, some sites prefer to ignore games played by players who don't have an established rating in rating calculation. In my opinion, the effects are quite small here and ratings move faster this way.


Mik Kris    (2008-05-27 19:51:18)
Thanks for the quick response

I am sorry I did not think my original idea it all the way And forgat my manners for a moment there I wold like to thank you for building this great site and this opportunity for me to meet many intersting people Yes I wold like to be able to challenge some one for a simple rank game without starting a tournament one more thing might be nice is to get an "are youre ready to play" message before a game in a bullet or lightning tournament


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-27 20:04:17)
Advanced Go games

You may play rated bullet & lightning Go games for free against 1 opponent only (see Waiting lists, challenges to a specified player are not available, sorry :/).

The scrolling message should warn you if a bullet or lightning game starts.


Mik Kris    (2008-05-28 08:56:08)
Please understand I realy want to help

But this way any one looking for a fast game is at a disadvange compering to some one wanting a slow one Why cant you just add a function asking you if you are here you do want more people using the server dont you well most players that play go play faster games I realy love faster games and I am thinking of playing a diffrent html server


Don Groves    (2008-05-29 00:17:16)
Fast games vs. slow games

Hi, Mik -- Fast games are more often lost by a mistake rather than won by good play. Many of us enjoy the challenge of finding the best move and winning by good play instead of relying on opponent mistakes. Try it, you may like it too ;-)


Mik Kris    (2008-05-29 06:37:00)
so thing you might not know about go

go is not about making a better move its about keeping the game equal you cant win in go unless youre oponent had a misstake that you fix or a simple misstake you didnt evean have to fix most players take too long to realy understand this hell i know this i stil dont understand it but its true ask any strong player or pro its evean more true in our kyu games where we make a wrong move every few also i took some time lookin at some games on this site it seems that most players here dont use the extra time they have to read or make shape any way in fact many games are lost becouse of misstakes in reading what seems to me becuse the lack of faster games where you have to read perfactly fast


Ilmars Cirulis    (2008-05-30 14:16:46)
Re

I heard rumours that chess increase logical thinking and reasoning skills. So chess player must have difficulties to be scientologist.

Wanted to test that 'theory'.

But, if seriously... I have alergic reaction to that cult.
I had argument with girl - the main scientologist of Latvia. It was funny and sad in one time.

Just wanted to talk about it.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-06-01 21:46:05)
Go game (weiqi) in films

I just saw a Go game played (a few seconds) by Pierce Brosnan in "After the sunset".. I was wondering in which films a Go game can be seen. "Hero", what else... Do anyone know a list ?


Don Groves    (2008-06-02 04:45:58)
Films with Go

"A Beautiful Mind" and "Prime" both have scenes of Go playing.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-02 09:13:06)
Go game (weiqi) in films

An excellent movie called "Pi" that was written and directed by Darren Aronofsky features scenes in which a mathematical prodigy visits his former professor to discuss math and play Go.


Paul-Iosif Guralivu    (2008-06-02 11:26:52)
can't remember the title

I was go played in a movie with a chinese princess. And 3 princes that wanted to marry her...


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-06-02 18:54:39)
Rapid chess entry rating

I sure do not like the entry 2100-2300. I guarantee you, I will not enter here, and I doubt that any other mid 2200 player will enter either, It is a opportunity bracket for 2100 players. It is not easy I know to managed rating requirements for tournaments. But the proper bracket for the 2300 entry tourney should be 2200-2400. That is my opinion. So it the rating entry of 2100-2300 will attract 2100 players for the most part, a great opportunity for them to advance and a darn good chance that a 2200+ player to loose points (guaranteed) cause rybka prevails, in the hands of a 2100 Player. Bravo Rybka ! With respect Wayne


Garvin Gray    (2008-06-02 19:14:39)
response


Wayne, this is an enternal problem and while you complain about it for the rating group 2100-2300, saying that only 2100 will benefit from it.

No matter what the rating bracket, it has been shown on this site many times that very few players will enter a waiting list when their entry is just below the cut off.

So changing the rating limits to 2200-2400 will not change this behaviour, all it will do is move the 'problem'.



Garvin Gray    (2008-06-02 19:19:13)
Open entry tournament


Hello Thibault,

Have been thinking for a while that it might be an idea to set up a tournament where everyone enters and then groups are decided strictly in rating order.

So the top nine? players in rating order play each other, followed by the next nine and so forth.

Have been thinking that this might be worth a try to alleviate the issue of players not entering a waiting list when they are just under the rating cut off.

Advantages:

1) Players will get to play against a full field of similarly rated players

2) Players will not know ahead of time where they will be in the nine player division, so hopefully they will not avoid entering because they are just under the rating cut off.



Thibault de Vassal    (2008-06-02 20:56:43)
Entry rating

Hi Wayne !

You're probably right and I agree with Garvin, every range is a opportunity bracket. Well, probably more (all) players have a opportunity bracket this way.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-06-02 21:03:24)
Leagues ?

If this tournament is a multi-stage one, I suppose it looks like the leagues(?) system (kind of championship like in soccer), where the 2 top players in each tournament could replace 2 players in the tournament above :/

Disadvantages:

1) Players will not know which division they'll play.

2) Harder to organize automatically.

Interesting to discuss anyway !


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-06-02 21:44:21)
Poll : Texas hold'em Poker at FICGS ?

Hi all,

Still thinking about adding other games at FICGS. Of course, Xiangqi and Shogi are good candidates, a popular one (I quite like) would be poker texas hold'em. What do you think about such a [chancy] game played for fun at a correspondence time control at FICGS ?!

All opinions or advices are welcome.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-03 02:47:02)
Poker

Poker is not really poker without a monetary wager, similar to backgammon.
Unlike chess or snooker, where a brilliantly played game can be satisfaction enough, the entire point of poker is to win money (cash game) or accumulate chips (tournament) by hook or by crook. Achieving this in practice has much more to do with exploiting mistakes and emotional weaknesses in your opponents than doing anything "brilliant".

As for "Play money" poker, it's for bored housewives and people who have too much free time on their hands. These are the same people who kill time by playing solitaire.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-06-03 02:59:46)
Internet poker

Hi Jason, that's an interesting view and I agree with that, particularly on internet poker. That's why I'm thinking about a typical "FICGS" way to play it, ie. tables with 2 players only, with a ELO rating system (without money, does this exist elsewhere ?), a championship, eventually E-Points (without entry fees) and so on... What do you think ?


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-06-03 03:56:21)
Entry Rating

Okey Dokey Gavin, your right of course. I just feel like fewer players are inflicted with this misery at 2200-2400. I guess I am biased tho. I forsee that for me reaching 2300 will be almost impossible with the new bracket...I am in several tournaments at the previous bracket rating system, my hope is I can make it in this way, just dunno Thank you Wayne


Garvin Gray    (2008-06-03 15:06:41)
One division or maybe league play.


Mine was just a one tournament suggestion as a trial and did not envisage any kind of league concept. Thought it might help with the rating entry problems talked about in many threads.

But that has potential too. I thought this was worth a go as a single tournament ie no leagues.

If it succeeds and is popular, then it can go from there. If it fails, so be it, it just disappears into the ether like all other dud ideas.



Thibault de Vassal    (2008-06-03 18:00:59)
Correspondence Poker

Live time is easier, a problem is that correspondence poker may be very long : ~6 moves by hand by player, let's say from 10 or 20 hands to 100 hands and more in one game, so many moves :/ .. but it may be possible to limit the number of hands and calculate ratings also by taking account of what is left after ie. 100 hands - which is quite few anyway.


Michael Sharland    (2008-06-04 00:42:53)
Worth a try

It might be fun to give it a try but I don't think that you would get too much separation in ELO between the top and bottom players. I think it will be hard for anyone to win more than 65% of the time unless the blinds aren't increased too fast. Slower blind increases will increase the length of the average game and allow for a little more skill but will make it harder to come up with workable time controls. Maybe a 10-20 minute control with little or no increment would work best.


Don Groves    (2008-06-04 06:13:07)
Poker

--- Jason Repa wrote: "There's a bit more to the game than just knowing when to bluff. Poker is all about exploiting mistakes and minimizing both the frequency and magnitude of the mistakes that you make. Mistakes can take various forms, ranging from tells, to lack of or too much aggression, to letting your emotions get the better of you, making mathematical errors, etc." -------- I should have said my statement was about those who know the mechanics of the game. Once someone can play technically correct poker, as you would find in any high-level game, then bluffing and money management become paramount.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-04 06:48:23)
Poker

"I should have said my statement was about those who know the mechanics of the game"

Actually, you've just confirmed that you don't know anything at all about the game of poker. As is the case for you with chess. And you obviously didn't understand the expression "-EV" , so I'll explain it to you. EV means expected value. It is the sum of the probability of each possible outcome of the event multiplied by the outcome value (or payoff). Thus, it represents the average amount one "expects" as the outcome of the random trial when identical odds are repeated many times. Obviously if this value is a negative number, money-management is completely meaningless as you will lose money in the long run. Money management is actually the easiest thing to figure out. It's a no-brainer for anyone who knows anything about money gaming. It has to do with ensuring that you have enough cash on hand to keep the risk of ruin down to a comfortable level, to account for standard deviation (bad luck). If you're a losing poker player, ie, one in which the net result of all your decisions results in a negative expected value, money management is clearly totally meaningless. This simple concept is quite obvious to most people. I've never before met an adult who required it to be explained to them like this.

People who's minds go beyond the superficial understand that there is much more to poker than working out the simple arithmetic of the game, such as how many outs for a flush/straight.... pot odds, implied pot odds, etc, which is probably what you mean by "knowing the mechanics of the game". Playing that kind of mindless, one-dimensional game might work OK at microlimits, but beyond that you'll need to learn that poker is much more of a game of psychology than it is a game of math. A mathematician by the name of Barry Greenstein, who incidentally has won more than $10,000,000 playing poker, once said that also. I've got a feeling he knows a bit more about the game than you do, lol.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-04 09:11:18)
Poker

As usual, Groves, you're returning to your trolling ways once again. You're the one who started with the personal attack here, not me. I simply stated that that there is more to poker than mere bluffing and money management, as you contended. You seriously don't know anything at all about the game of poker. That's not an attack, that's a fact. I was studying the value of inflection points and stack to pot ratios when you were struggling to learn the difference between a straight and a flush.

Just as you're a 1600 chess player, so you're showing your mediocrity where poker is concerned by grossly oversimplifying what the game is about. Saying that poker is more a game of psychology than math is hardly saying that all there is to poker is bluffing, as you repeatedly and mindlessly keep stating. For starters, bluffing is just one tool in a strong poker player's toolbox, and it is both a psychological, as well as a scientific/mathematical tool at that. In no limit poker, for example, sometimes a player will spend hours trying to create a certain image just to set up one single play in order to win a large pot. There are all kinds of relevant intangibles that are so far beyond your comprehension it's not funny.

And I really couldn't care less what you agree or disagree with. I know what I'm talking about. You don't. I have a proven track record over the last two decades as a winning player. I'd be surprised if you're not in the hole overall. And FYI, everything I've said is consistent with what guys like Greenstein, Skansky, Harrington, etc have been saying for years.

Do yourself a favour, Groves.....go read a poker book and learn some basics. Then perhaps you'll be able to make a contribution to a discussion about poker.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-04 09:22:21)
Rapid chess entry rating

I disagree with Wayne Lowrance completely. The 2300+ rapid category is an excellent idea. Obviously it's much more difficult to go from 2300-2400 than it is to go from 2200-2300. Without the 2300+ category it's ominously difficult for a 23xx player to get to the next level.

My only complaint is that the standard list doesn't have a 2300+ category as well.


Don Groves    (2008-06-04 09:34:33)
Poker

How do figure I started the personal attacks? My first two posts were about poker, I said nothing at all about you personally. You also pretend to know things about me that you never could know, given that we've never met, and never played a game of any sort against each other. You just like to blow your own horn at the expense of others, and never miss an opportunity to do so. That has been proven by your insults of myself and others in this forum even though no one here has ever insulted you, only disagreed with you. Possibly you consider disagreement to be an insult. If so, that says far more about you than anything I could add.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-04 10:02:42)
Poker

Groves, it's pretty sad if you aren't capable of understanding what you did. But in your case I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

And I don't need to meet you in person to know what you're all about. Your words speak volumes. And FYI chess ratings aren't obtained by flipping coins. You're a mere 1600 and change player. It's not the result of "bad luck".

You equate the stating of facts with "insulting". The problem is when I'm dealing with a very modest individual like you, every objective fact I state is interpreted as an insult.

As I said, read a poker book, or get someone to read one to you so that you can learn the basics of the game. Perhaps then you'll understand that there is more to the game than simply managing your money and knowing when to bluff.


Don Groves    (2008-06-04 18:58:24)
Poker

Repa, there you go again, bringing my Chess rating into something it has nothing to do with. I haven't played Chess in over two years but you still keep bringing it up. You do that so often it could make others think you define yourself in terms of ratings. Look up "argumentum ad hominem." You're very good at it -- so good you should consider going into politics.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-04 19:21:48)
Poker

As was just explained to you, groves, you're not a 1600 chess player as the result of "bad luck". You have the rating you do for a reason. The fact that you're not intelligent enough to get your chess rating up to even a modest level does indeed relate to your inability to understand concepts in other areas. Go back to your original post and try to understand what this "discussion" is all about. It's about the fact that you can't comprehend my statement that poker is a game which involves more than just knowing when to bluff and managing your money. I even went so far as to try to explain the concept of EV to you as I wasn't confident you would figure out how to look that up on your own.

What's very telling here is that all of my posts contain discussion of poker whereas your just keep trying to be offensive and whining about how you feel "insulted" when I've done nothing but state objective facts about you. I suppose referring to you as a 1600 chess player is also an "insult" Your last two posts are completely devoid of any discussion of poker whatsoever.

I'd tell you to grow up, groves, but at your age I think it's a bit too late for you.


Don Groves    (2008-06-04 19:59:07)
Poker

Your definition of "objective facts" is a bit weak, Repa. You state that I'm not intelligent enough to get my Chess rating higher yet I just told you I don't play Chess anymore. Besides that, my meager rating was achieved without the use of computers. One of the reasons I switched to Go is because Go is not yet dominated by computer programs. Why don't you try Go yourself and see how high a rating you can achieve without the aid of a computer? Also, in my second post, I agreed with you there is more to poker than just bluffing, etc. I said my comments were meant for players who already had mastered the mechanics and mathematics of the game. Rather than acknowledging this, you commenced with an ad hominem attack so typical of you. I stand by my original statement that the stakes in poker must be high enough to make bluffing possible or the game becomes nothing but chance where the best hand wins every pot. The best psychological game of poker is five-card draw with pot-limit and table-stakes. Playing with cards dealt face-up as in stud or hold-em (which is a form of 7-card stud) is for those who can't handle the uncertainty of not knowing for sure when they have a lock or at least that the odds are heavily in their favor.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-04 20:22:20)
Poker

No, your ability to understand simple concepts is what is weak here groves. You keep whining that your paltry 1600 chess rating shouldn't matter because you haven't played chess in a couple of years, but what difference does that make? Are elo points easier to obtain now? And what about Go? You play that game regularly, yet you have a pathetic 1300 rating at that as well. You better open a window before you think up another lame excuse....I wouldn't want you to die from smoke inhalation.

I don't know how many times I need to keep repeating myself in order for the point to penetrate your skull, but your comment about "mastering the mechanics" of the game is pure nonsense. You speak as if the entirety of poker theory can be equated to memorizing basic strategy in blackjack. You seem to think the discussion of calculating EV is based purely on figuring out pot-odds and how that relates to the number of outs, etc, but if you had the incipience of a clue about the game you'd realize that there is much MORE involved than that. Poker is an information game and all the information you have at your disposal, such as the temperament and mood of your opponent(s), your perceived table image (or at least your interpretation of it), the history of the action that has occurred so far, the tells that you pick up and the false tells that you may be sending to your opponents, etc, goes into the calculation of the EV on any given play. The better a player is able to conduct these evaluations and convert them into value, at least intuitively....the better a poker player they are. Even online poker has some tell/false-tell action as the response time can be varied.

Re-read my previous post where I mentioned that mistakes can take various forms. I clearly state, and in simple terms such that even you should be able to grasp, that there is more to the game than straightforward arithmetic calculations.

And I realize that you don't work, but geez, can you not find something better to do with your time than try to provoke people on the internet? Why don't you use all that free time you have on your hands to learn how to play Chess or Go beyond the level of a rank beginner?


Don Groves    (2008-06-04 20:50:02)
Poker

Yada, yada, more of the same from Repa. If you think 1300 is such a poor Go rating, let's see what you can do. We know you're great at computer-aided Chess, maybe that will translate well to Go. We really do need more good Go players here. There are Go programs that play at or above my current level. You could use one and get a head start.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-04 20:56:31)
Poker

I don't "think" 1300 is a mediocre Go rating, any more than I "think" 1600 is a mediocre chess rating. But a guy like you is used to being below average at the things you do, so I guess you're comfortable with that.

I've proven myself for years at live OTB chess with no computer assistance whatsoever little guy. You're only making a fool of yourself with such comments. I'm in the top 1% of all tournament chess players in my province at slow chess. And I'm a several time provincial champion at blitz chess.

Did I use any words too complex for you to understand in my previous post? I tried to explain to you what goes into making poker decisions, in the way a 4 year old should be able to understand. Was I overly optimistic?


Jason Repa    (2008-06-04 21:22:00)
Poker

Here we go again eh groves? You're a bored old man with no purpose in life other than to harass and annoy people on the internet.

Ah, I get it, you couldn’t cut it in chess, so you ran to Go, lol. But you can’t play that game either, so what’s it going to be next....tic tac toe? Unlike you, groves, I don’t have all day to sit around and play games. My gaming time is limited to chess and poker.

Perhaps it’s true what has been said about how people of a very advanced age start to become like children again. It’s especially sad when you’re dealing with someone who was less than impressive, even at their peak.


William Taylor    (2008-06-04 23:09:47)
Don't like the idea

My initial reaction is that I don't like the idea. Whilst I do enjoy playing poker, I think it would be out of place here. As others have pointed out, there's a lot of luck involved, and (so far anyway) this website is for skill-based abstract strategy games. I also think it would be unsuited to a correspondence time control. Shogi or xiang-qi on the other hand... I'm in favour of introducing them.


Marc Lacrosse    (2008-06-04 23:50:50)
Why so few top players in Wch 5 ?

In the present "active" players rating list there are 38 players with a 2300+ rating.

So far only three of them registered for the soon to begin 5th "world championship".

I just wonder why ...

Marc


Don Groves    (2008-06-05 00:49:18)
FICGS Poker

Thibault -- How many players per "table?" As for length of games, you could set a start time and end time, with a duration of one or two hours. When time is up, the game is over. That way everyone knows in advance the time commitment and can schedule accordingly.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-06-05 01:31:43)
Top players in Wch 5

Hi Marc,

It is possible that some 2400+ players wait until the deadline before to entry the waiting list to know if they will play the knockout or the round-robin tournament, just as before I think. Anyway, I assume that most 2300+ players have running games and wait to know if they'll be able to manage some more games.

Best, Thibault


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-06-05 01:35:52)
FICGS poker

It would be 2 players only per table. Thanks to all, I'll have to think about it. To be continued.


Robert Mueller    (2008-06-07 22:48:44)
Why so few top players in Wch 5 ?

I can only speak for myself. 1 move per day is too fast for me. I decided not to sign up for the WCH but play standard time controls (4 days per move) instead. When I signed up for WCH 4, round 2 of WCH 3 started and then I surprisingly qualified for the WCH 2 final. Suddenly, I had more than 20 fast games in progress. This is too much stress for me.


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-06-08 06:24:35)
Rapid chess entry rating

Jayson Repa has a point but I think he is missing my point. If Engine help was not allowed, I would agree 100%. But with engine help, in practice mostly Rybka, a 2100 player is grossly under rated, I mean gross. So that is a huge barrier to overcome for a 2200+ rated player. It is not obvious that a 2300 player climbing the ranks against 2400 players has a larger barrier than a 2200 player reaching 2300. \The point I am making is: It matters little the ratings in correspondence chess with very very long time controls. Rybka does not know or care, the lil girl just makes best moves anyhow. The skill comes in when the human selects the best opening and is the most capable of steering his engine consistant with his chess knowledge. Heck Mr Repa I would love to play 2400 players, my chance of loosing is no greater than losing to a 2100 player, both would be using Rybka or engine of their choice. With respect sir Wayne


Jason Repa    (2008-06-08 11:09:30)
Nickel vs Hydra

I believe that Nickel used various chess engines to assist him with error-checking and analysis, similar to what any good corr. player does.

I especially liked the game where Nickel beat Hydra with the Black side of a French Tarrasch


Jason Repa    (2008-06-08 20:37:40)
Rapid chess entry rating

No, Lowrance, you're the one missing the point here. And you're using engine assistance as much as anyone here, so don't pretend like you're somehow at a disadvantage. I've played you, and you're 100% program. Perhaps that's the problem.

Thibault mentioned once that a weak player running Rybka can get to around 2100 or so. To get beyond that requires some chess knowledge. While he may not be precisely accurate about the number....perhaps it's 2200 instead......nonetheless, the point is accurate. Everyone who's above 2000 on this site is consulting chess engines, but in corr. chess simply running a program alone is not the strongest way to play. You make it sound as though Rybka plays the perfect chess game. If that were the case everyone on this site would be rated about the same. It should be quite obvious to you that to go from 2300 to 2400 is much more difficult than going from 2200-2300. As a higher rated player, you get less points for winning or drawing, and lose more when you lose. As for your chances against 2400 players being the same as against 2100 players, that's pure nonsense. You'd be lucky to get the occasional draw against a 2400 player, (one who's really earned their rating and not just started with an artificially high rating as is the case with more than a few on this site) whilst you will lost most of those games. A higher rated player is higher rated for a reason. They win more games.

The correct spelling of my name should also be obvious to you, as it's on the same page that you're entering text into.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-09 00:22:32)
Rapid chess entry rating

If you're not bright enough to figure out how to look up someone's rating, you better stick to "engine-assisted" chess. I'd probably beat you blindfolded in chess where you have to come up with the moves using your own mind. You're not even intelligent enough to figure out how to spell someone's name, when the spelling of it is right in front of you.

And for someone who doesn't want to engage in insults, you sure are doing a good job of insulting. Nice of you to "claim" I wouldn't accept your "challenge" of playing match games, before you even make the challenge. Obviously it's YOU who's backing down from match games with me, under the pretense of not having any time to play. What sheer nonsense. You seem to have a lot of free time on your hands....enough to blabber away with numerous forum posts where you whine about not being able to make it to 2300.

I'm challenging YOU to some human mind vs human mind chess on the playchess server right now. You can get a free trial account there (if you don't already have an account) in about 2 minutes. For a guy who's incessantly bickering about Rybka hurting your performance, you should love having the opportunity to prove to everyone reading this that you're not the spineless hypocrite coward I'm claiming you are and step up to the plate to play me some fast (so rybka or other engines cannot be consulted) online games.

Nice of you to tell us you have problems, but it was already obvious.


Don Groves    (2008-06-09 06:47:09)
Brackets - both Chess and Go

In response to Garvin Gray's first response in this thread: There is a way around the problem of being stuck at a certain rating because you never get to play against higher rated players (which is necessary to move up) -- allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification regardless of his/her rating. This is done on at least one site already (IECG, if I recall correctly). If the player in question does not improve his/her rating enough to stay at the higher level, he/she drops back into the lower classification. Thibault would have to agree to allow this of course. I think it's a good way to reward the winner of a tournament.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-09 08:12:28)
Brackets - both Chess and Go

" -- allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification regardless of his/her rating."

This idea seems interesting, on the surface, but on closer inspection it's not feasible. The FICGS tournament categories are dependent on certain rating averages that determine the level of points required in order to achieve norms for various FICGS titles, starting at class "M" and higher. Throwing in lower rated players would dilute the rating average of the entire tournament. It's also unfair to the rest of the players in that tournament who are legitimately qualified to be there. They are forced to play a lower rated opponent artificially and now THEY are at a big disadvantage in their attempt to gain the points required to get to the next level.

Additionally, I don't think groves thought about this long enough to realize that there is no guarantee that each "A" level tournament will end precisely as each "M" level tournament does. What if two "A" level events are completed in the time it takes for one "M" level event to finish, which isn't an unreasonable possibility as the "M" level players generally take the game more seriously and tend to use their time more? Should we then throw in TWO players into an "M" level event that don't deserve to be there? At any rate, it's a poor idea. If someone is winning tournaments, they're definitely gaining rating points and will qualify legitimately for the next rating level soon enough.


Don Groves    (2008-06-09 09:01:24)
Brackets - Chess and Go

Thanks for your reasoned response, Jason. I'll answer your points in order: (1) Having one lower rated player in a group of seven does not seem to me to be much of a dilution. Also, remember that this player is at or very near the top of the next lower rated group, and again, this doesn't seem like a large enough disparity to be of concern. (2) The other players in the group will have five other opponents rated within the group's normal limits and thus will have plenty of opportunity for their own advancement by winning a majority of those games. Remember also that Thibault instituted a rule that losing to a lower rated player only counts as a loss to someone a maximum of 150 ELO below. So, losing a game to this one player will not constitute a disaster to anyone's rating. (3) The new rule could easily specify that no more than one lower rated player may enter any given tournament. (4) Your point here is simply not true in general. In my own case, I'm the highest rated player in a current Go tournament. Even if I win every game, my rating will improve at most from 8 kyu to 7 kyu. The next cutoff point is 5 kyu and there's no way I can reach that level without playing against higher rated players.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-09 11:05:13)
Brackets - Chess and Go

"Thanks for your reasoned response"

Somehow I don't think you know the meaning of the word "reason", groves.

"(1) Having one lower rated player in a group of seven does not seem to me to be much of a dilution"

It is very much a dilution. As I just finished explaining to you, it will not only make it more difficult for the other players in the tournament who legitimately qualify to be there by rating, to acquire the rating points necessary to get to the next level, but it will lower the overall rating average and effect the awarding of norms.

"Also, remember that this player is at or very near the top of the next lower rated group"

Total rubbish. You just finished saying, in your previous post, that you propose to allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification REGARDLESS of his/her rating. There is no certainty that the winner of the tournament will be near the top of the next lower rated group. They could very well be at the bottom of the next lower rated group, as I often was, as were many others, when I won tournaments.

"and again, this doesn't seem like a large enough disparity to be of concern."

And AGAIN, As I just finished explaining to you, it will not only make it more difficult for the other players in the tournament who legitimately qualify to be there by rating, to acquire the rating points necessary to get to the next level, but it will lower the overall rating average and effect the awarding of norms.

"Thibault instituted a rule that losing to a lower rated player only counts as a loss to someone a maximum of 150 ELO below"

Where did you get the 150 ELO figure from? I was under the impression it was a 200 ELO ceiling. Not that this has any relevance in terms of supporting your position anyway.

"The new rule could easily specify that no more than one lower rated player may enter any given tournament."

I just finished explaining to you that there is no guarantee that the "M" class tournaments will end at the same time as the "A" class tournaments. Not only do "M" class players tend to take the game more seriously and move slower, but there are more "A" class players than "M" so it takes longer to fill an "M" class list, hence less "M" class tournaments are played. If you propose to have only one "A" class player sent to an "M" class tournament at a time, then you'll quickly accumulate a waiting list backlog of "A" class players waiting to be seeded into a tournament they don't legitimately qualify for, stretching for decades. The other reasons I mentioned are MORE than enough reason to ditch this suggestion. This is just gravy.

Additionally, and once again, as I just finished explaining to you, if someone is winning tournaments, they're gaining rating points and will soon be able to qualify for the new rating category through legitimate means. So there is no reason at all to provide such "handouts".

I hope I don't have to repeat myself a third time here. It seems quite silly that you don't yet understand the simple and logical truth of what has been explained to you.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-06-09 23:36:06)
Invitations

Ok, that's an interesting discussion, the idea is interesting and it has some advantages but in the other hand to limit the number of invited players from a lower rated tournament (like IECG) is a problem. My main argument remains the same : too many rules is not good.

A poll could be instructive anyway.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-10 01:03:04)
Free entry into unqualified tournaments

As for the discussion of allowing lower rated players to play in events with higher rated players after winning a tournament.....such a thing already exists. They're called FICGS Championships!


Don Groves    (2008-06-10 02:09:17)
Brackets...

(1) "Somehow I don't think you know the meaning of the word 'reason', groves." Ah, here they come -- the insults so typical of you... (2) "Where did you get the 150 ELO figure from? I was under the impression it was a 200 ELO ceiling." I thought I remembered 150. If that's not correct you have my sincere apology... (3) "There is no certainty that the winner of the tournament will be near the top of the next lower rated group. They could very well be at the bottom of the next lower rated group, as I often was, as were many others, when I won tournaments." This is true and there is a simple fix -- add the condition that, in order to qualify for the exception, the player must be within 25 ELO of the next higher classification... (4) "I hope I don't have to repeat myself a third time here. It seems quite silly that you don't yet understand the simple and logical truth of what has been explained to you." Poor boy! I'm so sorry I made you repeat yourself. I get the feeling though you don't really mind as you seem to love the sound of your own voice so much. Thibault has decided this anyway and I abide by his decision. Your precious class M tournaments are safe from pollution by losers who are not yet up to your lofty standards. You can have the last word now -- you always do anyway.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-10 04:52:22)
Senility is a terrible thing

"Ah, here they come -- the insults so typical of you"

Sorry groves, but I was simply stating facts. It's difficult to find anything to say about you that you won't construe as an "insult". Everything that has spewed out of your keyboard thus far is evidence of your complete lack of reasoning ability, and very modest IQ.

"I thought I remembered 150. If that's not correct you have my sincere apology"

You "think" a lot of nonsense that isn't true, groves. This is nothing new.

"-- add the condition that, in order to qualify for the exception, the player must be within 25 ELO of the next higher classification"

I realize that with your condition you can scarcely recall your own words from moments ago, but it was YOUR idea that the player in question be seeded into the higher rating classification event REGARDLESS of their rating. So now the little light bulb went on in that melon head of yours and you now realize what I was telling you earlier....about there being no guarantee that the tournament winner is rated near the top of his classification? If you're going to change what you proposed earlier, and only allow players who are within 25 elo of the higher classification, what's the point of it? You might as well let him get the remaining 25 elo on his own and enter the higher classification event normally.

I'm so sorry I made you repeat yourself.

You're doing an awful lot of apologizing, groves. Your very existence seems to be one big apology. I'm sure quite a few people in your life have to repeat themselves, ad nauseum, for your benefit.

"You can have the last word now"

The last word should have been my previous post. As usual, you've contributed nothing of value here. Just more pathetic whining and blabbering, as per usual.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-06-10 15:19:31)
Rules : 11.1 Netiquette

Hello all, I would like to apologize to all members for reading such unacceptable posts in this forum. Rules are not so easy to apply in some cases, now I've taken measures.

Thanks for understanding.

11. General rules

11. 1. Netiquette

(...) It is possible to leave public comments for your games and to send private messages to other members. No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and may lead to get a limited access to the server during a few weeks, at the moderator's discretion. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private.


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-06-10 16:44:32)
Rapid chess entry rating

I am pleased that Thiabalt has/is taking steps to put a stop to this bickering and name calling here at the chess site. For my part I would like to apoligize to all for opening this "Rapid chess entry rating" topic in the first place. It is my bad ! And I will not repeat this mistake again. It was never my intension to creat such chaos. I thought it was a harmless topic and was giving an opinion. I feel bad that one individual has such a dislike for me. I have been playing c hess on internet for perhaps 20 years, and in all of that time I have never had anyone dislike me, I confess it does bother me. Wayne


Pablo Schmid    (2008-06-10 21:33:16)
Always the same guy

It's always the same guy, I don't even want to write his name, he would be happy. In each topic where he speaks there is a new victim, he is sure to be the most intelligent and take everything personnally, and insult anybody who don't think like him. I don't know why Ilmars's comment have been deleted, I didn't read them but the King of insults seems to have impunity. If you put his name on google you will see how much trouble he makes everywhere. That behavior should really not be accepted here. I never saw a chess player so rude in my life.


Marc Lacrosse    (2008-06-11 23:54:23)
Strange rating ...

Having a look at the rating list I see that Ryszard Kasperek has a 2544 rating and the FICGS FEM title.

I just wonder how he got the FEM title as he did never play a single game on FICGS ?

He has been rated 14 times with the same original 2544 elo without a single game played here

Strange ...

IMHO people who register here with a high foreign rating and do not play a single game in more than one year should be banned.

I cannot even imagine how they could be granted a FICGS title

Marc


Marc Lacrosse    (2008-06-12 00:03:48)
Example

GM Suat Atalik never played a single game here and did not connect once since early 2006.

Keeping him in a rating list is not correct




Thibault de Vassal    (2008-06-12 00:37:27)
Titles

Hi Marc,

The rules specify that a title obtained at IECG give the right to ask for the same title at FICGS (with F letter before, ie. FEM)

Ratings are no more established ones after (if I remember well) 2 years of inactivity. I think that old ratings should remain in a list anyway, that's a part of correspondence chess history :)

The active players list should be considered first, then you won't see these ratings anymore.


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2008-06-12 15:12:47)
More thematics ...

Also the old indian defence or janowskey indian thematic tournament would be nice, Tal used the latter occasionally. They are solid, a bit passive. I played a few times the janowskey indian and I felt like I was playing a Philidor with steroids.


Benjamin Block    (2008-06-14 10:56:40)
Quote festival, part 4

You can´t win the best player. Because if you win him he is not the best. (Benjamin Block)


Pablo Schmid    (2008-06-15 10:56:36)
my idea

Maybe it's already exist in another form but I will try."The best correspondance player at chess is not the human who has the best computer but the computer who has the best human".


Marc Lacrosse    (2008-06-17 07:55:59)
Conditionals ?

I know that this has been discussed before...
But I still feel that possible use of conditional moves would be a nice improvement here.
Nothing mandatory : simply the possibility to tell your opponent : "If you play this move my answer is that one". I cannot see how it could hurt in any way but I feel that it may help soften (and fasten) the play in situations like forced suites, exchanges and so on.

Your opinion ?

Marc


Marc Lacrosse    (2008-06-20 08:04:12)
Why ?

One of my opponents rated 2300+ continues to play even though there is an announced forced checkmate in eleven moves (no possible miracle : any engine finds the mate).
His game has been completely lost for weeks but the road to mate is long in this minor pieces ending.
Is it correct?
OK this does not infringe any rule but in OTB play this would be considered very bad manner.
Does it happen frequently here?
what is your opinion?
Marc


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-06-20 20:45:46)
Why

Playing on in a completely lost position is to get to the next rating adjustment. Particularly when the loss would take them below a threshold - in this case 2300. Your opponent will probably resign on July 1st. Nice game by the way although I didnt like 6 ..Bxf3 (why give up the bishop?)I think 6..Bh5 then e6-d5 and black is fine. 12 Rc1 was a great move! A few moves later and black is suddenly in big trouble


P. Bhaskaran Dhanish    (2008-06-21 02:57:54)
Always White below?

Is there an option to make the board always display with White below?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-01 17:10:49)
Big chess in russian forums

Quite funny to see a Big chess game (Lehnhoff - de Vassal :)) discussed in a russian forum, even if I don't understand a single word of the discussion - any help welcome :/

http://kasparovchess.crestbook.com/viewtopic.php?pid=181338

We definitely need more Big chess players, great game - let's have fun ! :)


Garvin Gray    (2008-07-03 16:30:20)
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_M__000010

One more player needed. Please join up so the six can start :)


Normajean Yates    (2008-07-04 16:02:52)
basic question re vacation

the faq says on vacation that : <<Vacation : 1. During [vacation], your clocks are frozen and it is no more possible to play, in order to reduce the effects on time controls. 2. Please note that the time limit per move clock still runs during vacation [...] you can add days leave during this period.>> Can someone make it clearer what point 2 means? Thibault?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-04 22:43:41)
vacation

Hello Normajean,

Point 2 means that no move will be played in a period exceeding 60 days, even if you take vacation (otherwise you lose the game on time). However, when you take vacation the program will warn you if you take too many days, ie. if you have 20 days in game xxx but if you did not play a single move for 55 days (actually since your opponent replied) in this game and if you want to take 10 days of vacation, a message will appear in red before you confirm.


Marc Lacrosse    (2008-07-05 19:36:23)
Qualification information ?

Because i did not realise that I had qualified for two WCh tournaments I recently enrolled for a third one and had three tournaments beginning almost simultaneously in january, which proved to be too much for me.
And now the deadline for the next Wch (005)is approaching and it just seems that i will win WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_M_01__000004.
So I am hesitating : when will Wch-004 next stage begin ?
I do not wish anymore to have more than one tournament starting almost at the same time.

More generally speaking, I wish I could get the following infos permanently updated on my "My messages" page :

* I enrolled for a tournament of type X on date Y. Presently there are already Z players enrolled for this tournament.
* I registered for championship X on date Y. this is supposed to start on date Z.
* In tournament Wch-X my present result ensures (or leaves the possibility open) that I will be qualified for next stage tournament that is supposed to begin on date Y.

Your opinion ?

Marc


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-05 21:58:53)
Qualification information

Hi Marc, next stages of previous championships will start at the same time, or a few days/weeks after, actually as soon as possible.

Your idea is interesting, not much time right now but let's see what other players think about that.

Anyway, anyone who wants to retire from the waiting list may send a message to me before the start of the tournaments.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-11 01:30:59)
Challenges

Hi Don, I'll work on it in a few weeks only :/ BTW players use the "challenge connected players" [All] option sometimes...


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-11 13:51:34)
Checkmate

Hello,

The game has now ended, but in all cases the checkmated player has to resign (or lose on time).


Dirk Ghysens    (2008-07-13 18:29:25)
Disagree

There have been several 2200-2600 tournaments in which 2400+ players have started; in one of them even two 2500+ players participated. A well-known GM started in two such tournaments.
The 2400+ category tournaments fill up very slowly; it took about nine months for the last one to start.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-07-14 21:41:51)
hmmm

I remember you previously posted about this game having, after many hours, found a problem like win. It sesm that this was wrong! I guess that 89 ...Be7 followed by g5 holds the draw and white just got the order of moves mixed up and played g5 first. It happens.... On the other hand 25 ..Bd3 seems unecessarily risky while 25 ...Ra5 looks fine for black. Still you kept up the pressure and often you make your own luck :))


Normajean Yates    (2008-07-15 03:25:32)
is mirroring moves legal on ficgs?

suppose I am playing a tournament. I need only 1 point [1/2=draw,1=win]. in one game I am white. In another game I am black.

In the game where I am black, I wait for opp to move, say move w1. Then in the game where I am white, I make the move w1, then I wait for opp's reply, say b1. Now in the game where I am black I move b1. And so on..

So i am guranteed exactly 1 point (1/2+1/2 = 1 + 0 = 0+1 = 1).

Is this legal? If not, by which rule?

Thibault?


Michael Sharland    (2008-07-15 20:12:15)
Wouldn't work anyway

If your opponent wanted to stop you they could just push you up against the time limit on one of the games as the mirroring player would always use at least a little more time than the opponent. Once the player has to pick a move, the opponent can diverge. Each player would than have a big time advantage in one game but that wouldn't be a big deal at these controls. Only a vacation balance advantage would allow this idea to still work against determined opposition. Usually, a better stategy is to diverge at the point where you can play a significantly better move than the opponent used and try and win at least one of the games while holding the other.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-16 00:32:46)
Mirroring moves

Mirroring moves is (of course) strictly forbidden, rule 11.3 [end] :

"It's strictly forbidden to play simultaneously the same game with black on a board and white on the other, against two different players or the same one, playing black moves like the opponent in the game with white and playing white moves like the opponent in the game with black."


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2008-07-17 00:42:45)
Mirroring moves

Hello Thibault,

I think it is not possible to decide if a player mirrors moves ("plays simultaneously the same game ...") in two games before the two games have been finished.

Best,
Heinz-Georg


Wolfgang Utesch    (2008-07-17 04:57:26)
In example ....

... Both players of a match decide to play Sveshnikov with white and black, so it is normal that the first 8 moves are mirrored, may be that both players decide to play a special way in this opening with white and black, it can be that 20 moves are mirrored. Where is the problem? What can be wrong?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-17 06:34:33)
Mirroring moves

Hi Wolfgang,

Your example is ok but you do not take account of the date of each move... Even in Sveshnikov (let's say until move 16) there's a difference between playing the same opening and mirroring moves !

BTW, do you live in New-Zealand too ? :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-17 14:14:25)
New idea

BTW it may be possible in the future to choose exactly how many E-Points to play but (thinking like a lawyer, Normajean ;)) french laws are still quite hard and fuzzy. There's a difference between entering a tournament with an entry fee & money prize and betting money on a game.

To choose how many games before to decide the result may be possible but there's some work yet... About the lowest and highest rating, I may add this option in a few weeks. Finally about time control, I may add it but is it a good and necessary thing ? I'm not sure.

Thanks for discussing new ideas anyway :)


Wolfgang Utesch    (2008-07-17 16:03:58)
May be I'm a fool ....

...., but what is the simple difference between playing the same opening with black and white over 10 and more moves and MIRRORING? When is ending the first and when beginning the second?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-17 18:35:12)
Ending a game of Go

Hello Jonathan,

A player has to resign (or to call referee). I'll specify it in the Help section.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-17 18:42:37)
Mirroring moves

Let's say you (player A) play B with White on board 1 and play C with Black on board 2 :

Case 1 : C plays 1.e4 on board 2, then you play 1.e4 on board 1, B plays 1...e5 on board 1, you play 1...e5 on board 2 and so on... this is mirroring.

Case 2 : You play 1.e4 on board 1, then C plays 1.e4 on board 2, you play 1...e5 on board 2, B plays 1...e5 on board 1 and so on... this is not mirroring.

The dates of the moves say it all.


Benjamin Block    (2008-07-17 19:30:56)
Why more times an be good.

First i am going to take a example. You will play on a high rated tournamnet on iccf. The fee is 10 euro. But it is too hard for you too win so you need help from this site. You take help from this site. If you lose on this site you will win on iccf. If you lose on iccf you will win here not smart?
One more example. I play vs example you Thibault. You are white. You start with. 1.e4 i make the move on iccf. the player on iccf. move 1-.e5 and i make the move on this site and so on....


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-07-18 04:55:03)
Mirror mirror on the wall

To put Thibaults explanation another way: the person doing the mirroring aleays plays his moves after the other other person. So after a while you can see who is the real player and who is the reflection. Thibault has a system of rules that are very open and liberal but there are limits. For example at FICGS it is allowed to discuss a game that is not yet finished!


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-18 14:15:56)
how did member's name change?

According to the terms & conditions, the site can keep players informations and games, however if it's a "real" problem for a player who wants to close his account to have his name remaining on the site, an admin may change it (at his own discretion, the player can't register under his previous name though), but the games remain.


Normajean Yates    (2008-07-18 15:08:00)
you missed the penguin

normajean: penguin, mumble's mother, in the film Happy Feet. Played by (voice) Nicole Kidman
Mr Stephenson might want to include that on wikipedia.


Olivier Desormes    (2008-07-18 17:24:56)
i just want to know why

i just want to know why half of my parties are lost before i finish it i play 1 move a week


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-07-20 02:38:48)
Rybka Opening Book

In fact I will share an opinion that I have become to trust. That is, even the best books offered have a very short life expectancy. Certainly less than six months with active chess players such that play on "play chess" and even here. Book lines soon become refuted by these centaurs and a new private book of theirs emerges. I will admit that such is the case with me here on Ficgs. I have/use recognized good books that are available, but have my own small book that I consult. Just an opinion and hope this shared info is taken in the helpful way I intended. So this would indicate that R3.ctg probobly is a great book, but against active centaurs will soon reduce its effectivity. Thanks Wayne


Normajean Yates    (2008-07-21 19:15:38)
thibault you really need more women here

US sites like fics are so sexist [AND racist --- anti-Arab] that for 3 years i was ranting and raving there ...

So chess.com is an exception i think.

I would have liked the first exception to be NOT from the USa, but .. fait accompli it is ... And woman are vocal at chess.com - i've not been the target of any sexist remark [or seen any anti-arab or otherwise racist remark] there so far though i am perhaps the most vocal woman there .. And lots of women DO play corrspondence chess there ... 'lydiablonde' is both vocal and a strong, heavy player.
Anyony I am here for computer-assisted chess and there for the other sort ... [that site doesnt allow engines]


Ulrich Imbeck    (2008-07-21 22:23:35)
Women don't play so much

Women don't play so much as we do


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2008-07-22 00:23:13)
Women

Also is a question of critical mass, non enough woman playing chess. In my chess club there were only two, and when they came many men stopped what they were doing just to talk with them, so their competition was more like the queen with more satellites around, so they would not play as much chess as men.


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2008-07-22 00:25:50)
Women

So, if there were more women playing chess, their average strength would be similar to men's


Normajean Yates    (2008-07-22 23:00:04)
critical mass?

see the rate of increase of GMs and IMs who are women [i am not talking of WGMS et al, but GMs who are women!], over the last 50 years. Extrapolate it: in 50 years te questions will be 'why are there so few men in chess?'

Men, as a general rule, will then say: 'we dont play chess because it is trivial'. No point arguing with men in general. Men in general are STUPID and ARROGANT.

Who needs men *qua* men?
A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.
I play chess against people who just *happen* to be men.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-23 14:00:26)
MoGo vs. Human

In 1997 Janice Kim (1 dan) beat Handtalk, then the strongest Go program, despite giving the program a 25-stone handicap.

On Thursday, August 7, Kim MyungWan 8p will play MoGo, probably the world's strongest computer Go program. MoGo will be running on a supercomputer boasting over 3,000 processor cores !! The game will be broadcast live on KGS - http://www.gokgs.com/download.xhtml

The human is "8p", meaning 8-dan professional; not quite 3 stones stronger than a 1d pro player, who in turn would give an amateur 1d at least 6 stones. Edward Lasker said that 3 stones handicap at Go is comparable to knight odds at chess.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-25 19:35:48)
Caire - Utesch

I'm waiting also.. Many players are in vacation these days :)


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2008-07-26 09:38:07)
Some info

I found this "According to the AGA eJournal?...a human will play go against MoGo running on a 3000+ node computer. According to the computer go mailing list.. it is planned to be 19x19, will start with 5 blitz games to decide a basic handicap, and then a 'real' game will be played."


Normajean Yates    (2008-07-26 14:27:09)
Rodolfo ... I am playing that song ..

right now on this computer - can you hear it? :)

Andrew, the woman who said all that you cited [Martha Stewart?] is in the ultimate analysis a victim of social programming.


Marc Lacrosse    (2008-07-27 19:36:41)
The specifics of match play ...

Tanks to FICGS championships interesting formula I just entered Wch 005 in a quarter final 8-games match (against GM Balabaev).
This is the first time I have to play several simultaneous games against the same opponent in correspondence play.
There are interesting questions related to this unusual kind of tournament.
First of all, what kind of opening(s) should you play, and more precisely is it better to vary or to go for the same opening in several games?
Having had a look at my opponents former games I had prepared quite a few options.
As Black I decided to rely on my favorite Bc5 sicilian defence
Four identical games developped and very soon it appeared that these games should be decisive for the whole match
For long I was afraid that my opponent could come with some decisive prepared analysis leading to a 4-0 lead ...
But the opposite happened and all four games ended (draw by position repetition) before I had left my opening prep, after less than one month of play.
Thus I am left with four games where I am white
A considerable advantage IMHO ...

On this precise topic I wonder what is the opinion of top players here : is it better to be the one who vary early or should you go along your favorite analysis as long as your opponent won't diverge himself in case of match play

I have never read anything on this topic anywhere ...

Marc


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-28 00:27:32)
The specifics of match play ...

Hi Marc.

There was discussions about the 8 games match format already... and you may have seen that I used this strategy without success before with Farit as my opponent :)

http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_3__000003.html

Anyway, the choice of openings and to vary the lines is a very complex (and interesting) question IMO, that depends on too many factors, so I probably may change my view in certain cases, whatever the results.


Marc Lacrosse    (2008-07-28 15:59:14)
I see ...

Hi Thibault

OK I see : you were happy (as I am) with four draws in one single well-prepared line as Black but went on missing the qualification as your four white games were also drawn (and Farit's rating was superior to yours).
Maybe I will suffer the same fate ...
But as i have to win at least one game I feel this is easier to achieve with white ...
As white I am busy varying the positions a little and trying to play more actively ...
We will see...

By the way I think that the rule according which the highest rating is qualified in case of eight draws is really a significant advantage ...
... but i agree that we need a way to adjudicate drawn matches.

Marc


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-28 18:18:20)
8 games matches

"But as i have to win at least one game I feel this is easier to achieve with white ..."

Theorically (only ?). Anyway I made this choice during my match because I had about 80 running games at that time (quite inhuman :)) so I managed my rating :/

You know that this time control 30 days + 1 day / move is quite different from classical 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves, the pressure in the 8 games may be important, also the psychological factor [playing White feels more (sometimes too much) secure ie(?): Xavier won his 2 games with Black in the first Candidates final] and I'm convinced that every game counts these ways. The tie break rule (highest rating is qualified in case of eight draws) did not apply so often by the way.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-29 14:05:49)
why so few retrograde analysis fans here

Because I hate this ! :o)

Just joking, but I don't like it much for real. As I made this site mainly in a competitive way, probably most players look for the same things as me here, a deeper chess (& Go) games understanding and of course competition - this is a men's feature, you know :))


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-03 12:46:18)
Round Robin qualification

Thibault looking at the WCC rules for Round Robin tournaments. It says: "If necessary, a player could be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player." This must be how Marc Lacrosse came to be in the Round Robin final for 02 as he was not in any stage 1 or stage 2 tournaments for 02. With 5 qualifiers from stage 2 and a stage 1 M winner a 7th player was needed. How did you decide which player to leave out of stage 1 M 02 and put directly in the RR final? Presumably not TER as both Brunsteins and Marius had higher TER's. This is not a problem for 03 as there will be 4 stage 2 qualifiers and 1 stage 1 M winner. Just curious:)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-03 18:56:16)
Round Robin qualification

Hi Andrew, that's right : Marc did not play round 1 & 2 in the WCH 02. As far as I can remember, Marc couldn't play round 2 in WCH 1 (he won Group 20) and due to his rating at this time - I don't remember if he entered a waiting list for replacements - I've included him in this tournament. Such a case will probably happen again if necessary.


Marc Lacrosse    (2008-08-03 20:34:52)
No extra qualification required!

Hi all

To Andrew : I really did not ask for this invitation: i am already unable to face all tournaments for which I qualified.

- I just won WCH-04-group M01
- At the same time I just began to play my quarter-final match in Wch-05
- and if I am not wrong I am not far from winning WCH-03-stage2-group02 (possibly ex aequo with you)...

... so really I do not need to get extra qualifying opportunities !

Marc

PS If I remember correctly you had some critical comments on my recent opening choices. It seems that they did not work too miserably so far.


Normajean Yates    (2008-08-06 03:30:00)
where does strategy stealing come in?

What is 'obvious' but provable is: "A finite combinatorial 2 person game of complete-information is deterministic [ie has a pure srategy, considered as a 'pure game-theory' 2-person game]. To prove that, one needs to define a 2-person complete-info combinatorial game, and strategies in that context [which come out to be "solution subtrees"]

I dont see where strategy stelaing comes in - it does come in eg for the trivial but nonconstructive proof that nxn hex is a win for the first player ...


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-07 16:00:12)
Longest game

I just wondered whats the longest game game ever played on FICGS - in terms of moves? Potentially it could be very long as the 50 move draw rule does not apply automaticaaly on this site.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-07 17:03:04)
Longest game

I wondered the same a few days ago... I'll write a small script to find such statistics today ;)

92 moves, Wolfgang... not bad, we will see.. In another category, I played a 200+ moves big chess game with Heinz-Georg :p


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-08 13:19:10)
MoGo wins ! (estimated 2 dans)

I just read it in the American Go E-Journal, MoGo computer program defeated Myungwan Kim 8P by 1.5 points in a 9-stone game billed as “Humanity’s Last Stand?”

The professional player estimated MoGo’s current strength at “two or maybe three dan”, “made some 5-dan moves” (the program used 800 processors, at 4.7 Ghz, 15 Teraflops on a borrowed European supercomputer)

Strangely, Kim easily won two blitz games with 9 stones and 11 stones and lost one with 12 stones and 15 minutes by 3.5 points before this one hour game.

http://senseis.xmp.net/?MoGo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-09 03:35:42)
Pins and swords

"The pin is mightier than the sword" is apparently a quote from Fred Reinfield being a play on pen is mightier than the sword etc. The addition "but the fork is mightier thn the pin" might just be something someone on chess.com made up!


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-09 21:55:37)
Mogo

Did the human have a handicap in the 1 hour game? Does the player moving 2nd generally get some points/stones to compensate between equally rated players?


Don Groves    (2008-08-10 00:32:11)
Komi

Yes, Andrew, the second player is compensated with some number of stones, usually between 5.5 and 7.5 (ties are eliminated). This is called komi. I don't know what the komi was in the MoGo match.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-10 07:45:29)
Mogo

So mogo gets to put down 9 stones to start with but I dont know whether he moved first or second - it sounds like he moved first and there was no Komi. Anyway its a big handicap but the breakthrough appears to be that the win was achieved on a 19x19 board in a "long" game (1 hour) Kim didnt use so much of his time but said more time spent would not have made any difference prononcing Mogo invincible at 9 stones and very difficult with 8 stones. The programmers were excited because they said 1 year ago they needed 18 stones now 9 and maybe a year to lose the other 9! If they can maintain this rate of improvement then they are suggesting that in a few years mogo could be the strongest go player in the world. Interestingly there is a reversal here with chess: programs being stronger against humans the shorter the game (ie blitz) but Mogo did better with more time! I guess this is about the time Mogo needs to assess the long term consequences of each move.


Normajean Yates    (2008-08-11 09:34:55)
bigchess annotation ?

now bigchess annotation - that's an idea. Start small - maybe Thibault or one of the other top bigchess players could take a sample bigchess game and annotate it ...


Philip Roe    (2008-08-11 16:25:09)
Pie in the Sky

Getting free annotations from a strong player seems a bit much to expect.

If you belong to the Internet Chess Club, and type help Services, you get a list of people willing to teach lessons or annotate games. They all charge by the hour, depending on their strength and economic situation. An IM from a third world country charges about $20 per hour. I doubt that you can do better.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-11 17:44:44)
annotated games

If we can find a smart way to annotate games played at FICGS (and others, why not), all games will be available, including Go and Big Chess... let's see how the other thread goes :)


Don Groves    (2008-08-11 19:02:23)
Pie in the sky

Maybe Thibault could set up payment by ePoints. Each player willing to do game analysis could post how many ePoints per game. But then, it's more work for poor Thib ;-)


Normajean Yates    (2008-08-12 02:10:55)
Okay, requestiong annnotation!

Consider this latvian fraser 'book' line:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Nc6 4. Qh5+ g6 5. Nxg6 Nf6 6. Qh3 hxg6 7. Qxh8 Qe7. [yes I know it is in crisis :)]
well, opp played 8. Nc3 [which i couldnt find in any database] and I was already in serious trouble after:

8...fxe4 9. Be2 Nd4 10. O-O.

Cant see any counterplay by black.

[not on this site; and the game is in progress but has moved on a few moves beyond this point - so I am not cheating!]

Anyone care to comment on - ahem, annotate - my [black's] 8th and 9th move?


Phil Cook    (2008-08-12 07:34:16)
Morales Vs Cook

[Event "Single game, E4EC"] [Site "http://gameknot.com/"] [Date "2008.04.22"] [Round "-"] [White "Morales, Rafael (rafafallo)"] [Black "Cook, Phil (Kiwi)"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "1078"] [BlackElo "1170"] [TimeControl "10/30"] 1. d4 {(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation) 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 } d5 2. Nc3 {(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation) 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 e6..not commonly played } e6 {(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation) 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 e6..not commonly played} 3. a3 {3.blocking ..Bb4} h6 4. e4 a6 5. g3 dxe4 6. Nxe4 Nf6 {3. ....... h6 4. e4 a6 5. g3 dxe4 6. Nxe4 Nf6 attemps white into another exchange} 7. Bg2 {7.Bg2 defends } Nxe4 8. Bxe4 c6 9. c4 Be7 10. d5 {7. Nxe4 8. Bxe4 c6 9. c4 Be7 10. d5 (white here,trying to open the middle up) so black attacks} cxd5 11. cxd5 O-O 12. dxe6 {12.dxe6,,(black gives up a pawn or does he)} Qxd1+ 13. Kxd1 Rd8+ 14. Bd2 fxe6 {12. dxe6 Qxd1+ 13. Kxd1 Rd8+ 14. Bd2 fxe6(wins the pawn back,has white in disarray here)} 15. Nf3 Bf6 16. Rb1 Nd7 17. b4 Ne5 18. Ke2 Nxf3 19. Bxf3 {15. Nf3 Bf6 16. Rb1 Nd7 17. b4 Ne5 18. Ke2 Nxf3 19. Bxf3 (note whites black bishop)} Rb8 20. a4 b5 21. a5 Bb7 22. Rbc1 Bxf3+ {19. Bxf3 Rb8 20. a4 b5 21. a5 Bb7 22. Rbc1 Bxf3(white lost contol and game from here,yet plods on)} 23. Kxf3 Rxd2 {22. Rbc1 Bxf3+ 23. Kxf3 Rxd(loss of bishop)} 24. Rc6 Rd3+ 25. Ke4 Rbd8 26. Rxe6 Rd3d6 27. Rxd6 Rxd6 28. Rc1 Rd4+ 29. Kf5 Rxb4 30. Kg6 Rg4+ 31. Kf5 Rc4 32. Rd1 Rc5+ 33. Ke4 b4 34. Rb1 Rb5 35. Rb3 Bc3 36. f4 Rxa5 37. f5 Ra3 0-1


Normajean Yates    (2008-08-12 14:52:44)
latvian-fraser 9...d5, and the R-sac

9...d5 10.d3 Kf7 11.Bg5 Bg7 may be better.. [context: latvian fraser exchange-sac line 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Nc6 4. Qh5+ g6 5. Nxg6 Nf6 6. Qh3 hxg6 7. Qxh8 Qe7 8. Nc3 {innovation?} fxe4 9. Be2]

Anyway the latvian fraser R-sac line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Nxg6 Nf6 6.Qh3 fxe4 7.Nxh8 d5 8.Qb3 Bd7 is still on the cards --- real serious play goes 3. Nxe5 Qf6 anyway - pity because the poisoned pawn var, the Svedenborg, 3. ef, and 3. d4 are quite elegant...


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-12 21:32:49)
No novelty

F Perez-Cruz v F Acosta 1994 correspondence Massow Memorial (1-0 32) 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Nc6 4 Qh5+ g6 5 Nxg6 Nf6 6 Qh3 hxg6 7 Qxh8 Qe7 8 Nc3! The game continued with Nb4 9 d4?! (9 d3 looks like an easy win) Nxe4 10 Nxe4 Qxe4+ 11 Be3 Kf7?! (had to play 11..f4 12 Bd3 Nxd3 [12 ..Qxg2 13 Qe5+ Be7 13 Be4] 13 cxd3 Qxg2 14 Rf1 d6 when he can fight on) 12 Bd3 Nxd3 13 cxd3 with a won position. If I faced this Nc6 line I would play after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Nc6 4 d4! (John Nunn's refutation) this squelches all blacks hopes for play. What now for black? 4..Nf6 5 Nxc6 dxc6 6 e5 which looks like a pawn odds game. I dont know.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-13 00:04:16)
Designs

I'm so surprised to see that only 9 players use the RANDOM design (see in Preferences) which is my favourite by far... You should try it, more fun for the eye ;)

red (default) 3151
grey_chess 86
blue 83
red_flying 8
grey 52
red_paper 21
blue_board 5
green 26
blue_wch 7
grey_wch 12
blue_ocean 13
green_plain 6
red_wch 7
blue_plain 17
red_cubic 2
green_wch 6
grey_board 12
grey_plain 19
red_board 3
red_plain 8
blue_cubic 3
random 9
green_board 1
grey_cubic 2
red_fade 1



Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-13 19:51:51)
Very cool

I joined the random design club - its awesome as they say in Hollywood. I like the chess player images in the wall paper.


Sebastian Boehme    (2008-08-14 17:36:41)
I think c,)

Hi, it is interesting that c.) appears as a possibility, because Thibault is a strong Go player himself. Now I wonder was maybe his original idea to only make this a Go server? I thus vote for c.) Regards, Sebastian


Benjamin Block    (2008-08-14 17:45:03)
Thibault not only good GO player.

He is the highest rankad bigchess player and have 2464 in Chess and in Go 2332 and a good webmaster. I wonder how good he is in poker!


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-14 20:31:38)
FICGS

The best is a) as it describes the games played on the server. Bigchess can be seen as a chess variant and if "games" is supposed to cover just this and go it seems an exaggeration. However if Poker is to be included then b) would win my vote.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-14 23:21:23)
Statistics : Designs

Here are the real statistics for the number of players by design :
(I had forgotten some players in the previous ones) :

red (default) 3485
grey_chess 109
blue 107
grey 71
green 45
red_paper 34
grey_plain 30
blue_plain 29
blue_ocean 27
random 27
grey_wch 17
grey_board 15
red_plain 14
blue_wch 12
green_plain 11
blue_board 9
red_flying 9
green_wch 8
red_wch 8
red_board 7
blue_cubic 4
grey_cubic 4
grey_fade 4
blue_fade 3
red_cubic 3
green_board 2
green_cubic 1
green_plai 1
red_fade 1


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-14 23:25:25)
Statistics : Players by country

Here are some interesting statistics, the number of players by country... with some surprises, what do you think ?

USA 1020
FRA 343
GBR 245
CAN 178
DEU 158
RUS 127
IND 114
ITA 113
ROU 89
TUR 88
BRA 77
BEL 72
AUS 66
ESP 61
POL 53
PHL 52
NLD 49
SWE 47
ARG 43
ZAF 42
MEX 41
GRC 37
BGR 36
UKR 36
HUN 35
CZE 31
ISR 31
CHE 30
FIN 30
IDN 29
IRL 27
PRT 27
VEN 24
VNM 24
CHL 23
DZA 22
AUT 21
SGP 21
CHN 20
EGY 20
COL 19
DNK 19
LTU 18
NOR 17
NZL 17
MAR 16
MYS 16
PER 16
SRB 16
SVN 16
HRV 14
IRN 14
PRI 14
JPN 11
SVK 11
THA 11
EST 10
HKG 9
PAK 9
LVA 8
ARM 7
ISL 7
KOR 7
TUN 7
TWN 7
BLR 6
GEO 6
LKA 6
MLT 6
ALB 5
CUB 5
CYP 5
URY 5
ARE 4
ASM 4
BIH 4
BOL 4
CRI 4
ECU 4
GHA 4
KAZ 4
LBN 4
LUX 4
MKD 4
NGA 4
BGD 3
DOM 3
FRO 3
GTM 3
JOR 3
MDA 3
MMR 3
MNG 3
PRY 3
SAU 3
ZWE 3
ATG 2
BHS 2
CMR 2
ERI 2
HTI 2
IRQ 2
KEN 2
KGZ 2
KHM 2
MDG 2
MNE 2
NIC 2
NPL 2
PNG 2
UGA 2
AIA 1
ALA 1
ANY 1
BHR 1
BRB 1
GLP 1
GMB 1
GRD 1
GUM 1
HND 1
JAM 1
LBY 1
LSO 1
MOZ 1
MRT 1
MUS 1
PRK 1
QAT 1
SHN 1
TKM 1
TTO 1
UMI 1
UZB 1
VUT 1

Total : 4097


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-15 14:26:41)
Registered

All players, yes.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-15 18:00:45)
Nunn "refutation"

Here is a summary of the analysis after e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Nc6 4 d4!: a.) 4…fxe4 5.Nxc6 dxc6 6.Qh5+ Ke7 b.) 4…Nxd5 5.dxe5 d6 (5…Qe7 6.Qd4 and White is a pawn up, threatening Nc3-d5 – Nunn) 6.Bf4! “Black's position flat out sucks!” c.) 4…Nf6 5.Nxc6 dxc6 6.e5 with a clear extra pawn. d.) 4…Qh4!? 5.Nf3 Qxe4+ 6.Be2 Black's Queen is exposed eg 6…Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Re1 with advantage 8…0-0? loses to 9.Bc4+. e) 4...Qe7 is not analysed. 5 Nc3! (5 Nxc6 Qxe4+ 6 Be2 Qxc6 7 0-0 d5 8 Nc3 Kf7! and blacks not too bad) 5...fxe4 (5...Nxe5 6 Nb5!)6 Nb5 Kd8 7 Bf4 Nxe5 (7..Nf6 8 Nxc7!) 8 dxe5 and black cant develop eg Nh6 9 e6!d6 10 Qd5! In line a) 4..fxe4 5 Nxc6 Black can try bxc6!?(instead of dxc6)6 Qh5+ Ke7 planning to play Kf7 and d5. This might be the best try and although I white is better the positions are a bit unclear. After 4..fxe4 white also has 5 Bc4 d5 6 Bb5 Qd6 (6..Ne7 7 0-0 is strong) 7 c4 a6 when white will probably get the e pawn but black gets the bishop pair. So I am not now sure its a refutation!


Phil Cook    (2008-08-16 10:54:51)
(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation)

Morales Vs Cook [Event "Single game, E4EC"] [Date "2008.04.22"] [Round "-"] [White "Morales, Rafael (rafafallo)"] [Black "Cook, Phil (Kiwi)"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "1078"] [BlackElo "1170"] [TimeControl "10/30"] 1. d4 {(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation) 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 } d5 2. Nc3 {(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation) 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 e6..not commonly played } e6 {(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation) 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 e6..not commonly played} 3. a3 {3.blocking ..Bb4} h6 4. e4 a6 5. g3 dxe4 6. Nxe4 Nf6 {3. ....... h6 4. e4 a6 5. g3 dxe4 6. Nxe4 Nf6 attemps white into another exchange} 7. Bg2 {7.Bg2 defends } Nxe4 8. Bxe4 c6 9. c4 Be7 10. d5 {7. Nxe4 8. Bxe4 c6 9. c4 Be7 10. d5 (white here,trying to open the middle up) so black attacks} cxd5 11. cxd5 O-O 12. dxe6 {12.dxe6,,(black gives up a pawn or does he)} Qxd1+ 13. Kxd1 Rd8+ 14. Bd2 fxe6 {12. dxe6 Qxd1+ 13. Kxd1 Rd8+ 14. Bd2 fxe6(wins the pawn back,has white in disarray here)} 15. Nf3 Bf6 16. Rb1 Nd7 17. b4 Ne5 18. Ke2 Nxf3 19. Bxf3 {15. Nf3 Bf6 16. Rb1 Nd7 17. b4 Ne5 18. Ke2 Nxf3 19. Bxf3 (note whites black bishop)} Rb8 20. a4 b5 21. a5 Bb7 22. Rbc1 Bxf3+ {19. Bxf3 Rb8 20. a4 b5 21. a5 Bb7 22. Rbc1 Bxf3(white lost contol and game from here,yet plods on)} 23. Kxf3 Rxd2 {22. Rbc1 Bxf3+ 23. Kxf3 Rxd(loss of bishop)} 24. Rc6 Rd3+ 25. Ke4 Rbd8 26. Rxe6 Rd3d6 27. Rxd6 Rxd6 28. Rc1 Rd4+ 29. Kf5 Rxb4 30. Kg6 Rg4+ 31. Kf5 Rc4 32. Rd1 Rc5+ 33. Ke4 b4 34. Rb1 Rb5 35. Rb3 Bc3 36. f4 Rxa5 37. f5 Ra3 0-1


Benjamin Block    (2008-08-18 08:52:18)
Try to translate!

I think it is something like that?
Hello Xavier and first congratulations on your victory in the match which t'opposait the MI (ICCF) Gino Figlio [Peru] in the final candidates. You should avoid at all costs void in all parties, finally brought blacks t'ont chance, how do you explain this result? X
avier: Hello, thank you for the congratulations. It is true that in case of zero for all parties, the regulation states Figlio winner in the event of a tie with victory (s) and defeat (s) I won the match. So I had to take risks in attacking and it is with blacks that I did it because I thought Gino, in these parts, expected without taking risks to ensure the void.
-- Can you tell us about how you approached this match against Gino and his conduct as different phases of the game?
X: It's pretty simple, in this match I was not at all favorite because with more than 200 ELO points FICGS to my disadvantage, and Gino titled Master International, with more than 2480 ELO ICCF point, I thought I n ' not resist going on 8 simultaneous games as a part everything is possible but on 8 parts ... it was for me a great challenge! In the course of the game I played diversity in my beginnings with white 4 parts 4 different strokes: 1.e4 1.d4 1.c4 1.Cf3. Gino did the same: 1.e4 1.d4 1.Cf3 1.Cc3. What made me doubt also because 1.Cc3 surprised me, I thought he had planned an early tonitruand and this is where I said that I should take risks with blacks. As the different phases of the game I assured the zero positions balanced for me concacrer deal has two parts, one with blanks and one with the black for at least make a difference in part to ensure victory. And ultimately it 3 victories me back, which seemed impossible given the quality of the game Gino played on this site to reach the final of the championship candidates.
-- You have made during a championship course without fault, no losses to report, you also posters statistics stratospheric to 78% against an average elo to about 2200, what's your secret?
X: My secret? I have no secret. If I had a secret I do not dévoilerais if I do win more! I think I got a little lucky because he is required by little I am not qualified to stage 3 (round-robin final) because there were 3 players equally and I had l 'advantage classifying the departure of this tournament as indicated by the regulation. As for my statistics, it is also thanks to the errors of my opponents who allowed me to win parts in balance.
-- What do you think the system mid-ko, semi-all-round championship FICGS and its new départages in matches in 8 parties? What changes would it be?
X: Very good question! The system mid-ko for me is a little too fast since a coup by day is overtime analyses to operate a complicated position, which is difficult when several parties in progress. Especially when you work. It is perhaps also through this pace that my opponents lack of time, made some uncertainty regarding postions or exploited my mistakes. But the pace has an advantage over the cadences ICCF which is 5 days a coup is that the parties had to 5 times less time! The départage new games to 8 parts is excellent, forcing the favorite to ensure all matches to nil win this duel and otherwise obtain an additional victory against the challenger is a very well thought out. The amendment that I could make is perhaps time management which is fast for a game system per server. Perhaps increase the clock starting 15 days, starting with 45 against 30 days at this time. And also the possibility of taking a vacation only on the tournament underway to manage other parts of the site. For example, take 7 days vacation on a chess tournament championship and be able to play a tournament Big Chess, Go or another chess tournament during the holidays. Being able to choose a start date of holidays in advance would also be appreciated.
-- Why t'être invested in correspondence chess? T'apportent there are other rewards compared to traditional chess and blitz?
X: I prefer chess match over time. For the classical chess is often play the weekend at a specific time and often on the move to make a tournament. The advantage for me, correspondence chess is that I can connect at any time to play my shots, which allows me, for example, making family meals on weekends and late at night to play a coup, which is not possible chess classics.
-- You knew not to succumb to the temptation and you only play a very reasonable number of parties on the site throughout the championship, do you think nevertheless that the correspondence chess are addictive and at what point? Did they affect your everyday life?
X: Yes! Limiting my number of games in progress is essential for me to try to have parts of quality rather than quantity. Have a lot of parts simultaneously is still something very difficult to manage! This is perhaps the key to my victory against Figlio, I watched its games in progress, it had nearly 90 on the site of the ICCF, it has been felt on his time devoted to analysis our parties on FICGS 8. On the everyday life impacts are family because it is true that I spend more time to analyze the parts and less time with my family, which is quite difficult for me. But when the results are there I do not regret!
-- What do you think about the current position of engines for analysis (Rybka, Shredder, Fritz and others) in correspondence chess? What are the qualities you complementary core player by correspondence, now centaur with the machine for legs?
X: The engines of analyses in chess matches are used by 95% of players ... Now we must adapt and learn to use these machines to calculate. Car simply play the best shot of Rybka 3, Fritz 12 or Hiarcs 12 mentally without thinking leads to zero if the opponent does the same or possibly lose if the opponent gives himself the trouble to consider using them as well. Knowing that when you're in the middle part of these programs give you often 4 to 5 strokes assessed similarly, and that is that we must choose the right time when it is not even necessarily cited by the analysis engine ...
-- You get the Big Chess now on the site, curiosity or interest? What do you think of this strange version of chess?
X: For curiosity and fun and I think Rybka 3 is not yet the Big Chess! This version is almost unprecedented I did not know this form of chess before therefore the one who invented this game was very well done! About I'm the one who asks you a question on the Big chess ... Is there possibility of castle with this game if so, how? (Editor's note: No, it is impossible to castle the Big Chess)
-- And finally the question that everyone arises, especially Francis and Wolfgang disputing that the second final candidates, think you can defend your title next year? :)
X: of course! I will defend the title! I would like if possible to know the timing and pace of the match. And I wish Francis and Wolfgang a beautiful final! I must honor in this competition which is well organized!
-- The match should be able to start during the first week of January 2009, the pace will again 30 days and 1 additional day by coup. Thank you for your answers, and even congratulations for this excellent performance!
X: Thank you! And see you! Bonne continuation to all and good parties!


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-18 16:06:16)
translation

I will have a go off the top of my head at giving a sense of the interview in english (I dont know the phrase tonitruand but I am guessing it means dynamic!)?: Hi Xavier and first of all congratulations on your success in the candidates final match against IM (ICCF) Gino Figlio [Peru] You had to avoid drawing all the games and finally you succeded with the black pieces. How did that happen? Xavier: Hi thank you. Its true that if all the games had been drawn then under the rules Figlio would have won whereas if the match was drawn but with a win and loss I would win. Because of this I had to take risks and attack. It was with Black that I did this because I thought that Gino would play safely to be sure of a draw. - Tell us how you approched the match and how the different phases of the game went x: Its quite simple, I was not the favorite I have 200 ELO less on FICGS and Gino is an IM on ICCF with a 2480 rating. I did not think I could survive 8 games at once - in a single game anything is possible but 8 games .... it was a big challenge for me! In the openings I chose 4 different moves 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nf3 Gino chose 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nc3 I was surpised by 1 Nc3 because I was expecting dynamic openings and it was then that I decided I must take some risks with black. I kept most of the games balanced with a draw in hand and concentrated on 2 games 1 white and 1 black to get a result. In the end I got 3 wins which seemed an impossibility given the quality of the games Gino had played on this site to reach the final. - you have not lost any games in the championship and you have fantastic statistics 78% against an average elo of about 2200. What is your secret? x: My secret? I havent any secret and if I did I would not say because I would not win anymore! I think I have been a bit lucky because in the the Round Robin final there were 3 of us on the same score and I went through under the rules because of my rating. As for my statistics I was helped by mistakes by opponents who allowed me to win some drawn games. - What do you think of the system for the FICGS championship (round robin and knock out matches)and what changes would you make? x: Very good question. The matches are a bit too fast for me - 1 day per move when there are hours of analysis needed to exploit a complicated position its difficult when you have several games running Particularly if you are working. Perhaps that is why my opponents have made errors or failed to exploit my mistakes. But this time limit has an advantage over ICCF where it is 5 days per move the games here are 5 times quicker! Having 8 game matches is an excellent idea and obliging the favorite to draw all the games and the challenger to get a at least 1 victory is very well thought out. The change that I would suggest is to have 15 days extra starting time that is 45 days at the start instead of 30 and also the possibilty to take holidays for tournaments for example take 7 days for championship games and to be able to play big chess go or another chess tournament during the holiday. To be able to choose the start of a holiday in advance would also be good. - Why do you like cc and how does it compare to blitz and normal chess? x: I prefer cc because of the time factor. Classical chess is often played at the week end at a fixed time and you have to travel to the tournament. The advantage for me at cc is that I can connect at any time to play a move which allows me for example to have meals with the family at the weekend. Late night moves for example are not possible at classical chess. - You limited the number of your games on the site to a reasonable amount throughout the championship. Do you think nonetheless that cc is addictive? Does it affect your daily life? x: Yes! Limiting the number of my games is essential to try to have games of quality not quantity. Having a lot of games going at the same time is something very difficult to handle. It is perhaps the key to my victory against Figlio - I looked at his games - he had not less than 80 games going on at ICCF this must have affected the amount of time he could spend analysing his 8 games at FICGS. The effects on daily life are felt by the family because the reality is if I spend more time analysing the games I spend less time with the family. Thats difficult for me. But when the results come I dont regret it! - What do you think of the role of chess engines (Rybka Fritz etc)in cc. What are for you the important skills of a cc player - to supplement the machine? x: Chess engines are used in cc by 95% of players. You have to adapt yourself and know how to use the engines. To play just the best move of Rybka 3 Fritz 12 or Hiracs 12 without thinking leads to a draw if your opponent does the same or to a loss if your opponent is thinking. You have to choose bewteen 4 or 5 moves with a similer evaluation from the engine during a game and sometimes the best move is not among these. - You play Big chess. Interest or curiosity? What do you think of this strange version of chess? X : Curiosity and amusement and I think Rrybka 3 cannot yet play Big Chess! This version is new and I did not know it and the inventor has done a good job! By the way I would like to ask is it possible to castle at Big Chess? [No its not possible] - Finally the question that everyone is asking particularly Francois and Wolfgang who are contesting the 2nd candidates final. Do think you will be able to defend your title next year? :) x: Definitely I will defend the title I would like to know if possible the date and time limits for the match. I wish Francois and Wolfgang a great match! I would also like to express my appreciation for this tournament which has been well organised! - the match should start in the first week in January next year the time limit will be 30 days plus 1 day per move. Thank you for your answers and once again congratulations on a great performance. x: Thank you. Cheers. Best wishes to everyone and good games!


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-19 02:16:39)
Its a win !!!!

You must be joking!! Thibault its a definite win it will be over in a few moves!! If anyone thinks black can survive please suggest some moves. The key to the win is that the best black can do is reach the position in a) below with Bishop and 2 pawns v R and 1 pawn. White wins becuse his king has access to e4, the Bishop is restricted by his pawns on a7 and e5 and most importantly his passed a pawn is not advanced. It has been completely lost since move 63 ...Kxf4 Janos should have taken with the pawn 63..exf4 would have allowed him to reach a table base draw. On 66 Kd3 I had the win completely worked out and have been replying instantly since then. Adjudicating this is a draw is just plain wrong. Anyone who spends time on this position will see the win I have outlined and that there is no defence. The winning method is to force an exchange of rooks by Rc4-g4 with mating threats against the Black king - black cannot allow this and must play Rd4 allowing exchange of a pair rooks when the resulting R+P v B+P+P is won. Before playing Rc4 white checks with the other rook to cut off the f file. The only way to avoid the rook exchange is to allow the white King access to e4 - at the moment the black rook cuts off d3 and the bishop if it goes to b6 will cut off e3. If the king gets to e4 either the e5 pawn drops or the king gets to d5 and e6 either result is fatal Here are the main lines: a) 72..Bb6 73 Rg8+ Kf5 (73..Kh5 74 Rc1 Rd4 75 Rh1+ wins the rook) 74 Rf8+ Kg5 75 Rc4! Rd4 (see below a1 for 75..Bd4)76 Rxd4! exd4 77 Kd3 (This ending is completely won the white king penetrates through e4, the black bishop is useless - remove pawn at d4 and its a table base win) Here are the main lines 77... Bc5 78 Rc8 Bb6 79 Ke4 Kf6 80 f4 Kf7 81 f5 Kf6 82 Rc2 Kf7 83 Ke5 a5 84 Rc6 Bd8 85 Bc7+ Kxd4 Table base win Or 77 ...Kg6 78 Ke4 Kg7 79 Rc8 Kf6 80 f4 (if the pawn on d4 falls eg 80 ..Ba5 81 Kxd4 its a table base win) Ke7 81 f5 Kf6 82 Rc2 Ke7 (82 ..d3 83 Rc6+ Kg5 84 Rg6+ and Kxd3 = TB win) 83 Ke5 Kf7 84 Rb2 d3 85 f6 with a simple win a1)..75..Bd4 (instead of Rd4) 76 Kd3 Ba1+ 77 Ke4 Ra5 78 Rg8+ Kf6 79 Rc6+ Kf7 80 Rgc8 Ra4+ 81 Rc4 Rxc4+ (black cannot avoid exchanging) 82 Rxc4+ and this ending like the one above is completely won. eg 82... Ke6 (82...a5 83 Rc5 a4 84 Ra5 x a4 = TB win) 83 Rc6+ Kd7 84 Kd5 Bd4 85 Rh6 a5 (any Bishop moves loses a pawn = TB win) 86 Rh7+ Kd8 87 f4 x e5 = TB win b) If the Bishop does not go to b6 the white king gets via e3 to e4 and then penetrates through the white squares d5 and e6 and its over. Sample lines: b1) 72 ..Kf4/f5 73 Rf8+ Kg6 74 Ke3 Rd1 75 Ke4 Re1+ 76 Kd5 Be7 77 Re8 Bf6 78 Ke6 e4 79 Rc5+ and the bishop is lost b2) 72..Ba5 73 Ke3 Rb5 74 Rg8+ Kf5 75 Rf8+ Kg5 76 Ke4 Rb4+ 77 Kxe5 with a simple win b3)72 ..Rd7 73 Rxe5+ (take a pair of rooks off = TB win) Kf4 74 Rcc5 Rg7 75 Re4+ Kg3 76 Rc1 Bb6 77 Rh1 a5 78 Rhh4 - Reg4+ exchanges rooks = TB win


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-19 17:17:59)
Adjudications

Hi Benjamin I am not sure what you mean by help people without asking. The rules refer to adjudications as follows: "11. 5. Adjudications In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious." At the end of 11.5 is states: "There are no time limit for games else but the clocks, but it may be announced that certain multi-stages tournaments will have one. At the end of this time limit, a referee committee will adjudicate games." Obviously it was bit worrying without warning to have an announcement saying hey seems like a draw I am going to adjudicate. A draw would mean that I would not win the tournament - a win means I win the tournament so its an important game. But as I am certain the game is won and can demonstrate this I am not concerned - I have no idea what Janos thinks. I dont think this is the best way to handle this but this is where we are - I am just glad it happened after Janos played 63...Kxf4 which was the losing move. We are only about 12 moves away from 6 man table base wins in almost all cases. Please post any anlysis about the position you would like as Thibault has asked for comment


Normajean Yates    (2008-08-21 05:25:54)
it is! llmars is on the vive-greco team

So the greco countergambit [latvian gambit] is alive, and as long as llmars is there it will stay alive:) I am not so courageous - I play it only in no-engines chess :) [although engines cannot help much in the opening - this being a *real* gambit - can they?] No, actually I *am* courageous! In the ongoing chess tournament I am playing here I did play the greco [latvian] against Taoufik - it is a pity that Taufik decided to forfeit all his games on time [incl. mine on move 5 :(] ...


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2008-08-21 17:43:41)
Latvian ...

I hope I am not asking too much, but can we have a Latvian gambit thematic tournament?

Since there are good players here, after such a tournament the theory about the Latvian gambit will have to be rewritten.


Marius Zubac    (2008-08-21 22:32:59)
Attention Thibault! Bug related to WCH2

Hi Thibault There is a bug related to entering my 11th move 11Bd2 in both games 22676 and 22678 from our match played in FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_2__000005. In slow move selection after I enter the move I get the message "Incorrect move : 7.0-0 , from player white". If I try to send the move I get the message that the move is not sent. Can you please look into this matter? Thanks Marius


Gino Figlio    (2008-08-22 06:19:53)
Congratulations Xavier

I did not have a chance to properly congratulate Xavier after losing a match against him.

While it's true the number of ongoing games affects performance in correspondence chess, in our case this was not a factor.

Xavier played better and did not give me a chance to find significant advantage in any of our games.

He simply outplayed me.

Long live the Champion!


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-22 15:00:50)
Congratulations Gino & Xavier

... for the good games & fair play :)


Ilmars Cirulis    (2008-08-22 15:41:19)
Another idea

... is to make two teams - defenders and refuters. :)

(I don't like to play LG with black.)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-22 17:50:17)
Team challenge : Latvian gambit

Based upon an idea by Ilmars, let's try to create a special Latvian thematic tournament that could start at the beginning of september, consisting in two teams : Latvian gambit "defenders" and latvian gambit "refuters" (that will play either Black or White), this could be interesting to improve the theory in this opening.

Any player who wishes to play this tournament may post in this thread "I am in as White (or Black)" and I'll make pairings in a few days/weeks.


Michael Aigner    (2008-08-22 18:11:08)
Interesting idea :-)

I played the Lavtian Gambit in OTB chess when I was young, therefore I would like to play on the side of the defenders. Whats about time control - are we going to have 40 days for 10 moves? Best regards!


Xavier Pichelin    (2008-08-22 19:13:06)
Thank Tou Very Much!! Gino,

Good Fair-play! Gino.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-22 20:18:54)
Round Robin qualification

"Round-robin tournaments are groups of 5, 7, 9, 11 or 13 players. The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage." Thibault these are the rules upon which I entered the tournament WCC 3. I have spent an enourmous amount of time sweating blood to beat Janos Helmer so that I won my stage 2 group and qualified for the Round Robin Final now this tournament has started you have 1)placed 6 persons in the tournament which breaches the rules 2) You have placed Miranda Marcus in the tournament even though she did not win stage 2 group but tied on 4 out of 6 and had a lower TER. If I had known you were going to arbitrarily change the rules like this I would have agreed a draw with Janos a long time ago and Marc Lacrosse and I could have both gone through. We have 5 winners and I request you to comply with the WCC rules for this tournament and place the 4 stage 2 winners and and 1 stage 1 group M winner in the Round Robin final. I will wait for your decision before continuing. Thanks. I would like to know other players views on this. I have no objection to the rules being amended for future WCC but I want to know what the rules are when I start a tournament.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-22 23:12:17)
IGAME.RU

Indeed... Maybe a russian chessfriend playing there can tell us about this ?!


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-22 23:19:03)
cant count

I realise there are 7 players in the round robin final ie 2 extra tied players. My point remains why 7 rather than 5? Why did I have to spend that time trying to beat Janos when I could go through on a tie?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-23 00:03:38)
Round Robin final WCH 3

Hi Andrew, I understand your point of view, on one hand rules specify : "If necessary, a player could be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player" which does not exactly fit to this case (2 players have been invited). On the other hand, rules give administrators the final decision in all cases - also rules may change whenever necessary - and of course the aim is simply to make it well. As it has been discussed in the past, WCH tournaments with 5 players give tournament entry ratings a too big importance and such a tournament lose some interest, 7 players should be a minimum (I may change the WCH rules this way, to be discussed)

5 players in this tournament won their group, 2 players have been invited and tied for first in their group. This does not mean : "Two players tied for first then have been invited." .. Maybe this was a mistake and we'll discuss it. Once again I understand your point of view, I think it wouldn't be acceptable to change it now but I'll accept all comments on this choice and I'll make the rules more accurate while taking account of this.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-23 09:07:33)
Wasted time

I understand the point about 5 players being a small group but I used up my holidays trying to beat Janos what would have happened if the game was a draw who would have been invited?? Janos twice offered a draw and frankly the only reason I did not accept was because I followed the rules and believed I needed to win to qualify for the final. How were you going to determine who to invite?? You knew that this situation was going to arise from the moment stage 2 started as there were only 4 groups and 1 M group there could only be 5 winners. Not only that but when I raised the issue of Marcs earlier partcipiation in round robin final I actually stated that this time as we will have 5 winners then the sitaution would not arise the group is complete so no invitations arise and in your reply you agreed I do not see why it is too late please comply with the rules as you have no right to invite other players in the rules do not allow it. Saying the administrators decision is final is saying you can suddenly change any rule at any time for any reason. I now face 6 opponents instead of 4 without any vacation time.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-23 11:40:09)
Not wasted time

"what would have happened if the game was a draw who would have been invited??" : that's the real question. I think about it after the result, not before - this is how invitations must be done. A player with a strong established rating who did not play in this cycle may have been invited as well. I understand that is 2 games more, the cycle is hard to play already but definitely 7 players give less chances to chance, so most probably more chances to you according to your result. It is too late to change this (imo) because many games started and I'm still not sure it would be a good choice. "Saying the administrators decision is final is saying you can suddenly change any rule at any time for any reason" -> that's true, and I think this rule is absolutely necessary but I would replace "for any reason" by "if best" which is technically the same... The aim is to do it well only. And of course I'm not error free, that's why I often discuss rules changes in this forum. "(...) the group is complete so no invitations arise and in your reply you agreed", true : my only fault. Obviously I changed my mind and created some confusion, I'm very sorry about that but now I really think that's a better choice.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-08-23 11:43:19)
Rules change

All members are invited to comment on these points :

1) "Should all groups in WCH tournaments consist in 7 players at least, several players being invited if necessary at the tournament director's discretion" ? I'll change the rules this way if a majority agrees. In all cases the 3rd round-robin final must continue this way IMO but I may add a new rule :

2) "Referees are not error free and are not supposed to change the rules anytime they estimate it is a better choice, players accept the view that a tournament should be modified or any error corrected in all cases." (this is not irony, I'm not sure such a rule wouldn't bring some problems but we may try it if a majority agrees with that).


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-23 17:59:14)
still a mystery

I know understand that you had decided (I dont know when??) that you would not allow 5 person round robin finals. So you were going to "invite" two players to make up the numbers in WCC 3 final. Nobody knew this only you. Second you are reserving the right to invite anyone according to make up the numbers according to your own preferences . It may be some all of those who tied for 1st place or you may choose to invite some other highly rated players who did not enter the tournament. Nobody knows! Firstly lets reduce the "invitations" as follows: 1) WCC tournaments will be made of at least 7 players. 2) Any shortfall will be made up of the best losers from the previous stage 3)Best losers will be selected from those who tied for place in a group in the previous stage ranked by tournament entry rating and /or from those who came 2nd ranked by tournament entry rating. Under these rules everone knows where they stand and its transparent fair and consistent with existing rules.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-08-24 11:52:22)
separate criticism from suggestion

Whatever decisions Thibault made are past and I never doubted his good intentions. However I made a suggestion for the future which is in itelf not a criticism but a response to his invitation to comment on his proposed rule ammendments. I suggested a system for adding to numbers based on the best losers (those tied for 1st place, those placed 2nd etc) and if necessary to rank the best losers by tournament entry rating so if there were 2 slots to be filled and 3 persons who tied for first place in the groups (ie they were 2nd in their group because of lower TER than the winner) the top 2 by TER would qualify. I would also like to suggest an Ajuducations process 1) having indicative finish dates in WCC 2)if the Tournament director feels a game needs to be adjuducated (ie finish date reached)requesting both players to submit their views with analysis 3)having an adjudication commitee who will agree on the result within a set time period. These are just thoughts for possible improvement perhaps they are unnecessary. Anyway they are not intended as criticism scathing or otherwise!


Ilmars Cirulis    (2008-08-24 19:40:17)
S - - t

We have 20 players from China.

I am silent and i hope - others too. (Else we will be banned for chinese players.)


Michael Aigner    (2008-08-25 13:06:30)
Where is the light?

It seems there are not many players out there who dare to play White against the Latvian gambit ;-)


Iouri Basiliev    (2008-08-26 11:49:40)
i'm in

i'll play on the white side :)


Garvin Gray    (2008-08-26 16:42:08)
change as good as a holiday

Hopefully they come over here to play with us.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2008-08-30 11:11:51)
...

We have 2 "refuters" vs 2 (maybe 3) "defenders".
Will every play with every from opposite team?


Benjamin Block    (2008-08-30 15:07:48)
How good is the program vs the man?

I want more test game in corr man vs computer. To know how high elo the computer have? It was a long time ago the Hydra played vs Nickel i want to see Rybka vs GM Nickel or some one other.


Alexis Bromo    (2008-09-01 17:15:05)
good quote

you cannot play chess? i'm afraid, you have never lived. (alexis bromo).


Benjamin Block    (2008-09-02 18:58:21)
organize?

On this site? Yes it would be funny. I think it will be hard to ask the rybka team?? Have they time? But if some one that we trust can use the computer 30+1 to don´t get to much electricity. How are inveted to play? The openingsbook Random?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-05 19:17:59)
Rybka playing correspondence chess

We may try anyway... I'll post something in the Rybka forum soon.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-05 19:23:28)
Team challenge : Latvian gambit

"Will every play with every from opposite team?"

Good question : I think yes, at least if there are no more than 4 players in each team. Do anyone else want to enter a team or may we start the tournament ?


Don Groves    (2008-09-08 04:45:56)
Game ended with mate

Hello Peter, On FICGS, the losing player must resign. There is no automatic ending to a game here. If the other player doesn't resign soon, ask Thibault to adjudicate the game and it will be finished.


Normajean Yates    (2008-09-08 14:41:49)
not playing...team game i meant diff.

when I wrote 'team game is okay' I meant consultation-game - team decides on a move.

too busy to play individual games as part of team, even unrated - dont want to spoil latvian reaserch by my bad games.

So, one contestant less. Have a good latvian match! [without me - at present I'd only have bad games to contribute so repeat I am NOT playing]


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-09 18:32:31)
One player needed to save Latvian gambit

Current teams :

Defenders : Michael Aigner, Rodolfo d'Ettorre
Refuters : Ilmars Cirulis, Iouri Basiliev, Scott Nichols


We need one more player in the defenders team ! One game to play against each player of the opposite team...


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-09 18:35:22)
Evans Gambit in Wikichess

I'll connect Wikichess to games played at FICGS soon.. so we'll have more informations due to thematic tourneys ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-09 19:40:44)
Multi-site tournament

Hi all,

A multi-site tournament is being to be organized with 4 chess websites (not using real names), each player from each team playing 1 game with Black "at home" and 1 game with White in his opponent's home with 1 opponent of each website (3 in total, hope I'm clear), so 6 games in total.

2 websites in the competition are :

http://www.echecsemail.com
http://www.echeconline.net


6 games (3 games here and 3 games played on 3 other websites) seem a lot though, what do you think ?


Denis Ivanchenkov    (2008-09-10 18:06:36)
Da question!

Are we going to use chess software? this is very crucial point. As for me I NEVER use chess programs during the game - sometimes after the game is finished. And if we are not gonna settle this question - then I'm out. Well, I may still take part but just playing for fun not seriously. Still I admit usage of books and available games of grandmassters that may be used for reference.


Denis Ivanchenkov    (2008-09-10 21:01:07)
It depends upon

what my team-mates think. I'll be playing WITHOUT chess engine. If Michael Aigner and Rodolfo d'Ettorreare are OK with it then I'm in. If they think I should use chess engine (to avoid giving an advantage to opponents) then I leave.


Alexis Bromo    (2008-09-12 08:34:29)
Does anybody play "Travian"?

It is on-line strategy game. "mind-killer" :)))


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-12 14:39:49)
Rybka 3.0 about 2300 at FICGS ?

According to Larry Kaufman from Rybka team in the discussion linked above :

"If we assume that both sides have the same opening book, then I think two things are fairly safe to say: 1. A good human chessplayer (or even a bad one with good centaur skills) + same Rybka will win a long match from unassisted Rybka. 2. In any individual game, the chance of a draw is fairly high. (...) I mean more than half the games, but not way more. The actual draw percentage depends very heavily on the opening book used."

I agree with that, so I assume that Rybka 3.0 thinking at least 24 hours per move would have a correspondence chess rating of about 2300 at FICGS.

Any opinion ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-12 16:12:04)
ICCF ratings

Quite hard to say, the rating calculation is not the same, but many players here who started with a strong established rating came from ICCF...


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-09-13 00:47:03)
Rybka 2300 @ FICGS

That is interesting Tribault. Do you mean the program running unassisted, no player help, Rybka choose own book moves ? If that is your basis then I say no Way Rybka on FICGS get this rating. There are very many sharp Centaurs playing here. With excellent tuned books. That is the main thing. CC games are won/lost on opening book. I am of the opinion that centaur + program is too strong for Program itself. Results on ICC have demonstrated that. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-13 13:45:25)
Correction

Hi Wayne, yes I mean Rybka unassisted and playing with the best book possible. But this assumption of rating was based on games played with a ~2450-2500 centaur... But in my opinion, Rybka would not outplay a centaur rated 2200 as well, so her rating may be closer to 2200-2250.

Finally, maybe the most interesting part would be a match between Rybka 3.0 and a correspondence chess player rated 1900 :)


Benjamin Block    (2008-09-13 14:01:21)
Rybka vs 1900 man.

Rybka will win that game if the player not are under rankad. But what about 2100 vs computer?


Alexis Bromo    (2008-09-14 10:05:39)
travian

yes, it's time-killer... but tried once you cannot stop, like heroin. and you must go your path till the end... i play, and i'm looking forward this "end". and i'll never play it anymore. :)))


Iouri Basiliev    (2008-09-15 20:49:44)
IGAME.RU

Hi Ilmars, I've the honor to play in igame vs FICGS match :) nucler on igame.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-15 20:54:47)
Wikichess : Update !

Now you can see strong improvements in Wikichess articles :

- Opening ECO code
- Name of the opening
- Moves played at FICGS
- Find games played at FICGS
- Statistics (White wins, Black wins, Draws)...

Thanks to report any bug.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-15 22:22:26)
Chess quizz beta

Another update, a chess 'quizz' : Guess moves in games played at FICGS.

This is a test version in "My messages" only (on the right).

To be continued, but all feedbacks and comments are welcome already.


Ruslan Kopytov    (2008-09-16 11:41:51)
igame.ru

Imho igame.ru was very nice place 2 play corr. chess. Alot of strong players, interesting personalities, really popular and actual threads in forum. It is very bad news if this site is down 4ever. Played there 2002-2008. Nick Ruslan73.


William Taylor    (2008-09-18 13:25:56)
Big Chess Championship

I know there was a discussion some time ago about a big chess championship here on FICGS. Now the first 'M' class big chess tournament has started and I think big chess has enough regular players to try a championship. What do you think?


Don Groves    (2008-09-20 05:03:31)
MoGo

Hi, Andrew -- It would be an amazing feat if MoGo programmers could eliminate its nine-stone handicap in only one year of development. With each stone eliminated, the combinatorial aspects increase exponentially and the human advantage in pattern recognition and game understanding increases in proportion.

FYI - In a handicap game, the weaker player always goes first (ie., plays black). The handicap stones are placed on predetermined points and that constitutes black's first turn. White plays next and they alternate the remainder of the game. Komi still applies unless otherwise agreed.


William Taylor    (2008-09-22 18:33:42)
Big Chess ratings

Hmm. As you say, the game is quite different from ordinary chess, and as we can't use engines and very little research has been done into Big Chess we might all be 300 points or so weaker at it than at real chess. It might be quite nice to have the ratings over a similar range to ordinary chess ratings, but that doesn't really matter. Presumably once you have determined the provisional ratings you then use the same algorithm as you do for normal chess ratings? It's hard to suggest a format without an estimate of how many people would play, but we don't necessarily have to have an accurate and established Big Chess rating system to hold a championship.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-23 16:31:27)
Big Chess Championship

Well, we still do not have big chess players enough but a championship may help after all... We can't have it every 6 months and I assume it would be quite different than the chess championship... How do you see it ? Any ideas welcome :)


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-09-24 16:03:18)
Latvian meatballs

With best play black gets into an ending and trys to grovel his way to a draw a pawn down. The main line runs: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qf7 6 e3 c6 7.d3 exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.O-O I think any deviations from this by black give an even worse game At this point Black can try 9...Bc5 then 10 b4! Bd6 (10..Bxc4 11 Ncxd5 is crushing)11 Re1 Ne7 12 Nexd5 cxd5 13 Nb5 Bxb4 (0-0 14 Nxd6) 14 Bd2 0-0 15 Bxb4 and the d5 pawn will drop leaving white as usual a pawn up for nothing 9...Bd6 10 Re1 Ne7 11 Nexd5 cxd5 12 Nb5 0-0 13 Nxd6 Qxf2+ 14 Kh1 Nbc6 (14 ..Bg4 15 Qd2 Qh4 16 b4 is great for white)15 Rf1 Bg4 16 Bxh7+ Kh8 17 Rxf2 Bxd1 18 Be3 d4 19 Rxf8+ Rxf8 20 Bg1 Kxh7 21 Rxd1 leaving the usual technically lost ending for black!!


Iouri Basiliev    (2008-09-25 11:58:00)
Andrew Stephenson

Hey Andrew, why You don't playing in the match black or white? For me 4.d4 is the best whites move. Developing, space, defence - all in one :)


Denis Ivanchenkov    (2008-09-25 23:06:07)
well

then the right way (I think) is just to count players by nationalities - and the most numerous group determines the second language. I don't think that there are so many Russians here - I think Spanish or German would prevail.


Don Groves    (2008-09-25 23:51:47)
FICGS languages

I think Thibault recently posted how many players of each nationality were registered on FICGS.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-26 20:31:40)
Statistics by country

Hi Alexis, Denis & all.. Here are current statistics by country :

USA 1066 FRA 363 GBR 261 CAN 189 DEU 160 RUS 130 ITA 126 IND 120 ROU 93 TUR 89 BRA 79 BEL 75 AUS 70 ESP 63 PHL 55 POL 53 SWE 51 NLD 50 ARG 45 MEX 43 ZAF 43 GRC 39 BGR 38 UKR 37 HUN 36 CZE 33 CHE 32 ISR 31 FIN 30 IDN 30 IRL 29 PRT 29 VNM 25 AUT 24 VEN 24 CHL 23 DZA 23 EGY 21 SGP 21 CHN 20 DNK 20 COL 19 LTU 18 NOR 18 MAR 17 NZL 17 SVN 17 HRV 16 IRN 16 MYS 16 PER 16 SRB 16 PRI 14 SVK 13 THA 13 HKG 12 JPN 12 EST 11 GEO 9 PAK 9 KOR 8 LVA 8 ARM 7 BIH 7 ISL 7 TUN 7 TWN 7 BLR 6 CYP 6 LKA 6 MLT 6 ALB 5 CUB 5 KAZ 5 URY 5 ARE 4 ASM 4 BOL 4 CRI 4 ECU 4 GHA 4 LBN 4 LUX 4 MKD 4 NGA 4 BGD 3 DOM 3 FRO 3 GTM 3 JOR 3 MDA 3 MMR 3 MNG 3 PRY 3 SAU 3 ZWE 3 ATG 2 BHS 2 CMR 2 ERI 2 HTI 2 IRQ 2 KEN 2 KGZ 2 KHM 2 MDG 2 MNE 2 MUS 2 NIC 2 NPL 2 PNG 2 TTO 2 UGA 2 UZB 2 AIA 1 ALA 1 ANY 1 AZE 1 BHR 1 BRB 1 GLP 1 GMB 1 GRD 1 GUM 1 HND 1 JAM 1 LBY 1 LSO 1 MOZ 1 MRT 1 NCL 1 PRK 1 QAT 1 SHN 1 SYR 1 TKM 1 UMI 1 VUT 1

All players in each country :

http://www.ficgs.com/directory_countries.html


There's a french version of FICGS - see home page - you may change the language in Preferences (English, French, Deutsch, Spanish).

By the way, I'll open chess & Go forums in every languages very soon, if anyone wants to be a moderator in his own language, please look at the next threads in this forum for more information.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2008-09-27 10:47:05)
Good example

... how not to play with white. (The game)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-27 12:11:12)
Seen by Jennifer Shahade

BTW the debate seen by GM Pascal Charbonneau, John Fernandez & Jennifer Shahade :

http://jennifershahade.com/site/2008/09/23/obama-plays-chess-against-mccain/


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-09-28 21:51:45)
Big Chess Championship

18 months is so long :/ .. In my opinion, the scheme could be the same than the Go championship :

"FICGS world Go championship is a 2 stages tournament. First stage is a single round-robin tournament, involving the 9 highest rated players who entered the waiting list. The winner of this tournament is the challenger for FICGS world champion title. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage. If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account. If current world champion defends his title, he will play a 5 games match against his challenger."


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2008-09-28 22:33:50)
Big Chess Championship

I don't like the idea to exclude players with a minor rating.

And the length / duration of a Big Chess game does not depend on the mode of the tournament.


Josef Riha    (2008-09-29 19:32:36)
Hallo Wayne,

it's a little difficult, I believe.
Start Fritz and then change to the Database(the very right icon in the iconbar). Then click New Database. In the dialogue enter the name, e.g.: FICGS.cbh and open it. Remember the directory displayed at top.
Now go to your ficgs site and download your games in that directory.
After this load one game after the other and save them as New Game. That's all.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-02 11:50:49)
Game 16370, towards a new rule ?

What do you think about this case :

http://www.ficgs.com/game_16370.html


Last move : Qe4+ 2008 September 30 19:57:40

White clock - 94 days 18:34:55 (58 days 08:20:25)
Black clock - 0 day 01:19:54

[Event "FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_A__000032"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2007.11.30"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Koch,Christian"]
[Black "Stephenson,Andrew"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "2140"]
[BlackElo "2104"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.h3 Be7 9.Qf3 O-O 10.O-O-O b5 11.g4 b4 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.exd5 Bc8 14.Kb1 Nd7 15.Qe2 Bb7 16.f4 Qc7 17.fxe5 Nxe5 18.Qf2 Bd8 19.Bg2 a5 20.Nd4 a4 21.Rhe1 a3 22.b3 Ra5 23.Nf5 g6 24.Nh6+ Kg7 25.Qf4 Bxd5 26.Bxd5 Rxd5 27.Qxb4 Qc6 28.Rxd5 Qxd5 29.Qf4 f6 30.Bc1 Qc5 31.Rd1 Ba5 32.Qe4 Rc8 33.c4 Bb4 34.h4 Qc6 35.Rd5 Re8 36.Qf4 Bc5 37.Bd2 Qb7 38.Bc3 Bb4 39.g5 f5 40.Qd2 Bxc3 41.Qxc3 Kf8 42.Kc1 Qb6 43.c5 Qc6 44.Rxd6 Qh1+ 45.Kc2 Qe4+ 46.Kc1 Qh1+ 47.Kc2 Qe4+ 48.*


So here player Black has good chances to lose the game on time, even if the best thing player White can do is to draw the game. In my opinion, "in general" player Black should play his next move, unless an analysis prove that the game is a forced draw - according to the rules, http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#adjudications - and eventually the result will be corrected after the game, but I'd like to know what other players think about this situation in general...

Thanks for helping to build strong rules.


Michael Aigner    (2008-10-02 13:15:00)
No draw

Hello Thibault, my opinion is, we do not have a forced draw in this position. White can easily avaoid it (propably by loosing the game but this does not matter). Time is part of the game, it is the same in OTB chess. So three possibilitys are popping up. No1. The game is going on, just like normal. No2. White offers a draw and hopes his opponent is accepting it (it is of course fully acceptable when black keeps playing). No3. Black offers an draw because he is convinced the position is a draw and he did not want to play for time. Best regards Michael


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-02 20:15:08)
Game 22676, towards a new rule ?

Once again, an unusual case that may lead to an enforcement of FICGS rules. In our match, Marius lost 3 games on time and continues to play the other ones : FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_2__000005

Games 22676, 22678 and 22679 have been lost in an equal position.

Currently, the rules specify : 11.6 "Games are not rated for the winner if less than 10 moves have been played by his opponent (most probably forfeit, silent withdrawal or obvious cheating) or in global forfeit cases against the same opponent, ie. 8-games matches, but games where an advantage is obvious."

Of course, it is up to the referee to estimate an 'advantage' which is quite hard to define accurately, but the real problem is there's no real silent withdrawal in this case, as Marius had about 1 day only to play his last move. It is fair to cancel my wins in these games IMO but the question is how to make the rules fair enough in all cases.

My suggestion : "...or in global forfeit cases, including losses on time whatever the context, in at least 2 games in a 2 players tournament, ie. chess championship's 8-games matches, but games where an advantage is obvious."

What do you think ? Also does anyone see another unusual case that this rule wouldn't envisage ?

Thanks in advance.


Michael Aigner    (2008-10-03 02:48:34)
Time limit is part of the game

I agree with Marcus and Don. Loosing because of time should be treated the same way as loosing because of poor play - without exeptions (makes the rule very simple to apply ;-).


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-10-03 09:06:04)
Rules

I think you are right Thibault ie amend the rule as you suggest. However maybe change the wording put EXCEPT instead of BUT ("except games where an advantage is obvious")otherwise the english is difficult to understand (but so much better than my french!!)In this case though perhaps Marius is not going to play anymore moves at all in which case it could be classified as silent withdrawal?? At the level he is at it he surely does not need the time to get the positions the fact is that Marius (probably because he has got lot of games/commitments elsewhere) is not playing much at all in FICGS - looks like he will forfeit in the Round Robin final for example.... The existing rules make a distinction between matches and other tournaments. if you follow the other posters then it seems that they are saying that you should not have the rule for silent withdrawals or even losses under 10 moves?? So I vote for the extension proposed by Thibault it seems logical to me for matches - they are not primarily about rating. The idea is that it is too distorting to have a rating that shows a 6-0 win over a similer high level opponent when they just stopped playing and it has nothing much to do with relative playing strength. On the other hand Thibault it will give you a cool rating!! :) Both view points are valid - its true time is a part of the game - but rules involve compromise and the proposed amendment just extends the principle already there........


Michael Aigner    (2008-10-03 13:28:09)
Makes sense!

I agree with you that Thibaults suggestions makes sense in the context of matches where many games are played against the same opponent. For normal tournaments a loss on time should just be a loss (after 10 moves played) - even when the player is loosing all his games in this tourny because of time. Maybe there is some space for exeptions in case of illness or somethink like that - but on the other hand how is the player going to proof such things?


William Taylor    (2008-10-03 14:43:56)
Big Chess Championship

I like the idea of making it like the Go championship because it's simple. As for excluding players, I'm not sure there are many more than nine who would want to play anyway. If there are lots of players outside the top 9 who would want to play in the championship, perhaps there could be two stages of tournament. For example, if 21 people entered, we could have 3 groups of 7, with the top 2 from each group advancing to the next stage. Then there would be a six-player tournament to determine the challenger, followed by a match challenger vs previous champion. For the 1st championship the champion could either be the winner of the 2nd-round tournament, or the winner of a match between the top 2 finishers in the 2nd-round tournament.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-03 21:37:20)
FIDE rating list oct. 2008

FIDE published the October 2008 rating list, the 5 top ranking players are in a 8 points range only...

I still wonder what would happen in case of a come back by the King (Gary Kasparov) .. Great thing to see a player like Morozevich at the 2nd place.

Rank Name Title Country Rating

1 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2791
2 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2787
3 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2786
4 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2786
5 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2783
6 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2772
7 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2757
8 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2751
9 Leko, Peter g HUN 2747
10 Jakovenko, Dmitry g RUS 2737
11 Wang, Yue g CHN 2736
12 Adams, Michael g ENG 2734
13 Movsesian, Sergei g SVK 2732
14 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar g AZE 2731
15 Karjakin, Sergey g UKR 2730
16 Kamsky, Gata g USA 2729
17 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2727
18 Shirov, Alexei g ESP 2726
19 Eljanov, Pavel g UKR 2720
20 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2719
21 Dominguez Perez, Leinier g CUB 2719
22 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2719
23 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2719
24 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime g FRA 2716
25 Alekseev, Evgeny g RUS 2715
26 Bu, Xiangzhi g CHN 2714
27 Polgar, Judit g HUN 2711
28 Ni, Hua g CHN 2710
29 Bacrot, Etienne g FRA 2705
30 Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2704
31 Gashimov, Vugar g AZE 2703
32 Rublevsky, Sergei g RUS 2702
33 Cheparinov, Ivan g BUL 2696
34 Wang, Hao g CHN 2696
35 Sasikiran, Krishnan g IND 2694
36 Tiviakov, Sergei g NED 2686
37 Nisipeanu, Liviu-Dieter g ROU 2684
38 Najer, Evgeniy g RUS 2682
39 Bologan, Viktor g MDA 2682
40 Milov, Vadim g SUI 2681


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-03 21:46:16)
Anand vs. Kramnik

While the match Kamsky vs. Topalov still seems uncertain, the match Anand vs. Kramnik for the FIDE world chess championship is quickly approaching... After many good & bad results recently for both players, any favourite ? :)

As for me, I have no idea... chess just looks like lotery sometimes.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-10-03 22:42:17)
Psychology

I give an edge to Kramnik not in terms of chess ability or strength but he seems stronger psychologically more able to take the pressure. On the other hand the match is a bit short 8 games which I think is good for Anand. Finally Anand is favourite in the tie break games. For me the key opening questions are: Whats kramniks e4 defence? my bet is at least 1 outing for the Marshall which Anand has performed badly against and the Caro Kahn (which Kramnik has hardly ever played) and no Petroff at all! I think Anand will stick with his semi slav. After his problem in the Leko match Anand will not be able to surprise Kramnik with 1 d4! My prediction: either 1 win and the rest drawn for Kramnik in the classical games or an Anand win in the rapid tie breaks.


Don Groves    (2008-10-04 04:27:29)
Silent withdrawals

Silent withdrawals could be taken care of by having a 10-day-per-move rule. If a player does not make a move in a game within 10 days and is not on vacation, the game should be forfeited to the opponent and the forfeit rules should apply as to whether the game is rated or not. Maybe a 7 day limit would be even better.

We all dislike silent withdrawals. This rule would end those games sooner and also may eventually stop players from starting more games than they can handle.


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2008-10-04 09:03:00)
In response to Don

That is nosense you have a time limit being 30 days for the whole game or 40 days for 10 moves, if a players forfeits by time let it be. Why create more time time controls or impose faster timings controls . I have made moves after more than 10 days of analysis why should I be penalized?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-04 19:35:26)
re : In response to Don

You wouldn't be penalized in that case. All this is about 8 games match, as Andrew said "The idea is that it is too distorting to have a rating that shows a 6-0 win over a similer high level opponent". The whole problem is just to know where to put the limit.

Well, as it is possible to win elo points this way (loss on time in equal or winning position) in round-robin tournaments, it should be possible in 8 games matches too, but 8 wins this way shouldn't be taken in consideration.

Consequently, I propose a new rule, quite reasonable, that could satisfy everyone (finally even my rating :)), here is :

"11.6 "Games are not rated for the winner if less than 10 moves have been played by his opponent (most probably forfeit, silent withdrawal or obvious cheating) or in global forfeit cases, including losses on time whatever the context in a 2 players tournament, ie. chess championship's 8-games matches, except games where an advantage is obvious, in this case at most 2 of these games will be rated."


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-10-05 20:04:28)
Slight amendment

Thibault thinking about your point that "as it is possible to win elo points this way (loss on time in equal or winning position) in round-robin tournaments, it should be possible in 8 games matches too" I suggest the follwoing "Rating changes will occur, in 2 player matches, for losses on time (whatever the reason) within the following constraints: the game(s) is at least 10 moves, only 1 time loss game will be rated unless there is a game where the winner is clearly better in which case a maximum of 2 games may be rated" My idea is that if someone forefeits all their games on move 11 in a match there should be 1 game rated (as in a tournament) so there is a price to pay but not too distorting. If in the 8 games say 5 are level and 3 (or 2 or 1) are clearly advantageous then 2 games could be rated. Alternatively just give 1 rated game as a max irrespective of advantage or not (ie just the first loss) provided it at least 10 moves. I am thinking of 2 situations a 6-0 result over 10 moves dead equal positions there should be some rating penalty (like tournaments) On the other hand soemone could let the clock run out in 6 games just before being mated in each game to avoid heavy rating penalty they should take a 2 game hit.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-05 20:30:11)
Go ratings, rule update

In order to limit the inflation of Go ratings, I've updated the rules for ratings superior or equal to 2000. The idea of the original rule was to help players to find their rating range more quickly only.

"Go ratings are first estimated from Go ranks (n kyu give a 2100 - 100 * n rating, n dan give a 2000 + 100 * n rating, n dan pro give a 2630 + 30 * n rating), then adjusted in real time after each result :

Performance = Opponent Current Rating + 350 if the game is won, -350 if the game is lost.

Case of a win (rating > 1999) : New Rating = ((9 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 10
Case of a win (rating < 2000) : New Rating = ((8 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 10

Case of a loss : New Rating = ((9 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 10

The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is superior to 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player.

In case of a loss against a player rated more than 350 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Current Rating - 350."


Christoph Schroeder    (2020-02-04 01:13:01)
Go ratings, rule update

What is the initial rating for a Go player in his first tournament?

I noticed that most players start at 100, but my own initial rating was 000.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-10-05 23:03:12)
The Many Faces of Go

...is the name of the program that just won the Go section in the Beijing International Computer Games Association tournament. It won all 12 games which included beating the 2nd place program MoGo. In the 9 x 9 Go competition Many Faces also triumphed winning 15 out of 18 games but was beaten by MoGo who took 3rd after a playoff with the program Leela. the chess of course was won by Rybka


Iouri Basiliev    (2008-10-06 12:30:18)
Latvian gambit

My first two games with Michael and Rodolfo simply confirmed - "LG is bad opening". 15-20 moves and black can resign. I choose 3.Nxe5 as most difficult for black. 3.Bc4 has been played with Denis. Do not expect more than 20 moves here as well.


Sebastian Boehme    (2008-10-06 19:39:00)
Sort of a hierarchy here

Well it is quite simple, the best engine on best hardware. Anyway good that at least Junior and Cluster Toga managed to get a draw from Rybka. Too bad Hiarcs played such a bad opening, or there had also been a chance for maybe a draw. Anyway congrats again to Rybka team for this win!


Kevin D. Plant    (2008-10-08 23:55:37)
Latvian Gambit

I wished I had seen this earlier. I am actually playing in the 6th World Latvian Gambit Championship Semi-Finale. http://www.gambitchess.com/


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-10-13 07:33:14)
Hello Thibault

I am just curious. I just realized that I am getting close to 3 norms for FEM. In Tournament M #15 I have already enough points for a FEM norm. In Tournament M #21 I will earn a FEM and possibly FIM norm. In M #19 it is possible I could earn FEM norm. Question: in the M #15 tournament I have not been notified about qualifying. ( and I have). Which brings up the question. Do you notify the players of norm status. And should a player earn enough to get 3 FEM norms does the server notify that player, and how often are Status achievments upgraded. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-13 12:06:00)
J Lo

Well played Don ;) .. actually I did not watch the film yet, and I forgot the name of the actress with Richard Gere. Thanks for reminding me... (btw she was great in U-Turn)


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-10-14 22:01:56)
exchange slav

Difficult to know what Kramnik was up to in this game. 8 Qb3 has been regarded as pretty harmless and is not much played at GM level - he must have had some new idea - apparently 15 Qxb7 is new but black was always going to get the pawn back. After 6 months preperation and 3 full time seconds a bit strange! I am sure Anand will go full power for the point tomorrow - I still cannot quite believe that Kramnik will play the Petroff he avoided it against Kasparov and I am sure he will avoid it in this match also.


Iouri Basiliev    (2008-10-20 20:14:27)
2 Denis

Not yet, but mat will come soon. About next 12-15 moves if you play best.


Denis Ivanchenkov    (2008-10-20 22:58:43)
Iouri Basiliev

ok. Definitely I will NOT play Latvian gambit for blacks any more!


Michel van der Kemp    (2008-10-21 12:59:31)
Very weird

Very weird how Kramnik first declines Anand's pawn sacrifice on d4, when he plays Re1, but then later takes on d4 anyway. If he had thought d4 to be bad in the first place, why on earth did he decide to take it later?

I start to believe Fischer, when he said that all championships after 1972 have been pre-arranged :)


Iouri Basiliev    (2008-10-21 14:10:51)
LG

The games are over. Steel do not 100% sure about 3.Bc4, the game Ilmars-Michael needs to be analysed, but 3.Nxe5 simply wins. Anyhow, it was nice to study deeply this opening imho. Thanx to all players!


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-24 00:53:32)
www.ficgs.com

The website address won't change : www.ficgs.com , no need to change anything to your favorites, but I'm not completely sure of what can happen if someone connects through the ip address so it won't be possible to connect this way, sorry :/

Please just check the login page (that will display a message tomorrow) regularly, when it's normal again, it means that you reach the new server.


Normajean Yates    (2008-10-24 05:31:55)
llamars, result of tourney research?

llmars, is that the result of research connected with games in the two latvian tourneys you were/are playing [here and at iccf] - or independent of them?

Okay I'll add them to chessopedia [with due credit to you] in november --- too busy, overloaded, tired now...


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-24 09:59:15)
Revenge ?

I think it will be even more interesting to have another team match in a while, any player who wish to try to defend the Latvian gambit may post here to play.


Normajean Yates    (2008-10-24 15:28:48)
in a while is right...

The new theory that has come up has to be looked at seriously first... only one draw so far, rest all are white wins!

I wonder if black managed to win or has chances in any game in the iccf latvian tourney that llmars is playing in...


Michael Aigner    (2008-10-24 19:38:43)
The only draw wa a lucky one!

Unfortunately I have to say that my draw against Ilmars was lucky becaus he mixed two moves. Until that White was clearly better. I played my games without any information about the openeing theory of the lavtian gambit - only brief analysis. Now I can say this is not enough to defend this opening. On the other hand there might be ways to survive with black if one knows ideas, plans, opening theory .... Is there any good book with more or less reliable analysis of this opening? Next time better opening preparation is definately needed ;-)


Normajean Yates    (2008-10-26 08:08:02)
but the point is...

Against the latvian - at least in correspondence - if white wants to win rather than research then white will play the main line 3..Nxe5.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-26 22:10:03)
Search wikichess & games in one click

New features in chess games !

It is now possible to search wikichess & games in one click from your running games in the fast moves mode (page move_express), see the S & W options below the chessboard. One more tool to get quick statistics from FICGS database before to play.

Please report any bug. Thanks in advance :)


Iouri Basiliev    (2008-10-29 14:36:03)
Latvian gambit

Latvian Gambit is bad opening for blacks: e4 e5 Nf3 f5?? is Kings Gambit(KG) (trans)position with extra tempo for white. KG is not playable at high level due to white can achieve draw at maximum. Extra tempo gives whites at LG anormous advantage in comparison with KG. Whatever "theory" is talking about. Sorry.


Scott Nichols    (2008-10-30 10:06:18)
Quick chess?

I would like to see a new time format of game in 10 days with a 4 hour increment per move. A lot of players like to play fast but need more than one day, but do not need 30 or more days. Would anybody else be interested? Any thoughts?


Iouri Basiliev    (2008-10-30 11:37:44)
2 Normajean Yates

You better play poker :)))


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-30 12:12:34)
10 d + 4 h / move

Hi Scott,

A strange format, very stressful and difficult to play.. I think many players would try it but it would cause forfeits (losses on time) and rating problems quite quickly IMO :/ .. 30 days + 1 day per move is very fast already. Then, the "correspondence blitz" format seems a good choice to me.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-30 12:22:04)
Games 10 and 11

GM Kramnik (2772) - GM Anand (2783) [E21]
WCh Bonn GER (10), 27.10.2008

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 c5 5.g3 cxd4 6.Nxd4 0-0 7.Bg2 d5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Qb3 Qa5 10.Bd2 Nc6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.0-0 Bxc3 13.bxc3 Ba6 14.Rfd1 Qc5 15.e4 Bc4 16.Qa4 Nb6 17.Qb4 Qh5 18.Re1 c5 19.Qa5 Rfc8 20.Be3 Be2 21.Bf4 e5 22.Be3 Bg4 23.Qa6 f6 24.a4 Qf7 25.Bf1 Be6 26.Rab1 c4 27.a5 Na4 28.Rb7 Qe8 29.Qd6 1-0


GM Anand (2783) - GM Kramnik (2772) [B96]
WCh Bonn GER (11), 29.10.2008

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qc7 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.f5 Qc5 10.Qd3 Nc6 11.Nb3 Qe5 12.0-0-0 exf5 13.Qe3 Bg7 14.Rd5 Qe7 15.Qg3 Rg8 16.Qf4 fxe4 17.Nxe4 f5 18.Nxd6+ Kf8 19.Nxc8 Rxc8 20.Kb1 Qe1+ 21.Nc1 Ne7 22.Qd2 Qxd2 23.Rxd2 Bh6 24.Rf2 Be3 1/2-1/2


The game and the match are over, Anand will play the final match for the FIDE World Chess Champion title against Veselin Topalov or Gata Kamsky.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-30 12:32:47)
:)

Hi Garvin, yes this is a small "display" bug that will disappear by itself, not a clock problem.

To Don, Normajean and Rodolfo: don't worry I already thought about that (well, about FICGS at least) :-)


Benjamin Block    (2008-10-30 14:14:34)
Extrem fast time.

The fastest time control i ever seen in corr is 7 days+0 on a whole game. The game chould not be more then 14 days. But it is too fast for me. I did test it. It is more a time game you need to play on the day and night. 30+0 Did i also play it was hard but it did work if the games did not get over 100 moves.
30+1 is a good time control! But if you want a max time control it is better with the other.


Normajean Yates    (2008-10-30 14:53:51)
I agree w/Benj.,even more so w/Thibault

10 d + 4 h / move??? that's not correspondence, except technically, IMO.

But if enough ppl want to play it, and M. Thibault is willing to arrange it, who am I to complain :(

So long as no one forces *me* to play that format... ;)


Normajean Yates    (2008-10-30 15:23:39)
Thibault plays bigchess blindfold? ;)

<<Big Chess is only in your mind>> - Thibault de Vassal.

That makes quite a good quote! [seriously!]

I have to see the board on the screen at least: I can't play bigchess *totally* in the mind ... ;)


Don Groves    (2008-10-30 20:15:01)
Quicker chess

I would like see some way of making players play more regularly. Some players join a tournament and then play only a very few moves until their clock turns red. Others take sometimes a week or more between moves until the are forced to speed it up or lose on time.

I have a couple of these games going now and it is frustrating to wait so long. If a player does not have the time to make moves regularly, they shouldn't enter so many tournaments at the same time. </rant>


Garvin Gray    (2011-02-20 12:22:55)
Silver chess games, W/B balance

I do not think adjusting the prize breakdown will make the slightest difference to how many blitz silvers are played on here.

The issue is more about people's willingness to, rather than they are deciding not to because they are protesting the prize breakdown.


Marc Lacrosse    (2008-10-30 20:29:24)
To Don : better "fast" correspondence

If you wish a faster but still really "correspondence" play I would recommend the following : 7d + 1d/move with a maximal time capital of 7 days (anything over 7 days is cut off).
No vacation allowed during course of the game (or vacation pause not working for these precise games so that you may take leave for other kind of competitions but still need to play in these ones).

I am ready to play any kind of test games/tournaments at this timing.

Marc


Scott Nichols    (2008-10-30 21:23:12)
To Don:

The 4 hours is not "per move", it adds up. Like if you played six quick "book" moves at the start, you would have an extra day right there. Also, an 8 hour increment would be more appealling to some :). We are getting some interest, that is for sure.


Normajean Yates    (2008-10-30 21:27:23)
what I *really* miss is 1 move/month...

Wish there was a site with one move / month, one week increment after every move, max 400 days vacation every decade...

It will have health benefits also - I mean you may be a B up in the middlegame and opp may have no counterplay, but you have to maintain good health to live long enough to deliver checkmate! :)

Preferably, resignation should not be allowed in such a format :)


Normajean Yates    (2008-10-30 21:54:44)
.to Iouri Basiliev

I dont play poker, but contract bridge is NOT a complete information game, and I am a better contract-bridge player [both at team-of-4 and at pairs] than a chess or bigchess player :)

And at contract bridge, even duplicate [i mentioned team-of-4 and pairs - both are duplicate bridge] one can talk meaningfully of 'conventional' probabilities, not only of bayesian likelihoods...


Scott Nichols    (2008-10-30 22:37:09)
Norma :)

Nice response, some players I think do rely on their opponents health failing because that is the ONLY way they can salvage a lost cause. One game I heard of was the guy was playing his friend. He lived in Alaska, he waited six months for a reply, when the sled dogs pulled up the mailman gave him his letter. He anxiously opened the envelope to discover it said "J'adoube"


Normajean Yates    (2008-10-30 22:46:54)
Scott Nichols - hahahahaha :):):)

mate[*], chess site comments/anecdotes have occasionally made me smile, but yours is the first really funny enough that I cant't stop laughing for 2 whole minutes ans still counting!

I am going to shamelessly plagiarise an retell it orally - my version will be -- 'when *I* used to play postal chess back in the '70s-'80s [I did actually], <your anecdote will go here> and after 6 months I recieve this postcard with "j'adoube" written on it! ' :)

[*]if a woman may address a man thus - but why not?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-31 00:38:31)
5x5 chess

I'm not convinced yet. The question is : can a computer solve it... That would bury the game, definitely :/ .. Anyway, this variant could be played as hundreds of others, why 5x5 ?


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..


Alexis Bromo    (2008-10-31 06:56:13)
good idea

I think it's really interesting. I will try to play these variants.


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 22:56:28)
re 5x5: thibault's point is well-taken..

Thibault said - "but I see no real interest to play it [5x5 chess] yet as the first 5x5 chess engine will be probably invincible :/"

Well that is true - lack of 5x5 development is because of lack of engine development... good point, and point taken. Best to leave it to universities...


Normajean Yates    (2008-11-01 00:00:10)
a *playable* 3x3 chess :-/

Well as I said 3x3 chess has been strongly solved - by complete set of tablebases - but it is not really a playable game for lack of good starting position - the english wikipedia has links and info on 3x3, 5x5 [it *was* Martin Gardner who proposed it in 1969 acc to wikipedia], 6x6.

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minichess)

Well here is a playable version of 3x3 chess - even 1x3 chess! at least Samuel Beckett would have called it eminently playable!

3x3: 2k/3/K2 w.
1x3: k1K w.

And the kings - wait for Godot!




Normajean Yates    (2008-11-01 00:04:35)
on 5x5 chess experience from wikipedia

the english wikipedia minichess article says that Martin Gardner's 5x5 chess was played by correspondence in italy [doesnt say how many games, players played it, and during which period] - results:
* White won in 40% of games.
* Black won in 28%.
* Draw was in 32%.


Benjamin Block    (2008-11-01 10:05:59)
Looks easy to draw.

Looks easy too draw. And it don´t need any deep play. How many possible position is that in the game? I think the computer can fix it easy. 300 000 000 poisitons only on 3x3. Not much a computer fix it on 1 sekund.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-01 21:55:48)
Chessgames.com

I just noticed that a few games played at FICGS were in chessgames.com, ie. this game Peter Schuster vs. Thibault de Vassal (WCH4 QF4, 1-0)

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1507687

Does anyone know how games are selected in chessgames.com ?

Maybe we'll find games played here in correspondence chess databases in a while :)


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...


Benjamin Block    (2008-11-02 17:13:30)
We can try

I thinked a bit today. Computer have a bit problem (closed positions.) And humen are long from cleared it. Some cool positons. I played some games vs my self. And it was very funny :UP: The computer will not fix it very fast. First we need to make a openingsbook before the computer can fix the game.
Why not test?


Normajean Yates    (2008-11-03 07:15:32)
It is *really* a bug. Not a feature.

[see my previous post in this topic] Suppose opponent and I both have only 10 day left, it is opponent's move -- and I go on 11 days vacation. Now what is happening is that opponent's clock is running! [example - see my previous i.e. starting post for this topic] but as the game is *frozen* opponent cannot move! So opponent will lose on time!

So, it IS a bug [unless opponent can now move if I am on vacation. But then, this rule change has not been mentioned in the help, faq etc. --

from 'terms and conditions - 11.4 (time rules)':
"Vacation : It is possible to take a maximum of 30 days leave per year, called vacation. During this time, your clocks are frozen and it is no more possible to play, in order to reduce the effects on time controls. "


Volker Koslowski    (2008-11-03 11:05:33)
Bug?

I don't think that there is a vacation bug. It ist still possible for your opponent to make his next move (if it is his turn) even if you are in vacation.

As far as I can see Rule 11.4 does not say that you and your opponent could not make any move when you are in vacation. It only says that all your clocks in all of your running games will be frozen and it is not possible for you to play further until your vacation is over. In order it is not possible for you to cancle your vacation, or take only a vacation in one special tournament you play.

Maybe Thibault could say more about this...


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-11-03 18:30:23)
Quick chess

Well seems to be a lot of interest here by many players. My thoughts on super short games here are, if that is what you all want I am for it. I wont enter most likely any super short games however. The original post of 10 days + a increment of 4 hrs/moves is too fast for ole gramps here. Like several have commented here, allowing time build up to enormous value is very very bad. I agree with Don and Mark on these notions. I think the suggestion of not allowing the timer to exceed the base limit is practical and VERY desireable Thibault ! I like the discussion on this topic, It is good.


Normajean Yates    (2008-11-03 21:49:42)
oh ok :)

I see. In Rule 11.4 (vacation section) "it is no more possible to play" is to be interpreted as "it is no more possible (for the side on vacation) to play" .... fine!


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.


Ben Milton    (2008-11-05 14:51:33)
opening book

I have downloaded the games played on playchess and was wondering how i could make an opening book based on them?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-07 10:30:11)
Downloading games

Did you try 'Search games' on the menu ?
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=search_games

Here you can download all games or search by player (and rating) or opening...


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-07 14:59:07)
Kamsky vs. Topalov

"Kamsky vs. Topalov" to sell...

Roustam Kamsky, father of world championship candidates Gata Kamsky had hard words against FIDE president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov : "I do not have any faith in FIDE and Mr. Ilyumzhinov who in front of the whole world breached his word, which is not the first time. Also, I do not have much faith in Mr. Makropoulos, a personal friend of Mr. Danailov."

More surprising, he said a few words about the former match Anand vs. Kasparov : "I would like to use this opportunity to congratulate Vishy Anand on his true victory. This is his third victory at the world championship. I think he could have achieved even more success if during his match against Kasparov he did not have as his trusted seconds grandmasters from the former Soviet Union. I was very impressed by the organization of Anand’s match in Bonn, Germany, except that the match should have been played between Kamsky and Anand. It was unjust to allow Russian GM Kramnik to play three world championship matches, in 2006, 2007, 2008, without a proper selection, just so Russia can maintain the world championship title."

The whole open letter is intersting to read...


Chessbase news :

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5002
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5000


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-08 23:52:27)
Correction

I wrote previously : "Here you can download all games or search by player (and rating) or opening..." -> I meant : "Here you can download all games or search by player or opening (and rating)..."

Consequently (to Ben) you can download all (minus hashtables) sicilian games played by players rated over 2000 this way.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-09 00:08:30)
Fire on board...

Open letter by Gata Kamsky :

"Dear President, gentelmen, Susan,

When I first saw Bill's letter I was happy, because finally USCF has been showing strong support for their representative. Whether there could be a better solution or a more diplomatic one is a good question, but the reality is that there is no time to negotiate and given FIDE's strong-arm history of negotiating, it is not likely to succeed.

When I spoke with FIDE Vice President Mr. Makropoulos in Greece, it was decided that both my team and Mr. Topalov's team would meet during the rest day at the Olympiad in Dresden to negotiate and discuss everything, including technical details. With their last public statement, Mr. Illumjinov not only attempted to revoke his personal guarantee of the match, but he also imposed the time limit of one week for the players to acceed to his demands and at the same time re-awarded the bid to the Bulgarian Federation, which was the original FIDE's intention in the first place. You all are aware of the clause in the FIDE regulation for this "special" match that gave the Bulgarian Chess Federation a privilege of matching any bid that is coming from my side, which effectively ruined any attempt to find and submit a bid from the United States.

Throughout the negotiations with my managers, FIDE did nothing to find a sponsor on their own, despite the fact that it was solely FIDE's decision to create this match, and thus to allow Mr. Topalov a backdoor into the final steps of the qualification proceedings for the world championship title, quite unfairly, I might add.

FIDE's entire purpose, for chess players, for fairness, has been changed into a special interest group organization and I personally believe that any negotiations with FIDE rulers or tsars, or whatever you like to call them, will be unsuccessful.

The time for the negotiation is over and the only way to fight FIDE is to expose their mistakes, and perhaps fight them in a court of law if and when FIDE broke the law. Therefore, I would respectfully request all USCF Board members to unite and find ways to make sure that justice and fairness will prevail.

Sincerely,
Gata Kamsky

Saturday, November 8, 2008"


More informations on Chessbase news :
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5004


Normajean Yates    (2008-11-10 00:10:05)
to Ben Milton -

You can download *all* chess games ever played at ficgs [well that pgn file is not fully up-to-date, but ...].

And then filter with scid.

That is what Rodolfo, Thibault, and I meant..

Do you want *more* spoonfeeding? ;)


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2008-11-11 23:39:28)
There is one God!!!

In IGAME.RU there was a player whose nick was "Sexy God", and he definitively existed.


Denis Ivanchenkov    (2008-11-12 06:16:44)
God or not God...

> By the way, is/are it/he/she/they necessary to anywhat ? necessary to pray to during financial crisis.
> Maybe we should open a new topic :) good idea! and then ficgs.com will look even more like igame.ru - there also were endless flames of one notorious user - I think his nick is translated as AllPeopleAreTheOne. Hope he doesn't speak English
Rodolfo d Ettorre > In IGAME.RU there was a player whose nick was "Sexy God", and he definitively existed :))


Ilmars Cirulis    (2008-11-14 19:07:51)
'Experimented players' still here :)

'Experimented players' still aren't corrected.

I look at the right upper corner of site (when I am not logged in yet). And what I see?
Imho, I see some flash animation with rotating sentence (in purple colour under line in blue "Wikichess, open chess repertoire") - "Chess moves explained by experimented players"

It was what I meant previous time. :D


Wolfgang Utesch    (2008-11-16 08:27:13)
Loss on time

Nice to see that special strange time management of some players here sometimes have negative consequences on their own.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2008-11-16 14:04:19)
Loss on time

Hello Tano-Urayoán Russi Román, your kind of destiny hasn't been meant by me. Yor've my sympathy! Players I've meant are knowing.


Dinesh De Silva    (2008-11-16 20:57:27)
Re:

Strange. I thought "experimented players" meant players abducted mysteriously by an elusive Dr Frankenstein, taken to a secret medical lab, experimented on, given a massive electrical shock & transformed into bizarre, horrific monsters.


Normajean Yates    (2008-11-18 15:29:20)
some more on P2P..

1. to thibault: *enable* encryption, do not *force* encryption [unless you are doing 'private' pre-arranged P2P :) ]. If you force encryption then you will probably get too few peers.

2. P2P: well, until early last year there were no flacs - now there are a few and it will keep growing ;) Also, lots of DVD images - dont you see all those 4.3 GB and 8 GB torrents for *one* film? Just go to http://isohunt.com [for privacy, use https://isohunt.com] and see!

if cue - bin files or .iso files are available you can just play these virtual cd/dvds through daemon-tools or winmount - you need not even burn them!


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-19 00:51:01)
Poker Holdem at FICGS !!!

Finally, one of the biggest update this year !

Poker Holdem (or Poker Texas Hold'em) is available at FICGS !

This should be a start for long discussions... It was quite complicated to implement so I hope there will be no bug (please report if necessary). Please do not forget to read the complete rules here :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#poker_holdem

If you estimate you're an experienced player, please just let me know (through the form in My account) and I'll update your "poker holdem ELO" to 1800.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-19 10:13:34)
First poker holdem game

You may now see the very first poker holdem game played at FICGS :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26171
http://www.ficgs.com/game_26171.html


Of course, many players will prefer the bullet time control (10 minutes + 20 seconds / move).


Michel van der Kemp    (2008-11-19 16:29:09)
Poker e-mails

Hi Thibault, Thanks for adding this game. One questions/feature I am looking for: would it be possible to hold e-mails for these poker games alone, when I still receive e-mails for chess (or go if I were to play go games).


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-19 16:49:54)
Poker emails

Hello Michel, you mean you don't want to receive poker emails, right ? Well, maybe poker emails aren't as "important" as chess emails, as their volume should increase quickly players. So FICGS may filter all poker emails, what do you think ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-19 23:51:41)
Dealer -> Small blind

Why I restarted the first games :

The question was : In heads up, who is in the big blind, the dealer or the non-dealer ? What is the order of play pre-flop and post-flop ?

The answer : " In heads up holdem, the dealer button has the small blind and the other player has the big blind. The dealer button gets dealt the first card (because he is the small blind), then the big blind gets his/her first card. Then after the players get their cards, the preflop betting starts with the small blind -- the dealer button. After the flop is shown, now the player on the dealer button is last to act (like normal). So preflop the dealer has to act first and gets the small blind, after the flop -- flop, turn and river betting -- the dealer is second to act. The reason this is like this is because if the dealer button had the big blind, it would be too much power -- the dealer would have the big blind (already a lot of money in) plus position for every betting round. This would make heads up play really tight with the small blind only playing with premium hands (in which case the dealer would most likely fold). So by giving the small blind to the dealer button, it is more balanced and a better game."


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-20 01:23:06)
Chips

Hi Don, here are the current FICGS rules :

"d. Rules for Poker Holdem (or Poker Texas Hold'em) are official rules. Both players must play until one resign, or game is adjudicated (when one player wins 3 rounds). A poker holdem game is played in 3 winning rounds of 100 chips by player, played in "no limit" mode. The minimal bet is always 1 chip and does not depend on the blind's value. The small blind's value is doubled after the 50th hand, then after the 70th, 80th, 90th and 100th hand (the big blind then is 64 chips)."

No epoints in these tournaments, we play for the rating only.


Don Groves    (2008-11-20 09:58:15)
Weirdness?

I'm trying to play my poker games but even after I send my move, nothing happens and it's still my move. Am I doing something worng?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-20 10:55:47)
Don

Which games are you referring to ? (and which move ?) Sometimes you have to play twice in a row, this is normal (according to the button position).


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-20 12:47:15)
"Are all chess players machos ?"

An interesting interview of Levon Aronian in Chessbase news !

His answer : "As a chess player one has to be able to control one’s feelings, one has to be as cold as a machine. We men do not let ourselves be, let us say, seduced by our emotions and feelings. But there is a paradox in chess. - Which is? - The paradox is that the best chess players are the most emotional ones."

"A gentleman at the board can suddenly turn into a barbarian. Like Anand."

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5025


Normajean Yates    (2008-11-20 18:28:51)
Are female chess players 'macho'?

Judit Polgár, Zsuzsanna Polgár,Zsófia Polgár, Alexandra Kosteniuk, Pia Cramling, Xu Yuhua, ...

older days: the Chiburdanidze sisters; ..

even older: Vera Menchik..

Are/were they 'macho'?


Dinesh De Silva    (2008-11-20 19:29:38)
Re: Are female chess players 'macho?'

Eureka!!! I think I've got it....I've solved a great, longstanding mystery! The aforementioned strong, 'macho' female chess players were actually MEN in WOMENS' DISGUISE! Whoa!!!!!


Don Groves    (2008-11-21 00:15:03)
Poker interface

It seems there is an unnecessary extra step. When we choose our play and press "Move," why isn't that sufficient? Why must we later press "Send?"


Don Groves    (2008-11-21 01:18:22)
Two consecutive plays?

I don't understand how it can happen that one player plays twice in a row.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-21 19:58:44)
Two consecutive plays

Wikipedia will explain it better than I can do :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_holdem

In brief, after the flop (1st, 2nd & 3rd card), the turn (4th card) or the river (5th card), the first player to bet is always the one following the dealer, whoever played just before.


Don Groves    (2008-11-21 22:19:57)
One more question

Thanks, Thib, for the previous explanation.

My other question concerns checking before the flop. It seems to me there should be no option to check on a player's first play. The pot has already been "opened" by the blinds, so the first player to act can only fold, call, or raise. Is this different in the "head-to-head" game?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-21 22:33:58)
Example

This is normal, just like Texas Holdem with more than two players : One player is in the big blind.. all other players may call, then the player in the big blind may bet.. and of course he is not obliged to raise, so he may check.


Don Groves    (2008-11-21 22:39:08)
Ah...

I was forgetting that I am the big blind. Obviously, I'm not used to playing head-to-head -- merci!


Ben Milton    (2008-11-22 11:32:04)
.

Good evening, I would like to count myself as an experienced poker player, however that is only true when i play face to face and can read the other players, however playing on the websites such as pokerparty.com or here is quite different. I was wondering if there was a way for me to increase my poker rating thibault? If a world poker champion is 2500 rated and a beginner is 1500 i think id categorize myself as 2000. Regards


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-22 13:22:52)
Poker Holdem Championship

Hello all !

The next chess & Go championships waitings lists are now open, this is a good time to share our views for an interesting Poker Holdem world championship scheme (before to open the waiting list)...

It may look like the FICGS Go championship (one round robin tournament involving the 9 highest rated players, then a match between the winner & title holder), or it may be a multi-stages round-robin tournament (with or without a final match).. and so on. What do you think ?

The idea of a cycle looking like the Go championship is that the standard tournaments are in a way also preliminary tournaments of the championship.


Ben Milton    (2008-11-22 18:13:24)
...

Also is there a way for me to increase my chess rating? since i am a centaur player using Rybka 3, fritz, zappa, with strong opening books such as perfect 15 (tuned) and at this rating many of my opponents are not even using engines and it the games are not challenging. Regards


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-22 22:43:23)
Ratings

Chess ratings increase quite quickly here, once you reach 2000-2100, every player most probably use chess engines, but there must be such rules (max. provisional rating) to guarantee the quality of the games at a higher level. It shouldn't take more than 4 or 6 months to reach a 2200 level. Correspondence chess is a game of patience :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-22 22:55:35)
Bug : Poker games 26171 to 26300

A small bug happened in a few Poker games from game 26171 to 26300.

FICGS uses a virtual board to save processor time and avoid to re-calculate all moves to display the current hand, but there was an 'invisible' bug until now : The virtual board may be different from the re-calculated current board in rare cases. Consequently, when you'll look at previous moves in some games, your hand may not be the one you actually played. This bug has no consequences on the result of the game, it shouldn't happen again.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-23 15:39:23)
Show both cards at Showdown

A small update to come for Poker Holdem as, according to the rules, if a player must show his hand, he's required to show both pocket cards, even if one (or two) of these cards are not necessary in the best hand. (thx Volker :))

I understand that this rule applies in all cases, please correct me if I'm wrong.


Don Groves    (2008-11-23 23:02:52)
One request

Thibault, Poker is great -- I think I'm addicted ;-)

But one change please, when a showdown happens, please expose the cards in their original positions so both players can know what the other's hole cards were, and which cards completed the common five -- just like it would happen at the table.

Without this, we have no way of "reading" our opponent to help determine how he/she plays out hands. A big part of the game's strategy is lost.


Don Groves    (2008-11-24 07:04:17)
Yes!

One way to look at it is that any player who calls the final bet (in all forms of poker) has "paid" to see the bettors entire hand.


Ben Milton    (2008-11-24 09:00:44)
Request

Would it be possible to represent the cards at the final show hand differently, I mean instead of showing the best 5 cards show the 5 cards dealth next to the 2 cards of the player.


Michel van der Kemp    (2008-11-24 12:57:14)
Another request

Since you are obviously not busy at all, Thibault: would it be possible to show the betting history just for a specific hand? I understand it can be seen from the 'moves', but it's not in a human-friendly format. It's difficult to see where an old hand ended and a new hand starts, for example, or just the numbers is hard to decipher what was going on. It would be great if we could get a history something like this, perhaps on the right of the board?: Player 1: raises with 3 (Pot: 4) Player 2: checks (Pot:6) Dealer: deals flop (Pot: 6) Player 1: checks (Pot: 6) Player 2: raises with 4 (Pot: 10) etc. This way it's easy to see the history of the hand.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-24 14:32:29)
future

My hope is that more poker players will play chess, and that more chess players will play poker (the same for Go, big chess...)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-24 18:48:29)
Go championship : Lu vs. von Erichsen

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000002&boards=1

About 40 moves played in all games.. at a first sight, the games are still open, any predictions ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-25 18:15:35)
Pocket cards

The update occured, now you'll see your opponent's pocket cards at showdown. I had to restart Game 26250 after this update (a few moves only were played).


Normajean Yates    (2008-11-25 20:10:43)
Nunn's suggestion is sound...

Sound suggestion in broad outline: may be some of the details could be improved -

e.g. one potentionally contentious point: how much should the activity bonus be? -

Case in point: Fischer before the 1972 World Chamionships was largely 'inactive' for several years. Turns out one of the things he was doing was playing game after game against himself: an extremely strenuous thing to do...


Don Groves    (2008-11-26 05:11:13)
Spreadsheet

I'd like to design my own "poker viewer" using Excel (or the equivalent) by reading in a file of plays and displaying the data in a useful format.

If you could just make the plays and the cards dealt at each turn available as a downloadable file, I'll do the rest.

It doesn't matter that there is no standard file format yet. Who knows, yours could eventually become the standard!

Clearly, fame and fortune are only two steps away ;-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-26 10:45:28)
Spreadsheet

"If you could just make the plays and the cards dealt at each turn available" .. looks like there's a problem.. if we show the cards dealt, the game loses its whole interest, right ? :/


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-26 16:27:34)
Community cards

Ok, the community cards are now displayed at showdown. Thanks all for your suggestions :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-26 17:27:45)
The very best Poker hands at FICGS

Here we go :)

November 26, 2008 - Almost 200 running poker games and already a nice best of poker texas holdem hands seen at showdown (one per game only) :


1. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26173&move=36
2. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26208&move=169
3. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26407&move=729
4. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26182&move=94
5. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26234&move=190
6. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26233&move=41
7. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26183&move=41
8. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26311&move=20
9. http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26196&move=10


Well, I touched my first four of a kind (aces) yesterday but it seems logical as I'm probably the most addicted player :)


Francisco Gramajo    (2008-11-26 18:43:12)
Best hand or best played hand?

Any hand can be the best, when is played correctly... and that depends on prior hands. Not in the cards showing up. A good hand? I just had one full house K-K-K-10-10 ironically I was playing for K-K-2-2-2 or 10-10-2-2-2 or 10-10-10-2-2. For me the way to play is the key. Later we can discusse about the algorithm to generate cards. Thanks for this website, it is amazing!


Francisco Gramajo    (2008-11-26 19:19:39)
Fold button needed.

Some times, the cards dealt are so bad, not even worth it to play. Please add a fold button at the showdown. Let me fold 7-2 by the way, pls...


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-26 19:54:21)
Best played hand or best hand played :)

Right :) .. So let's say "the best hands played" at FICGS. It is always interesting to see how someone plays a straight flush !


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-26 21:58:40)
Time controls for Holdem

Correspondence time controls (> 1 day) are very delicate to manage. If we set an increment inferior to 1 day, it may provoke some problems with a few players trying to find some tricks to win on time or at least to keep a time pressure on their opponents (most players sleep during the night yet :)). With the current time control, most players still seem to play fastly and, of course, do not hope to win on time. And last but not least, this is much less stressful than rapid chess tournaments :)

However the maximum days could be inferior for poker, that's right, but let's see... I'm not sure it is really necessary to change something yet.


Don Groves    (2008-11-27 06:55:14)
Show all cards at showdown

It appears that in some cases, both player's hole cards are not shown. I have had two cases now where, if the caller loses, only the hole cards of the winner are shown.

All players in a showdown have the right to see all the cards, even the loser's hole cards. The winner has the right to see what the loser called with.


Don Groves    (2008-11-28 01:21:01)
Why?

Why would anyone fold when they can check? It costs them nothing to see the next card. If the other player bets, then they can fold.


Michel van der Kemp    (2008-11-28 19:29:17)
Link

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26217&move=23 Humm 1 out of 649740? Unless you're playing with an extra deck up your sleeves ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-11-29 01:07:30)
Poker : bug fixed, a few games restarted

A few games restarted (or a few moves were deleted), Game 26234 and a few games played by Xavier Pichelin who highlighted a bug : It is no more possible to enter ie. "Fold" (only "fold" is correct), "call", "raise", or "check" when only "fold" is possible and so on...

Sorry for the inconvenience.


Don Groves    (2008-11-29 03:40:20)
How can only "fold" be possible?

Isn't that up to the player to decide?


Don Groves    (2008-11-29 08:04:40)
Fold button

I have another opinion -- why would a player want to fold unless the other player has made a bet or raise? In those cases, there is already a fold button.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2008-11-30 11:43:57)
Is Marshall attack ....

... good enough for a win on high level correspondence chess??? You can make your own mind with a look at 4 games of WCH_CANDIDATES_FINAL_000002 (# 23018, 23019, 23020, 23021) where Black played an unusual defence which could have fundamental importance of judgement this opening!


Wolfgang Utesch    (2008-11-30 18:48:14)
Caire - Utesch

Thibault, in accordance to your rules I have to avoid any loss in all games of the match. So I decided to play defences with Black where the risk is lower, because general endgame ideas are more important than tactical play with many figures.


Hannes Rada    (2008-11-30 20:20:20)
Good for white !?

Currently I am playing with white a decisive game at the Austria championship against the Marshall 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Re4 g5 16.Qf1 Qh5 17.Nd2 Bf5 18.f3 Nf6 19.Qg2 Nxe4 20.Nxe4 Qg6 21.g4 Bxe4 22.fxe4 Rae8 23.Bc2 Qh6 24.e5 Bxe5 25.dxe5 Rxe5 26.Bd2 Qe6 27.Bb3 Qe7 28.Qf2 c5 29.Re1 c4 30.Rxe5 Qxe5 31.Bd1 h6 32.Qe3 Re8 33.Qxe5 Rxe5 34.Bf3 f5 35.gxf5 Rxf5 36.Bb7 * The endgame 2 bishops vs 1 Rook + Pawn looks good for white. Black did not have any attacking changes in this game and white quite a comfortable game. However I am not quite sure if white can win it.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2008-11-30 21:01:56)
Good for white !?

Hannes, with best play on both sides White will have always a small advantage in this opening I think. Mostly not enough. For your game all the best - may be your opponent has missed the best defence.


Hannes Rada    (2008-11-30 21:43:01)
Attack ?

You are right Wolfang. But I thought, that you played these so called attack for winning purposes :-) If black want's or must win, I think that Sicilian gives better chances.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-12-01 08:15:20)
Marshall to win..

At cc no real chance for a black win but not easy for white to get much chance either. Although I dont know if many cc players want to go through the extended end game suffering Wolfgang seems to enjoy :)15...a5!? looks like a simpler less masochistic way to get the draw rather than Wolfgangs 15...Rae8 Still why Caire plays exactly the same variation of the Marshall in all 4 white games????? - against a higher rated opponent it makes no match sense at all. I suppose your not going to lose games on time playing the same variation:):)


Marc Lacrosse    (2008-12-01 08:45:01)
To Andrew

"(...)why Caire plays exactly the same variation of the Marshall in all 4 white games????? - against a higher rated opponent it makes no match sense at all. I suppose your not going to lose games on time playing the same variation:)"

Hi Andrew in my FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_3__000005 playing the exact same variation in my four black games was the key to win the match: all four were drawn whereas I managed to win 3.5/4 in my four white games (with four variations of one of these silly sideline sicilians you seem not to praise too much).

... what is the optimal strategy for these matches remains to be determined. The "all-draws-favors-higher-rating" rule is very interesting. I like it very much.

Marc


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-12-01 15:34:03)
cant argue...

..with your results Marc. However the current champion won FICGS with exactly the strategy I favour and exactly the opposite to your strategy. So thats powerful evidence in favour of the varying openings approach. Well done on winning your match - lets see how far you get with your strategy. As for these side line sicilians I never called them silly Marc your being over sensitive. I thought that it was easy to equalise against them and get a draw at cc. I still believe that and proved it in our game. However I do think your opponent (as black) was playing ambitiously to win! Now thats a different story .....


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-12-01 15:37:40)
cant argue...

..with your results Marc. However the current champion won FICGS with exactly the strategy I favour and exactly the opposite to your strategy. So thats powerful evidence in favour of the varying openings approach. Well done on winning your match - lets see how far you get with your strategy. As for these side line sicilians I never called them silly Marc your being over sensitive. I thought that it was easy to equalise against them and get a draw at cc. I still believe that and proved it in our game. However I do think your opponent (as black) was playing ambitiously to win! Now thats a different story .....


Don Groves    (2008-12-01 22:03:23)
Not exactly, but...

Wouldn't it be simpler to just re-show the final screen with all cards exposed? This would then appear to the players exactly as it appears on an actual table. This screen could have an "OK" button for the players to advance to the next hand.

This way there is never a question of both players seeing the final result of all hands.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-12-02 16:21:04)
Drugs in chess

I have read views of players who claimed that there are prescription drugs (eg modafinil) that enhance concentration and thus performance in chess tournaments - significant improvement but not dramatic. However even small improvements could prove extremely useful at the top levels. Of course no one would ever admit it but I assume if there is some effectiveness then some top players will definitely be taking them. Drug testing at the higher levels is quite reasonable if chess is seeking olympic status.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-02 20:07:17)
Update : challenges & move send

Hello all,

It is now possible to challenge a player for a chess, Go or Poker holdem game ! You can choose the game by clicking the pictures near "Challenge a player" in My games, you can also change the 'challenges' option in Preferences. This is an important improvement as advanced poker & Go games are a faster way to improve ratings ie. in order to qualify for the FICGS poker holdem & Go championships. (advanced chess has its own rating, different from the correpondence chess rating)

Also a new improvement in the 'move send' process, it should be much faster now, please report any bug if you notice one.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-03 11:30:29)
Chess olympiads, Tkatchiev "forfeits"

After the case of Ivanchuk on doping, a new unexplained and undercovered (actually completely missed by the official websites - FIDE, federations, olympiads site...) case at the Olympiads !

France just lost 1,5-2,5 to Azerbaijan, Vladislav Tkatchiev just did not arrive to the board !! .. while the France team has 5 players for 4 boards... One full point lost. No explanation, nothing, maybe a conflict in the team. I hope there will be more information about it. To be continued.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-04 14:07:30)
First time and...

Hi Don, yes this is probably the first time... 101 hands for the first round ! Congrats :)

Well, the problem is : There may be several hands played without any other choice for both players than to check when the blind is superior to the stack of one player... So we even wouldn't see the result of some hands if we don't play at all :/


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-04 20:58:04)
Experienced players

Done ! (finally)

You may reload the page to see the change.


Normajean Yates    (2008-12-04 23:21:31)
Prof T. de Vassal-Frankenstein retires:)

after, um, *liquidating* the experimented players??? ;) [or, perhaps just re-education camp therapy for them :)]


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-05 00:08:09)
Guinea pigs you are ! :)

:o) ...... FICGS, chess experiments on experienced players.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-05 09:32:13)
Game 26311

You mean that hand ?

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26311&move=379

I can't see any reason why it didn't appear yet, please let me know if it happens again (please do not play the next moves before I can analyze it) thanks :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-05 14:28:28)
Invite your friends - tool

A new tool that may help to find many new players :)

You may now add your contacts as friends and invite them to join us at FICGS in a single click. See at the bottom of "My messages" page, above the connected players list.

Many features will be added soon to this tool !


Don Groves    (2008-12-05 23:23:13)
Game 26311

Yes. That was the first time I saw the results of that hand.

Sorry, but I have already played more moves there before I saw your answer.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-06 20:07:17)
Hotmail bug fixed

Now it is possible to add friends from Hotmail (hotmail.com only), the bug has been fixed.

If you have more than 100 contacts, you may win 10 Epoints in seconds to play money games :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-08 19:33:05)
Levon Aronian's open letter

Now Levon Aronian comments the latest FIDE's decisions in an open letter :

"(...) With the GA's recent actions, it seems that there is a democratic deficit within FIDE. The GA did not consult the players currently taking part in the Grand Prix in their decision processes. Please keep in mind a very important point – these players, including myself, have a legally binding agreement with FIDE regarding the World Championship cycle and the Grand Prix. Therefore it is FIDE's duty to consult the other party of the contract – the participants.

Does this mean that the chess players have lesser rights than others? The GA appears to act with no concern for the players. The decision to suddenly change the World Championship cycle has damaging effects on the career plans of leading chess players. It is also reasonable to ask: why should we go through several tournaments over several years and fight for a place in a tournament that another player gets by losing a match? The GA's decisions remove the motivation for players like myself to take part in the World Championship cycle."

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5059


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-09 19:06:06)
Vladislav Tkachiev apologizes...

.. in french, for missing the last round in Olympiads in this video from Europe Echecs :

http://www.europe-echecs.com/actualites/actualites-vladislav-tkachiev-s-explique-1692.html

In brief, "an accident, the stress was too big", he apologizes to all french players and the federation.

Quite strange anyway.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-10 18:39:52)
FICGS for mobile phone !

FICGS is now available with a slight interface for mobile phone (that can connect to internet, ie. Iphone, Google Phone, Blackberry, Samsung player...)

You may try it there :

http://www.ficgs.com/mobile.html


Feel free to make any suggestion to improve it.

Thanks to Hervé for his help :)


Normajean Yates    (2008-12-11 01:46:47)
my response...

Excellent, thought provoking article.

About subconscious thinking - I am in two minds: as an existentialist I am uncomfortable with the concept: yet there are memory/thought acts which bear no other explanation yet. The famous existentialist psychiatrist R.D.Laing who applied Sartre's work to psychiatry, also did not dwell on this issue, really..

I believe it is partly volition, partly innate - the innate part being proneness to 'subconscious', involuntary and in particular obsessive-compulsive thought patterns in OCD or in certain bipolar depressive states [I am bipolar depressive type 2], which responds to high-dose fluoxetine...

I am more comfortable with the part of the article I quote in the next paragraph, although there no reason we should have a specifically '*chess* pattern-recogniser organ' [1] - more likely we have an innate but more general 'chessy' pattern-recogniser-faculty ('organ') which takes in chess too. [our music-hearing faculty i.e. the ear can hear music, but not only music..] *This* is what the author Rune Vik-Hansen means, I am certain.

[from the article:] 'Playing on Noam Chomsky’s LAD, or Language Acquisition Device, we might say that chess players are guided and supported by a, perhaps slightly Kantian sounding, CAD; “Chess Acquisition Device, making is possible to display sound chess judgment which foundation is the subtle interplay between knowing what to keep and what to discard among triggered moves and in the final part of this article, we will have a closer look as how to increase and improve our chess judgment to form better decisions over the board.'

I will only add that subsequent investigations and deeper questioning of de Groot's subjects (experimented chessplayers? ;-) ) has shown that this faculty/device/organ is less important to chess ability than de Groot thought...



[1] I am calling this presumed faculty/device an 'organ', just like Noam Chomsky occasionally does [in his *linguistics* output, not in his *political* output! :)] - even if you choose to think of it as just a metaphor, it is a very hepful and suggestive metaphor.


Scott Nichols    (2008-12-11 03:47:57)
Poker and the chess GM

Any experiences playing poker with GM's? I played with Walter Browne in Vegas, he was an average poker player.


Don Groves    (2008-12-11 05:07:34)
Poker and chess GMs

Hi, Scott -- I'll wager the lowest ranked GMs are better at poker than the best poker players are at chess ;-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-11 12:34:11)
Chess GMs

GM Valentin Lukov is an excellent Backgammon player, while Aldo Haik is a great ping-pong player :)


Philip Roe    (2008-12-11 14:08:02)
Seems it can go either way..

I have played chess with a world champion poker player. He is an above-average chessplayer, but just a US master.


Philip Roe    (2008-12-11 15:32:43)
Interesting for sure..

Impressive, not so much.

He seems to make a big distinction between conscious and unconscious thought with no real justification. The fact that electrical activity can be detected prior to awareness does not tell us much. Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" is the most satisfactory account that I have read, and his "multiple drafts" theory is not unlike Runes, except that it allows for a more sophisticated interaction. Roughly, the conscious mind sets goals "I want to attack on the k-side" and the subconscious suggests means "How about Qh5" which the conscious rejects or selects for further review by setting a new goal " Lets see if Qh5 works". By ignoring this interplay Rune creates difficulties from which he cannot extricate himself. And Dennett also asks himself much tougher questions like "why is there consciousness at all? What evolutionary purpose could it serve?"

Interestingly, the subconscious seldom suggests really silly ideas, like Qh5 if there is a pawn on g6 and nothing else going on. Indeed, the filtering out of "non-candidates" can be quite impressive. I recall a moment from the BBC TV series The Master Game. Bill Hartston, an IM and a psychologist, was momentarily taken aback by an unexpected move made by his (weaker) opponent. "Why didn't I see that?" A few seconds later "Oh, that's why I didn't see it!" (the move involved an unsound combination) Hartston was about to coauthor a book on chess psychology with John Wason, and his remark was not entirely in jest.

Hartston was suggesting, by his remarks, that he could usually trust his unconscious not to show him anything irrelevant. That, to my mind, is one of the things that characterizes a strong player. The irrelevant moves just don't occur to them.

So then what about blunders? Well, the system is very fallible. It IS just made of meat, and the real surprise is that blunders do not occur more often. But the blunders made by strong players seem different from the blunders made by rabbits. They are usually relevant to something, but they have a hole in them. I dont see anything at all about Runes proposals that would eliminate blunders, except through the indirect route of making you a stronger player.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-12 15:56:50)
Now Michael Adams...

Open Letter from Michael Adams

"I have regretfully withdrawn from the whole Grand Prix series. Some of the reasons I took this decision are the sudden switch of venues at very late notice, the replacement of players whose results thus far will affect the results of the whole Grand Prix both in terms of prize money and World Championship qualification and the fact that when I made my decision the status of some of the future GP events was still unclear.

The changes to the World Championship cycle also concern me as making major changes to a cycle in progress in such a sudden manner is very undesirable. There also seems to be no guarantee that further changes will not be made in a similar manner in the future. The changes are obviously immediately very negative for all Grand Prix participants but also in general it seems to me that the rewards for success in such tough events as the Grand Prix or the World Cup are now much too minimal."

Michael Adams
11th December 2008

Next ?


Don Groves    (2008-12-13 10:02:15)
One by Emerson

“The age of a woman doesn't mean a thing. The best tunes are played on the oldest fiddles.” -- Ralph Waldo Emerson


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-13 23:42:25)
FICGS poker holdem championship

The waiting list for the 1st FICGS poker holdem championship is open, as all ratings are not established, the rating limit has been changed to 1600.

Only the 9 highest rated players at the beginning of the tournament (february 1, 2009) will play it, consequently the best way to improve your rating before the deadline is probably to play POKER HOLDEM BULLET BRONZE games (you may use the challenge function in My games).

The current rules :

"FICGS world poker holdem championship is a 2 stages tournament. First stage is a single round-robin tournament, involving the 9 highest rated players who entered the waiting list. The winner of this tournament is the challenger for FICGS world champion title. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage. If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account. If current world champion defends his title, he will play a 5 games match (3 games with White, 2 games with Black) against his challenger.

All games are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. Rules for poker holdem are official rules. You may find more information about the FICGS betting structure in FICGS rules. Both players must play until one resign or game is adjudicated. One game is played in 3 winning rounds of 100 chips by player played in no limit mode. The minimal bet is always 1 chip and does not depend on the blind's value. The small blind's value is doubled after the 50th hand, then after the 70th, 80th, 90th and 100th hand (the big blind then is 64 chips) of each round."


Don Groves    (2008-12-15 01:57:22)
A suggestion

Bonjour, Thibault

There are many players here who like to play several moves per week and there are others who sometimes play less than one move per week until forced to move faster by their clock. There are even a few who don't move at all (or rarely) until their clock is red.

Would it be too much work to make another tournament classification? The time control would be 7 days plus 7 days more for each 3 moves, up to a maximum of 7 days. In other words, each player must make a minimum of 3 moves per week.

Those players who can't, or won't, move that often can play in the standard tournaments. Those of us who like to move more often can play in the faster tournaments. Everyone is happy ;-)


Scott Nichols    (2008-12-15 02:07:23)
Agree to this.

There should be a class for faster players. Too many players use a vacation to delay the inevitable defeat. They should know--"There is no dishonor in resigning", the dishonor lies with the person who just cannot admit defeat.


Normajean Yates    (2008-12-15 03:37:27)
disagree... let them play skittles!

faster players can go elsewhere and play 1 0 lightning [1 minute/game, no fischerincrement] - engines allowed! O), or they can just lump it ;-)


Don Groves    (2008-12-15 04:05:25)
Why disagree?

I'm not suggesting any changes to the current time controls, just a faster control for those of us who like to get games over with sooner than 100+ days.

Also, this is not anything like blitz, lightening, etc. It is merely a time control that allows correspondence games to be played at modern speeds. I've had snail mail (postcard) games that were faster than some games I've had here ;-)


Normajean Yates    (2008-12-15 05:02:07)
to Scott Nichols

"Too many players use a vacation to delay the inevitable defeat"

Too many people use healthy lifestyle, medicine, careful driving etc. to delay inevitable death :-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-15 14:39:56)
Disagree at a first sight

Hi Don,

I think that's too dangerous for the ratings 'cause many players would like to play this fast correspondence time control until they accumulate too many games (playing such a time control may show an addiction already), finally general forfeit and rest in peace far away :)

It happened already to many players with the rapid rapid time control (10 days + 1 day / move, limit 60 days). Moreover, blitz time controls are not played enough yet and that's a pity IMO, that's now a nice alternative and I'd like to promote it.


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2008-12-15 12:22:46)
More hydra ...

This time seriously, I have got an old version here:

http://tonythomas.mylivepage.com/file/240/5286

I have played with it using Arena but this old version seems not as strong as Toga.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-15 14:46:04)
slower time control

Adding a new category with slower time controls has been discussed already and I'm quite favourable to this. I may add it in a while, but we still need more players in a few categories before that moment ("working on", as Dr. Frankenstein building new players ;))


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-15 14:48:44)
Hydra engine

The Hydra engine only has absolutely no interest but used on a dedicated hardware, its level & style of play may probably be compared to a quite old Fritz version.


Normajean Yates    (2008-12-15 15:40:37)
I see.. :)

Prof de Vassal is first manufacturing slower-category *players* in his laboratory! Once there is a sufficient harvest of players , *then* slower-category will be introduced! ;)

I already have slower-category genes: I will post some of my DNA to the Professor ;) So if you recieve a test-tube, dont worry it is NOT anthrax!


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2008-12-16 06:43:01)
Alternatives

If you want fast games why not play the 2 hour blitz? Isn't the idea of correspondance games to have time to analysis in depth? I find at least my opponents play to fast, do they really make a concise analysis of a game?


Don Groves    (2008-12-16 11:06:48)
Blitz is not the same

Blitz games require you to play the game in one session. That can be difficult when players are in widely separated time zones.

What I am proposing still allows complete analysis of each move, just that the moves must be made more quickly than longer time controls.

I realize this will not suit everyone, but no one other than those who want faster games has to play. It's just another option for those of us who would use it, just as is blitz.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2008-12-16 11:17:57)
Foll pos

1.Nc6 Nf3 2.Nb4 Ne5 3.b8Q

Interesting... Do you agree to play with black (just one demonstration game in forum posts)? :)


Normajean Yates    (2008-12-16 15:39:59)
no no it is legally reachable..

This is much easier to reach than many much more impossible-looking positions.

If I gave it to one person who plays on chess.com and fics, he would give a proof-game in 10 minutes: [the 16-queens mate-in-4 problem i posted a few months back - see problems - he gave a proof game in 10 minutes. Then I asked him to construct a position with 18 Qs, he did it in 5 more minutes.]

But I have had severe political differences with him - I am not on talking terms with him now.

The trick is do not try retroanalysis. construct from the beginning!


Normajean Yates    (2008-12-16 15:47:26)
llmars I agree to play as black, ok.

But I am going home on yearend vacation (and also chess vacation!) I am posting and old rebel10 v rebel10 game in the next post.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-17 14:18:17)
Adjudication

Hi Normajean,

The adjudication in case of a threefold repetition is justified (the game has to be ended).

About your game, it seems to me that such behaviour happens more often when one player asks the other player to resign :) .. Not a big deal, it will not change anything to the ratings right now and actually a few players do not even know how to resign... I've adjudicated it anyway.


Normajean Yates    (2008-12-17 18:05:42)
anyway, about the 16-queens mate-in-4:

Svante Carl von Erichsen showed it was possible to solve without computer help:

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=problem_read&id=311

As for proof game, The foll is from my rec.games.chess.analysis post [it *was* .analysis I think - feeling too tired to search usenet]

" This one is mine:

1. 4k3/qqqqqqqq/8/8/8/8/QQQQQQQQ/4K3 w - - 0 109: [pos. 1]

White to play and mate in 4.

There are no duals - only one moves mates in 4. [there is no mate in 3 or less.]

Move given at end of post, with sample continuation.

These two were posed by me and solved by likesforests [see fics (www.freechess.org) or chess.com] in 20 minutes total!

2. Give a proof game for pos. 1, ie Show that the position in prob. 1 is legally reachable by giving a game that leads to the position.

3. Okay, so you can reach a position where you have 16 queens on board. Can you construct a game which reaches a position with 18 queens? If so, do so! [the last part carries 99% of the credit - it is to pre-empt the answers "yes" and "no".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(note: these can be more conveniently viewed at chess.com in the thread "advantage of moving first - mate in 4 in symmetrical position" in the forum-category "more puzzles")

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Solution to 2: by likesforests

[Event ]
[Site ]
[Date ..]
[White likesforests]
[Black likesforests]
[Result 1-0]
1. a4 b5 2. a5 b4 3. a6 Bb7 4. axb7 Nc6 5. Na3 bxa3 6. b8=Q a2 7. Rb1 a1=Q 8. Qb3 Qa6 9. Qa2 Qb7 10. b4 a5 11. b5 a4 12. b6 Qa6 13. b7 a3 14. Qb3 a2 15. b8=Q a1=Q 16. Qh3 Q1a5 17. Qbb3 Ne5 18. Qbg3 c5 19. Rb3 c4 20. c3 cxb3 21. c4 b2 22. c5 b1=Q 23. c6 Qba2 24. c7 Qb8 25. Bb2 f6 26. Bc3 Kf7 27. c8=Q d5 28. Qc4 Nc6 29. Qch4 d4 30. d3 dxc3 31. d4 c2+ 32. Qd2 Ra7 33. f3 Q5a4 34. Kf2 c1=Q 35. d5 Qca3 36. d6 e5 37. e4 Nge7 38. d7 Kg8 39. d8=Q Qa8 40. Qb6 Nb4 41. Qbe3 Nbd5 42. exd5 e4 43. Ne2 f5 44. Qeh6 f4 45. Kg1 e3 46. Nd4 e2 47. d6 e1=Q 48. d7 Qea1 49. d8=Q Nd5 50. Nc2 Nc3 51. Ne3 fxe3 52. Qdg5 e2 53. Qdf4 e1=Q 54. Qfg4 Qeb1 55. f4 g6 56. Qc5 g5 57. f5 Bg7 58. Qgc4+ Rf7 59. f6 Bf8 60. Q5b4 g4 61. Qe5 g3 62. Qe1 Ne4 63. Qcb3 Nd2 64. Qhc4 Nf3+ 65. gxf3 g2 66. Be2 Bg7 67. Kf2 Bf8 68. Ke3 g1=Q+ 69. Kf4 Qgb6 70. Qcc3 Be7 71. Kg4 Qe6+ 72. Kg3 Rf8 73. fxe7 Rf7 74. e8=Q+ Rf8 75. Qeb5 Qf7 76. f4 Re8 77. f5 Re6 78. fxe6 Qff8 79. e7+ Qf7 80. Rf1 Qaf8 81. e8=Q Qa8 82. Qbb2 Q4a7 83. Qed2 Q3a6 84. Rf3 Q8b7 85. Qcc2 Qac4 86. Q4b3 Qad6+ 87. Kg2 Qdc7 88. Q3a2 Qce6 89. Qhe3 Qed7 90. Q8e4 Q8e7 91. Qb2b3 Qag7+ 92. Qg3 Qbb2 93. Bc4 Qbf6 94. Kf1 h5 95. Rf5 Qfxf5+ 96. Ke1 Rh6 97. Qxh6 Qfh7 98. Qhxh5 Qfxc4 99. Qee2 Qcf7 100. Qbb2 Kf8 101. Qgf2 Ke8 102. h4 Kf8 103. Qhg4 Qhxh4 104. Qgg2 Qhh7 105. Qbh5 Ke8 106. Qhh2 Qfe6 107. Qff3 Q6f6 108. Qff2 Qff7 1-0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

solution to 3: by likesforests

Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[White "likesforests"]
[Black "likesforests"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. a4 b5 2. a5 b4 3. a6 Bb7 4. axb7 Nc6 5. Na3 bxa3 6. b8=Q a2 7. Rb1 a1=Q 8. Qb3 Qa6 9. Qa2 Qb7 10. b4 a5 11. b5 a4 12. b6 Qa6 13. b7 a3 14. Qb3 a2 15. b8=Q a1=Q 16. Qh3 Q1a5 17. Qbb3 Ne5 18. Qbg3 c5 19. Rb3 c4 20. c3 cxb3 21. c4 b2 22. c5 b1=Q 23. c6 Qba2 24. c7 Qb8 25. Bb2 f6 26. Bc3 Kf7 27. c8=Q d5 28. Qc4 Nc6 29. Qch4 d4 30. d3 dxc3 31. d4 c2+ 32. Qd2 Ra7 33. f3 Q5a4 34. Kf2 c1=Q 35. d5 Qca3 36. d6 e5 37. e4 Nge7 38. d7 Kg8 39. d8=Q Qa8 40. Qb6 Nb4 41. Qbe3 Nbd5 42. exd5 e4 43. Ne2 f5 44. Qeh6 f4 45. Kg1 e3 46. Nd4 e2 47. d6 e1=Q 48. d7 Qea1 49. d8=Q Nd5 50. Nc2 Nc3 51. Ne3 fxe3 52. Qdg5 e2 53. Qdf4 e1=Q 54. Qfg4 Qeb1 55. f4 g6 56. Qc5 g5 57. f5 Bg7 58. Qgc4+ Rf7 59. f6 Bf8 60. Q5b4 g4 61. Qe5 g3 62. Qe1 Ne4 63. Qcb3 Nd2 64. Qhc4 Nf3+ 65. gxf3 g2 66. Be2 Bg7 67. Kf2 Bf8 68. Ke3 g1=Q+ 69. Kf4 Qgb6 70. Qcc3 Be7 71. Kg4 Qe6+ 72. Kg3 Rf8 73. fxe7 Rf7 74. e8=Q+ Rf8 75. Qeb5 Qf7 76. f4 Re8 77. f5 Re6 78. fxe6 Qff8 79. e7+ Qf7 80. Rf1 Qaf8 81. e8=Q Qa8 82. Qhc1 ( 82. Qbb2 Q4a7 83. Qed2 Q3a6 84. Rf3 Q8b7 85. Qcc2 Qac4 86. Q4b3 Qad6+ 87. Kg2 Qdc7 88. Q3a2 Qce6 89. Qhe3 Qed7 90. Q8e4 Q8e7 91. Qb2b3 Qag7+ 92. Qg3 Qbb2 93. Bc4 Qbf6 94. Kf1 h5 95. Rf5 Qfxf5+ 96. Ke1 Rh6 97. Qxh6 Qfh7 98. Qhxh5 Qfxc4 99. Qee2 Qcf7 100. Qbb2 Kf8 101. Qgf2 Ke8 102. h4 Kf8 103. Qhg4 Qhxh4 104. Qgg2 Qhh7 105. Qbh5 Ke8 106. Qhh2 Qfe6 107. Qff3 Q6f6 108. Qff2 Qff7 ) h5 83. Qhc8 h4+ 84. Kg4 h3 85. Bf3 Rh5 86. Bg2 hxg2 87. h3 Rh4+ 88. Kxh4 g1=Q 89. Rf6 Qga7 90. Qec6 Q8b8 91. Q8a6 Q8e7 92. Kg4 Kf8 93. h4 Qbe8 94. Rd6 Qg8+ 95. Kf3 Qbg6 96. h5 Q6g7 97. h6 Qad7 98. h7 Qa5 99. h8=Q Qdxd6 1-0

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

solution to 1: 1. Qaxf7+!

Sample continuations:
1... Kd8 2. Qexe7+ Kc8 3. Qdxd7+ Kb8 4. Qdd8#
1... Qxf7 2. Qh8+ Qxh8 3. Qxh8+ Qf8 4. Qfxf8#

"


Normajean Yates    (2008-12-18 17:53:56)
ok- but meanwhile this kludge may work..

ATTN Thibault,

Will see big surprise - hopefully a pleasant surprise - when I return in January.. meanwhile:

Earlier the message used to be emailed. Now, if the move-message part of the code hasnt been drastically changed, then:

Why not plug in the earlier message-emailed code-fragment; so that the message is *both* diplayed on the game page - as it is now; *and* emailed - as it was earlier?

As a temporary measure, while Thibault is busy with big things? :)

[already on unofficial leave, will go on official leave tomorrow so that I can extend leave into january, as some people have done..]


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-22 20:44:55)
2610

Very nice performance ! Congrats, Michael...

Just like Xavier, a reasonable number of very well played games.


Wolfgang Utesch    (2008-12-25 19:24:04)
Thank you, ...

... but I'm knowing, that my "win" over Francois was not convincing. I was playing with the rules on my side - in final will be the rules on side of Xavier! Merry christmas for all!


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 :)


Gultekin Gumusyazici    (2008-12-28 17:25:10)
Chess rating system and Suat Atalik

Primitive Chess Game rules still applied through world competitions does not represent capacity and skills of human brain but a useless rating system that only orders whose photographic memory is higher to cheat others detail improvisions. I just want to present a past time memory about this hypo. Suat Atalik Number 1 rated Master Skill here in FICGS was opponent to me at a simulation of 25 person at Middle East university when he gets fame. I have started a very defensive game to make him bored crazy. But those boring behaviours caused him to lose his Queen and game next 3 moves. What is most interesting that, His Photografic memory aworns him after he made his moves and passes 3 more players after me. Then, While i congragulate myself with some fucking hand moves, he stood there where he froze and came back to my desk disobeying order. There he stood against me and made his pose as he just remembered something. While I was pretending My man there is no hope for just fuck off he hehhehehe, He asked Ahh sorry i made some misplacement, let go 3 move back and evaluate this situation again. Man, I am just human I am not machine or Computer Memory. I can not fight against bots. it is insane. So I let him score back knowing I am Winner not loser. Loser he is loser the system he tries to success on. Chess System applied to rate people with such communities only applies a fake counts depends on bots photoprahic memories. And It tries to neglect Humans sensitive intentions on variations. There exist no bot yet to evaluate humans preferences at a game with advanced chess rules. Do not you ask me what is those advanced chess rules. Just Imagine them as not bots can do. And Cheating is applied on determined systems. Cheating belongs to bots and botminds. Sincerely, Best Chess player nEverknown


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-28 17:49:29)
Suat Atalik & advanced chess

Hello Gultekin, what do you mean exactly "bots", "cheating" ? I can't see the point, related to advanced chess played here or not...


Gultekin Gumusyazici    (2008-12-28 18:18:43)
Thibault de Vassal

Just Remember Kasparovs's complain about deepblue (bot-robot). He cried "This machine steals my photographic memory and plays as me." Chess game with common rulez has turned game determines winners whose memory realizes most likely picture of usual games. This is bot behaviour. Cheating is about neglecting improvements that is not common at pictures adopted as most likely winner moves. I always try unusual moves to surprize bots. At start I success but then bots leads game to other direction where most likely picture occurs by not doing move they fail. That is bot cheat. As Atalik has taken moves back.


Gultekin Gumusyazici    (2008-12-28 18:24:18)
Primitive chess rules

it is not allowed anything goes behaviour as man do. Accept it that Chess played at common has so primitive rules to reflect human mind.


Gultekin Gumusyazici    (2008-12-28 18:57:50)
Advanced chess game project

A. Primitives about common chess. 1-Although there is at least 50 more variation of chess game. They are not evaluated as common as standard.(Since they have no software with bot players that is strong as human at those variations, And Standart chess players have no tendency for them cause they re not up enough yet with that stupid standart chess game which is most suitable for software. Or might them be less intelligent as expected?) 2-Rules are rules even they are meaningless. 3-It reflects only bi-dimentional thinking. 4-Mostly depend on probability. (Remind you that probabiliy is a tool applied only known data- "not unknown") 5-No one complains much. (That is Conservation, And it is against the realization of Universe and science). 6-.............. To start with responsing against me please fill your facts about chess here. Then we can evaluate fact about chess. To develop advanced chess rules that mostly suits human to enlight his abilities not robots.


Gultekin Gumusyazici    (2008-12-30 17:18:11)
I am full concerned about it that

Chess is an Statistical game not mathematical. . As, However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. (Wind stone at Church hill) say. That is why bot players need statistical image databases.


Bradley Small    (2008-12-30 19:40:05)
How to play correspondence chess

I am brand new to corr chess. I wonder what are the specific practical/ethical considerations? Will people be using databases, computer analysis, other people and the like? Should I be using these resources? What is considered expected and what is considered cheating? -- B


Bradley Small    (2008-12-30 21:20:28)
RTFM I guess

Blaming it on the layout is probably a lame excuse, but it is all I can use. I really must have overlooked that page. As for what is allowed, I will let that be my guide. However, for what is expected, what do most people do as a matter of strategy? For instance, when it is one's time to move... Do you go to the databases and research each move, or simply play from your own head unless you just don't feel like you see a good move? Or somethign else?...


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-12-31 00:37:01)
One player, one strategy...

I suppose everyone has a personal idea on this, it all depends on the time you want to spend on each move. The very best players obviously use Rybka 3, recent databases and may search games played by their opponents (you may use the "Search games" option) to avoid the openings they master.


Andrew Stephenson    (2009-01-01 20:02:58)
Vacation - "Each january 1st, ......

the server sets the number of days to 30 for all players." Not so far! Thibault does it happen at the end of January 1st?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-01 21:52:17)
Rating limit

Salut Don, très bonne année à toi ;)

The POKER HOLDEM rating limit for the championship is 1600 (3 points more:)) because of the rules of the tournament. You shouldn't have many problems to reach it before february 1st (you may play a few rated bullet games also) :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-03 14:36:34)
GUI

Hi Bradley, this is not email chess, you have to login to play your moves. GUI = Graphical User Interface. Did you read the Help section ?

Feel free to tell me if you encounter any problem...


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-03 19:02:44)
A world champion with no privilege ?!

... finally, looks like even the top GM are decided to kill the show in the FIDE WCH cycle :

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5129

>> Address by Mr Henrik Carlsen on behalf of GM Magnus Carlsen

"(...) In a future Magnus would like to see a world championship cycle with a minimum of privileges, or no privileges at all.

(...) What about the privileges of the reigning World Champion? This is a difficult question but we see strong arguments for reducing the privileges drastically or even abolishing them outright. In the past, with the right to a re-match, a reigning world champion had about 75% chance of retaining the title against an evenly strong opponent, leaving only 25% chance for all the remaining chess players in the world. It was ridiculous. Even without rematches, the 50% chance of today strongly favours the reigning champion. This may have made sense in the past when there were few serious contenders for the title, but today, with about 30 top players within 100 rating points of the top, this is no longer fair."


There are many good points but I'm not sure the game will win at the end. Any opinion ?!


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-04 14:14:38)
Rybka 4

Vasik Rajlich wrote a few comments on what can be expected from the Rybka engine/team in 2009 :

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=9199

Three engine releases are planned in 2009:

* Rybka 3+ - Rybka 3 playing strength, with bugfixes and cosmetic improvements, for Rybka 3 customers
* Pocket Rybka 3 - published by Convekta/ChessOK, packaged with their Pocket Champion interface, conforms to S. Tsukrov's Pocket-UCI protocol
* Rybka 4 - better search, better eval, new analysis features

"Our tournament goal for 2009 is to win a top freestyle event in 100% automated mode. (...)"

Very interesting, a new challenge for Eros :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-05 16:34:12)
Rybka 3 alone ?

You mean Rybka 3 playing by itself ? Could be a very interesting test match...


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-01-05 18:06:24)
Rybka 4 Fritz 12, Hiarcs 13 & future

It is my thought that Vas is running close to empty on improvements from Rybka 3 to Rybka 4. Rybka 3 was a huge, huge improvment.Other programmers are getting closer, specifically Naum. I sorta think Vas is looking a ways in the future when cluster comps are taking hold. Before Rybka 3 release there was a lot of excitement about Monte Carlo, but Rybka 3 Monte Carlo is not effective overall, It is just a novelity as far as my evaluation is concerned. Maybe too, like cluster MC will have a place. Correspondence chess players sh ould be delighted with Rybka three. A few minor improvements can be made, but wont improve ELO much, such as deep evaluation pv listing. Right no for CC player the current PV thing is crazy. Well nice topic Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-05 18:34:24)
Depth 23

It would have no sense to propose such a challenge. No, only Rybka moves (played by Ben) will be limited to depth 23.

I think I would accept the challenge (for at least 100 Epoints) if the full analysis by Rybka is posted after the end of the game :)


Marc Lacrosse    (2009-01-05 23:17:16)
First flaw is in the book

There are many published lines crushing perfect15.
I am not sure that sedat already corrected all the known ones for the coming perfect16.
Either you publish your ctg at the beginning of the games or you cannot affirm that you run a "modified" perfect15 without providing proofs that you are not playing yourself during the opening phase
So i fear it's a flawed challenge
Apart from this I suppose that any player among top-50 here is ready to play against a pure R3. If we were not ready to accept this, then this would mean that correspondence chess has come to its end.

Marc

i must admit that in case your opponent plays postman chess with his engines, times have become tougher for those who try to demonstrate something, and much tougher since rybka 3 appeared. But so far there are still players who keep achieving 70% against opponents who probably all use top engines ...


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-01-06 00:56:30)
Norms

I have no norms credidted to me, why ? Tournament M000015 finished with 5.5/6, a Norm, no/yes ?I understand that one must finish all of his/her games to get the credit , or is the tournament needed to be ended by all players, gad I hope not that ? What about the case where a norm is guaranteed, but a players games within a Tournament are not complete. I have always had confusion on this topic. Bah humbug Wayne


Don Groves    (2009-01-06 05:18:20)
I don't understand why a challenge...

Why don't you simply enter the Gold or Silver waiting list and play? The methods you propose are entirely legal here and don't require advance notification.

It would be interesting to see Rybka's analysis published as Thibault suggested but that goes for any worthy game played here.


Ben Milton    (2009-01-06 11:08:51)
Question

Would someone please tell how to be a strong centaur player? I have been playing online computer assisted chess for 2 years now and still have not learned how to be stronger than rybka 3 by itslef. I use Fritz11 GUI. Any reccommendations? would be appreciated


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-06 13:50:23)
Weiqi in a Dominos TV spot

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1543292789?bctid=6068769001

http://www.godiscussions.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7882

As someone said it in the Go Discussions thread, a few years ago the game would have been chess, most probably.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-06 14:14:28)
How to beat Rybka 3 ?

Hi Ben, the main -enormous- advantage you have over Rybka 3 is of course that you know by advance what she may play at least in "some" cases. At correspondence chess, you have to create a trap according to the horizon's effet (don't remember if this is the correct term) or analysis depth. Well, it may represent several weeks of analysis though, to understand such engine's weaknesses, then to incitate her to follow you in a good line, knowing the book she uses.

Playing against Rybka 3 in a freestyle chess tournament will be even harder, only someone who perfectly knows the engine & has a very good understanding of the game may hope to have a good score (over 60%) against the engine IMO.

Finally a good centaur would have quite good chances to win this match in my opinion.


Ben Milton    (2009-01-06 15:24:33)
Thanks

Thank you very much, but the problem is even though i might know what the opponent might play, i still dont know what move to play so it leads to a trap, the best i can do is to go as deep as possible. Also i heard a few things about "IDeA" which is a tool centaurs use to go deeper but unfortunately Fritz 11 does not have that...Any how if youd be willing we can have the games and i am willing to give you all my e-points (12) if you win and if you dont i dont want any e-points in return. I jus want to see the results. How does it sound?


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-01-06 17:52:36)
Norms

Good grief! Thank you, i can just sit back for a couple of years before those 3 norms I expect to materialize. It is ok though, no problem, but i cannot agree with with the reasoning. The Tournament info, for example said norm requirement for, example FEM is a resutt of " ". so if a player has achieved the required points, why should that player wait until some ding dong, uninterested guy finish his games. I don't want to make waves Thibaut. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-06 20:36:36)
FICGS turns into a social network !

An enormous update just occured, FICGS now has a complete social network connected to various forums.

A few links will explain better than words :)


http://www.ficgs.com/whole_display_people.php?id=9

http://www.ficgs.com/network.html
http://www.ficgs.com/discussions.html


Feel free to create your profile to discover the features : A powerful search engine that helps to find people you may know or people around you, a complete blog with 6 levels of privacy, tons of forums, a friends inviter & so on......

Feel free to let me know what you think about it, all suggestions are welcome.

I hope we'll find more and more players with these new tools :)


Marc Lacrosse    (2009-01-06 21:30:45)
Wayne ...

... We all had to wait according to these rules that are present since the very beginning of FICGS
I do not see why your impatience deserves changing what has been running for years.
If I see well you have one FEM norm recorded and wish to see the second one recorded as soon as possible
So far you played against a mean 2000 rated opponents
Most top accounts have mean opponent rating higher than 2200
This is probably the reason why you do not achieve more master norms at a faster pace
Do play in higher rated tournaments and you will soon earn as many norms as you wish if your playing strength is OK against stronger opponents
The best way to enter high-rated tournaments here is to go as often as possible in Ficgs-Wch qualifications tournaments
Marc


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-06 22:18:38)
Social networks & money

Hi Marc, thanks for your comments.

It is true that I'm trying to make money with the site now, also to increase significantly the prizes offered in the future, but I did not sell my soul & the site will remain a chess server before everything else ! Money can do so much too, before it becomes too much ;)

About the other social networks, well... of course a new social network is created every week but most of them are dedicated to a particular function (couchsurfing, viadeo, reunion, facebook, myspace, hi5 & so on...) and are not exactly in concurrence. Let's see how this one will go in this sea, I have many features to add yet :)

About the core of the site, I already thought about removing the ads in the chess server... It may happen very soon if most players agree that it would be a significant improvement. The ads will remain in the general forums... Believe me, I'll do the necessary, that's why your comments & suggestions are always welcome here.


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-01-06 23:20:05)
Norms

Thank you Marc, your input is well received. I was a 2300+ rated player on another CC site. I was unaware that I could apply for an appropriate transfer rating. My entry rating here was 1400 which accounts for a mean opponent rating of 2000. I have not cherry picked tournaments, far from it. I always have entered in the highest rated tournament allowed, always. I do not wish special treatment, wont accept it. I think my suggestion is an improvement in this terrific server. Thiabault has always solicited ideas. That was my sole intent, nothing more. I think it is a darn good one. Wayne


Don Groves    (2009-01-07 08:40:46)
Procedural question

Suppose another player and myself want to play Bullet Bronze Hold'em but a third person's name is already on the waiting list. How do we proceed?


Normajean Yates    (2009-01-08 04:36:46)
I find this update excellent!

I've seen that chess sites with social networking features allow people to interfere with chess players by intrusive comments/messages etc.

OTOH, I like Thibault's model - it:

1. keeps an excellent separation between the social networking part and the chess-play part.

2. provides much more privacy.

And why should Thibault not try to make money??? Do you think this is a charity or soup-kitchen or what? How many of you do your jobs [salaried/self-employment/business] for free???


Ben Milton    (2009-01-08 05:08:32)
.

The reason to my rating is that my opponents were mostly human at this level and could not compare with me a centaur player and therefore i lost interest and let my games be lost with time forfeit. If you are not interested in the conditions i mentioned before, then no one forced you to play me, and there is nothing trollish about my challenge.


Don Groves    (2009-01-08 09:17:12)
I agree...

... with Normajean. The separation is adequate protection for those who prefer only to play the games and never to socialize.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-08 12:23:20)
No ratings...

Just an idea, this challenge could be played here in this forum, move after move, with the conditions mentioned above (& Rybka 3 analysis in real time, no need to hide it after all). 2 unrated games, 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves. What do you think ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-08 19:17:53)
Chess improvements

Hi Hannes,

What do you mean better tables ? About the other improvements, this may be a choice in some cases. As you may have seen, there are forums with more options (ie. bbcode) inside FICGS, but I'm not sure this forum should follow the same way. The FICGS chess server is somewhere between IECG & the numerous over-featured servers, maybe it should keep its 'sober/serious' side, what do you think ?

I'm still not a fan of conditional moves, but I'm open to other improvements.

Finally, about the "dark side of FICGS", any improvement may bring new players :)


Hannes Rada    (2009-01-08 19:55:05)
Tables

Hi Thibault, Just a few ideas. I mean 'spreadsheet-like' tables with cells where you can not only see the points, but also the results (1,0, 1/2) between all players. Furthermore on the tournament page I would prefer to see the notation first and then diagram of the actual position. I think this is more logical to see first who is playing and what has been played (the moves) and then the actual position. I think it is also an idea to show only the running games on the (main) tournament pages and to show the finished games for a specific tournament on a second page per tournament. Chess fonts (?) on the ICCF Server looks a little bit nicer then those here. I have been playing now my first tournament on the ICCF server where (secret) conditionals are allowed (chessfriend had this feature already many years ago). And I am a big fan of it. Conditionals can help to speed up to game significantly. Some openings like the Grunfeld, the French, and The Sveshnikov really cry for conditionals :-) I don't see any disadvantes regarding the introductions of conditionals (maybe except for the programmer :-). Why are you against them ? But finally I have to say that I really appreciate playing here. I can imagine how tough and how much work it is to maintain such a server as a 'One man show'. I really appreciate your efforts.


Hannes Rada    (2009-01-08 20:06:47)
New strong player !

Banikas, Hristos GM 2582 Bravo. That's what FICGS needs. More Players, More strong players. Is he an OTB GM, or Corr GM ?


Don Groves    (2009-01-09 04:06:59)
Images in messages

Salut, Thibault! What about embedding images in a private message to another player, or in a forum post. Is this doable without too extra work for you?


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2009-01-09 08:31:05)
Why?

What is the purpose of this challenge? Do you accept Thibault conditions in the post above this one? and who you will proof the engine is playing alone with book and you are not leading it as Marc Lacrosse pointed?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-09 08:44:35)
Why ?

The purpose is only to show if Rybka 3 can be or not a strong correspondence chess player already, nothing more. Ben has no interest to try to cheat and it would be a big work to change the full Rybka analysis (ie. 5 first lines for each move) that would be copy-pasted here.


Don Groves    (2009-01-10 01:02:36)
Time span of ratings

Someone else brought up this subject recently and I feel it deserves discussion:

Suppose one player starts at FICGS at ELO 1200 and gradually improves. Another player starts at 1800 and also gradually improves. Even if they are equally good players, the first player will always be at a ratings disadvantage to the second because the first player's opponents' average ELO will always contain those lower rated games.

Would it make sense to compute ratings based on, for example, only the previous one or two years of play at FICGS, or possibly the previous 100 or 200 games, rather than a player's entire history at FICGS?

I'm wondering if this may yield a truer current rating for everyone.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-10 18:06:40)
Time span of ratings

Actually ratings (correspondence chess ones) are calculated based upon the previous ratings and games played the last 2 months only. In your example it may take 8 or 16 months "only" for the lowest rated to catch the other player in a tournament. Moreover, ratings at FICGS move faster than in other organizations in order to find the good category quickly. So I think that's not a real problem here.

As an example, it took not so long (one year) for Wayne to reach 2113 from 1400 ! That's quite short in correspondence chess.

More details about rating calculation :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_chess


Tom Smith    (2009-01-11 11:54:02)
Newbie time question

Hi, new player here. I am slightly confused by the time controls, in the rules it states minimum of one move every 60 days (which to me is a little over the top) but the tournaments state 40 days then 40 days /ten moves but it doesnt state if the first 40 days is for each single move or for a set amount of moves, say for example 40 moves in the first 40 days. Could some one please clear this up for me? Thank you. Tom


Tom Smith    (2009-01-11 12:16:27)
Engines allowed?!

Hi I have another issue with the rules and conditions here, I came across the following: Computer assistance is authorized, as any other kind of help but in the "no-engines" tournaments. This in itself is confusing, am I to believe that players are allowed to use engines to play for them in the "no engines" tournament?? Unless it is a mistake and means engines are allowed but NOT in the no engines section. If this is true then do most people use enignes here? I really do not want to play on a site where engines use is considered ok!I am far too weak to play engines :) Would somebody please clarify this section of the rules for me please. Thank you Tom


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-11 14:27:55)
Engines allowed

Hello Tom, actually there is a "NO ENGINES" tournament category. Well, I'll try to make it clearer. It is not possible to verify if engines are used or not in any correspondence chess place, so chess engines are allowed in all tournaments but this specified category where games are not rated.

If you really want to play "chess" without engines, you may try BIG CHESS here :)


Normajean Yates    (2009-01-12 12:19:04)
i havent played the albin for ages

I'll take up the albin again - and if i lose i'll blame llmars ;)


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2009-01-12 14:02:15)
Gambits ...

Gambits are a form of gambling. A few religions forbid gambling, so playing this thematic tournament would be a sin.


Tom Smith    (2009-01-12 18:55:18)
Re:

Thank you both for your replies.I understand "but" was meant to mean except. This brings me back to my original concern, that being engines are actually allowed, IE cheating is allowed, this has made me very reluctant to begin playing on this site, knowing that anyone is allowed to openly cheat! That seems quite crazy to me, and is the reason that I probably wont start any games, I hope that the site admins or owners see this thread as I am sure that a lot of people will be put off by this bizarre rule. Thank you again for your replies


Marc Lacrosse    (2009-01-12 21:12:03)
to Tom Smith

"...back to my original concern, that being engines are actually allowed, IE cheating is allowed".
I cannot understand your point.
Cheating is when one infringes the rules in a disguised manner.
Where is there cheating here as computer (and books, and databases, and anything...) help is explicitly allowed and encouraged in the site rules?
OK I do understand that you do not _like_ this kind of play.
But then the answer is simple : go away, go on these many sites where computer use is actually forbidden and where there are a lot of cheaters!
Here is a place without cheaters.

Marc


Tom Smith    (2009-01-12 21:40:28)
Re: Marc

By allowing engine use, the site is allowing players to have the computer engine make certain moves for them or indeed play an entire game for them, I can play fritz or any engine for the same effect, I wish to play against humans who play moves themselves rather than get an engine to make moves for them, how is that not cheating? If you dont see that as cheating then I dont know what to say, I think this is a fair complaint and does not quite deserve being told "go away if you dont like it", I am simply suprised a site allows it thats all.


Don Groves    (2009-01-12 22:50:39)
Cheating?

Hello, Tom -- It seems to me that "cheating" is defined as doing something that is against the rules of the game. Here, the rules specify that engines may be used, so using them is not cheating.

I understand your concern about players letting an engine play their games for them, but I don't think many here do that. I think the players here generally use engines to do deep analysis of moves they themselves have selected, not to select all the moves via the engine. Otherwise, there is no learning and the player is only harming him- or herself. This is only my opinion, of course.

Another point to consider: all top players in tournaments have advisers that help them prepare lines and analyze games during adjournments. And they all use engines as part of this process. Do you consider this practice to be cheating?


Scott Nichols    (2009-01-13 03:58:19)
Different sites:

Dear Tom, There is a site called Playchess.com that only allows engine play in the engine room. All other areas are closly monitored and players who try to use engine assistance are seriously repremanded, (loss of ratings and on up). It is an excellent site. This site allows engine use in correspondence chess. Alot of players love the system. And it seems also, that even when players have basically the same equipment, the better player usually wins anyway. As Thibault so eloquently put it, they look beyond the "horizon" of computers to make their decisions. I play on both sites and follow both sites rules. Playchess=serious chess. FICGS=fun and theoretical chess and more.


Normajean Yates    (2009-01-13 19:28:13)
ficgs is serious chess!

Sctott Nichols ends his post with "Playchess=serious chess. FICGS=fun and theoretical chess and more."

1. false
2.Doesn't follow from the rest of his post.
3. putting 'theoretical chess' in opposition' to 'serious chess' is so unorthodox a use of the word 'serious' that it borders on the incorrect.


Normajean Yates    (2009-01-14 02:14:59)
Engines alllowed !!

'!!' being annotation for 'brilliant', as every chess player - human, engine or jellyfish - knows. ;);)


Normajean Yates    (2009-01-14 02:23:09)
Tom smith, what is your *real* agenda?

Answer my question. Do you realise you have libelled us by calling all of us proper (ie engines-allowed) correspondence chess players cheats? Of couse you do.

Care to confess to the libel under oath in the U.K. and get a taste of the receiving end of libel law?


Scott Nichols    (2009-01-14 03:43:43)
Not selling anything

It is obvious to any average chessplayer when playing fast time control if an engine is being used against you. And Norma, what I meant by theoretical is the quality of games here could definetly re-write some books. It is the highest quality. The "serious" part is where a player wants to play other players serious games without engines allowed. I was trying to give "Tom" a place to go besides here or hell. :)


Philip Roe    (2009-01-14 05:00:51)
Tom, if you are still with us..

Not everyone here uses engines, even in events where it would be allowed. As proof, some of us occasionally play moves that would disgrace a cell phone (and have long ago learned not to aspire to high honours).

However, the site has many nice features, and the absence of rules, "bizarre" as it may seem at first, does mean that whatever is going on is not actually cheating.


Tom Smith    (2009-01-14 18:49:58)
Reply

Thank you all for your comments. I will reiterate again that I am not pointing the finger at anyone, I just asked about this as I do not wish to play against people who just let a computer play their moves, that is all. I do not think that all people who use engines are cheaters, and I apologize to all those who do not blindly let a computer play their games for them. I am astonished now at normajeans hostility, I dont believe I have been offensive to anyone, if I have then it is unintentional. To Normajean, I can only assume that your hostility is due to someone mentioning about selling some software, I can only say, not only have I not heard of any software of this type, but I am in no way involved at any such goings on. I came on the site to join up for some chess and had one issue I wanted to ask about before I started playing, I am beginning to regret this as I did not expect quite such a response! I can maybe understand some suspicion at a new person asking a question of this nature, and understand that some may not like me asking, so again I am sorry for the offense I have caused those players who play a fair game. "Care to confess to the libel under oath in the U.K. and get a taste of the receiving end of libel law?" This comment is ridiculously over the top and again that particular post was unecessarily hostile imo, if you read my posts to this point normajean and still dont see what I am trying to find out about then I shant try any further to answer you as you and some others have obviously found me guilty of a plot of some form against you. I thank the people who answered me honestly and calmly for their comments and I shall try the site out as I said to give it a fair shot.


Tom Smith    (2009-01-14 19:13:17)
Reply again

i also forgot to respond to a couple of points. No I dont consider any engine use cheating, or using opening books etc.I am a average player I think, I dont have a rating or anything and I get whipped by computers, that is why I wondered if it was common practise here to use a computer to play for people as I would just constantly lose in 10 moves if that was the case, this was why I made this thread to see if I can expect to lose every game or whether some people would be like me and just play. In hindsight I couldve made my point a little clearer to have avoided any bad feelings which is why I am now trying to explain more clearly.


Normajean Yates    (2009-01-15 07:11:28)
how to get < br > in?

When discussing changes, sometimes one wants '< br >' [without the spaces] - without it being converted to linebreak.

Thibault did that in one post - but how ?

Webmaster hacking it through? :)

Or is there a way for ordinary members also to display '< br >' ?
[without the spaces and the quotation marks :)] ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-15 13:40:41)
Poker question : All in at the river

Hi all,

I'm just not sure about this : When a player calls by all-in at the river, is he supposed to show his cards (just like in a pre-flop all-in) even if -in that case- he pays to see or is it a particular case ?!

In example :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26199&move=232
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26199&move=233

In other words, is there a bug in the example above ?

Thanks in advance.


Normajean Yates    (2009-01-16 05:49:31)
thanks thib & wayne - I thought so 2...

..except at standard time controls. At standard I thought top GMs would be better even now :(

IMO, two of the reasons why correspondence is still an exception:

1. engines still understand positional aspects in a clumsy way (mainly through eval function even now I think..)[a]

2. top engines are commercial - so they have to 'show off' to compete in the market - 'showing off time' at corrspondence is too long for the software market.. so top engines are tuned towards faster play...


[a] I wish that after copyright etc. expires, commercial chess engine vendors must be legally forced to make public their algorithms.

(Ideally, I wish - no copyright, only moral right of actual authors! - but that needs a diiferent economic system than capitalism)


Glenn Giffen    (2009-01-17 13:05:37)
This is not a valid tournament.

I looked up the tournie I was playing in: FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_B__000113 It says "This is not a valid tournament." What is going on?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-17 14:25:37)
Problem fixed

Hello all... Sorry about this 12 hours problem :/

There was a minor problem with MySql during the night, when I rebooted the server, it seems that the games table crashed and I just did not notice it .. my entire fault.

The table has been repaired and 12 hours have been added to players expected to move.

Sorry again.


Garvin Gray    (2009-01-18 17:26:53)
rules question


Ok, what I was suspecting was the situation is in fact the case.

To clarify in different speak and to guarantee we are talking about the same situation.

Game 232- The river is Ad and Player 1 has gone all in for 55 chips.

You are now asking if player 2 calls, will player 2 have to show cards, is that correct?

Do I have all this correct?

Went for an internet search to see if there were any sites at least claiming official poker rules status and there were none from my searching.

In my opinion, Player 2 has called Player 1, so both players must show their cards.



Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-18 18:08:59)
Correction

"Game 232- The river is Ad and Player 1 has gone all in for 55 chips."

True, actually I was confusing myself, my original post was not correct : Player 1 (Volker) raised (he was all in) and player 2 (myself) called. I'm not even sure in this case : should player 2 show his cards if player 1 wins ?

Now there is the case #2, let's imagine player 1 raises after the river, then player 2 calls (and he's all in), should player 2 show his cards even if player 1 wins ?


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!


Normajean Yates    (2009-01-20 07:22:04)
oops forgot quotation marks !

To make my prev post absolutely clear:

I did NOT say 'I am a chess amateur, playing only for fun! I do not have any chess engine. Good game to everyone!'

Nicola said it.


Htay Kyaw    (2009-01-20 19:44:38)
Myanmar

Hi, I'm new player from Myanmar. Nice to Meet You all.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-20 19:59:32)
Myanmar

Hi Htay, nice to meet you...

Well we now have 4 players from Myanmar :)

http://www.ficgs.com/countries_myanmar.html


Sebastian Boehme    (2009-01-24 00:34:23)
It is not everything like it seems

Eros plays way more games, than he plays on this site... Anyway nice rating that is for sure Congrats il grande Eros Riccio! ;-)


Normajean Yates    (2009-01-24 16:53:42)
I would be most intesrested in reading..

.. posts in this thread.

though I am afraid i have nothing to contribute - didn't keep statistical track: until 2006, I used engines for analysis of critical positions of my favourite historical games only.. at up to 5 days / move! [but I didnt keep hardware/NPS records - all I can say is I mostly used whatever was the latest version of rebel - that was until 2006. Until 2002 I ran long analyses with crafty also...]

Also, in my experience the hash size does change the PV, not only the time taken to reach a certain ply [ because if a line/subtree is in hash it gets appended - with eval - so that say at 18-ply you are seeing *some* lines which are actually 28-ply or more - so it affects what gets pruned by alphabeta ... and if the engine has forward pruning it affects that much more..]

But this being a centeaur chess site (as far as chess is concerned) I suppose every chess player here knows this... :-/


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-27 16:40:31)
We need more Big Chess players !

Come on, let Rybka & other chess engines work in your 8x8 games & play Big Chess with us, that's the real life, amazing chess & the only way to see such incredible moves :)

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=24656&move=85

Waiting lists > Big Chess standard tournaments !

Waiting for strong players in Big Chess standard M tourney.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-28 10:42:57)
Poker vs. Chess

I don't feel that poker playing time interfers so much with correspondence chess.

This (the time for chess waiting lists to fill) is quite usual before the start of a new championship... So, to be continued. I'll keep an eye on this.


Francisco Gramajo    (2009-01-29 03:42:30)
Poker insults Chess...

My friends: Years ago I was addicted to poker, losing a lot of money on line, also in real casinos. I was a chess player since 13, but dont like the openings, I was tired to play same thing... e1-aggg! same faces... and a lot of fake players on line. I discover this place by mistake, I was so happy because keep my fix with chess in peace. Playing with decent players. Not only doing regular openings... Then you install poker... how come poker? again... I am playing in my local casinos again, and afraid to tell about his site, because I don't want a lot of people playing here making this place full of poker players. The finest, the few, the chess... te best. I suggest you Thib, separate ficgs from poker, and create a really server to play poker in a table with many players a time. Play poker heads-up one to one, is bored, the winner is not always the best. The future of ficgs is compromised with poker, but not for bad... go ahead and crate... fipgs... Best Regards!!!!


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-29 12:33:51)
FICGS

Hi Francisco, these important points need to be discussed for sure.

1) As it has been said here on another point, I shouldn't try to protect players from themselves, but I've to protect players from other players (speaking of the quality of the games, general forfeits & so on - or the posts of Garvin & Josef in this thread). You can play poker all over the internet, it's up to you only. I'm not sure I should feel responsible of players addictions, the whole world (commercial issues) is about addictions that exist anyway. In my experience, I was not really addicted to poker as a gambling game, I never played it in casinos but I like competition and that's the way I introduced poker here, quite different from the casino games (by the way a few "pro" poker players here do not even understand it).

2) "Play poker heads-up one to one, is bored, the winner is not always the best", so chess, so Go... of course. I may be wrong on the poker games format (3 winning rounds / 100 chips), we'll see it in a few months as the rating list will evolve.

3) "Poker insults chess", I don't agree with this but I understand & respect this opinion (that could probably be "Poker insults" in some cases). Only 1 player cancelled his membership because of this at the moment. I'm sorry about this, I can't satisfy everyone when making updates but be sure I'm working for FICGS firstly as a chess place and thanks to poker (even with no money), we welcome more players & the prizes (for chess tournaments) will increase a lot in the next months. That's quite good for the site in my opinion. Anyway if I realize I'm wrong, no doubt I'll change it.

Anyway, that's an interesting & important discussion and I'll listen to all your points.


Normajean Yates    (2009-01-29 14:59:36)
re: rybka era v open-source

I've not been keeping in touch with post-2002 developments in chess programming [that is, the literature - I have no energy to try to reverse-engineer closed code, and my skills in that are 15-years out-of-date and out of touch :(]

- Also, I think there are fewer and fewer of comparatively strong enough open-source engines now :(

Which is the strongest *open-souce* engine now, and how does it compare to even rybkas of the 3.1.x generation? I do not know [frankly, since 2002 I am too busy with literature and political activity; even though it looks like I am playing chess all the time ;)]

But I'd be interested in knowing and grateful to everyone who posts info this and related questions...

The questions are of the form of comparative strengths of stongest post-2005 open-source engines versus rybka; and *published* new ideas in chess programming which have been implemented and have been shown to improve engine strength.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-31 02:00:27)
"No winner"

The program indicates "no winner" when more than 2 players end the tournament with the same number of points.

However, in the WCH cycle, the winner of the tournament is (in this case) the player with the highest number of points and, in case of equality, who entered the tournament with the highest TER.

I'll add this in the Help section.


Normajean Yates    (2009-02-01 09:55:59)
poker is NOT interfering with chess..

Players that are *choosing* poker over chess (as posted by some as reason for delay on moving, delay in tournaments starting...) are either not *that* interested in chess anyway, OR it is a transient phenomenon - they are trying out poker as a novelty.

We are humans, not dedicated chess-playing machines.

If someone takes longer to move because of poker or anything else (whether the 'anything else' is related to this site or not, whether it is related to the internet or not); it gives me either more time to analyse, or effectively more vacation time, so I see no reason to complain.

If poker generates revenue for ficgs, it will help ficgs survive and so it will help ficgs chess (and go) survive.

The point is, whatever choices we make have to be made taking into account that we are embedded in a capitalist economy. We are not living in some anarchist utopia.




Normajean Yates    (2009-02-01 10:15:31)
thanks Mr R.-Román, and I am *Ms* Yates.

Mr Russi-Román, I am Ms Yates, not Mr Yates.

I thank Mr Russi-Román for the valuable info and link: (and others too) : I'll update myself whenever I have free time [not only from chess play, but from higher-priority things...]

So, what is the state of the art in noticing drawish nodes (blockade, repitition etc) during search? [remember: 'false positives' are as bad as 'false negatives'] Offhand here is one area where significantly good new heuristics would be much more important than hardware..

Another example: at present, has any program - however highly parallel - delivered mate from a suite of mate-in-60+ troitski positions (NN v P) *without* using tablebases? (ignore the 50-move rule for this question. Anyway this site doesnt have the 50-move rule...) I dont know the answer...


Don Groves    (2009-02-01 10:44:54)
3/5 or ?

Thibault: Its true that longer games are better for ratings but the question is how much better? If a game lasts 100 hands, there is about a 10% chance that the game was decided by luck rather than skill (one player getting significantly better hole cards than the other). If a game lasts 300 hands, that chance drops to about 3%. If a game lasts 500 hands, it drops to about 1.8% So you can see there is a diminishing return in having long games to make the ratings better. It would take 10,000 hands before the chance of luck winning instead of skill dropped to 1%.

I have some games now that are over 300 hands and nowhere near finished. Also some of my games ended after only 100 or fewer moves so those games could easily have been decided by luck. It just isn't realistic to think that games lasting several hundred moves are the answer to good ratings. You can never account for a run of good luck winning a game in only a few hands.

It would be interesting to know the average length of the games completed so far using best 3/5. It could very well be that best 2/3 would give very reasonable ratings and more games will be played in the same length of time.


Garvin Gray    (2009-02-01 14:19:04)
2/3 or 3/5??

2/3 also does allow for playing of more opponents, which will help in sorting out ratings by meeting more opponents quicker.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-02-01 15:14:58)
The fact is...

... ratings should be in accordance (as much as possible) with ELO rating system : if player A is rated 1800 and player B is rated 2000, player B should win about 3 games out of 4. So the question isn't first to make ratings "accurate" (by the number of games), but to be "significant" .. eg. in a 1 round games system (30 hands max.), all players would be rated from 1600 to 1700, this has absolutely no interest.

Don's statistics are interesting and actually (imo) justify 3/5, it is probably possible to estimate the best average number of hands [btw the no-limit is not the best way, but more fun] but in my experience 2/3 is not enough. The longest game reached 1000 moves already (maybe about 400 hands), some games lasted about 35 moves only (of course the chancy factor is bigger there), it is hard to "calculate" anything one thing is sure, the longer the games, the more significant are ratings... then of course, the more games, the more accurate are ratings.


Don Groves    (2009-02-02 00:11:53)
Hardware vs. software in chess

It seems to me that what hardware advances do is allow software algorithms to run more efficiently, which then allows deeper analysis in the same amount of time compared to older hardware.

If we want to know the best chess software, we must play many engine vs. engine games on identical hardware. Presumably then, the winner will also be better on more advanced hardware.

Another thing to consider is that the hardware need not be a general purpose computer, but may be specifically designed to run a certain algorithm. In this case, the engine using that algorithm would have a large advantage in an engine vs. engine contest on that hardware.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-02-02 21:54:00)
Poker championship : New rules, deadline

Finally, a 2 stages single round-robin tournament (no ratings limit, everyone can play) seems a better choice for the poker holdem championship !

The deadline is now february 8, 2009... Join the fun !

Here are the new rules :

"FICGS world poker holdem championship is a 2 stages single round-robin tournament. All games are played in 30 days + 1 day / move.

Round-robin tournaments are groups of at least 7 players. The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage. If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account. Groups are built grading all players by rating and distributing them to obtain similar elo averages. Players may be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player.

Rules for poker holdem are official rules. You may find more information about the FICGS betting structure here. Both players must play until one resign or game is adjudicated. One game is played in 3 winning rounds of 100 chips by player played in no limit mode. The minimal bet is always 1 chip and does not depend on the blind's value. The small blind's value is doubled after the 50th hand, then after the 70th, 80th, 90th and 100th hand (the big blind then is 64 chips) of each round."


Don Groves    (2009-02-03 01:20:18)
Top nine only?

Is this really fair for the first Hold'em WCH? There are some players who asked and received a higher rating than the rest of us but who have yet to play a game here. How do those of us who have played Hold'em here know if those few really deserve their higher rating? How do you know?


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-02-03 18:59:13)
octal vs single core in CC

I am using a Octal computer now for perhaps 6 months, before that a very old single core slow comp. came across a inheritance so I splurged. Prior to purchasing for this octal I had many talks with the experienced folks on the "Rybka forum". I inquired would an octal computer provide better play in CC. The typical response was the main advantage is the octal is faster, but my older slower comp given little more time would play close to identical, (but not 100 % identical). I have found this to be the case. I have compared single core with octal core using my octal computer and find the single core lagged the octal on average only one ply, but got the same answers on the whole. I like my MacPro (2.8 gihz) very much don't get me wrong but the most important chess playing feature is the program. I thought some of you would be interested in my little tidbit....... Wayne


Normajean Yates    (2009-02-05 04:28:40)
anyone here uses a 4K processor machine?

for playing here I mean - they might well drudge away on a 4K-processor machine in the office [or if I google something, how many processors - not necessarily all cpu - am I accessing?] - but do they pull enough weight to run rybka on it all the time?

Or worse still ( ;), actually *own* one ? No, access is better: 'if it's broke it ain't mine' - no maintenance hassles :)

Power without responsiblity..

from the 1980s BBC-TV 'yes. minister' series:
"Responsiblity without power; historically the prerogative of the eunuch" ;)


Francisco Gramajo    (2009-02-05 05:43:45)
Chess players playing poker...

Is interesting, like Henry Mitchel playing baketball.

See me... playing poker against Pichelin... My dream came true, playing against the champion!!!
Thank you, Mr. Thibault, honestly I am having a really good time here.

God Bless ficgs.com!!!

Only one question?
Is ficgs.com ready to receive a lot of poker players? How many playes is your server capacity?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-02-05 10:26:51)
Server capacity

Hi again Francisco, well if one day the server capacity is not enough anymore, I'll change the server, that's so simple :) At the moment, we can welcome much more players IMO.


Scott Nichols    (2009-02-08 16:58:00)
GM quotes trivia

"I felt that my judgment and skill were being challenged by a player who had every reason to fear both." (Who said this and what was the game?)


Garvin Gray    (2009-02-09 14:07:50)
blind increase.

Do the blinds increase as more hands are played? ie for every 50 hands played, the blinds go from 1 to 3 to 5 etc?


Scott Nichols    (2009-02-11 01:46:31)
Wilhelm is right

Geez, my question and I don't remember where it was played, Thanks Wilhelm


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-02-14 13:29:46)
Topalov vs. Kamsky

The match between Veselin Topalov & Gataulla Kamskiy (Gata Kamsky) is about to start, a former challenger of Vladimir Kramnik and a former challenger of Anatoly Karpov in the FIDE World Championship, quite surprising.

Both usually make amazing performances in top chess tournaments, but not exactly as regularly as Garry Kasparov. Who do you expect to win such a match ?

The prize fund is $250,000, the winner should play current FIDE world champion Viswanathan Anand later this year.

More to read in an interview with Veselin Topalov in Chessbase news, particularly on the Lvov bid, originally of $750,000.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5207


Scott Nichols    (2009-02-14 15:53:16)
Howard Staunton

"It seems utterly impossible for either player to save the game!"


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-02-17 17:23:43)
Poker : suggestions & improvements

A new thread to discuss possible improvements for Poker Holdem 'board', in example I've been asked to add the possibility to know the "rabbits (?!)", in another way the turn & the river even if a player folds after the flop, what do you think ?

Also, for those who prefer to know what is the next card just after having played, the "slow moves" option may be a good choice but it may be really too slow (do we really need to confirm a bet ?), your opinion is needed...

I'll probably add a button to open a new window displaying the previous move very soon.

Feel free if you have any other suggestion.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-02-17 17:31:24)
Coupon Go, computers & future...

Two articles reported by the AGA (American Go Association) on Monte Carlo simulation, Coupon Go, Computer Go in general :

"Based on predictable advances in computing power, he rockons that a program will beat the best professional Go players on even footing within 28 years."

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/02/computers-get-go.html

"(...) To get around this obstacle, Berlekamp created a version of Go called Coupon Go, in which players have the option of either putting a stone on the board or taking a coupon. The coupons, which have different point values, showed Berlekamp what the most valuable moves were."

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/40910/title/Coupons_help_evaluate_game_of_Go


Frightening, what do you think ? :)


Don Groves    (2009-02-18 07:24:24)
Show the cards in place

At showdown, simply expose all the cards in their original positions, just like at a real table. No need to show each player's best hand. We can see that already. Should be easier to program also ;-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-02-18 14:45:13)
23x23

Are you sure ? Looks like it is not only a question of calculation anymore. In my opinion, if new algorithms can significantly improve computer play on 19x19, at the end it may work on any goban size. This will be the real match to follow during the next years or decades :)


Michael Sharland    (2009-02-18 20:44:23)
Show amount won in hand displays

Just a small enhancement, but it would be nice to see the amount of chips won at the conclusion of a hand without having to replay the hand or dig through the PGN.

Also, anthing that would make the PGN trail more readable would be great. Maybe organize it as more of a Hand History and include all shown cards as part of the data so that it can be reviewed independent of a game viewer.


Don Groves    (2009-02-19 05:33:24)
23x23

Even with Monte Carlo simulation, a statistically significant number of games must be played for the result to have high confidence. A 20x20 board size would add 39 points to the board and hence multiply the number of possible games by 2 to the 39th power. So, a simulation would have to run a much longer time to achieve a result with same confidence factor. 23x23 would multiply the possible number of games by an astronomical number. I could be wrong about this, of course, but that's the way the numbers look.


Philip Roe    (2009-02-20 14:36:04)
Complexity of Go

Don, I think the extra complexity may be more than your calculation shows.

On a Go board with 39 extra points, I think you are assuming that each extra point could be occupied by either a white stone or a black stone, giving 2 to the power 39 extra possibilities. Actually, since the extra stones need to be equally of each color, the possibilities are not quite so great. (about 2 to the power 36)

Anyway, what that calculation gives is the number of additional POSITIONS, but in calculating the number of additional GAMES the order of playing the stones must matter. On a board with n points, the number of possible games seems to be just factorial(n). In that case, going from a 19 x 19 board to a 20 x 20 board increases the number of possible games by a factor factorial(400)/factorial(361), which my computer gives as about 2 to the power 334.

I don't know enough about Go to judge how significant these numbers are, and surely various heuristics will cut them down a lot. But I thought that this observation might be worth making.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-02-25 14:52:12)
Risky opening

The games played with Black by Tomas Civin are worth a glance, nice to see this opening at this level (quite hard to play for sure)

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=29043

Maybe a thematic tournament to follow :)


Sebastian Boehme    (2009-02-25 23:06:06)
Very nice alternative

The Modern Defense is a very nice way to avoid playing always e4 c5 as black

One famous person, I forgot his name, once said about life in general: "Variety is the spice of life."

So why not some variety also amongst the chess top levels! ;-)


Don Groves    (2009-02-26 01:47:00)
Modern/Hippo

I've played the Modern, also known as the Hippopotamus because it lies low in the water, waiting for its prey to make a mistake.

I have both won and been smothered with it. Black must strike quickly, at exactly the right time and place, or die a horrible death ;-)


Ulrich Imbeck    (2009-02-27 01:21:58)
Modern isn't the Hippopotamus

Modern isn't the Hippopotamus.

Only Hippopotamus is a system of the Modern.

I'll never play a thematic tournament Hippopotamus


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-02-28 03:35:14)
Svante Carl wins FICGS Go WCH (again)

Congratulations to Svante Carl von Erichsen who keeps the FICGS Go champion title by beating Ke Lu 5d on an impressive 5-0 score, also reaching a rating of 2653 !

A rematch just started between our two top Go players, as Ke Lu convincingly won the 3rd FICGS Go WCH preliminary tournament by 7/7

You can follow the games here :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000003

Svante Carl kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match :


FICGS - Hello Svante Carl, first of all congratulations for your win in the FICGS correspondence Go championship final. Your opponent was Ke Lu 5 dan, you won 4 games out of 5 already (the last game is not finished yet), how do you explain such a result?

Svante Carl - Hello! Thank you very much! It is certainly astonishing for me that I was able to hold my own in these games. I believe that the main factor that helped me in getting on even terms with such a strong player was that I could spend much more time analyzing each move than in a face-to-face or online direct playing situation.

FICGS - Did you have a particular preparation or plan before to start the games?

Svante Carl - The only things I planned beforehand was to really give my best, and to make the games as distinct as possible.

FICGS - The site will now try to attract more correspondence Go players from Asia (with a few chinese, japanese or korean words on the home page already), what do you think about the games format played at FICGS (30 days + 1 day / move, chinese rules komi 7.5 points) and the championship rules?

Svante Carl - I like the format. I am also interested in the rules of Go as well as the rules that surround Go, like tournament rules and time settings. My current conviction is that the "real, pure" Go rules are area rules with superko, and territory rules should be seen as a shortcut which should give the same result. I have come to think that the "Taiwan rule", i.e. White gets a point of compensation if Black got the last play (before the first pass), is a sensible part of the rules. FICGS has taken a very easy route by declaring the rule set and leaving negotiation of the result to the players. While in the end, it is only important who won, I think that showing a result as e.g. "White+3", "Black+Resign" adds a lot of flavour. As a time system, I think that bonus time (a.k.a. Fischer time), like on FICGS, is a very general and sensible approach to timing a game like Go. I think that many "real-world" tournaments and internet servers will switch to that in the future, for all, blitz, speed, normal, slow, and correspondence games. The championship format is quite nice. I like the title holder/challenger way of tournament series. The only thing I would like to see is some sort of nigiri to determine the colours in the odd game. Attracting players from Asia is really a worthwhile goal. I look forward to playing players from all over the world.

FICGS - Does correspondence Go bring you something more than real time Go? What is more addictive according to you?

Svante Carl - Since I think that analyzing is a forte of mine, I might be a bit stronger at correspondence Go than at "real time" Go. I don't think that one is more addictive than the other.

FICGS - Do you often play real time Go online? What servers do you prefer?

Svante Carl - I usually play on KGS, but not too much, perhaps one or two games per week on average, often in "bursts". KGS is quite nice, but not perfect. Sometimes I play at CyberOro, but there is much less communication; I like to watch pro games there.

FICGS - Do you use softwares that assist you in your games (FICGS rules allow this)? What do you think about computer Go in general nowadays?

Svante Carl - I only use a board or a simple SGF file viewer for analyzing. There are no playing programs that could help me. The programs have advanced quite much recently, but I think that it will still be a long time before they can beat me in an even game. Currently, most tests of these programs are against professional players with high handicaps, and I think that this is a good situation for the bots, since they get exponentially weaker the further the game is from the end -- high handicap practically eliminates the opening, their weakest spot. I would like to see more tests against amateur players at the bots' own level.

FICGS - Do you play other games (board games, video games...), what is your favourite one?

Svante Carl - Go is certainly my absolute favourite. I also know chess, although I am really weak at that. I also like "german board games", there are some really nice pearls there. In video games, well, there are also some pearls, but they get drowned by a mass of ... not so good games..., I don't waste time looking at that scene any more. I also played some online poker, but it wasn't able to keep me interested.

FICGS - Will you defend your title again against Ke Lu who also won the 3rd wch tournament?

Svante Carl - Of course, I am looking forward to that!

FICGS - Could you give us your impressions on the games, how it went from the beginning to the end, do you think that time pressure were a non-negligible factor in the result (the clocks of Ke Lu were quickly near 1 or 2 days left)?

Svante Carl - I was a bit surprised that he let his time drop to such a low level right at the beginning, perhaps he was not familiar yet with the vacancy feature at FICGS. I can't see his reasons for this, or how much time he actually could spend on his games. I was ahead in each game when it timed out, though.

I think that game 2 was quite even from the start. The skirmish in the lower left resulted in me capturing a little group, but he got a nice framework on the lower side. My prospects of reducing this were a bit hampered by the fact that my right side group was not completely settled. I found a way to sacrifice some stones to settle my group while fixing the framework's extent and keeping sente to secure my top side, at which time, the game was still almost even, but I think that I was a few points ahead then. Later, I could seal the top side with some extra points through some rather blunt forcing moves.

In game 3, my opponent made an approach with White 24 that is usually regarded as bad in this situation, because the pincer Black 25 works out very well in conjunction with the stone on the left side. He tried to settle with White 26, but I refused to make things so easy, even though the result from the usual joseki would not have been bad. He resisted Black 27, but I think that White 28 is an overplay. The resulting fight left me with nice profit in that corner and sente, while he made some centre thickness. I then tried to carefully neutralize this thickness, but I may have played some slack moves in the course. Later, I was able to keep a little moyo in the lower right centre, and then I poked into his right-side territory where he had left a serious weakness earlier.

Game 1 started out with an interesting fight in the upper right. After White 42, both the three captured black and the two almost captured white stones retain some serious aji, which I came back to fix on my side a few moves later. When I could set up a splitting attack with Black 77, he was able to connect his two weak groups, but in bad shape. I continued to keep this dragon separated from the top, planning to invade the top side afterwards. However, with White 110, instead of connecting by playing B6, he saved some centre stones, and I proceeded to separate and kill the dragon. He may have overlooked that my upper left side group was still able to live after 110 and 111.

In game 4, after White 22, Black's stones on the left side have a strange relation. The three stones in the corner are a bit far from C10, but putting another move here is way too slow. He tried to remedy this situation with the following moves. After Black 27, there are weaknesses left in both sides' shape. When I entered with White 32, I thought that his weakness at F13 would let me settle easily, but he attacked very hard. After White 60, there are some weaknesses in my shape, but he also has a weakish group in the centre. Playing at K10 with White 76 before taking the two stones with H2 felt very important to me. At move 94, I couldn't find a good move to complete my moyo at the top, but I thought that I had found a good point to invade. This was much harder than I thought, since after Black 95, the 3-3 point fails to live. With 96 and 98, I thought that I would get a ko, but he played a line that I had excluded earlier on account of too many cuts in Black's outside shape. However, with Black 107, he made things very difficult for me, since cutting at P16 doesn't work out too well -- my inside group doesn't have enough liberties. I cut at Q14 instead with the hope to at least get some outside forcing opportunities that might have been able to keep me in the game. I think that Black 115 should have been at R12, because after White 116, R12 and N16 have become miai. Black 117 just doesn't work at all. I really got lucky in the end here. These impressions are naturally one-sided, and I would be really interested what stronger players might say about these games.

FICGS - Thank you very much and have good games !

Svante Carl - Thank you!


Garvin Gray    (2009-03-03 00:39:37)
Order of games, chess, poker etc


When displaying games being played, would it be possible to show them by type of game?

As in all the chess games in order, then poker games in order etc. while still maintaining the oldest created game in that game format.

I would prefer the game display this way, rather than having the poker and chess games clumped in together.



Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-03 20:39:59)
Show the cards & history

Hi Don, well I don't know which solution is best, waiting for more opinions on this...

Michael, the PGN does not include the cards, actually displaying the history would take much more processor time that I prefer to save. You may also 'mouse over' the last move just below the board and you'll see the last moves played in title.

Also I just added an option : "V" in the 'move_express' (fast interface - for poker only yet), that opens a new window with an improved viewer to navigate into the game more easily... Feedbacks are welcome ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-03 21:27:46)
15 members

We now have 15 members in the FICGS Facebook group... Join us :)

By the way I also created a "FICGS games server" group at the FICGS social network ;)

http://www.ficgs.com/whole_display_people.php?id=9&group=2

Much work to do yet but much work has been done already ! There will be features that Facebook does not have in a few weeks...


Garvin Gray    (2009-03-03 23:16:45)
sorting by start date


A 'compromise' could be a preference option where players can sort by tournament start date or by game type. Something like that anyways.

The reason I put the compromise in inverted commas is that while it is all very easy for us players to offer suggestions, it is another for programmers to implement them.



Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-05 23:35:04)
Update : Auto-check (!) in "My games"

A small but interesting update (particularly for very fast players & poker players) :

Now the "My games" page will check if it's your turn in a new game ! .. Then you'll see (!) in the "My games" page title, that you can see in the task manager at the bottom or in your navigator even from another page...

Feedback welcome :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-06 00:49:04)
(!)

Hi Don, just load "My games"... let's say you have 12 pending moves.. just wait.. if suddenly you have a new move to play (so 13 pending moves), the page will reload and you'll see (!) in the page title.


Don Groves    (2009-03-06 04:27:02)
Tony G?

I doubt other players at his table think of it as "fun." He will likely be served up a knuckle sandwich if he keeps it up long enough.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-06 12:34:18)
(!) to Don

"I see the page title in my browser tab get refreshed when the timer expires" : Actually the page title gets refreshed only if you have a new move to play AND when the timer expires... and of course the (!) is displayed at the beginning of the title, so that you can see it whatever its length.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-06 12:36:07)
Tony G

Sure, I wouldn't like to play with him, but that's quite funny to watch.. or maybe I'm just kind of pervert :)


Anthony Jones    (2009-03-06 13:06:37)
Perverse poker

Its certainly gripping to watch, but the level of aggression he displays is borderline unethical due to the intimidation of his opponents.
As tournament director i'd offer him a single warning before booting him out.
Imagine the same actions in chess after winning a pawn! Although i do remember Nigel Short saying that in a world Junior champs when he was 15 he played a move and Kasparov laughed in his face before crushing him....


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-06 13:53:51)
Perverse chess & poker

Huh, I didn't hear about that story about Short & Kasparov but surely it reminds me one movie about chess.. maybe the one with Christophe Lambert.

Anyway you're right, such behaviour couldn't be tolerated, I'm quite surprised this guy can play in broadcasted tournaments. Maybe "special rules" for the TV show only, even explaining the behaviour in this case.


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?


Don Groves    (2009-03-07 00:50:45)
Agreed...

... on both counts, Philip.

The Challenges at the top of the page are more annoying than the clock for those of us who are not interested in challenges since they take up space that could be better used by displaying games. Making both of them optional would be a welcome change.

Another solution might be to put the Challenge section also at the bottom of the page.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-07 01:46:52)
(!) if one move more to play

Looks normal, the symbol should appear only when there's (at least) one move more to play (so you may have one pending move when you load "My games", the symbol will appear only when you have 2 pending moves when the timer expires - that was not the case in your example).


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-07 23:56:15)
Unrated games

Hi Michael, that's a very good idea ! (why didn't I think about it before :))

Now thinking about this : If it is unrated, shoult it be a tournament ?! .. or a 2 players 1 or 2 game match ?

Also we may find a funny category name to suggest that this is a place to test new or unusual openings...

Any ideas ? :)


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2009-03-10 15:22:31)
Big Chess World Championship

Hello Big Chess fans!

I have finished about 120 Big Chess games. Only 5 last more than a year (all with Thibault :) ).

I propose that the WCH should be a 2 stage round-robin tournament starting once per year. As usual the groups of the first stage should be filled according the Big Chess ratings.

The winner of each group is qualified for the second stage. If more players are needed to build a final group of 7, 9 or 11 players Thibault can invite the best of the second placed of the first stage groups.

If all players of the final group are known the second stage should be started within a month.

I hope this WCH will be a success :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-10 18:28:08)
Big Chess WCH

Yes, I agree... 2 rounds would be enough. If the current champion plays a final match against a challenger, it would take one more year at least. That's a pity.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-11 11:56:26)
(!)

I don't think it would be a good idea cause the page needs to reload to display the (!) .. Imagine you're typing a looooong post (reminds me 2 years ago :)), you're to send it then the page reload "It's your turn".. ;)

As for me, I have one window with the "My games" page, and another one if neeeded with the forum.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-11 11:58:44)
Unrated class tournaments ?

Now I just wonder if there should be unrated class tournaments, maybe less categories (maybe 2000+ and 2000- would be ok) but it may be more interesting for strong players... I'm not sure, what do you think ?!


Michael Aigner    (2009-03-13 16:58:32)
@ Marc

Hi Marc, in general you are right when you say you can play unserious openings in serious games - of course. The little problem there is, you can´t if you want to win. From time to time I can´t hold back and try it myself. In most of this games I am very happy if I am able to "win" a half point in the end. Have a nice day Michael


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2009-03-13 18:10:06)
Categorys

In my opinion unrated tournaments should not be devided into categories according to the ratings of the players. If we have no categories the tournaments are filled much faster.


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.


Arnab Sengupta    (2009-03-15 14:54:44)
Great player

Hello Guys Do you think that Anand is as great a player like Tal, Fisher, Kasparov...and i would really like to see Anand taking on deep bule or something like that...has he ever player any chess computer?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-15 15:07:07)
Wch 4 round-robin final started !

Finally, the WCH 4 round-robin final tournament started (game 22898 is a win for White). Initially, only 5 players qualified, meaning 2 games with White and 2 games with Black. I was thinking about a future rule to make double round-robin tournaments in this case but I thought it was more interesting to invite 2 players in this particular case due to the results of Alberto and Jason.


Marc Lacrosse    (2009-03-15 15:35:28)
a problem with tournament scheduling.

This is the third time I find myself enrolled in a tournament at a completeley inapproppriated time with regard to my professional duties and leisure time possibilities.

Thibault, you should do something. At least when a tournament start has been delayed for months (or more) like this one please do send a mail or message to all players announcing the date of beginning and asking for confirmation of their participation.

For what regards myself and this wch-4 round-robin final I am in the complete impossibility to free the required amount of time by now : so I regret but I have no other choice than announcing my forfeit for all these games. Please do take my name off.

By the way I won't enroll in any other championship qualifications as long as there are no better rules regarding scheduling and announcements of tournaments start date

It's completely unacceptable to stay without any news for months and then to suddenly discover that you have a new set of games running.

Marc


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-15 17:55:32)
a problem with tournament scheduling

I agree, Marc.

Well, to summary the situation is :

1. It actually happens that tournaments start up to two months late in wch cycles.

2. It would take too much time (compared to the wch tournaments duration) to ask for a confirmation to all qualified players (+ spamfolder & other problems), particularly when a few players may suddenly be invited in a tournament.

3. Players can only withdraw their participation before the wch tournament starts.

IMO, to keep this rapid format, the rules should evolve to : "A player may withdraw from a wch tournament up to 15 days after it started, if he did not play a single move. In this case a player will be immediately invited in replacement. As it is not possible to wait for all confirmations, this player may withdraw from the tournament by following the same rule."

This may at least partly solve the problem. By following this new rule, you may be replaced without any penalty.

What do you think ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-15 18:17:32)
Anand vs. Computer

I don't remember Anand playing a match against a computer like Deep Blue, Deep Fritz, Junior, Rybka & so on... But it is quite possible to find a few games like Anand vs. Fritz 3, 4 or other old programs in chess databases IMO.

Anyway, it is quite hard for me to answer your question as I still think the world is divided into 2 categories, Garry Kasparov and those who dig :) (The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, of course) .. More seriously, Anand is probably one of these 4 or 5 best players of all times, but who may be quite irregular (or just human), unlike Kasparov. Tal was another genius, maybe more a gambler, but none (Topalov, Anand, Kramnik...) ever reached the level of Garry Kasparov in my opinion.

I'm not sure Anand will be interested in losing to a chess computer, particularly as even Fritz is getting stronger & stronger.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-15 18:58:58)
wch cycles & rules

In addition and to make the rules clearer and less hard, we may envisage to launch a wch new cycle every 8 or 9 months - in practice 6 months seems to be really short. There are always a few games that can't be adjudicated before the very end.

About the idea to send an email to qualified players to warn them about the start date of the tournaments, I agree that it would be the best way but it may also delay tournaments (+ spamfolder & so on..). In the news, I wrote that the round-robin final would start as soon as game 22898 finished a while ago, then deleted it, which is not enough also. So if all tournaments surely start when a new cycle starts (clearly announced in the news page), it may solve the problem. What do you think ?


Scott Nichols    (2009-03-15 21:05:35)
Excellent solution.

IMO Thibault has come up with exactly the right solution. Maybe there should be a way for all players to withdraw under the same conditions. Sometimes things come up and people can't follow through with what they planned, if they can withdraw without penalty it might save a lot of under 10 move losses and the remaining players just receive a forfeit win. Just an idea.


Marc Lacrosse    (2009-03-17 13:02:10)
Anand vs computer

Back in 1998 Anand was the first top player to lose a match (5-3) against a PC program (Rebel 10).
Rebel played on a PC equipped with an AMD K6 450 Mhz processor (something similar to present-day smartphones!)
The match consisted of four blitz games, two rapid ones and two slow games. It is noticeable that Anand still managed to win 1.5/2 the slow games part of the match. And if I remember correctly Anand's win in the final game was a brilliant one, one of the last convincing human wins against modern programs.



Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-17 22:53:06)
Rules updated

I just made this change in the general rules & chess wch rules :

"11.6 There is no withdrawal, from any tournament, however in the case of multi-stages e.g. world championship tournaments, the games won't be rated if a player warns the referee before the tournament starts and at most 15 days after a new stage started but the first one, then a replacement will occur if possible. (this special rule is particularly dedicated to players surprisingly invited to an advanced wch stage, as it would take too much time to wait for confirmations from all qualified players)"

Don't hesitate to make suggestions if you think it can be better formulated. Thanks in advance.


Scott Nichols    (2009-03-18 10:28:13)
Ratings floor.

Hi Thibault. One thing I would like to see implemented is a ratings floor here. By this I mean a player can never drop below one class below his/her ratings peak. e.g., a player with a 1951 rating can never drop below 1600, a 2001 player can never drop below 1800. In the U.S. (and maybe worldwide, not sure) we have this system to keep strong players from sandbagging and artificially let their rating drop so they can play in the lower sections of big money tournaments. On FICGS I don't think that is a big problem. The problem here is that Corr. chess takes long term dedication and some players tend to drop out for whatever reason and resign all their games or just quit and let their time run out. This also drops their ratings artificially low levels. Then, as it seems to always happen, Caissa's power sweeps over them and they get back in. Or, they just bought a new super computer and want to show it off. Anyway, when they do get back in....you have an expert player coming in with a very low rating. This to me is unfair to the other players who try very hard on their ratings. e.g., In the current world Ch. cycle I am playing a very strong player who is over 800 points below my rating. I would appreciate any other opinions on this subject. Thank you.


Marc Lacrosse    (2009-03-18 10:48:07)
Yes but ...

Interesting idea but there could be a negative side effect : we could see an increase of the number of players leaving or silently withdrawing which is one of the most annoying aspects of correspondence chess IMHO.

Marc


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-18 11:04:06)
Ratings floor

That's a real problem (any other opinions on this ?) In my opinion, a rating floor may lead to more trouble in higher ratings : A player who starts at 2300 and drops to 1700 has more chances to drop all his games again than to play seriously. Anyway, once more there's no perfect solution IMO.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-18 11:07:10)
Korchnoi

Good point :) By the way, does the old lion Viktor Korchnoi still play ?! .. I didn't hear about him for maybe 2 years...


Nick Burrows    (2009-03-18 17:17:50)
Korchnoi

I believe that he played in the World Blitz championship last year!


Nadia Kaif    (2009-03-20 04:43:41)
Anand is a great player

Hi I think Anand is a great player


Garvin Gray    (2009-03-20 18:14:00)
enter more

I think we need more players entering the few categories we have already before we go and increase the categories. Otherwise this would just seem to spread a very thin base even thinner.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-21 19:26:53)
Slower time controls

Hello Robert,

Well, in a perfect world I would like to create another multi-stages tournament ("Cup" or something) with 40+40 days/10 moves time control. Maybe we can start it already but I'm not sure we have enough players... The same about the format. Any opinions ?

I think we should keep a fast multi-stages tournament anyway.


Denis Ivanchenkov    (2009-03-22 11:27:20)
one more improvement

Hi, Thibault!
Is it possible to show captured pieces beside the board - this would help greatly to those players who set up the board to think over the next move?


Denis Ivanchenkov    (2009-03-22 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


Francisco Gramajo    (2009-03-23 07:36:43)
Free $5 to play poker..

I give you $5 or more, just to sign in with this link... http://Pokarito.friends.pdcpoker.com


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-23 15:44:12)
Best poker sites

Well this thread may be a good place to discuss the best poker places... Do you know other sites where to play Poker Texas Hold'em ?

I have no time to try it anyway but it's always good to know.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-23 15:55:15)
Checkmate detection (finally)

A few improvements to come today !

Checkmate detection : Finally I implemented it even if I like the idea that a player should resign by himself (just like for Go). It will be in test for a few days/weeks so it may not work for everyone during this time.

A few informations more in players statistics (number of advanced chess, Go & poker games won, lost, running...)

In Go games, a reminder will appear when a player "pass" (one player has to resign or call referee to end the game, with a link to the Go scorer)

Thank you all for making suggestions that help to improve the site, I know there are many others to implement (e.g. challenges option & so on...), be patient :)


Benjamin Block    (2009-03-28 09:04:48)
Other sites

There are some site that have free tournamnets. You can win in them and then play bigger and bigger some have earned over $10 000 starting with no money. But the most sites you need to be 18. I don´t really understand why. If it is free tournament why do you need to be 18? You can´t lose any money. Maybe they only want players that they can take money from. At the moment i play on pogo.com it is free and you win tickets that you can win money but the chans is very smal.


Denis Ivanchenkov    (2009-03-29 14:14:21)
Wayne Lowrance

>By the way, Thibault if you want to increase participation, open up some faster tournament bases.
imho 1 day/move, 2 day/move or 3 day/move - these time conntrols more demanding for players.

and I'd like to suggest one more idea - so call ladder tournaments (well, this may be too complicated to develop corresponding soft - but this is just a suggestion). so the essence of such tournament is that we have "ladder" classes H (lowest), G, F, ... and A - the highest one. In the beginning all players belong to H class. And there are open 5/7/9-player tournaments starting in each class - they are just waiting until filled and then open again. each tournament is all-play-all 1 game with fast (1 d/m 2d/m 3d/m) control. When tournament is finnished the winner (or several winners in case of a tier) is promoted one class up. Similarly, the player (players) occupying the last position is demoted one class down (except for H classers). So winning the tournaments is actually a "climbing" the ladder.

this scheme was used in igame.ru and was pretty popular among players. i suggested this scheme to chess-online.ru - unfortunately they were pretty hesitant as to realization (maybe due to soft development complexity?)


Francisco Gramajo    (2009-03-30 02:40:35)
I played in a lot of places...

fulltiltpoker, pokerstars are just fine, but long way from pdcpoker. Remember: I will pay you $5 just for download the software, create your account and start playing real money (tables starting from $0.01/.02 blinds). If you make your first deposit you going to receive full refund up to $600. With more than 20 years of playing video poker and now like 8 years playing thru the internet, gives me the authority to tell you. http://Pokarito.friends.pdcpoker.com Is the best!


Garvin Gray    (2009-03-31 10:45:47)
200 point rating bands


Apologies for repeating myself but it has been a while for this topic. I argued previously that the rating groups for the tournaments are too wide ie in the standard divisions there is a four hundred point group.

I think this needs to change to a 200 point rating gap in the standard group and have more groups offered.

I know this has been done to a minor extent in the rapid section, so for the standard section, the rating bands would need to be on the opposing one hundred point scale.

The main point I am trying to make is that rarely are the groups comprised of players from all over the 400 points bands, but instead come from players just over the rating limit ie if the lower rating limit is 2000, then most of the players are just over 2000 as they have the most to gain.

So I think there would be more players entering if more groups were offered with 200 point rating bands, instead of the current 400 point rating bands.



Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-31 19:41:45)
200 point rating bands

I'm not sure, 100 point rating bands are theorically better of course but it will take much more time to fill the waiting lists. The rapid section (with different bands) partly solves the problem in my opinion - particularly for players who may play rapid tournaments also.

Anyway, waiting for more opinions on this.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-31 22:22:54)
Poker ratings

I've just changed the rating rules for Poker. I noticed that poker ratings moved really fast, most probably too fast. Also I think it is better to favour experience to new ratings, at least under a certain rating limit (just like Go rating rules). I'll keep an eye on ratings during a few months. Consequently now the poker rating rules are :

"The poker holdem rating list takes account of rated poker holdem games played at any time control.

If you have no poker rating, you have to play at least one rated poker holdem game to appear in the rating list. Poker holdem ratings are adjusted in real time after each result :

Performance = Opponent Current Rating + 350 if the game is won, -350 if the game is lost.

Case of a win (rating > 1999) : New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20
Case of a win (rating < 2000) : New Rating = ((18 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 20

Case of a loss : New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20

The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is superior to 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player.

In case of a loss against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Current Rating - 200."


Don Groves    (2009-03-31 22:39:35)
Poker ratings

The last time I checked the poker ratings list, I noticed a large number of players rated at 1800.

I thought the starting rating was 1600 except for players with a lot of previous experience. Have all these new players at 1800 asked for this higher rating?

This practice throws off the ratings for all of us who began at 1600 and have moved up by actually winning games on FICGS.


Don Groves    (2009-03-31 22:48:41)
Ratings lists

It would also make the ratings lists more meaningful to only list players who have actually entered tournaments. There are many in the rating lists who have not logged on since their first time here and who may never participate in an FICGS event. Why should they be shown in the ratings lists?


Nick Burrows    (2009-03-31 23:46:20)
general improvements

I agree that seeing 'rabbit' cards is a waste of space & distracting.
I also would prefer to just see the cards as they are, rather than the winning hand. It's very simple to see who has the best hand.
Scrolling back through a game is way too time consuming, i would play back thru games if there there was a 'viewer' similair to the chess analysis board, but as it is now is just like a hard record of the game.
Otherwise, i am greatly enjoying my poker games and has improved my enjoyment of the site immensely :-)
Many thanks, Nick.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-31 23:52:44)
Rating lists

Hi Don, I agree.. rating lists also show players who entered a provisional rating, actually I didn't think so many players would estimate themselves as advanced players when filling the registration form. Anyway this update should slowly solve the problem, question of weeks/months, 1800 is the same provisional rating as in chess, strong players should be able to reach 2000-2100 in a while.


Nick Burrows    (2009-04-01 20:01:57)
ratings

It's good that Anand & Topalov will play a match - they have both been in the top 3 or 4 for many year, and right now are the best 2 players in the world

Surely within 2 years Magnus will be unstopable!?

I very much like the play of Aronian, plays with great creativity...


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-04-02 06:39:58)
my poor ole parrot

Is not in the circulation of displays ....poo hoo hoo :) Wayne


Philip Roe    (2009-04-05 08:21:08)
Will the games be viewable?

I see that the first unrated tournament has begun, but it doesnt seem to possible to view the games (There is no entry under "Tournaments"). Since the players have expressed an interest in trying opening experiments, it might be interesting to watch their adventures.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-05 21:23:03)
Rating calculation : real time or not

Hi Scott, it would be not a nightmare for sure. But the way correspondence chess ratings are calculated is more a question of history IMO, just like FIDE WCH. Many players would probably think this is just a nonsense, while the others may find good reasons for this change. It seems to me that correspondence chess ratings have always been calculated every 2 or 6 months according to the organization. I thought about this question already, there are advantages in both solutions, so I'm not against the idea to open this (big) debate.


Scott Nichols    (2009-04-06 02:40:34)
A couple more thoughts

Maybe the history of updating ratings every 2-6 months was necessary with slow mail by letter or postcard games. I've played in the Golden Knights back in the 80's where games easily take over a year. But now with the instant moves, there might be cause for change. Also, (#1)towards the end of a rating cycle, the games noticably slow down because players do not want to resign and lose their chance to enter a particular tournament. #2. A player may achieve a rating milestone and want to enter a tourn. right away, but can't because his/her rating doesn't change for another few weeks. So he/her may delay resigning lost games and prolong others waiting for the change. If it had changed right away, he/her would enter the tournament and proceed with his/her other games at a normal pace. Just a couple of thought...would love to hear more opinions on this, :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-06 21:31:27)
Rating peaks

Among possible problems : It is likely that players could reach higher artificial ratings (peaks) this way, even if we change the complete system & the way tournaments are built. IMO instant ratings mean that games should start as soon as a player enter a tournament waiting list - gradually, like at IECG server - otherwise it would be even harder to predict your opponents tournament entry rating, by the way there is no more TER taken in account in Go rating calculation, that is an advantage in some ways but one of the main problems also]

As for me, the deep reason why I may prefer the 2 months system is this very special "moment" that FIDE players know when waiting for their next rating. The other system makes everything faster & faster, just like the world wide web but finally maybe the passion flies away faster also. My 2 cents :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-07 13:37:25)
Number of games limit

Hello Ranganathan, indeed there may have a small bug for a few days that displays the number of running poker games only, but you actually have more than 50 chess & Go running games now. I'll correct it soon, thanks !


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-07 13:45:37)
Rating calculation

Thanks for encouragements, Scott :)

The question could be now : Why not to install the same system for Go, but it seems to me that instant ratings are justified in this case by the duration of the games : 1. There's no real difference of level in blitz & correspondence games, so only one rating list is best. 2. Due to the difference of ratings between strong & weak players, new players can find their right place quickly this way.

Now about Poker I'm not sure yet, maybe the 2 months system would be better. To be discussed in a few months.


Don Groves    (2009-04-08 06:58:42)
Time control

My suggestion is still the same -- have an intermediate time control for some minimum number of moves in a given period. For example, at least one move per week when not on vacation. I feel that if a player cannot make one move per week, they must have too many games for their available time.

For Poker, it should be even more moves per week since there isn't nearly as much to analyze at each move.


Xavier Pichelin    (2009-04-11 18:04:03)
Congratulations !!! Edward

Very best Performance!! Edward, Peter is a very good player! Good Lucck for the 2nd Final FICGS!!


Edward Kotlyanskiy    (2009-04-12 01:23:53)
3rd FICGS chess wch candidates final

Thanks Thibault and Xavier. I really appreciate it. I will try my best to continue playing well ;)


William Taylor    (2009-04-12 14:41:59)
FICGS Oympiad

Not sure if this has been suggested before, but how about a big tournament on FICGS with teams from different countries, like the Olympiad? The number of boards per team would have to be thought about carefully to get the right balance between number of teams able to participate and number of players from each country able to participate. The Austrian team would probably be favourites (headed by Aigner, Rada, Kund), but there are other potentially strong teams too.


Vadim Khachaturov    (2009-04-12 18:31:48)
FICGS Olympiad

Nice idea! I hope, there will be not only pure national teams, otherwise some players will be unable to participate.


William Taylor    (2009-04-12 20:04:06)
I still like the idea

I still like the idea of country teams and an Olympiad-like format. I've read Marc's post and can't imagine nationalism would be a problem on a friendly site like FICGS. However, it would be a shame for countries which only have one or two players at FICGS not to be able to play. How about a team championship along the lines of other chess team championships such as the Russian one which has just finished? i.e. teams are made up of invited players from all over the world. Anyone could be a team captain and enter a team if they could get one together. There could be an entry fee and captains might even then pay a fee to top FICGS players to be on their team in an effort to win the FICGS team trophy and prize money. ;) I'm not saying an entry fee would be a good idea - just mentioning it as a possibility. Anyway, I think a team championship of some kind, Olympiad-format or not, or both, would be interesting, exciting, and good for building the sense of community on FICGS.


Nick Burrows    (2009-04-12 21:16:56)
Olympiad

I think it's a good idea also

I am alligned with Marc's anti-nationalistic thinking in a political sense, but here it is simply a 'construct' to initiate some camaraderie and interest.
after all we still all enjoy the olympiad, and playing for club teams can be fun, because chess is such an individualistic pursuit that any opportunity to play in a team, is really just an opportunity to socialise with people that you have a shared interest with.

Pitting players from different countries against each other, has no ultimate meaning - but at least it's an idea that will initiate interest and is therefore positive.
For the people without enough countrymen for a team, why not a UnitedNations team? so all can be included.


Nick Burrows    (2009-04-12 22:30:28)
Teams

The team tournaments on Playchess don't work well at all. It all feels much more random to me playing for Star Trek United etc.
I personally prefer a Ficgs Olympiad as William called it..


William Taylor    (2009-04-12 23:33:05)
Teams vs Olympiad

Nick: I haven't played teams tournaments on Playchess but I'd guess they're similar to those on ICC. I agree that they feel rather pointless, but I think that's just because they're over quickly and you won't play in the same team with the same people again. Getting a (perhaps starting annualy) team tournament or league going on FICGS would be quite different I think, with longer time controls, hopefully well-established teams and perhaps prize money. Maybe there's room for a team tournament and an Olympiad - if not either would be nice.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-14 01:14:32)
Draw offer and rules

Hello all, I'd like your opinion on this case :

A player sent a message with his move in a chess game saying "I offer draw", but he forgot to check the draw box.

His opponent replies with his next move saying his opponent most probably forgot to check the box, but finally the first player plays a new move saying he is sorry but now prefers to continue the game.

What's your opinion on this ? Should the rules be changed to adjudicate the game as a draw (if the draw offer was clear enough) or should the draw checkbox preval in all cases and in this case should it be added in the rules also ?

Thanks for your comments on this.


Nick Burrows    (2009-04-14 04:31:04)
Draw offer

I think that the message i offer a draw is clearly stated and binding and should be in the rules.

However, the second player should send a message back saying 'i accept your draw, you didnt tick the box.'
Now the game is drawn.

The act of making a move in o.t.b chess signifies the refusal of a draw offer, so now the position the players have reached is not the position a draw was offered for.

Therefore i don't think a draw should be adjudicated, although perhaps the player who offered then refused, doesn't play 'in the spirit of the game'.


Don Groves    (2009-04-14 05:54:35)
draw offer

I agree with Nick. The second player sent a move which he should not do if he wants to accept the draw.

I also agree that the draw offer that was made should be binding just as if the box had been checked. If the second player accepts the draw he can check the box. If the first player then wants to continue, the referee should be called to adjudicate the draw.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-14 15:37:00)
Draw offer and rules

Very good point. I quite agree with this but it is now a bit complicated for players (more or less beginners) to know what to do in such a case. We can also imagine the case of a player saying "I resign" without checking the resign box.

FICGS rules are official (FIDE) chess rules when proper FICGS rules don't exist. It may apply there, but I feel we should clarify and why not change the rules to make it clearer & simpler.

Let's see what is your favourite proposal :

1) A draw offer sent in the message (draw box unchecked) should be considered as a real draw offer if the opponent called the referee to accept it and did not reply to the move.

2) A draw offer sent in the message (draw box unchecked) should be considered as a real draw offer if the opponent called the referee to accept it, even if he replied to the move.

3) A draw offer sent in the message (draw box unchecked) shouldn't be considered as a real draw offer because there shouldn't be such human decision in server chess and it could be ambiguous.


The proposition 2) may bring problems IMO, I think 3) is generally better in server chess (maybe even in OTB chess when the sheet in not signed, I suppose the case happened already) as there should be as few human decision as possible, 1) is more fair in a certain way though.


Nick Burrows    (2009-04-14 17:12:27)
draw?

If the player recieving the written draw offer replies with 'i accept the draw - please tick the box', does the software allow for the first player to offer the draw out of turn?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-14 17:19:23)
Shogi & Xiangqi

Hi Samy, I'm not so opposed to introduce these interesting games here but there are no players enough yet to envisage it, that's the main point IMO (then if I remember well computers are stronger than the best players already). We'll probably discuss it again in a while.


Nick Burrows    (2009-04-14 17:45:59)
draw

The reason i ask is that this would give the players to capability to fix matters themselves without referee intervention, though i can see that it may cause more problems than it solves.

I think no.1 is the better ruling. On the rare occasion that this occurs, the player truly did offer a draw but simply didnt know the correct way to offer it. If his opponent consults the rules and calls the referee, the draw is binding, if he plays a move then the game continues...


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-14 20:23:03)
Time control in Poker games, new rule ?

Hi all,

The first poker holdem games started a few months ago, it may be time to discuss new improvements around time controls in "correspondence" (> 1 day) poker games.

The problem is obviously that the dead man defence [to last the game until death when losing] could apply, at least theorically. In my opinion, we should try to find an idea to reduce the thinking time for the players who are in an inferior "position", or for both players, or maybe the maximum total time accumulated (now 100 days) and/or the time to play a single move (now 60 days)... well, actually there are many possibilities but I can't find one simple, clear & fair enough. To change the basic time control 30 days + 1 day/move would not be a good idea IMO, an inferior increment would bring problems also.

Ideas are welcome !


Normajean Yates    (2009-04-15 00:11:37)
I vote for #3.

Rules should be to resolve things if a players is violating the spirit of the game severely. If opponents change their mind; IMO this does not fall in that category; it shows carelessness of draw-offering player.

Players who make draw offers should read the rules once more and make the offer clearly; then there is no problem.

Otherwise an opponent can actually change their mind... this is: more important than the fact of not-OTB: looong-time-controls. [One can imagine these time controls OTB also, 40 days/10 moves - in theory! ;)]

So, #3.


Michel van der Kemp    (2009-04-15 00:38:58)
Ticking box should be only valid way

I also think that checking the box is the only valid way to make a draw offer, written statement should not be accepted. At best it could be a possibility that if someone receives a written request for a draw offer, he could goto the referee (in this case Thibault), and ask how to do with an (invalid) draw offer.

I don't think Thibault should go through logs of games everytime (even if that can be automated), to see if a players have offered a draw.


Don Groves    (2009-04-15 01:54:27)
My choice is...

... option number 1.

If the player did not intend to make a draw offer, why did s/he say so in the message? To allow that player to change his mind after seeing the next move is a violation of chess ethics.


Don Groves    (2009-04-15 02:01:35)
Time controls

In all FICGS games, I think there should be an intermediate time control to prevent silent withdrawal, or what you call the "dead man defense."

If a player cannot make at least one move per week when not on vacation, the game should end.

If fewer than ten moves have been played, the game would not count in the ratings.


Normajean Yates    (2009-04-15 13:34:38)
shortest possible bigchess checkmates?

Experienced bigchess players please respond!

What are the shortest checkmates in bigchess, for white and for black (e.g. in 'normal' 8x8 chess they are the "fool's mates" - 3 moves = 5 half-moves for white; 2 moves = 4-half-moves for black..)

So which are the bigchess "fool's mates" (shortest mates)?


William Taylor    (2009-04-15 23:15:21)
Intermediate time control

Yes, perhaps the time limit for 1 move could be shortened. A week would be fine for poker games, I think, but (although I would almost always play a move in less than a week) I wouldn't favour the introduction of such a short time control in chess games. Regarding Don's proposal that the game would not be rated if fewer than ten moves had been played, it is of course theoretically possible to have a large or winning advantage after ten moves, and in such a situation it would seem unfair not to rate the game. (That's assuming that the player who won on time was also the one winning on the board).


Nick Burrows    (2009-04-15 23:32:05)
lines

It won't let me type the command without following it!

The instruction is at the top of this page to the right of 'Welcome to the forum & players blog.'


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-17 00:55:56)
Intermediate time control

I'm not favourable to change the time per move limit or to change anything for chess & Go. In my opinion, we should add a tricky rule for poker games only to reduce their duration.

This rule may apply only in certain cases, what do you think ? In example, the player who has less chips and/or won rounds may have a reduced increment or a time penalty, something like that, but it must be fair enough... Thinking about it.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-17 01:19:40)
Draw offer and rules

"To allow that player to change his mind after seeing the next move is a violation of chess ethics" .. every violation of chess ethics do not end the game, actually this is an even more complex problem that we could discuss also.

In my opinion the case should be clearly explained in the rules & help section. Well you probably understood that I'm quite favourable to #3 but let's try to convince each other.


Don Groves    (2009-04-17 09:37:49)
Draw offers

I don't see anything ambiguous about sending "Draw offered" or equivalent words to the opponent. It's the same thing as saying those words over the board. The intent is clear and unambiguous.

What is ambiguous to me is allowing a player to send those words to an opponent and then claim later that they were not intended to offer a draw.


Don Groves    (2009-04-17 09:44:17)
Tricky rule?

I would rather speed up poker games by reducing them to best 2 of 3 than have such a rule. It is much easier to make up a deficit in poker than it is in either chess or go. If it is right for poker, why not then have such a rule for the player who is behind in chess or go? Make them either move faster or resign.


Scott Nichols    (2009-04-17 12:47:18)
Team chess league?

What about instead of teams from a certain country, we could form teams from the many friends we have found here. It could be in the form of a league. An open section, a section where the "average" of the 4 players is under 2200, 1800 etc. We could form the teams on our own and enter the waiting list as a team with some fun names. What do you think?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-17 19:28:33)
Poker vs. Chess

I agree with Nick on this. 3 rounds & 100 chips by round is the only way to play "deep poker" IMHO (also to try to have significant ratings). In some cases, such a rule may work also for chess & Go, but it should probably be different as the number of moves is really different in each game, that's a problem. Let's try anyway.

Maybe the increment could not be added if the move has been played in more than a week (7 days), what do you think ? Not too hard and it may incitate to continue to play !?


Nick Burrows    (2009-04-17 19:46:43)
increment

That is certainly an improvement, whether it is enough to solve people 'dying' is unclear.
Perhaps, change to this and see how it plays out.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-17 20:16:45)
Draw offers

I'm not sure the site "allows" such a thing, rules allow or don't allow and ambiguous (obviously) rules should be changed. As it's been said, we might consider that the message field is independant from the draw and resign box. Any player may send a message offering a draw through other ways.

Does anyone know how this issue is ruled at ICCF & IECG ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-19 03:46:53)
Rules

Thanks Nick ! Normajean has a point on the verbal moves. About rule 11.2 and this issue, the aim is not for me to force a decision, not even to take the good decision as I'm not sure in this case, it is only to build accurate & understandable rules so that every player know what to do without having to ask.


Michael Sharland    (2009-04-19 04:31:12)
Reduce the time bank maximum

If the goal is not to shorten games but to allow lost or abandoned games to conclude in a timely manner than the solution is simple. Just reduce the maximum time bank from 100 days to something much lower such as 20 days. This will force some level of steady play without changing the speed at which almost all games are played. A maximum of this level can be built to quickly but still allows for a temporary suspension of a game if life intrudes. I think this is a fair compromise.


Don Groves    (2009-04-19 08:21:09)
Ending abandoned games

This requires more programming for our already overworked director, but how about having the system send an email to anyone who has not played a move in a certain (to be determined) time period asking if that player intends to continue the game and requesting that s/he resign if the answer is no?

The message could also request an RSVP and, if no response is forthcoming, the game is ended. This handles a common situation in Internet games where a player enters some games, then after a short time never returns to the site.

This seems like a reasonable thing to do and it doesn't change any existing rules or time controls.


William Taylor    (2009-04-20 13:53:38)
Great!

How many players per team then?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-21 10:07:07)
Players per team

(fixed size) because one player per table may be the best choice (at lest the simplest).


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2009-04-21 14:24:51)
Fixed size ...

Maybe there is some confusion, we are talking of the size of the teams, not the size of the players.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2009-04-21 17:54:24)
Team chess league

I propose to start with 4 players per team.


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-04-21 18:47:25)
FICGS Olympiad

Number of players decided upon needs careful consideration. 4 players per team would mean many countries would be left off because not four players signing up/available. I like the idea of as many countries as possible with teams. Of course on the other side of the coin only two players per country would mean many players not getting a chance to play and represent their country. Delicate balance in my view. Having said this, I prefer in favor of many countries therefore 2 players per country. What ya think ? Wayne


Daniel Parmet    (2009-04-21 19:26:04)
team league 1st then olympiad later

the olympiad sounds like a great idea except I think Thibault is right there still needs to be more players sign up for countries and teams of 4. Maybe just a team league for now for u2200 and u1800 would be coool.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2009-04-21 20:25:51)
Team chess league

I don't like the idea of national teams even if "my" team exists only of players of one single country. If four players decide to play in a team, then this team should also be able to take part in this team competition.


William Taylor    (2009-04-21 20:54:07)
Teams

Let's get a team league going and then an olympiad can come later if people want it. I don't like the idea of 2-player teams at all, so perhaps an olympiad should wait until we've got more players. 4 players sounds fine for the team league (5 or 6 would be fine too - I wouldn't go lower than 4).


Scott Nichols    (2009-04-21 22:51:04)
4-person teams

It should be 4 players to a team. The under 2200 section the ratings should AVERAGE under 2200, e.g. a 2511, 2278, 1804, 2205=AVG. 2199.50. Same for other sections. Teams should form on their own and enter a waiting list. A league would be the best if we can get that much organized.


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-04-22 00:41:19)
FICGS Olympiad

I do not care for the idea of forming teams regardless of rating nationality . We already have this in a sense, It is called "the rating lists". The original proposal was a unique novelty idea, that I liked. I seem to be in minority on 2 person nationalistic teams. So How about a compromise of 4 person nationalistic teams. I Would my self like to play in it representing USA. How many players per teams is part "B" of the idea. Part "A" is making the Olympiad nationalistic. Speaking for my self if we drop this attribute to the idea then I lose interest. My ideas on it Wayne


Nick Burrows    (2009-04-22 02:24:11)
Olympiad

I am with Wayne in that an 'Olympiad' holds much more interest for me than randomly formed teams.

Most countries will be able to collect 4 players, and it's just the same if a country has 1 player 5 players or 9 players in that 1 is left out

There can also be a UN team for the 'stragglers'.
Each country can have A,B,C,D teams as in the real olympiad.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2009-04-22 22:01:52)
Team chess league

Maybe I'm the only one, but if the same nationality is compelling for all players of a team, I am not further interested in this competition.


Ranganathan Raman    (2009-04-23 00:03:06)
how to play Go and Poker Holdem?

any one teach here step by step
this is more use ful too new users


William Taylor    (2009-04-23 00:30:52)
Go

Regarding go, have you seen 'The Interactive Way To Go' (http://playgo.to/interactive/)? That's an excellent free online guide for beginners. I'd also be happy to give you a teaching game if Thibault could set one up, though I'm not strong myself (about 6 kyu KGS).


Nick Burrows    (2009-04-23 01:03:09)
The Lennon Olympiad

Well i don't believe that a competitive game that symbolically warfare is very much in the spirit of John Lennon in the first place.

I feel for a team competition to work there needs to be a strong theme, playing with a random collection of players to me feels like a 'meaningless' competition.
Playing by nationality is a well established theme that is used in every single competitive sport, because it creates interest - that is all. The team members immediately have something in common, and can play as if mimmicking the real thing. Just as kids playing soccer pretend to be in the world cup...

@William - To begin with there will only be enough interest for one competition, hence the extreme views. It's just a healthy dialectic weighing up the various merits. I always seem to be in the minority ;-(


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-23 19:54:11)
Move with a draw offer

Such a draw offer should never be considered. Casual online players may not know correspondence chess or FIDE rules very well, I don't think there should be a penalty in this case (but harrassment cases), but I'll include it in the rules.


Scott Nichols    (2009-04-23 22:26:53)
If everyone played...

As far as I can tell if everyone played in a FICGS olympiad, AUT (is this Australia, Austria??) would by far be the strongest team with four! players in the top 20 active players.


Normajean Yates    (2009-04-24 00:33:24)
me too: I just ignore the draw offer..

It has happened three times here in *one* game: an ongoing chess game of mine here on ficgs. :)

[The first time *I* offered the draw. Opponent moved, thereby automatically declining and cancelling the draw offer. The other two times *opponent* offered the draw and I moved.]

(btw I declined the offers not out of spite but because I have a win: all lines I tried give me a win. It is a most interesting game: since the annotations will not appear on the record; I'll just say that opponent returned my early exchange-sacrifice setting a trap: I could have reached Q and 3 pawns v Q, but opponent would then draw by perpetual! The [probable] winning line has Q and 2 pawns v Q and P, but my centralised Q and promotion threats win!)

It does look to me like a mountain is being made out of less than a molehill.. (not by me - I didn't start this.)

This post was to illustrate how there is *no* problem at all[1]; and neither me nor my opponent (both were playing their first games when the game began) saw any problem at all.

this is my last post on this topic.

[1] If there is at all a problem here, it is of the same level as the 'problem' that the following rule is not mentioned in ficgs-rules:

. 'gn is not allowed in chess unless n is an integer between 1 and 8 inclusive, where 1 and 8 are to interpreted as the standard numerals standing for integers in the ordered real-closed field R, with the *canonical* ordering. (As opposed to, say, an integer in the domain Z[2+i*sqrt(5)] or an integer in some exotic Grothendieck topos).
;)


Normajean Yates    (2009-04-24 00:56:04)
re William Taylor's question..

William Taylor asked (whether the question was rhetorical or literal is not germane to this post of mine): 'Would you refuse to take part in the real chess olympiad if you were asked?'

Speaking for myself: Yes, I would refuse. (But I would not hold it against people who didn't, of couse.)

Nationality based competition tends to *divide*. Witness the hatred triggered by England-Argentina football games. Club-based competion is less divisive because players switch clubs much more often than they switch nationality.

The problem is that it 'constructs' 'The Other'. Then one *defines* oneself in opposition to The Other. (Analogous to how the Occident defined itself by constructing 'The Orient': as described in detail for the Levantine ('near'- near what?) East' by late Edward Said in his famous book 'Orientalism' - a theme followed up in his almost equally famous book 'Culture and Imperialism'.)

Thank you for reading this.


Nick Burrows    (2009-04-24 01:49:31)
International Competition

I disagree that international competition divides. Within the countries it unites.
The example of England v Argentina is different because of their recent political history, and because football in particular has a culture of 'yob' support. In England it was created from club football rivalry

Does the olympics divide? Or the Davis cup? Olympiad?

I believe they create something where otherwise there is nothing.
Every action is a positive action, even if it has a negative result. By definition, playing for a team implies playing against. Your win is their loss, but you shake hands and say well done - remembering that it's 'just a game'! In the process, everyones level is raised, and something worthwhile is created. Just don't take it too seriously or symbolically!


Normajean Yates    (2009-04-24 05:24:14)
re lennon/yko ono and chess...

Oh dear, quoting lennon's 'imagine' made me some sort a sitting duck but nobody's noticed it yet so I'll preempt that line of attack by pointing it out myself :)

I had forgotten, in the 'no more war' (that was the Vietnam war) sit-ins /bed-ins /exhibitions/ 'happenings' by Ono and Lennon, Yoko Ono had exhibited this sequence of chess sets where the two sides were indistinguishable --- or, more clearly, there was only one side - there was no 'Other'. [and only Yoko Ono 'playing']..

So, if I were to be consistent, I shouldn't be playing chess or any competitive game - against living beings at any rate - here or anywhere -:(

But, saved by something Thibault used to have on this site [I suppose it is still one of those quotes whose turn to be the 'featured quote' comes] - essentially, one is competing against oneself...

but woe! :(
If so, then once I have won a game [ie see the win clearly] why do I insist on actually completing the game, if I am 'only' competing against oneself?

I think I managed to score something which has the feel of an own goal ^^:-|


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-25 21:32:16)
Teams, not olympiads this time

In my opinion, thinking about kind of olympiads is too early yet. We may try to build some friendly teams (4 players per team) with funny names - could be a contest also :) -, then we can start a tournament. But no doubt that we'll discuss olympiads again... just later.


Normajean Yates    (2009-04-26 17:51:27)
to Don: re courtesy(contd.)

This is a continuation - to be precise, completion - of the post of mine earlier in this thread; the post titled 'Don, why is the tick box there, then?'.

I said in that post 'Some people are *not* courteous': and something stirred in my memory and I remember it now so It has to be said.

In the international chat box some months ago, I posted something about Goerge Orwell fighting in the Spanish civil-war - the anti-fascist-Iberian-uprising part of it, to wit - as part of P.O.U.M. - a marxist but independent-of-moscow (and soon crushed by Moscow) party which co-operated closely with the anarchists (CNT-FAI)(Confederación Nacional del Trabajo - Federación Anarquista Ibérica).

Well I only reached as far as the P.O.U.M. when *you* (Don Groves) interrupted by posting (in the international chat box) "what are you smoking, Normajean?"

Now, Mr Groves, I leave it to you to decide whether it is not *extremely* discourteous, not to say downright bloody rude, to innuendo that someone who [in fact] posted something above your intellectual level is therefore not making sense and is in fact on street drugs.

What I smoke or not smoke is my bloody business; the point here is that you are free to take the view find that all string-theory papers (just visit http://arxiv.org/) and so on are nonsense and therfore the authors and the referees are all on street drugs; and Hawkins and Penrose are, and Einstein was, on street drugs likewise (for it is commonly cranky *engineers* who tend to equate general relativity with its weak-field-limit/approximation);

But;

Since I haven't yet heard anything from you that has a hint of a modicum of apology for that *insulting* (or, on the least worst construction, extremely *partonising*) remark of yours; so:

People playing chess against you would be well advised to have clear rather than informal rules, because the evidence suggests that you are part of the 'be-gratuitously-rude' club.

In my opinion.

Thank you for reading this.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-28 09:55:31)
Actually, Don did *not* say it...

From the chat archives :

devassal thibault : :o) .... Hi Francisco & all ! (2008-12-05 00:05:41)

gramajo francisco : hey Yates... are you smoking something? (2008-12-04 23:45:49)

yates normajean : may be call it the P.O.U.M opening? (2008-12-04 23:17:54)

http://www.ficgs.com/display_chat_country.php

Now the topic can be closed, I think :)


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-04-28 18:19:44)
K factor

In the long run I think it will average out. Ratings will be very dynamic in short periods. Being a EE engineer I sort of like the smoother curve integrated concept, so I think I would opt for no change. This means I believe that in any cycle period a more accurate rating of the player can be viewed with the curve smoothing integration concept. For example a very common use of this is in the stock market where, daily, weekly changes can be very dynamic. A often used example use of this method is "30 day running moment of integration" to clarify the picture. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-29 11:31:46)
K factor

Thanks for sharing your opinion Wayne, in comparison, the "K factor"-like here at FICGS is really high, I still wonder sometimes if it should be changed or not even if it allow players to find their place in the rating list quite quickly...


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-29 14:17:53)
1st team tournament !

Hello all,

As you may have read in the forum previously, the idea of a team chess tournament came up (originally Olympiad, maybe later).

The 1st FICGS CHESS TEAM TOURNAMENT will start on May 15th, 2009. Each team must be made of 4 players, whatever their ratings.

The tournament will be a single round-robin tournament, games will be unrated (just for fun !), time control : 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves.

You may contact other players through the form in My Messages (bottom) or just make a call here in this thread or in the chat bar to find partners, the definitive teams should be announced with their name in this thread to be in !

We might also vote for the funniest team name after the tournament started, be aware ;)

Have fun :-)


Benjamin Block    (2009-04-29 16:24:46)
Filter in My tournaments?

I have a lot´s of tournaments played and it would be very funny if we can filter them. Like "Ended Tournamnets", "Tournaments with my games", "Runing Tournaments".


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-29 21:12:36)
Player games search

You may use the right-click "open in a new window" for each game... or download the FICGS database (in Search games - by the way you may use Search games by specifying the name of your opponent) then view the games in Chessbase or.. or.. :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-29 21:59:19)
Player games search

Right.. not a mockery, I know that the site is not clear enough on such things, sometimes there are so many ways, but none is really obvious :)


Daniel Parmet    (2009-04-30 00:33:32)
How to enter?

Is there an Intereted Player List that we can enter on for people to pick for their team?


Don Groves    (2009-04-30 08:10:35)
Game search

One feature I would like to see is to simply type a game number into the search box as an option to typing a player name.


Scott Nichols    (2009-04-30 10:00:53)
Great improvement

I've been hoping for just such a button. When you've played many tournaments, the running tourney button is very nice, thanks Thibault.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-30 12:19:22)
How to enter...

There's no simple way to build teams (particularly friendly teams), players may directly contact friends or announce here that they want to build a team and wait for other players to contact him...


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-30 12:47:48)
Rated or unrated ?

Should this team tournament be rated or not in your opinion ? At a first sight it seems to me that high-rated players would think about playing twice as they can meet players with low ratings, but according to at least one of them I may be wrong on this...


Hannes Rada    (2009-04-30 19:16:18)
Wolfgang's retirement

Wolfgang, I am really shocked about your decision.
However I can understand, that from time to time someone needs a break from the daily chess analysis routine.
Although some of the positions look favourable for Xavier, I think that most of them could be defended.
I thought that according the rules games will not be rated if less then 10 moves are played.
So imho this match should be rated and we should not have any problem with Xavier's 2682 rating.

And we know also now the next WC:

Xavier Pichelin - Edward Kotlyanskiy !


Scott Nichols    (2009-04-30 23:58:53)
Rated or unrated?

I would play either way. Usually, I only will play rated, but I would think this format would work just as well unrated.

The theme I think is fun here, with fun names. I was thinking of all kinds of bizarre openings to try, but would need to think twice about opening choice if it was rated. It sorta goes back to Michael Aigner's point on unrated tournaments IMHO. Thank you for having this new style.

The incentive in rated games is simply not to lose points if you lose, or to gain points if you win. In team chess, this incentive is not needed. The incentive is that you do not want your teammates to beat you up if you lose. ;-)


Don Groves    (2009-05-03 00:21:39)
Team tournament ethics

Should each player on a team play his/her game in isolation, or is asking one's teammates for advice permitted?


William Taylor    (2009-05-03 01:36:13)
Team tournament ethics

Good question Don. In OTB team tournaments team members might help each other to prepare for an opponent before the game, but of course couldn't help during the game. I'm not sure if we'll know who our opponents are before the games have started here, so that approach may not be possible. It would be nice to have some sort of cooperation, but one thing that should be avoided IMO is a strong player getting 3 weaker team members and essentially playing their games for them.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-03 14:09:17)
First team : "The Dark Knights" :)

Name : The Dark Knights

#1 William Taylor-2140
#2 Scott Nichols-2089
#3 Don Groves-1991
#4 Josef Riha-1989

.. brr, frightening :) kind of Monthy Python tribute ?


About team tournament ethics, I don't think that the best player would play all moves for his team in any case, FICGS rules should still apply, I don't think it will be a problem, particularly in an unrated "for fun" tournament :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-03 14:14:06)
CC & OTB chess

Hello Ranganathan, you mean that you lost FIDE points since you started to play correspondence chess ?


Garvin Gray    (2009-05-06 01:21:48)
I am in.

I want to play.

As for the question of rated v unrated, I think rated is definetely the way to go. By being rated it reduces the potential for players/teams to do any funny business in regards to either team tactics or other undesirable stuff.


Sophie Leclerc    (2009-05-06 04:04:43)
Team

I want to play, Anyone who wants to have me in your team or want to play, contact me please.



I believe each team can get only 1 point per round, a 2-2 would count as a draw and 3-1 would count as one point.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-06 11:57:15)
Scoring

I agree with William on this point, if a team scores 4-0 or 3-1, it is 2 points for the team, 1 point if the score is 2-2, 0 otherwise.

This time the games will be unrated as a test (maybe this will be a rated tournament next time), I think it is a good occasion to play more unusual openings, this is for fun after all :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-06 11:59:44)
New team !

A new team has been built :) We still have no name but working on...

#1 Michael Aigner - 2602
#2 Xavier Pichelin - 2577
#3 Hannes Rada - 2559
#4 Thibault de Vassal - 2473


Come on everyone, funny games to play :)


Benjamin Block    (2009-05-06 15:01:58)
I can play in a team!

To Raman, Ranganathan. I can join that team if it still is open to join.


Don Groves    (2009-05-06 22:35:33)
Scoring

Either way is fine with me but, if we are playing your team, Thibault, the score should always be 1-1 ;-)


Iouri Basiliev    (2009-05-07 11:32:54)
1st team tournament !

If someone from Ukraine want to play in the team - please answer here or write to me. Preliminary team name is "Yellow-Blue Warriors" :)


Jorge Orden    (2009-05-08 18:41:59)
hello all

I wish to play in the team tournament.
I don't have team now


Sophie Leclerc    (2009-05-09 21:49:51)
Sure you accept^

Right.
Then we need to find another player.
We will contact the webmaster once our team is created. We should see who accept, wonder if it could be right for Yugi inving to help us a little with that tournament.

Even if I have to make his move since he don't have a computer. I do not make him win....

The summer breeze is a good name, but I still believe the phantoms suit us more, as no one see us.


Vadim Khachaturov    (2009-05-10 09:11:30)
summer breeze

Ok, Sophie. I accept any name. If Cheshire is not an appropriate name, we can call it summer cats. lol. I hardly imagine, how You can make moves instead of Yugi. If so,and if our opponents have no objections, let it be this way. You just need to know that as soon as possible,cause we still need the fourth player.


Sophie Leclerc    (2009-05-10 22:13:49)
For the move

He send me his move by e-mail, since I am his friend, I promise I would keep his account and play his on this site and inform him of his opponent sometimes I mess up and play badly a couple of his games or resign them, he grew angry at me...


I don't think our opponent will have any objection, they will just ask to not be stupid and to not play for him.

I can reconnize his account now, he set it in french..


Normajean Yates    (2009-05-11 02:07:31)
thoughts on Big Chess... and tips...

I find bigchess more and more fascinating.. I Think it is a wonderful creation of Thibault's (I presume it is Thib. who created it: any way he offers it seriously on this site...) - the starting position is very well-concieved..

I think Bigchess needs more publicity. This is about the only place one can play it - and here there are 2-3 top-class players; less than 20 middle-standard players (including me); others try it once or twice and for some reason get scared or overwhelmed and give up - I see no reason why..

Bigchess gives no advantage on account of huge memorisation of theory, or of better engines: there are *no* theory books; and there are no known engines in existence (probably there isnt one - too little demand, and writing a *good* engine is somewhat laborious, coming up with a *good* static-eval function is tricky, fast board-implementation issues...), so it is all wits...

In fact last week I spend part of two days writing down whatever theory I could discover [with help from top games], it comes to half a page..



Tips for people who want to try bigchess:

1. Bishops are much more powerful than Knights. (because of much longer range compared to 8x8 chess).

The consensus on the values of bigchess pieces is David Grosdemange's valuation:

pawn=1
knight=2.5 (written 2,5 in the continent, of course)
bishop=4
rook=6
queen=11


2. In the opening position, the c,f,L and o-pawns are unprotected.

So, if white's opening move is with the j2-Knight ( freeing the queen), then on move 2 white can move the Queen and threaten to pick up a pawn by forks.. Similarly for black.

*However*, such pawn gambits are quite playable because the Queen can be forced to make many moves to capture a pawn, while the gambitting side develops their pieces.



3. Most Important For Many People: board for offline analysis.

Best of course, is to take time to draw a 16x16 board on paper and stick it on cardboard. And get hold of four sets of chess pieces.

Another way: print a position, and after a move is made - just update the position using correction fluid (typewriter/printer-ink erasing fluid) or something. That way you don't have to keep printng a lot of positions.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-11 21:27:26)
Bigchess pieces values

Actually the value of the knight seems to change a lot during a game, according to the left pawns positions.

200 or 300 moves is not so much compared to a poker game (that can be over 1000), but some games may be really time consuming when the position gets really complex... Well, we play for this kind of fun after all ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-11 23:05:09)
Poker & chance

90% luck ? This is true when you're talking about a certain number of hands, not in all cases of course.. So when you consider several tournaments (norms), so ie. 6 games * 6 tournaments * 600 moves (let's say 300 hands), we're talking about 10,000 hands .. The chancy factor "disappears" when you play 500,000 hands. I do not pretend to explain anything about poker theory, but it is quite clear to me that theorically the possibility of norms is not a totally stupid idea (but it still has to be discussed for sure).


Sophie Leclerc    (2009-05-11 23:36:33)
Names

All goes with the thème.

If we can call ourselves, the dragonriders, Assuming we play the sicilian dragon.
the phantoms, If we defend yugi's new opening, f4 c4 Nc3 Nf3, in any order. This name would give us more then invisbility, it tell our opponent that we will survive (you can't kill a ghost.)

Gambit lover, if we love to play gambit, it would suit us very well.

chess angels, if we are not too guilty, that would suit us, but I am very guilty....

Pterodactyl guild, if we play the system with white and black ( for black, c5, g6, Bg7, Qa5. Black radical way to prevent d4. You can't say they are not original.


Your choice.


Daniel Parmet    (2009-05-11 03:00:59)
values

I only played 6 games of bigchess but I did go 6/6! I will say the values I used without consulting to anyone was
P 1
N 2.5
B 4
R 4.5
Q 10


Daniel Parmet    (2009-05-11 03:02:30)
thoughts

oh also the reason I don't play more big chess is cause the average game goes over 200 moves and that assumes they resign once its clear they are lost... I can see games going to 600 moves if you play to mate.


Normajean Yates    (2009-05-11 03:52:01)
Daniel, I think you underestimate Rs...

you give B=4, R=4.5 but in the endgame specially, the Rooks pull their weight..15th ('7th' file), escorting Ps to promotion, ...

About people playing on to mate after being a Q down or so without counterchances, well a bigger player-pool is needed ... plus I understand some newbie players not being so sure that mate is easy in a given pos (though much lengthier than in chess) - so, we need *more* non-newbie players!

And a non-newbie begins as a newbie: however, I agree that's not the whole story -- some people *will* play on to mate...one sees that in chess (8x8) too -

lets see: my bigchess record: 17/17 - wow! (with 1 pending: it is still in the gambit-opening stage)


Vadim Khachaturov    (2009-05-11 05:39:56)
team tournament

About Yugi or Daniel? We have one place only. Any of them two are ok. But for me, its better, when the player make his moves by himself.


Normajean Yates    (2009-05-12 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 :)


Normajean Yates    (2009-05-12 09:47:07)
or dragon-chasers, if..

if a team plays the dragon on opium. ('Accelerated Dragon chasers' for dragon-players on heroin; when they are turkeying then they are in a Maroczy Bind :/)


Garvin Gray    (2009-05-12 15:45:18)
2100 player here

i am still looking for a team if there are players out there of similar rated players around 2100 or so.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-12 22:34:06)
Team tourney : Players without a team

Players who would like to play in the team tournament but who don't have a team yet may announce themselves in this thread, I'll build the last teams myself if necessary by gathering as much as possible players with the same ratings...

Teams will be announced in this thread :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=7059

Join the fun :)


Garvin Gray    (2009-05-13 08:17:21)
new team

Daniel, I think we have a team now. Stephane Legrand has contacted me wanting to join our team, so that makes four players, if you are ok with that.

Stephane Legrand 2209
Garvin Gray 2125
Daniel Parmet 1961
Ilmar Cirulis 1805


Garvin Gray    (2009-05-13 08:18:15)
new team, correct thread lol

Daniel, I think we have a team now. Stephane Legrand has contacted me wanting to join our team, so that makes four players, if you are ok with that.

Stephane Legrand 2209
Garvin Gray 2125
Daniel Parmet 1961
Ilmar Cirulis 1805


Stanimir Denchev    (2009-05-13 09:20:47)
Anyone need a player ?

I wish to play in the team tournament.
I don't have team now


Dmytro Romaniuk    (2009-05-13 12:00:37)
Iouri Basiliev

I want play for Ukraine.


Ostap Hladky    (2009-05-13 21:29:58)
Iouri Basiliev

I'd like to play for Ukraine too.


Iouri Basiliev    (2009-05-14 00:28:53)
Yellow-Blue Warriors

One more player, please!


Sophie Leclerc    (2009-05-14 03:09:09)
To give it up.

Game 28299 looked fantastique for black, I don't believe he should lose here.



I find it terrible to give up when you have great game to play. The game did not looked to violent, but why in hell someone would like to give up, when he does not a disavantage. Black looks okay.

it is a shame. Why we can't see the end of it.


Sophie Leclerc    (2009-05-16 06:54:02)
Probleme Raman,

You won't play unless you have four.

And I assume you notice, I never agreed to join, you, in fact, I join other players.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-16 19:41:58)
When the knight overplays the bishop

Yes, it is possible at Big Chess too !

An interesting game to watch : Pichelin vs. Legrand 0-1

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=31148

What do you think ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-17 23:11:38)
Complete teams !

The team tournament should start very soon, complete teams are :


>> Yellow-Blue Warriors

Iouri Basiliev
Dmytro Romaniuk
Ostap Hladky
Yura Lemehov

>> Happy Pawn

Stephane Legrand 2209
Garvin Gray 2125
Daniel Parmet 1961
Ilmar Cirulis 1805

>> FSF En Passant

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2270)
Volker Koslowski (2264)
Sebastian Boehme (2175)
Roland Markus (2096)

>> The Ghost Knights

Vadim Khachaturov
Yugi Inving
Sophie Leclerc
Jorge Orden

>> The knights who say "Ni"

Michael Aigner - 2602
Xavier Pichelin - 2577
Hannes Rada - 2559
Thibault de Vassal - 2473

>> The Dark Knights

William Taylor - 2140
Scott Nichols - 2089
Don Groves - 1991
Josef Riha - 1989


Players without a team yet (one team is possible, with 3 more players, we could build one more) :

1. Ranganathan Raman
2. Alexander Blinchevsky
3. Stanimir Denchev
4. Benjamin Block
5. Murray Findlay


Did I forget someone ? So we have 6 complete teams + 5 players without a team.

We should be able to start the tournament in a few days ! :)


Benjamin Block    (2009-05-18 15:14:20)
Forgoted one.

Ranganathan Raman (2009-05-07 00:59:45)
Any one join team

TEAM NAME:Our Team
1.Murray, Findlay (GBR) ELO : 1648
2.Raman, Ranganathan(IND)ELO :1396
3.Sophie Leclerc
4.Benjamin Block
-------------------
5.Vadim Khachaturov
any one join each country 4 active members only


It is 7 teams + 1 player without team.


Daniel Parmet    (2009-05-19 00:12:40)
one more player

I believe Gramajo Francisco is also looking.


Vjacheslav Perevozchikov    (2009-05-20 16:31:57)
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUPS

Sorry for a bit stupid question...
I wonder how many players come out from a group to the next round of the tournament?


Normajean Yates    (2009-05-21 02:36:57)
to summarise: interesting!

I read the ficgs chess WCH rules: interesting!

In short,

stages 1a-3a: the top-8 rated players play a (3-stage obviously!) *knockout* (each match consisting of 8 games; so that is 56 top-rated games!)

stages 1b-3b. In parallel, the rest of the contenders play a 3-stage round-robin (groups of 5, 7, 9, 11 or 13 players.) - as William Taylor posted, only the *winner* of each round-robin stage goes to the next stage - (or if rated above 2300, directly from stage 1 to stage 3 - see rules for detatils)

stage 4: the knockout winner plays the round-robin in an 8-match candidate-finals; to decide who the challenger will be.

stage 5: the challenger v the current WCh -12 game match.

for pairing and tie-break rules (and all the above), just follow the link above [William Taylor's post]; search the page for "FICGS CHESS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP :": it will probably be faster than scrolling down ;)


Normajean Yates    (2009-05-22 05:19:29)
Curioser and curiouser! How..?

I don't see how the following happened, given my reading of the rules: William Taylor, you are probably the best person to explain where I am getting the rules wrong!

William Taylor in:
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_02__000005:
points: 6/8. *not* the leader: Domenico Riccio was the sole leader with 7.5/8, second was Norman Wilson (6.5/8) -

William Taylor, you were third in your stage-1 group so how did you get to reach stage 2?
(FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_04__000004 William Taylor and four others tied for 2nd place out of 7)

Well I suppose the stage-1 group-2 top two players withdrew, right? (I *could* check it myself, but the tedium/learning ratio would be too high ;)


William Taylor    (2009-05-22 07:28:56)
Different world championships

I qualified for FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_04__000004 from tournament FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_07__000004, not tournament FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_02__000005. However, I didn't win that tournament either - I came second.

My initial guess as to how I qualified from that one is that more than 1 player needed to qualify to make up numbers for the next round - it was quite a large group and I seem to remember reading something about that in the rules. Second guess - Vadim Khachaturov withdrew. Third guess - the large sum of money that I sent Thibault with an e-mail saying 'please let me into the second round' had the desired effect.

That answer is based on about 30 seconds' thought - I'll have a closer look when I get back from what I suspect will be a highly unpleasant physics exam.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-22 11:39:53)
Groups in chess WCH

William, your initial thought is right : "Players may be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player." (extract from chess WCH rules)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-23 00:31:31)
1st team tournament : games & results !

A new thread to comment the games & results in the 1st FICGS team tournament that just started ! The teams are :

>> The knights who say "Ni"

Michael Aigner - 2602
Xavier Pichelin - 2577
Hannes Rada - 2559
Thibault de Vassal - 2473

>> FSF En Passant

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2270)
Volker Koslowski (2264)
Sebastian Boehme (2175)
Roland Markus (2096)

>> The Dark Knights

William Taylor - 2140
Scott Nichols - 2089
Don Groves - 1991
Josef Riha - 1989

>> Happy Pawn

Stephane Legrand 2209
Garvin Gray 2125
Daniel Parmet 1961
Ilmar Cirulis 1805

>> Yellow-Blue Warriors

Iouri Basiliev
Dmytro Romaniuk
Ostap Hladky
Yura Lemehov

>> The Ghost Knights

Vadim Khachaturov
Yugi Inving
Sophie Leclerc
Jorge Orden

>> The Knights with no name (yet)

Alexander Blinchevsky
Stanimir Denchev
Benjamin Block
Ranganathan Raman


You can follow the games here :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__TEAM_EVENT_TABLE_1__000001
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__TEAM_EVENT_TABLE_2__000001
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__TEAM_EVENT_TABLE_3__000001
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__TEAM_EVENT_TABLE_4__000001


Note : The first player displayed in each tournament table is not always the player of the first team because when the 1st & 3rd players of a team play White against another team, the 2nd & 4th play Black against the same team, this is not obvious to read (sorry).

I'm really sorry to the 2 players that were not included in a team, but we had to start the tournament now... The last team may still announce their name (provisional : "The knights with no name")

Have nice games :)


Normajean Yates    (2009-05-23 03:17:28)
Thib. thought of everything: & poured ..

Thib. thought of everything: all the answers are hidden in the rules somewhere ;)

And also poured water on some pleasing speculations on the lines of [from William's last post: ;Third guess -' - ] the large sum of money that [William] sent Thibault with an e-mail saying 'please let me into the second round' had the desired effect. ;)

And since the reason was what Thib. posted, that was money down the drain - wait: why was *William* the Chosen One to be invited 'to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player' - any connection with those large sums...

... over to 'Private Eye' and 'News Of The World' ... ;)


Sophie Leclerc    (2009-05-23 07:43:14)
I good games

»I think there will plenty of interessing games.


I find it strange to play on table 3, but it may be true that yugi is stronger then me, I just have his number...

Why I could not play versus you thibeault.....

I am not worry, I will hold still for sometimes.

Our team king. what a name to use, ho well, good idea, never tought about it... it feel not original, but it is.


Good games for everyone.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-25 22:06:06)
Tables

Hi Sophie, the fact is that I placed the players just as the teams were given in the forum (usually ordered by rating but this was not an obligation).

The games are really interesting anyway :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-26 17:30:46)
Thanks :)

There's no problem with to-do lists.. actually it is just absolutely necessary.. I can't think about everything. I still have many things to improve, this year I developped much more the "other side" of the site and this was very exciting, I learnt a lot while doing this.. that will be useful for future improvements and it brings more and more visitors [the current statistics are about +10% every week for a few months (that's good :))] on the server (I try to redirect as many as potential players as possible here).

Speaking of the server, I'm not afraid of crisis or whatever, the statistics are just better and better now, that helps the site to distribute Epoints (potential money) prizes. Almost nobody claims for real money prizes but that's the finality (to distribute money prizes in free tournaments).. There are plenty of "successful" sites on the internet that offer money prizes (or costly services) for free but all of them are built on unrealistic views IMO, so they implode or cheat in a way as soon as they encounter success. Most of us know about the Facebook case that still lose money. FICGS grew very slowly during 2 or 3 years but IMO it was based on realistic views so don't worry, the site will survive after both of us, I'll take care of that :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-26 17:58:46)
Boards

I was speaking about the boards also. I was ok to play against you as well, why not ?!


Sophie Leclerc    (2009-05-27 01:59:45)
games

ho well, I'll play agaisn't you later, for now, i'll wait to have good games on these ones.


Normajean Yates    (2009-05-27 05:02:24)
Thank you Thib: and I am so relieved!

First, about the 'thank you' to Thib.: that is for responding :) Now, to business:

>Thib said: Speaking of the server, I'm not afraid of crisis or whatever, the statistics are just better and better now..

I am so relieved! Seriously.

>Thib. said: FICGS grew very slowly during 2 or 3 years but IMO it was based on realistic views..

Exactly! That was one of the first things I noticed when I discovered this site (early June last year, I think) - I phoned my partner [she and I were in different countries on that day; coincidentally, this month also..] - told her this site *will* survive, and chess.com will *not* survive [too much money wasted by Eric of chess.com even then] - [It was only in in May last year that I had noticed chess.com in its present incarnation (earlier it did *not* offer chess-*playing*, it was a chess-reference-material site only)

(My partner doesn't play chess but of course one doesn't have to be a chess-player to be interested in issues like this!)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(beginning of digression about chess.com (as a contrasting example):)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

well chess.com has *technically speaking* survived; but there is a graded level of paying members [silver-gold-diamond-platinum-what not] - each year paying membership has to be renewed [I am a free member there; I don't play games there now except on special request :) ] -- and..

Guess what, chess.com in a few months intoduced a system that gave a *playing advantage* to paying members: the more expensive grade you are in, the greater the paying advantage. So, as far as correspondence chess is concerned, can chess.com be now considered a chess site?

(In fact I posted a thread there last year suggesting that they should introduce auction: at any time any of the opponents in a game can bid to win a game. [even if they have lone K against K+Q+Q+R :}] - then if opponent doesn't make a bigger bid then the bidder wins the game. Minimum bid € 20,00 :) (chess.com is a US site ;) )There was some heated discussion over it.. Eric (the site owner - he is a decent chap, all said and done) prudently stayed away from that discussion :)

I posted in various threads there also directly saying that chess.com is probably the only *chess* site where the more you pay, the greater advantage you have in a *game*. Is that chess?

None of the above is defamatory: it is obviously true for anyone to check - and clearly Erik silently agrees - well good luck to him...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(end of digression about chess.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



>Thib. said: so don't worry, the site will survive after both of us, I'll take care of that :)

:)
I am sure now that you will :) (but not because both of us will suddenly die tomorrow, I hope ;))



Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-27 23:17:28)
FICGS & chess.com

The example of chess.com is very interesting, I looked at this site (from time to time) growing very fastly, most probably because of investments for good SEO (search engines optimisation) - to start with the domain name - but it still looks like a MFA (Made For Adsense) website even if I'm sure that Eric made good work to offer plenty of services related to chess. Well, I did not check it for a while...

Speaking of auction at chess.com, that's a funny idea and I just wonder why I did not think about a system where you can bet some epoints at any time in any game... maybe I'll think about that, but that's not really important (the very large majority of players do not play for money but for the love of games only).


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-05-29 20:09:04)
EGF rating list

To all european Go players who could be interested, the European Go Federation rating list moved from :

http://gemma.ujf.cas.cz/~cieply/GO/gor.html

... to :

http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/EGF_rating_system.php

EGF ratings should be updated more frequently.


Scott Nichols    (2009-06-03 03:09:30)
Chess is dead? Not hardly.

In his book "The world of chess" by Anthony Saidy the following paragraph appears. "Later in his (Capablanca) career, his play became ever more technical and drawish. He expressed the idea that with the perfection of modern knowledge it would soon be impossible to win a game against a master. Chess would soon reach a "draw death". He even proposed interchanging the initial positions of the Bishops and Knights to inject new life into the game."

An exact quote found earlier in this same book exemplifies more of what this thread is about---In reply to a Steinitz comment Tchigorin replied "Chess is a limitless forum for the human imagination. Each position is a fresh challenge. Rules and book openings, to the creative player, are no more than guidelines to be transcended. Individualize. Each position is new--terra incognita that may contain the seed of a beautiful combination. Gladly give up a pawn in return for the attack. Play chess with joy."


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-03 17:15:24)
At most...

I agree tambien, of course. At most, some positions are "dead", really easy to understand perfectly.

True, it is not so easy to throw some fire on the board in real games at a high level, so in correspondence chess games, but every good player know he has to (if he wants some chances to win at least), so this is the main part of the game nowadays, and when there's fire on board the complexity of the position may be sometimes far away from human and/or chess engines understanding. The problem is that human nature make us reproduce known positions much more than unknown ones, unlike chess engines, that's why computer games are not so often draws and may be really funny to watch !


Hannes Rada    (2009-06-03 22:28:52)
Openings very important for corr chess ?

Well about 3 weeks ago I had a discussion with Austrian's only ICCF world champion.
And he told me that in his next world championship final he is going to chance his opening repertoire completely. Instead of 1. e4 which he prefered so far, he is now going to play another move (1.d4 most probably), because after years of studying chess his conclusion is now that 1.e4 is the weakest choice (compared to 1. d4, 1. Nf3, ...)
The same 'ideology' was also published by former ICCF World Champion Hans Berliner in his book "My System".
.
Dead Endgames: This is another interesting topic to be discussed ....


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-04 00:23:27)
On chess openings...

That's an interesting point of view, for sure. My opinion is that this point (e4 vs. d4 and others) quite looks like the openings in the game of Go !

When improving one's play at Go, one change of mind on the complete theory of the game very often... will I play "territory" or will I play "influence", and how... every thing one learn at Go may change one's mind about this because one must manage territory and influence at the same time.

I changed my mind several times about e4 and d4 these last years, in my opinion if a player still change his mind, it may only mean he just improved his play... again :)

Most of us will probably change our mind again & again... fortunately !


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-04 00:45:17)
Consecutive draw offers verbally refused

This may be an issue : Should there be a rule on consecutive draw offers verbally refused in a chess game (which may be considered as impolite in some cases, justified in some others) ?

What do you think ? Do you know how this is ruled in other organizations ?

As for me, I have no strong opinion yet on this subject... Maybe we could only add something in the rules without any consequences on the game, just like a complement to the netiquette that players could refering to, but it may not solve the problem in some rare cases.


Nick Burrows    (2009-06-04 00:55:20)
netiqeutte

In my game i have a small advantage in a position that is drawish, but still with some chance to win. The onus is on me to offer a draw. I believe my opponent understands the etiquette but is simply disregarding it - perhaps because he thinks it is a draw.

I'm not sure if having a rule pointing players towards the correct etiquette would ever stop somebody from doing it.
From my perspective i feel frustrated each time a draw is offered, and it just makes me more determined to win!


Normajean Yates    (2009-06-04 08:26:42)
suggest no rep. draw offer for 10 moves

suggestion: once a player has made a draw offer in a game, that player in that game cannot make a draw offer within the next 10 moves.

But is is really *that* irritating at correspondence? I notice my opps draw offer only when I am myself thinking of offering draw (or I am fighting for a draw) - in which cases I accept... otherwise I have often made my move and then later on I realise that a '*' that was there is now missing from the 'my games' list! :)


Normajean Yates    (2009-06-04 08:40:10)
another suggestion: draw offer+timeout

another suggestion: suppose *I* make a draw offer and then *opponent* runs out of time; in such a case *my* draw offer is automatically deemed accepted by *opponent*: the result is recorded as a draw.

Or maybe this: giving a disadavtage only to repeated-draw-offerers:

Above rule, but only applied if it is *not* my *first* draw-offer in the game: i.e.:

In a game between player A and player B; if player A make a draw offer and in response player B runs out of time; and further, if there have been two draw offers in the game by player A such that player B has *not* made a draw offer between the said two draw offers by player B; then the draw offer of player A is automatically deemed accepted by player B: the result is recorded as a draw (instead of player B losing on time).


Michel van der Kemp    (2009-06-04 10:01:38)
re

Offering a draw is one thing, offering a draw in several consecutive moves is another. I would think that is harassment, especially when the other player has answered politely he thinks he has chances. Harassment should be fought.

I remember a case in FIDE tournament, where one player would offer a draw with each move. The player was first warned by referee, and when he didn't stop, was expelled from tournament.

One could argue if consecutive draw offers in correspondence chess should still be considered harassment, but it is still irritating to say the least.


Garvin Gray    (2009-06-04 10:27:27)
hmm

This seems odd and if the server does automatically award the draw in this situation you describe, then it goes against the fide laws of chess.

The player has to agree to the draw for the game to be concluded as such. If the player runs out of time before agreeing to a draw, then they have lost.

It seems pretty cut and dried to me.


Philip Roe    (2009-06-04 17:35:08)
Hypothetical case

Suppose that my opponent has a tricky move coming up, but I know that I can defend against it. Because I assume that they have seen both the move and the defense , I offer a draw.

They play the move anyway, thinking that I might not find the defense. But I defend correctly and offer the draw again.

Nothing evil has happened, but this sequence of events would be forbidden by some proposals. It seems to be an over-reaction to make elaborate rule changes in response to an isolated incident.


Hannes Rada    (2009-06-04 21:56:51)
Dead Endgames

Thibault, you are talking about endgames in this connection.
Do you mean for instance the famous rook endgames, which are always a draw according to Tarrasch :-)
And it is true, there are so many rook endings which cannot be won, with extra material. Even with 2 extra pawns ....
I had 2 times a position with K + R + f+h Pawn, against K + R which is a theoretical draw. Sometimes chess can be really unfair. You are playing much better than your opponent, you manage to to achieve material advantage of 1 or 2 pawns, but the rook endgame is still a draw ...
Here is a proposal against the broad draw corridor
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/reformedchess.htm
http://www.iccf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3618&page=5


Normajean Yates    (2009-06-05 03:07:37)
oh then minor technical change...

instead of the game having been drawn automatically, referee *adjudicates* it as a draw.

This ensures that fide rules are not violated, because a game result *can* be changed by adjudication: for example:

Suppose OTB, immediately after a game is over, the winning player is found to have a hidden transciever with a *log* showing that moves *were* transmitted and move-suggestions *were* recieved. And the player breaks down in tears and admits to cheating: pleading for leniency - not in re that particular game, but for a shorter ban-from-tournaments than s/he expects to get. In this case, at the very least the game would be readjudicated as a loss for said player, no?

Also, on ficgs the 50-move rule is not implemented; so a game won here which would otherwise be drawn under the 50-move rule - wouldn't *that* violate fide rules? For corr chess, it is more iecc/iccf than fide - fide will come around :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-05 13:13:41)
"reformed chess", "improved chess"

Speaking of rook endings, of course some -maybe most- are dead or at least understood positions, some are very complex for the human brain... I don't think chess is so unfair even with 2 pawns more, every good player has to know the endgames theory, that's the most important part of the game IMO (at least when learning), such draws only show that one didn't manage to complexify the game enough.

Nice ideas in these links Hannes, and there are many others even without changing the way the pieces move (e.g. time handicap..) but it is harder in correspondence chess. Actually we may regret that chess is chess in this current version. As chess rules are everything but "natural", it could have been different, maybe it should have been. It is too late to change anything now because most people want to play the same game than Fischer and Spassky :) .. History prevails, even very intelligent recent games like Blokus will never be the king of the game.

By the way does anyone know about the drawish problem in Xiangqi and Shogi ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-05 14:02:03)
draw offer+timeout

There's no problem with violating FIDE rules as long as it is the best choice for correspondence chess (ie. 50 moves rule), on this suggestion for these rare cases, the player should accept the draw himself in my opinion to deserve the result but well, if most players think that's a good idea, I may change that.


Normajean Yates    (2009-06-05 14:26:31)
modified chess? which one???

There is a company called zillionsofgames I think - which has thousands of chess-variants. Suppose everyone prefers to play their own version of chess - then the only opponent you'll get is either yourself, or the zillionsofgames package... :)

I play, three forms of modified chess already. One is bigchess here. The second I rarely play online, and the third I never play online.

The second is called contract bridge; and the third is called tennis! :-D

(If you change *all* the rules of chess you can reach contract bridge, tennis, football, film-making, painting, whatever you want -- you want Thib. to provide *all* that?) :-D


Benjamin Block    (2009-06-05 17:19:42)
Opening not too importent.

1.e4 is still possible and will be it a long time more. The problem is that many players are afraid of new variants and it is why they think the move is draw.


Sophie Leclerc    (2009-06-08 04:08:17)
some are not discovered

I believe some opening still wait their explorer.

1.f4 d6 2. c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4. Nf3 Bg7 still wait for people to play it.


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2009-06-08 09:07:04)
To Sophie Leclerc

Mr Leclerc, didn't you experimented already with this opening and gave you no benefits, even a lost game played in the Rybla forum?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-08 21:19:20)
New feature : Silent mode !

Due to several problems caused by a few players recently (mainly insults in private messages), I just created a "silent mode".

Every player who will not respect the FICGS general rules & netiquette may be placed in this mode for a certain time or permanently, that way the player can play games and enter new tournaments but it is no more possible to send messages to other players (or receive messages with moves) by any way, this is the only way to avoid troubles in tournaments.

I'm very sorry to anyone who received such messages and I'll take care to avoid and prevent this in the future.

My best wishes,
Thibault


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-08 22:29:42)
Vacation : now 45 days per year

I think that it will be a good news for most of us !

As it seems that many players have problems with the rapid time control, mainly in championships, and as the championships period has changed (more than 6 months if necessary), I decided to change the days of vacation per year to 45 days instead of 30 days previously.

This should avoid some games to be lost on time and a few players to forfeit all their games because of the time pressure.

This change applies immediately, so everyone now has 15 days of vacation more.

Have a nice time :)


Scott Nichols    (2009-06-08 22:31:29)
Long time coming.

This is definitely needed for a very small % of players. Congrats on another fine improvement.


Normajean Yates    (2009-06-09 08:09:58)
re Garvin Gray' suggestion - abusable..

Cancelling vacation is abusable - player pretends to on 20-day vacation; actually returns suddenly next day - when finds opponent busiest and so on, .. to upset opp's schedule and focus. So, if cancelling-vacation is introduced, I think there should be conditions/consequences. [e.g. if you take 7 days vac. and cancel after 3 days; then 7-3=4 days are added to opp's clock - incl. the 60-day nextmove clock.]


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


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-10 02:07:26)
1.f4 ? 2.c4

It seems to me I tried it in some blitz games against a stronger player a long time ago without great success :)


Garvin Gray    (2009-06-10 09:49:40)
change to rapid time control.

For the rapid games, I think the issue is the 1 move per game increment.

Perhaps having the time control as 20 days plus 3 days per move would be easier for people to manage and it guarantees that a player will have at least three days per move.


Marc Lacrosse    (2009-06-10 11:08:12)
Garvin : I do not agree

"For the rapid games, I think the issue is the 1 move per game increment. Perhaps having the time control as 20 days plus 3 days per move would be easier for people to manage and it guarantees that a player will have at least three days per move."

This is simply turning "rapid" games into standard ones !

If you feel that the one-day increment is too short then do enroll in standard tournaments

For what regards myself I already stated that I prefer a small number of fast games over a larger number of slower ones (this is even the reason why I more than once declined to play in advanced wch tournaments that were supposed to begin simultaneousy with other competitions I am in).

Just my two cents.

Marc


Daniel Parmet    (2009-06-10 16:06:56)
draws

consecutive draw offers is absolutely not rude if the position is drawn. I would therefore argue one should not create rules to interfere. If one player wishes to continue to play the drawn game out (as is his right) it is also the other player's right to continue to offer draws in the drawn the position after each move.

I actually consider it quite rude to play out theoretically drawn endgames anyways while I don't find it the slightest bit rude to offer draws in such endgames repeatedly.


Michael Aigner    (2009-06-10 21:13:32)
Good idea !

This "feature" is a very good idea to protect players from such assaults.

This kind of attacks can be very disturbing and was in my case the reason why i stopped playing blitz at the chessbase server.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-13 14:02:12)
Another way to reach it

http://www.ficgs.com/players/yates_normajean/history.html


Normajean Yates    (2009-06-13 18:23:08)
Thanks Thib.! both way are useful..

Thib's way - it has the advantage that I have bookmarked http://www.ficgs.com/players/yates_normajean/history.html
so that it can be reached in one click. And then i can just edit player name in the url window to reach history page of any player!


Normajean Yates    (2009-06-15 00:50:12)
Ulrich, enter and try it!

Enter and try it in a KG thematic, as I said! We are all trying kg lines in the thematics, instead of posting them to be answered here ;) We get a much more convincing answer by playing it!


Garvin Gray    (2009-06-15 07:14:14)
issues??

A couple of issues:

1) Each time I click on the four links provided, I keep getting directed to another page which then asks for my username and password and this cycle keeps repeating. The end result is that I do not get to see anything in the links.

2) Is there a way to see how my team is going against another team ie in board order? Instead of how it is currently displayed with the results of all those on board 1,2 etc.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-16 14:17:09)
To Garvin

1) Quite strange... is there the same problem for other players ?

2) Did you try to click the magnifying glass just after the name of the tournament (on the tournament page only) to see the crosstable ? Not perfect but better, most probably.


Michael Aigner    (2009-06-21 22:44:42)
Suggestion for thematic tourny

I am interested in the Cochran Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Sf3 Sf6 3.Sxe5 d6 4.Sxf7)
and would be happy if we could play a thematic tourny with this opening - some day.

All the best,
Michael


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-21 23:02:23)
Cochrane gambit

It is now planned to be the 86th thematic tourney !

By the way it has been played before, see :

FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000031
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000030


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-22 16:41:00)
Discussion at Rybkachess

That's an interesting discussion... Once more, the confusion reigns between Freestyle chess (commonly played at classical & blitz time controls) and Correspondence Chess, particularly for centaur players who did not experience correspondence chess at a 2500+ level.

IMO (in brief) on several points :

1) All these made-for-engines books have no other interest than to "manipulate" chess engines & other made-for-engines books, actually this has almost nothing to do with correspondence chess (where they are completely useless at a high level, let's say 2300+) or even chess.

2) Many players do not realize the multitude of factors that appear to be more important that the basic strength of centaurs once the correspondence chess 2400 mark is reached and that still increases at 2500 and 2600... The higher the level, the more "opening books" depend on the recent games played by the opponent (and his level), the number of current games played, the score to reach in 8 games matches, the importance of rating, the goal in life, even the month/season for a few players and many other things according to the persons... Actually these "openings books" just live the time to use it one time, so a better term is preparation, actually opening books do not exist anymore in correspondence chess at a very high level, at most it may be useful against weaker players.

3) The previous point is enough to explain the rating changes of most 2400+ players ! In example...

- GM Farit Balabaev is a very experienced player who constantly has(had) more than 100 running correspondence chess games at several places for years, he's also a fast player, it is quite logical to me that he looks for quiet games and fast draws (or lose sometimes to very strong players who want to win more)

- Wolfgang Utesch, FICGS WCH finalist, like many players at one time in their life, decided that other things were more important and that correspondence chess was too time consuming, particularly once the 2500 mark has been reached...

- Eros Riccio obviously decided to win every correspondence chess competition at FICGS while playing a high number of games at several places AFTER having topped the FICGS rating list with the highest rating so far (which he did), so it is natural to look for a few quick draws in matches if 8 draws mean a victory for him (and a few rating points lost, that is quite inhuman anyway :))

- Michael Aigner tops most FICGS rating lists by playing only games at 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves time control, which is an enormous performance as obviously the longer the time control, the higher the rate of draws. I do not know how many current games he's playing at ICCF or IECG and other organisations but I suspect he plays a quite reasonable number of games.

- Xavier Pichelin may top the FICGS rating list this year as he's an incredibly dangerous player with White and Black and with a reasonable number of running games.

Many strong players also choose to play some tournaments for "fun" or to experiment openings and may lose some points while their real strength is over 2500 or more... so it is quite hard to make the difference between the real strength and correspondence chess ratings. So many parameters... It is likely that we'll see one day a 12 games match between Eros and Xavier (Michael do not play fast correspondence chess time control, yet I hope), we all wonder what rating could achieve Vasik Rajlich (Rybka's creator) and other very strong freestyle players but it is very hard to predict only by knowing their results in freestyle tournaments. Correspondence chess is a mirror of real life.


Ulrich Imbeck    (2009-06-23 14:55:27)
GO: Game 32800

In Game 32800 (GO) black, a DAN-player, began with 1.q15 d4 2.q5 d16 3.f3 c6 4.k4

1.q15 and 2.q5 can't be the best.

1.q16 and 2.q4 is risky enough.


Arno Bezemer    (2009-06-23 16:14:50)
waiting lists 2400+

For months now i see 4 players in the +2500 waiting list and 3 in the 2400-2800 waiting list. If there are no objections i suggest we combine the two groups.
Best regards,
Arno


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-23 17:00:16)
Strange Joseki

GoPosition (see diagram)

(reminder : see Help to know how to post a diagram)


Hi Ulrich, that's why I like Go :) .. It reminds me certain gambits in chess.. theorically inferior (actually I'm not even sure here) but if you don't know the lines, you're done !

Don Groves played this joseki against me a few weeks ago (games 30935 & 30934) for the first time, obviously it is very interesting against a player who did not experience it before... If White plays q3 or q17 after that (which I did), he may have no space enough quickly and Black may build big shapes. Well, I'm not strong enough to bring an interesting comment on this joseki anyway, maybe Mikhail can share some ideas on this :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-06-23 17:11:00)
waiting lists 2400+

Hello Arno,

5 months for the next class SM tournament is quite long indeed. I may ask to all players in the waiting lists but in my experience I doubt that everyone will agree and it would be not fair that I take such a decision without asking.

Summer is not the most active season for chess but most players register for new tournaments just after the new rating list is published (next week, july 1st) so let's see... moreover the next WCH cycle will not start before november so I hope that a few players will register for this tournament.

To be continued.


Alejandro Suarez-Moreno    (2009-06-24 00:43:28)
Strange joseki do it by a good player

Hi Ulrich and Thibault,
this joseki present a good problem. Black stones are ready to form a big shape on the right side and white have to decide "a fast fight for these corners or a strategical fight for zones of influence". I played many games with Don Groves and his style is strong. Maybe he is not dan player, but you'll have to fight very hard for the victory against him!
On the diagram I prefer 4...o16, or 4...r10. The invasion to back corner still remain possible and black attention have to put here during many plays.


Daniel Parmet    (2009-06-24 02:50:06)
Learning Go

Greetings!
I really really want to learn to play Go (and play some of it on ficgs of course!). Does anyone have recommendation for the easiest way of learning the basics? Good websites for rules, follow masters etc. I appreciate any and all help!


Don Groves    (2009-06-24 04:13:16)
Strange joseki

Hola Alejandro and thanks for the compliment! I hope I can live up to it in these games ;-)

My feeling about opening on the 5,4 point is that (1) if the opponent invades the corner, I can keep her/him to a small territory there and gain a lot to the outside, and (2) if s/he does not invade the corner, then I could achieve a fairly large corner.

I would greatly appreciate hearing comments from Dan players about this strategy.


Alejandro Suarez-Moreno    (2009-06-24 23:18:06)
Strange Joseki

Hi Don, I accept your invitation to discuss the strategy over your joseki.

I don't like to invade suddenly the black corner. If we play q3 then you have to play very exactly. White stones are in dangerous and black can use it to gain influence toward the center and, in the same time, try to kill the white dragon. I remember the comentary of Thibault: "may have no space enough quickly" and I believe him!

But r10 try to avoid this situation and white can make a basis to attack the black shape on top board or fight in the center.

Maybe Ulrich and Thibault can tell us the strategy of play q3.


Ranganathan Raman    (2009-06-25 01:29:27)
play more leran

The Interactive Way To Go' (http://playgo.to/interactive/)?
but real time play bit hard work to win new players


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.


Robert Mueller    (2009-06-28 12:21:19)
I agree ...

... with Arno Bezemer here. I am one of the three players in the 2400+ group. Having waited for 5+ months for this event to start, I would very much like to see the 2400+ and 2500+ event put together.


Robert Mueller    (2009-06-30 17:08:22)
WCH6 has already been played

At least stage 1 has been played. How could anyone sign up for this event now, if it is already between stages 1 and 2?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-07-01 16:20:17)
FIDE rating list, july 1st 2009

The new FIDE rating list is out, Veselin Topalov (2813) still tops it 25 points ahead of FIDE world champion Viswanathan Anand (2788), in third place Magnus Carlsen (2772)...

All players rated over 2700 :

1 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2813
2 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2788
3 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2772
4 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2768
5 Jakovenko, Dmitry g RUS 2760
6 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2759
7 Leko, Peter g HUN 2756
8 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2756
9 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2755
10 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2751
11 Gashimov, Vugar g AZE 2740
12 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2739
13 Wang, Yue g CHN 2736
14 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2733
15 Shirov, Alexei g ESP 2732
16 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2727
17 Bacrot, Etienne g FRA 2721
18 Kamsky, Gata g USA 2717
19 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar g AZE 2717
20 Karjakin, Sergey g UKR 2717
21 Eljanov, Pavel g UKR 2716
22 Movsesian, Sergei g SVK 2716
23 Dominguez Perez, Leinier g CUB 2716
24 Alekseev, Evgeny g RUS 2714
25 Akopian, Vladimir g ARM 2712
26 Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2710
27 Motylev, Alexander g RUS 2710
28 Malakhov, Vladimir g RUS 2707
29 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime g FRA 2703
30 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2703
31 Rublevsky, Sergei g RUS 2703
32 Bu, Xiangzhi g CHN 2702
33 Ni, Hua g CHN 2701


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-07-03 01:55:36)
The Scheming Mind

This is a well known website ! I did not know how to play "Shatranj", but it is fully explained on Wikipedia :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatranj

Maybe it is worth a try.


Mladen Jankovic    (2009-07-03 17:38:32)
Shatranj

I played it once, and got beaten by following the instincts from regular chess.

Strange and slow game. It's much more a simulator of a battlefield than a game.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-07-04 00:39:06)
Chessbazaar

More, more :)

By the way it could be interesting to gather every chess blogs maintained by correspondence chess players...


Nick Burrows    (2009-07-04 07:55:18)
Minimum rating idea

A common problem encountered in correspondance chess is that of strong players forefitting several games and their rating dropping by hundreds of points

This spoils the tourny for lower rated players who often have a 2200 rated player in their group with a misleading rating of 1600.
It also de-stabilises the ratings across the whole site as many players grades are false.
Lastly, and of least concern because players who made the drop deserve some handicap - the artificially low-graded player has a whole year of uncompetitive matches as he waits to regain points.

In o.t.b tournaments in England, a method employed to stop rating cheats is that a player who has won a certain class of tournament previously, cannot re-enter at that level.
The equivalent here would be that your rating has a minimum value, equal to the highest rating requirement of a tournament class you have previously won.

This seems to solve the problems experienced by many on this site.

It may be said that the rating drop is a necessary deterrent to prevent players from doing this. My experience is that it occurs from factors out of one's control (illness) and any deterrant is irrelevant - just as a death penalty doesn't stop heroin addicts from stealing!

What d'yall think?


Scott Nichols    (2009-07-05 15:49:11)
Good idea!

I brought this up one other time Nick. Thib wanted more discussion on it. Maybe a players rating could be "provisional" until he has played 20 games and then it could become "established" rating. I think a player should never drop more than one class below his/her highest established rating. If the classes are 1600-1799, 1800-1999 etc. Then a player who reached for example 1983 could never drop below 1600. Or, if a player reached 2001, he/she could never drop below 1800.


Nick Burrows    (2009-07-05 16:16:49)
Recent groups

It actually seems the norm rather than the exception that the lower groups are 'stacked' with at least 1 or 2 ex-2000+ rated players with low ratings

In my first Class C group after my rating drop there were 4 of us battling it out!


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-07-05 23:14:20)
Interesting idea

"In o.t.b tournaments in England, a method employed to stop rating cheats is that a player who has won a certain class of tournament previously, cannot re-enter at that level."

I quite like the idea in this way. Maybe it can be improved even without complicating the rules too much. Anyway if someone wants to make trouble in some tournaments (it did happen), there's no perfect way to prevent him and it is better in class B or A (2000+) than in class 2400+ IMO.


Simon Johnson    (2009-07-06 17:02:44)
question

i'm new here, and i was wondering... are we able to play anything without it being a tournament?


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2009-07-06 17:32:38)
Response

You could be a more specific with the anything. Are you interested in chess, go, poker? In the waiting lists there are special tournaments where you could play against single persons


William Taylor    (2009-07-08 00:04:04)
Shatranj

Shatranj is offered at live time controls on ICC (www.chessclub.com) and I've played quite a few games of it there.
The match vs igame.ru was fun so a match vs Scheming Mind could be too.


Daniel Parmet    (2009-07-08 05:02:57)
mine!

My blog: http://chaoschess.blogspot.com/

I actually run a blog where i've plugged ficgs several times:) However, I doubt the material is going to be of much interest to corr players but check it out anyways!


Don Groves    (2009-07-08 08:50:04)
High rated FICGSers

GM Nigel Davies played here for a while a year or so ago.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-07-09 23:20:06)
Men versus women

"(...) gender stereotypes can have a greatly debilitating effect on female players leading to a 50% performance decline when playing against males. Interestingly, this disadvantage is completely removed when players are led to believe that they are playing against a woman. This may, in part, occur because women choose a more defensive style when playing with men."

A must read article (at least funny) !

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5567

What do you think ? :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-07-10 18:30:31)
combining

Well, we are 5 players in the waiting list right now, summer is obviously the less active season but I think we should wait for 2 more players anyway. Players in the GM waiting list are free to join the class SM anyway.

About the WCH, the waiting lists should be open in august.


Iouri Basiliev    (2009-07-13 14:59:09)
1st team tournament

I'm lost. Where we can see the 1st team tournament reglament? Would be team match points counted or just all players points? Sorry, i can't scan all the messages.


Sophie Leclerc    (2009-07-20 01:49:48)
very bad day

I am having a very bad day.

I resign games whitout knowing, accident and play horribly whitout knowing what I play.... I am thinking about something else.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-07-27 15:53:29)
p4 or n5

Hi Ulrich, yes probably many players would have tried p4 at move 12, but is it necessary to save the stone while n5 starts to build a bigger shape. I don't know if I would have played it though, that's why Svante Carl is much stronger than us :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-07-28 19:35:16)
Tournament Entry Rating (TER) history

Hello all,

A new feature, now you can see graphics for your correspondence chess, advanced chess, big chess, Go (weiqi) and Poker Holdem TER history.

To see your TER history, several ways :

1) Direct link with username :
http://www.ficgs.com/players/devassal_thibault/history.html

2) Direct link with member id :
http://www.ficgs.com/display_history.php?member=1

3) Preferences : Click the magnifying glass then click History


Why a TER history ? Because TER are more significant (and less numerous) than every rating changes for most games.


Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2009-07-29 00:41:23)
Unusual doesn't mean bad

I think that this is a perfectly valid opening. There have been much stranger openings that have been played by professionals, even though they appear to be "obviously inferior to standard play" (which this opening does not, in my opinion). I'd like to hear a solid reasoning for the stament that Black's first two moves "can't be best".


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-01 22:28:54)
Maxime Vachier-Lagrave wins Biel 2009

Finally, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave emerged from the 2600 GM field to convincingly win the top tournament of Biel, a category 19 double round robin tournament, ahead of super GMs like Vassily Ivanchuk, Alexander Morozevich or Boris Gelfand. At eighteen and with a FIDE rating of 2703 he may be the next french good surprise in the top class players and bring some fresh blood in such tournaments. Does anyone have an opinion on his style of play or something ? :)


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2009-08-02 21:10:26)
Vachier-Lagrave

Karpov said he knew he was a tactical player some moves he (Vachier-Lagrave) made against him (Karpov) in San Sebastian this year surprised him.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-04 17:29:51)
Quote festival, part 6

Maybe this is time to start a new quote fest, what do you think ? :)

As a reminder, you're encouraged to post your own quotes about anything, but do not forget that you may enter the FICGS quotes file then ;)

"Always remember: He will blunder for sure, but he may play like a genius as well."


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-08 11:26:55)
MoGo vs. Many Faces Of Go

Just read in the AGA newsletter (American Go E-Journal vol. 10) on the rematch between Myeong-Wan Kim 8p vs. Computer :

"Many Faces was very different, it behaved more like a human, while MoGo was pure computer and very unpredictable. It was easier to play Many Faces -- though it may be the stronger program -- because I could predict what it was going to do. Many Faces made better shape, but MoGo had better reading. I’d really like to see both programs play each other and see what happens."

I never played MoGo, but it may be instructive...


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-10 12:46:38)
Poker engine

I'm not sure if there can be exactly a "poker engine" like Fritz is a chess engine, able to play any situation... I know that there is poker engines for certain poker rooms but in order to play here you may only find sites that offer to calculate the odds for each hand, but it won't take in account the coins & points you have, which are very important also, so I'm afraid it does not exist :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-10 13:01:25)
Simultaneous Chess World Record

After the records by Ulf Anderson, Andrew Martin and Susan Polgar, the current Simultaneous Chess World Record has been established this year by Kiril Georgiev, who played 360 opponents at the same time, now Iranian GM Morteza Mahjoob wants to play 500 opponents to bring it at a new level.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5659

Is this kind of record worth something according to you or just a nonsense?


William Taylor    (2009-08-10 16:14:14)
Fun

Just a bit of fun really. It will certainly be a good achievement if he manages it, but of course it won't mean he's 'the best' at playing lots of people simultaneously. There are too many factors to try to determine that objectively (number of opponents, rating of opponents, result etc.), and of course the very best chess players spend their time on more serious chess pursuits. :)


William Taylor    (2009-08-10 16:16:54)
Poker engine

I've played poker against a computer before (several computer opponents). I think the program I used was called 'Tik's Texas Hold'em', but I've no idea what the best poker program is. I seem to remember reading something in either a poker magazine or a poker website a while ago about a match between top pros and top programs, and I don't think it was a one-sided encounter.


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2009-08-10 19:31:04)
To Mr William Taylor

[quote]and of course the very best chess players spend their time on more serious chess pursuits. :)[/quote]
Excuse me but almost all the top players in the world give simultaneous.
the purpose of the simul is to break to record this does not equate you are the best, but indeed is a huge accomplishment playing so many opponents at the same time the physical fitness needed for this is the same as a top athlete.


Benjamin Block    (2009-08-11 11:28:00)
No engine?

Indeed why would it be so hard to make one? You choose how many players first. (1 vs 1 here). Then you choose how much chips. And then you choose what card you get. It chould not be hard for a programer.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-11 11:56:16)
Poker engine

[William] Yes, I think I've read also an article on a computer beating a pro player in heads up. Maybe the chancy factor ?

[Benjamin] I think it is possible, maybe easy, to code an engine to play here, but maybe it's not so easy to code a good engine able to play well in a 3 winning rounds match. Dunno...


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-11 12:03:37)
A. Dinerchtein is European Go Champion

Alexander Dinerchtein 3p (silent player at FICGS) is new European Go Champion after beating Javier Aleksi Savolainen in the final round of the European Go Championship while Taranu Catalin lost his final game to Kim Joon Sang and did not succeed in defending his title.

Congrats ! :)

I hope I can post some games here soon...


Daniel Parmet    (2009-08-11 20:08:24)
Quotes!

The following 11 quotes are all by me:
1- "Experiences are the keys to life."
2- "Happy endings are just stories that haven't finished yet."
3- "If you expect nothing then the following will happen: either 1) you will receive nothing and thus can be happy your expectations were met or 2) You will receive something and thus be happy you have received something. And.... Happiness ensues..."
4- "Step up and face your fear or you will never be what you should be."
5- "A mistake is only a mistake if you let it happen twice. Otherwise it is a learning experience. your experience."
6- "Life is painting a picture over many years with different paints and tools."
7- ""Horney concluded that love was at least a temporary escape from all her anxiety and insecurity" - Karen Horney
Does anyone else think that someoe named 'Horney' shouldn't be talking about love?"
8- "Take each event in a singularity and say if time passes will any of this matter?"
9- "Plans are ideas that never come to fruition."
10- "You should only get upset about the little things cause you have no control over the big things."
11- "Causing another problem without fixing the initial problem just makes the initial problem worse as time continues"

The following are classic quotes:
11- "If you lose the game you should win the analysis!"
12- "Every passing minute is a chance to turn it all around." - Vanilla Sky
13- "Life is pain my dear and anyone who says otherwise is selling something." - Princess Bride
14- "The 7ps: Prior Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance" - U.S. Military
15- "Water water everywhere but not a drop to drink!" - Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner
16- "You can get in way more trouble with a good idea than a bad idea cause you forget the good idea has limits" - Warren Buffet
17- "Teach a child to be polite and courteous and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to merge his car onto the freeway."
18- "Experience is the thing you have left when everything else is gone."
19- "There is no tomorrow without the pains and pleasures of today" - Gabriel
20- "If life weren't this complicated, it would be nowhere near as fun. Why? WHY NOT!" - Catch-22
21- "When you've done things right people won't know you've done anything at all." - Futurama
22- "The right perception of any matter and a misunderstanding of the same matter do not wholly exclude each other." - Kafka's the trial
23- "the Trausi follow the normal practices of Thracians in general, except in one particular- their behaviour, namely, on the occasion of a birth or a death. When a baby is born the family sits round and mourns at the thought of the sufferings the infant must endure now that it has entered the world, and goes through the whole catalogue of human sorrows; but when somebody dies, they bury him with merriment and rejoicing, and point out how happy he now is and how many miseries he has at last escaped." -Herodotus Viv
24- "When a Persian herald demanded the surrender of arms, the king shouted back 'come here to get them'; and when he had seen that he was surrounded, he commanded his men to have a good breakfast since their dinner would be served in hell." - Herodotus
25- "I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
26- "Why, we don't even know what living means now, what it is, and what it is called? Leave us alone without books and we shall be lost and in confusion at once. We shall not know what to join on to, what to cling to, what to love and what to hate, what to respect and what to despise." - Fyodor Dostoyevsky Notes from the Underground
27- "Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." - Scott Adams
28- "Nobody is always a winner and anyone who says otherwise either is a liar or doesn't play poker."
29- “The darkness immutable tranquility holds sway.” - Jun’ichiro Tanizaki
30- “People who are constantly asking 'why' are like tourists who stand in front of a building reading Baedeker and are so busy reading the history of its construction, etc., that they are prevented from seeing the building.” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
31- “Either move or be moved.” - Ezra Pound
32- "The real meditation is the meditation of one's identity..... You try finding out why you're you and not somebody else. And who in the blazes are you anyhow??" - Ezra Pound.
33- “The image is more than an idea. It is a vortex or cluster of fused ideas and is endowed with energy.” - Ezra Pound
34- “The thought working its way towards the light.” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
35- “There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.” - Ansel Adams
36- “When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence.” - Ansel Adams
37- "Wanting to think is one thing; having a talent for thinking is another." - Ludwig Wittgenstein
38- “Philosophers use a language that is already deformed as though by shoes that are too tight” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
39- “Nothing is more important for teaching us to understand the concepts we have than constructing fictitious ones” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
40- “don’t for heaven’s sake, be afraid of talking nonsense! But you must pay attention to your nonsense” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
41- “In a conversation: One person throws a ball; the other does not know: whether he is supposed to throw it back, or throw it to a third person, or leave it on the ground, or pick it up and put it in his pocket, etc” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
42- “I really do think with my pen, because my head often knows nothing about what my hand is writing” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
43- “What I am writing here may be feeble stuff; well, then I am just not capable of bringing the big, important thing to light. But hidden in these feeble remarks are great prospects.” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
44- “I ask countless irrelevant questions. If only I can succeed in hacking my way through this forest!” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
45- “Even to have expressed a false thought boldly and clearly is already to have gained a great deal” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
46- “Don’t concern yourself with what, presumably no one but you grasps!” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
47- “when you are philosophizing you have to descend into primeval chaos and feel at home there” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
48- "You cannot step into the same river twice." - Heraclitus
49- "Eternity is a child playing, playing checkers; the kingdom belongs to a child." - Heraclitus
50- "Nothing endures but change." - Heraclitus
51- "For a guest remembers all his days the hospitable man who showed him kindness." - Odyssey Book 15 Line 75
52- "Watching [GM Nigel] Short peruse the photos of young women, I had a fanciful notion that the development of specialized skills and character traits in early childhood is like a country fair in which you are alotted a fixed number of tickets to spend on the various concessions. This particular fixed number of tickets to spend on the various concessions. This particular fair is of short duration and happens only once in a lifetime. Nigel took the chess roller-coaster a dozen times, and rode the honesty ride twice, and so he had insufficient tickets left to take the Train Beyond Adolescence more than a stop or two. I myself missed the athletic concession, and I should have ridden -damn it- the chess coaster three or four times." - King's Gambit: A Son, A Father, and the World's Most Dangerous Game by Paul Hoffman page335
53- “I don’t know, but I do know with great precision why nobody else knows either.” - John H. Cochrane
54- "One must have chaos within oneself, to give birth to a dancing star." - Friedrich Nietsche
55- "I created chaos on the chess board and my strength lay in finding hidden harmonies. I always cultivated being at peace in chaos. manifest your unique character on the chess board." - Josh Waitzkin
56- "Leave numbers behind and ride the wave of the game." - Josh Waitzkin
57- "The weakness of an artist is dogma." - Josh Waitzkin
58- "Everything i've learned, i've eventually unlearned. I spend more time unlearning than learning. You must challenge your own micro thought constructs." - Josh Waitzkin
59- "It is like a tunnel, the deeper you get into the more you see there is to learn." - Josh Waitzkin
60- "Your emotions are there for a reason. Observe their ripple." - Josh Waitzkin
61- "The same mold, teachers have learned a certain way. great teachers should listen first." - Josh Waitzkin
62- "Change from psychology and technical errors, transition from opening prep to first middlegame decision or tactical to strategical." - Josh Waitzkin
63- "There is some part about any discipline that should appeal to any person." - Josh Waitzkin
64- "Identify thematic connections by breaking down the walls between different disciplines." - Josh Waitzkin
65- "You know your country is dying when you have to make a distinction between what is moral and ethical, and what is legal." - John de Armond
66- "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
67- "When you stop learning you start dying." - Scott Adams
68- "If you could buy some people for what they are worth, and sell them for what they "think" they are worth, there would always be a profit margin."
69- "Don't compare your life to others. You have no idea what their journey is all about."
70- "Life is too short to waste time hating anyone."
71- "When in doubt, just take the next small step."
72- "When it comes to going after what you love in life, don't take no for an answer."
73- "Frame every so-called disaster with these words 'In five years, will this matter?" - Ellis
74- "If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's, we'd grab ours back."
75- "Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need."
76- "There are three sides to every story: your side, their side and the truth." - Bablyon 5
77- "Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher." - Japanese Proverb


My apologies if some of the classics are in the ficgs quote file already as I just keep my own (and pull quotes from everywhere). I tried to cull out the duplicates.


Don Groves    (2009-08-12 05:38:36)
Silent player?

How is this done? Is he using an assumed name?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-12 12:43:35)
Alexander Dinerchtein

He registered under his real name (see the complete Go players list), but he didn't play yet at FICGS. He posted once in the forum though to speak about his [always interesting] Goama newsletter.


William Taylor    (2009-08-12 19:25:31)
To Mr Tano-Urayoán Russi Román

True, the top players do give simuls on occasion. I meant that I'm not aware of any really top players trying mega-simuls like this, trying to break the record (Martin, Polgar, Georgiev etc. are strong players of course, but not top ones). I certainly agree with you that it's a huge accomplishment to complete a simul like this, but I'd dispute that 'the physical fitness needed for this is the same as a top athlete'.


Ralf Mulde    (2009-08-18 00:24:11)
DESC corr. chess Open 2009 invitation

Dear chessfriends,

German e-mail Correspondence Chessclub (DESC) invites everyone to
join the DESC Open. Join with uns and have fun playing chess!

Everyone in the world who can play chess (and has the possibility to
use an e-mail-system) is invited herewith to take part at this tournament.

It's a cost-free tournament, no one has to pay any fees.

Please register per e-mail at [ turnierbuero@desc-online.de ] until
Sept. 19th 2009.

Your registration has to include

a) your family name
b) your first-name
c) your e-mail-address
d) and the remark < Anmeldung zum DESC-Open 2009 >.


The tournament will start at Oct. 1st 2009.

Reflection-time will be 30 days per 10 moves,
first time-exceed forfeits the game.

Moves will be transmitted by e-mail in the well known pgn-format.

During this pre-tounament, every player will have four to eight
games in groups with five to nine players.
The best three of them will reach the next round.

More informations are shown at DESC's homepage:

http://www.desc-online.de/turniere/open/2009/

Take part, have fun! You and your friends will be welcome!

Best regards, IM Joerg Kracht, Michael Schirmer, and Ralf Mulde


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-18 19:04:39)
DESC corr. chess Open

Hello Ralf,

I would have loved to play this email-chess event (a few chessfriends here told me about it) if I hadn't some many games and things to do here. My best wishes of success for the tournament !

By the way what do you think about the future of email chess (I quite liked this way of play in the past but I experienced lost emails also), will DESC offer server chess also like IECG ?

Best regards,
Thibault


Daniel Parmet    (2009-08-19 01:53:58)
Idea: Unr, No Comp, Match

I was wondering if it was possible to setup a new competition option for chess.

Just a 2 game unrated match where both players agree no computer. Each person has W&B.

This is more appealing to me than No engine tournament where the ratings/pairings are from people that have played rated corr w/comps. We can agree to play friends in 2 games.

Thoughts?


Benjamin Block    (2009-08-19 17:52:40)
Already have to many e-mails.

Prefer to play server chess. I get 100 of e-mails every day and to check everyone takes time.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-22 15:08:37)
Vacation Time & 60 days limit per move

Hi Charlie, it is explained when you take some days of vacation :

Rules 11.4 : "Any move in any game shall be played in a maximum period of 60 days, otherwise the game will be adjudicated on time."

Note : The time per move clock is still running during vacation.


Anyway, it's not really convenient to remember so I'll add it in the Help section.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-22 15:16:12)
Unrated (no computer) matches

Hi Daniel, this has to be discussed. This would be on another path than the "competitive" way the server followed until there, particularly to avoid the "just for a glance" games that are just thrown and lost on time after a few moves like on most other correspondence chess servers... But after all maybe most players here wouldn't do it because they also play rated tournaments.

The other point is "confusion" because of too many tournaments... Many new players are still lost when arriving here and I feel I have some work to make it clearer before to add such new categories... To be continued.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-22 22:30:34)
Slow moves & chat bar at Poker

Hello everyone,

You may have noticed that the chat bar disappeared during your poker "moves"... In my opinion poker moves are usually played so fast that it is useless to display it but it may be a problem for players who write long messages with their moves and can be disconnected (the small message box keeps players connected as it refreshes automatically). Is it a problem for many players ?

The other question is : Should the "slow moves" process be kept for poker moves as it is (IMHO) not necessary to confirm such moves in most cases ?

Your feedback is welcome, thanks :)


Michel van der Kemp    (2009-08-25 19:47:10)
Mistake in ELO calculation?

I got this email from an advanced match.

Game 27857


[Event "FICGS__CHESS__BULLET_BRONZE__000132"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2009.8.23"]
[Round "1"]
[White "van der Kemp,Michel"]
[Black "Goršek,Gregor"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1966"]
[BlackElo "1623"]

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Be2 O-O 6.O-O c6 7.a4 a5 8.h3 Na6 9.Be3 Nb4 10.Qd2 Qc7 11.Rac1 Rd8 12.Rfe1 d5 13.exd5 Nbxd5 14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.Bh6 Be6 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.c4 Nb4 18.Bd3 Nxd3 19.Qxd3 Qd6 20.Re3 Rd7 21.Qe2 Re8 22.Rd1 R7d8 23.Re1 Rd7 24.b3 b6 25.Ng5 Bf5 26.g4 1-0



Move sent : 2009.8.23 - 17:54:11
Move replied : 2009.8.23 - 19:10:44


Player resigned.




WhiteELO : 1966 ... 1961
BlackELO : 1623 ... 1627


This email was generated automatically by http://www.ficgs.com/
My rating went down after winning a game :)


Don Groves    (2009-08-26 07:49:38)
another rating problem

Was that third game rated? You seem to have played a lot of unrated games.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-26 19:21:42)
Stan Vaughan vs. Varuzhan Akobian (WCF)

Many of you probably saw this strange banner in a Chessbase news article, with this title :

"THE WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP"
World Chess Federation, Inc.

WCF "WORLD CHESS CHAMPION" Stan Vaughan
vs. WCF official challenger Varuzhan Akobian in WCF TITLE MATCH 2009 (starting on December 1st, 2009 at Riviera Hotel Casino, Las Vegas)

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5717

The Chessbase article says that when FIDE stripped Fischer of the title in 1975, he set up the WCF which sanctioned his "World Championship" rematch with Spassky in 1992 (with a record of five million dollars prize). After winning the event, Fischer was scheduled to play WCF official challenger Stan Vaughan, but he retired.

Well well... I cannot even find a page on Wikipedia on Stan Vaughan, but the article on Chessbase also mentions that Vaughan would have been 29 time US Champion of the American Chess Association, retaining the title at 2008 Robert Fischer Memorial and also, but not least :

* 1988 US Correspondence Chess Champion
* 1989, 1995 Mensa World Correspondence Chess Champion
* 1995-2007 WCCF World Correspondence Chess Champion
* WCF “The World Chess Champion 2001-present 2009
* Retained the title in 2007 with an 11-0 title match victory over Francisco Metz, an International Master from Mexico and former 1975 USCF's US Amateur Chess Champion

To finish, Garry Kasparov would have turned down the opportunity to play him in a match for 5 million dollars in 2008 - not a big surprise.

Does anyone have more information on all this and eventually games played by this un-unknown correspondence chess champion ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-27 01:58:03)
Parmet - Porkolab

The result has been recorded but here is the explanation : "The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is superior to 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player."


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-28 01:06:17)
S.C. von Erichsen is FICGS Go champion !

Svante Carl von Erichsen is FICGS Go champion, for the 3rd time... after winning 2 more games in the 5 games final match which looked like in some ways to the previous one with Ke Lu.

Congrats again Svante Carl ! Definitely we need more strong players to try to rivalize :)

Here is the 4th game that just finished :


( ; FF[1] GM[1] SZ[19] AP[Ficgs] RU[Chinese] GN[von Erichsen,Svante Carl-Lu,Ke] HA[0] KM[7.5] WR[2653] PW[von Erichsen,Svante Carl] BR[2483] PB[Lu,Ke] DT[February 28 3:6:11 CET 2009] RE[W+T] ; B[pd] ; W[dc] ; B[pp] ; W[eq] ; B[pj] ; W[nq] ; B[lq] ; W[no] ; B[pn] ; W[kp] ; B[lp] ; W[lo] ; B[kq] ; W[jp] ; B[jq] ; W[ip] ; B[hq] ; W[hp] ; B[gq] ; W[gp] ; B[fq] ; W[fp] ; B[er] ; W[dr] ; B[dq] ; W[ep] ; B[fr] ; W[cq] ; B[cj] ; W[ch] ; B[co] ; W[cn] ; B[bn] ; W[dn] ; B[cm] ; W[nc] ; B[kd] ; W[ne] ; B[pf] ; W[ng] ; B[gc] ; W[ic] ; B[id] ; W[jd] ; B[jc] ; W[je] ; B[ib] ; W[kc] ; B[hc] ; W[de] ; B[lc] ; W[ph] ; B[oh] ; W[qe] ; B[pe] ; W[pg] ; B[og] ; W[of] ; B[pi] ; W[qf] ; B[rh] ; W[qd] ; B[pc] ; W[qc] ; B[qg] ; W[pb] ; B[ob] ; W[qb] ; B[nb] ; W[nh] ; B[qh] ; W[pl] ; B[om] ; W[qo] ; B[po] ; W[qp] ; B[qn] ; W[pq] ; B[oq] ; W[pr] ; B[or] ; W[rq] ; B[mj] ; W[mc] ; B[kb] ; W[lf] ; B[lh] ; W[jg] ; B[ji] ; W[mb] ; B[oc] ; W[ie] ; B[he] ; W[hf] ; B[gf] ; W[hg] ; B[mf] ; W[me] ; B[mg] ; W[ke] ; B[ld] ; W[le] ; B[nf] ; W[eh] ; B[hi] ; W[kh] ; B[ki] ; W[rn] ; B[rm] ; W[ro] ; B[ql] ; W[bk] ; B[bj] ; W[cl] ; B[dm] ; W[bm] ; B[bo] ; W[dl] ; B[dp] ; W[br] ; B[em] ; W[en] )




Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2009-08-28 09:44:30)
Thanks

Thank you very much.

I must admit, though, that I am a bit disappointed that all these games were decided by the clock. Game 1, I am definitely behind, Game 2, I think that I have a winning position, Game 3 is very close and would have been decided by endgame (there are some very large points open), Game 4, I am back in the game after installing a group in his moyo, but I believe he is still slightly ahead, Game 5, I think that he has to defend the group at the bottom now, so I can reduce the left side, then switch to the top right corner; I am still relatively thin at the top (compared to the rest of the board), so I think the game would have had to be decided in a fight there.

So, all in all, I think that these were really interesting games, and it is a pity that they were finished too early. Lu Ke is a very strong player, and I am really lucky to have a positive score against him. I just hope that my next opponent pays a bit more attention to the clock.


Garvin Gray    (2009-08-29 16:05:33)
Issue for 2150 rated players

I am starting to notice an issue with how the rating bands are set for tournaments, both standard and rapid.

Currently I am rated between 2150 and 2200, depending on the rating period. After having been in this rating band for a couple of rating periods, I am noticing it is very difficult to get rated games against players rated above 2200.

This makes it very difficult to improve my rating, or at least have it proven that my playing standard is not deserved of a higher rating, or a lower rating as the case maybe.

I know it is possible to look at my results from players rated similar to myself and try and work out conclusions from there, but to not have the opportunity to play people rated above myself does not afford me the opportunity to see how I go against them, or to record results against higher rated players that might suggest I am underrated.

I suggested awhile ago that each of the tournament bands need to be 200 points apart, with the standard and rapid tournaments operated on odds and evens 200 point rating bands. I still believe this to be the answer to a lot of the sites ills as I still see many tournaments where players just under the rating cut off not entering when the rating band is 400 points.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-30 01:24:36)
Issue for 2150 rated players

That's why WCH round-robin groups are useful to help players to find more quickly their rating... Unfortunately, it seems we go towards a 8 months cycle instead of 6 months.

So your idea is to make the rapid tournaments like the standard (class) ones with 400 points bands -am I right- ?

I'm not sure it will solve the problem but we may try, why not... Any opinion ?


Scott Nichols    (2009-08-30 02:23:09)
Same question

This is exactly the same question I asked in "Rapid Expansion?" Players who prefer the faster time controls are very limited in the choices they have. Count my vote on a 400 point band for rapid tours as a YES.


Robert Mueller    (2009-08-30 08:35:34)
Assuming that ...

... I am one of the two players, I would like to start as soon as possible.


Don Groves    (2009-08-31 00:58:08)
My .02 Euros

As I understand it, the current limit for a game to affect ratings is 350 ELO points. If so, then why would any player near the top of a 400 rating band enter a tournament unless at least one other player near his/her rating has already entered? Otherwise, that player stands to gain little or nothing from winning.

It seems logical to me that the rating band be smaller than the rating limit to insure that all the games will be rated.


Don Groves    (2009-08-31 06:56:03)
Poker bug?

Game 34598, move 20: I won the hand on a showdown but was not able to see my opponent's hidden cards. The display only showed my hidden cards and the common cards. Why?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-08-31 14:05:20)
No bug?

Hi Don, I don't see the point here... Your opponent (Player 1) pays by checking so you show your cards, he does not have to show his cards in this case if he hasn't a better hand (no player is all in).

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=34598&move=40


Michael Sharland    (2009-09-01 03:41:29)
I agree with the Garvin's suggestion

If you look at the waiting list for any of the standard tournaments, you will typically see only players rated in the bottom 100 points of the band. This means that certain ranges are missing profitable opportunities to play and move up their ratings.

By narrowing the standard tournament bands and offsetting them with the rapid tournament bands, you will likely see an increase in signups as more players will find tournaments that align with their desire for the ability to make rating progress.

I am also in this 2100-2199 rating range and feel that there is no tournament that I can sign up for that would help my rating improve. So I find myself waiting for a WCH tournament to move me up or down rather than playing a new tournament as I would like to.


Iouri Basiliev    (2009-09-01 18:10:07)
1st team tournament : games & results

It seems "Yellow-Blue" team lost one player (Romaniuk, Dmytro ), but continue to play.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-02 02:06:53)
Response

The rationale for the 400 points bands in class tournaments and 200 bands in rapid tournaments is to reduce the number of opportunities to play rapid tournaments (that are much more time consuming and may lead to general forfeits)... I still do not understand why 400 points bands are a problem as most players play the tournaments that may help to increase their rating (as Michael said, by the way the Rapid M seems quite dedicated for 2100-2199 rated players, actually a future improvement may be 100 points bands).

Anyway, I see no strong reason not to try this change... let's do it unless someone sees this strong reason.


Daniel Parmet    (2009-09-02 03:36:36)
Can't Join tournament?

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=entry_tournament&tournament=ficgs_chess_standard_a

The standard Class has the rating band 2000-2400?! Expert to MASTER when its supposed to be class A? On top of that... several 1900s are in the waitinglist .... yet I as a class A player also in the 1900s can't join this because I don't have an X rating for an A tournament? I'm confused...


Daniel Parmet    (2009-09-02 04:57:02)
well...

well shouldn't it be called X/M not A... A implies A players can join.


Don Groves    (2009-09-02 05:26:53)
well...

... I guess there are two classes of A players -- standard and rapid.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-02 16:20:51)
class A / rapid A

There's no A players, only class A & rapid A tournaments. Indeed those 1900 players were over 2000 when they signed up, that's fair IMO and I see no other good way to deal with it.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-02 18:00:40)
FIDE chess rating list, september 2009

As Veselin Topalov (former FIDE world champion) & Viswanathan Anand (current FIDE world champion) did not play any game since the july rating list has been published, they remain number 1 & number 2 in the top rankings, but their followers played quite many games : Levon Aronian is now number 3 with 2773 points while Vladimir Kramnik & Magnus Carlsen are number 4 and 5 with 2772 elo points.

Here are the 2700+ players :

1 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2813
2 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2788
3 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2773
4 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2772
5 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2772
6 Leko, Peter g HUN 2762
7 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2757
8 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2756
9 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2756
10 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2750
11 Jakovenko, Dmitry g RUS 2742
12 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2741
13 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2741
14 Gashimov, Vugar g AZE 2740
15 Wang, Yue g CHN 2736
16 Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2735
17 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2733
18 Shirov, Alexei g ESP 2730
19 Alekseev, Evgeny g RUS 2725
20 Karjakin, Sergey g UKR 2722
21 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar g AZE 2721
22 Dominguez Perez, Leinier g CUB 2719
23 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime g FRA 2718
24 Eljanov, Pavel g UKR 2717
25 Malakhov, Vladimir g RUS 2715
26 Movsesian, Sergei g SVK 2711
27 Motylev, Alexander g RUS 2710
28 Bacrot, Etienne g FRA 2709
29 Short, Nigel D g ENG 2706
30 Rublevsky, Sergei g RUS 2703
31 Kasimdzhanov, Rustam g UZB 2702
32 Bu, Xiangzhi g CHN 2702


Don Groves    (2009-09-05 00:09:13)
Too much French wine?

CHENNAI, India (Reuters) - A leading French chess player turned up drunk and dozed off after just 11 moves in an international tournament in Kolkata, losing the round on technical grounds, domestic media reported Friday.

Grandmaster Vladislav Tkachiev arrived for Thursday's match against India's Praveen Kumar in such an inebriated state that he could hardly sit in his chair and soon fell asleep, resting his head on the table, Hindustan Times newspaper reported.

Indian papers carried pictures of the world number 58 sleeping and the organizers' futile attempts to wake his up.

The game was awarded to the Indian on the technical ground of Tkachiev being unable to complete his moves within the stipulated time of an hour and 30 minutes, the paper said.

The player was warned and reprimanded by the organizers afterwards but has been allowed to take part in the remainder of the competition, the paper said.


Maurice Ellis    (2009-09-07 01:09:38)
HOW TO START PLAY

Newcomer here.Can't get anyone to challenge me in a free game. Can't seem to challenge anyone in a free game.HELP!!


Nick Burrows    (2009-09-07 02:27:46)
Waiting Lists

Hi Maurice, you have to enter your name on the waiting lists, and then wait for the tournament to fill up with players.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-07 19:11:36)
Games vs. Tournaments

Hello Maurice, FICGS is mainly a correspondence games server so it is much easier to play tournaments (you can register in Waiting lists) than live games (advanced games and challenges), be patient and you may use the chat bar to try to find an opponent !


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-09-07 23:52:52)
A Big Mouth on Rybka Forum

Howdy Thibault & all.
There is a poster on the Rybka forum who has sort of a big mouth. He claims that Rybka IA feature is not best for CC games, claims it is too time consuming and at any rate he blubbers and brags that those who use IA are not able to defeat him. I am using my own language here in a jist of the conversation of his. He further says that he never spends more that a matter of hours cogitating his move using a 3 tear "long game" approach to working his moves. Timers such at 60' 40 moves @ 1st tier etc (don't remember his 2nd tier timer. In any case he claims he can get to depth 40 in mid game situations using a "long game" three tier mode. and finds moves that are superior to IA running a day or more (he doesn't seem to understand that most CC players use IA in a special Centaur way and the Program is a tool. He gives little respect for 2500 CC rated Centaur players using the feature IA. He beats such players all of the time, he say's with his Rybka usage with his very modest hardware against 2500 players using IA. I am skeptical. I asked where he plays CC (out of courosity) and he will not tell where. a Poster in response to his post believe he plays CC where computers are not allowed, I have no idea in this regard. I told him that I play at FICGS where computers are welcome and a 2500 rating on this server is very high. There are many well known players held in high regard playing at FICGS that would "clean his clock" with him playing as he say's he does. So what is my point. I am wondering if I can invite this guy to join FICGS and that his lofty rating can be accepted. I shall invite him to Join our SM #11 tourney. Wayne


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2009-09-08 09:05:01)
Mr Lowrance

Don't waste your time with such characters. Mr Uri Blass has already revealed his methods, he plays in a site where engines are not allowed and he cheats using them. He has already made the same silly arguments before, he just wants attention.


Nick Burrows    (2009-09-12 02:33:28)
video

The video that the transcript was taken from;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKEnwr-N2NI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Echessninja%2Ecom%2Fdailydirt%2F&feature=player_embedded#t=44


Garvin Gray    (2009-09-13 17:08:24)
to all players

Thibault,

In regards to the recent changes, I am not sure how many players on here would be aware that the rating cutoffs have changed in the waiting lists.

I think it might be a good idea to send a general message via email to all members informing them of the change, so then they are aware of it.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-14 21:22:36)
Rating cutoffs change

Hi Wayne, no problem :) .. The responses are in this discussion, right ?

Garvin, it seems to me that this is a minor change (only for chess class tournaments) that does not change anything to most players, I did not want to annoy all members with such an email.


Scott Nichols    (2009-09-16 08:58:46)
Quick Corr. Chess

With the recent narrowing of the band in standard tournaments, it occurred to me that there is even less opportunity to get games than before. For those of us (and I think it is many) who check the site many times daily waiting for the next move, there just isn't enough games to feed our tremendous appetite for chess. I propose a new catagory, Quick Corr. chess, I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but here it is. It would have it's own Quick chess rating. Bands would be, Over 2000, 1600-2000, and under 1600. Time limit-10 days per game, increment-8 hours. I truly believe there is a market for this here. Advanced chess requires that you actually be at the comp. for a length of time till game is done, so it is not an option for many. But as you can see there has been quite an increase in advanced games being played. So---if you are one of those players like me, that check for moves first thing in the morning and last thing at night, sneak your laptop into the bathroom at work to see if your opponent took the sacrifice you just offered, etc., and time after time are disappointed at not seeing any new moves, please offer your support and suggestions on this. Thank you, signed "Starving for chess". :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-16 13:23:31)
Quick Corr. Chess

Hi Scott :)

Why not playing blitz games between your correspondence moves ?

IMO the problem with that idea is :

1) If the quick corr. chess games share the corr. chess rating list, it may bring trouble in it with many losses on time. Some other servers offer this kind of time control & it is not serious IMHO.

2) If the quick corr. chess games do not share the corr. chess rating list, it will be less interesting for most players and it means another rating list, probably the one too much.

In all cases, it will be more waiting lists to fill. At a 2000+ level, it is never so easy.

Waiting for more opinions...


Daniel Parmet    (2009-09-16 23:06:50)
bands

also I do agree the bands are a problem.

I am 1962 and only want to play higher rated players. So I won't play an 1800-2000 which means I have exactly ONE option the 1900-2100 rapid band which is mostly other 1900s anyways. The new bands lowered my opportunities to play and makes both the opportunities available to me lower overall rating averages.


Garvin Gray    (2009-09-17 04:32:42)
I call it reality :)

and the reality was that only players just above the lowest rating cutoff were entering the tournaments.

In a 400 point rating gap, incredibly rarely did a player from the top end of the range enter one of those tournaments.


Daniel Parmet    (2009-09-17 07:38:06)
The real reality

The real reality is there is no reason to play rated chess when i'm facing lower rated opponents. I can enter thematics and unrated events where I can play experts and masters (who cares if its unrated?). I'm not gonna play a rated event where i'm top seed.

So the rating bands have eliminated playing options not created them.


Don Groves    (2009-09-17 07:52:52)
Rating bands

What's the difference between 1800-2000 and 1800-2200? No one rated 2000 or above would enter that tournament either. I just don't see how your choices have been reduced.

Besides, if everyone adopted the attitude of only playing higher rated players, there would be no games at all.


Benjamin Block    (2009-09-17 19:41:23)
Quick corr. chess

The only swedish site where you can play corr. chess have some very smal times the lowest is 7 days for whole game (no increment). But it is very smal and only person that don´t have a job or don´t go to school can fix it. It is also a contest about how can make the last move on the night?


Don Groves    (2009-09-18 05:18:23)
Sigh...

I feel your pain, Scott. I would like to see a lower limit on the number of games one player can have at the same time. Maybe that would encourage some players to move more frequently...


Michel van der Kemp    (2009-09-19 08:58:08)
ICCF uses no rating bands

Maybe this was the reason ICCF has qualification tournaments to get into higher tiers. You win a tournament and are qualified to play in a higher tier, regardless your rating. Of course that also means new players will always start in the lowest tier and getting to a tier that suits them is a long long road.

I don't know how hard it is to implement this, but it would solve the rating issues.


Don Groves    (2009-09-19 10:00:50)
ICCF

I brought this up a couple of years ago but it met some resistance ;-) I still think it's a good idea as it gives more reason to try to win games rather than settle for draws. Obviously, it also rewards those who win a tournament.

The biggest objection earlier was that higher rated players may be forced to play against far lower rated players, but with 200 point rating bands now instead of 400, that objection is greatly lessened.

Thibault, will you reconsider?


Martin Challant    (2009-09-19 14:58:26)
Deleting an account

Since I'm not playing chess nor have I ever played it here, I want my account to be deleted. Any suggestions on how to do that?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-19 22:14:20)
Rating bands

Well, you have to win even more games to enter the upper rating category and I'm not sure it is always a fair system for the winner of a tournament to access it, based on the argument you quoted & also is it fair to play more games to finally win one tournament and lose elo points because of the number of games played at the same time, what happens if 3 or 4 players win a tournament ? (we could use the WCH tournament rules but is it appropriate in this case)

Moreover IMHO, such a rule wouldn't be necessary for ratings below 2200. On the other hand, it may be envisaged to casually offer to the winner of a 2000+ tournament to enter an upper waiting list to complete a waiting list in certain conditions, eg. if his rating is not more than 100 points below the upper rating band (it may be an idea to launch the 11th class SM tournament), what do you think ?


Don Groves    (2009-09-21 04:11:45)
rating bands

I agree with that: Under certain conditions, such as being less than 100 ELO points below the next higher rating and winning a lower rated tournament, a player gets a one time opportunity to play in the next higher group. If the player's rating is above the limit after the tournament, he/she remains in the higher class; otherwise they must play again in the lower class.

This would help fill higher rated tournaments faster and also allow players to advance more rapidly if they are good enough. This should apply to all FICGS games, Go and Poker included.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-22 17:37:12)
Important issue : Moves taken back

Hello all,

A player (no need to specify the game, at least not yet) asked me as the FICGS admin to take back his opponent's move which is an obvious mistake. In this case both players agree to take back the move to not waste the game, after that the player who made the mistake kindly asked to the other player if it was possible take back the move. At this point, all depended of the other player's fair play, but of course only the FICGS admin can take back a move in any game.

However I just wonder if it is fair in all cases to do this, particularly when a player shows a great fair play in all his games.

I've just read the rules again and nothing is mentioned on this and what should do the FICGS admin (or tournament director). Note, I've already taken back a few moves when both players agreed to do this in the past.

Question, not really a poll but your opinion would be appreciated : Do you think that the FICGS admin should...

1) take back all moves in this case.
2) take back some moves in this case (at his discretion).
3) never take back any move even in this case.

IMO, choice 2) is the best one as more or less complex cases may happen, what do you think ?

Thanks for sharing your views !


Hannes Rada    (2009-09-22 21:48:50)
Depends

imho on the type of tournament.
It could be problemantic in round robin tournamens, as there are also other players involved.
Seems to be okay in a knockout tournament where only the 2 players are involved.


William Taylor    (2009-09-22 22:16:32)
#2

I also vote for number 2.

Regarding Hannes Rada's point about the decision also affecting other players in a round-robin - this is also true to a lesser extent in elims, as it could affect who somebody's opponent is in the next round. Personally I don't think these considerations are very important if it is an obvious mouse-slip (such as Kf1 instead of O-O) and I certainly wouldn't want you to get the agreement of everyone in the tournament before allowing a takeback.


Daniel Parmet    (2009-09-23 03:44:25)
NO OTB Comparisions

I'm sorry I play 160 otb games a year I find this comparison unfair... OTB any touching of a piece or movement of a piece cannot be an accident. In corr and online games it is easy to have such accidents that are out of your control. After all there is no touch move rule in corr at all. I can touch the pieces come back later touch them again and repeatedly do this only submitting my move 60 days later after having touch every piece 100s of times.

Most online chess leagues have take back rules for obvious things like kf1 instead of castling.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-23 10:34:53)
Long interview

Kasparov : "I am more an aggressive player, Magnus is more of a Karpov-like player"

Full interview :

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5773

What do you think about that ? :)


Scott Nichols    (2009-09-23 12:14:26)
#3

This is the only choice IMO. Any result achieved after a takeback would be hollow even if both players had agreed. Any brilliancy, comeback etc. would always have that "Good game, but...there was that takeback."


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-23 12:57:10)
Fair play

I must say that the argument "and if one player does not agree he/she is a bad boy/girl" is also very relevant IMO.

So in cases #1 & #2 it is up to the players to show some fair play or not, it may create rare abusive & unfair situations but it is probably too much already. I'm probably to choose #3 also (finally) because of this.


William Taylor    (2009-09-24 15:16:46)
Not over yet...

There are still 8 blitz games to be played, so Tolya could stage a comeback (it seems unlikely though, given the time trouble he's had in the rapid games).


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-09-25 13:08:07)
.. accidently resigning

It happened already and as both players agreed to play on, I corrected the game. But I guess it should be the same punishment... I think I'll add a javascript alert when checking the "resign" box.


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2009-09-28 22:21:17)
Promotion

The promotion has centered around the new interface(GUI)and the new pemium membership for playchess. About the engine they just said "new stronger engine" but no numbers given.

Seems they emphasize the GUI and Shredder 12 the new human levels. Not as much the engine strenght as they gave up in chasing Rybka. I agree with Garvin I doubt Fritz will be close to Rybka 3


John Smith    (2009-09-29 21:23:50)
Human/Centaur

Hi again,

Thank you for replying, therefore a NO_ENGINES flag is not present I better use engines as well as I don't think is meaningful to play vs a human-computer hybrid who probably is rated 1000+ Elo points above me (following the rationale centaur > rybka > SGM > GM > IM > me)

Not 100% what I was looking for but on the other hand this approach has the merit of studying the opening part of the game in great depth as positions can be analyzed to a great extent.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-19 17:32:20)
Corr. Chess Maxims

Btw, I hardly would call you an otb player since you haven't played in TWO years. Clearly, you are not up on the rules as I've explained them to you already how they work with USCF. But since you're not a td, and I am then I will explain them again.

If repeated draw offers is ruled a distraction by a TD: 1st offense warning. 2nd Offense warning. 3rd offense time penalty. 4th offense time penalty. Pretty much all a td can do is time penalties for something like this. If he ruled it a loss, he'd face an appeal to the ethics committee. He'd lose the right to TD events and the result would be overturned to Nihl in the end anyways as that is not a correct ruling by the td.


Xavier Pichelin    (2010-02-06 14:25:55)
E. Kotlyanskiy new FICGS chess champion

Congratulation Edward!!
It's a very good player!!
He play very well the chess.
Edward deserves to gain win the champion FICGS because he better played than me.
Good Continuation Edward!!


Edward Kotlyanskiy    (2010-02-08 02:18:27)
E. Kotlyanskiy new FICGS chess champion

Thanks Hannes and Xavier. I most certainly enjoyed our games. Xavier played very well and I want to thank him for the exciting chess. At this point however there are still two games going so the action isn't over yet ;)


Philip Roe    (2010-06-11 17:37:29)
Analysis board in Chess 960

Thibault,

I notice that when playing Chess 960 the analysis board does not come up. Is there a reason for that?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-10-04 21:18:25)
IECG stopping

Shocking news.... Email chess will miss to many players, I loved this way of playing too, server chess is just different.

The message at IECG home page :

"Due to the fact that email play declines quickly in popularity making it impossible to build tournaments in a reasonable time, and due to the practical issues of email (viruses, spam filters) making this playing mode difficult, IECG has decided to stop its operations in December 2010 and to transfer its activities to our partner the Lechenicher SchachServer Server (LSS) in the meantime."

A page of correspondence chess has ended.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-10-05 19:20:02)
Shaking hands with Kasparov

Obviously, there's at least one member of this small lucky club here :)

http://www.ficgs.com/player_767.html

Lucky Pablo ! (see bottom of page)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-10-06 20:17:49)
2nd FICGS chess freestyle cup

Hi all,

Finally, I'll have some time to organize the 2nd FICGS chess freestyle cup during the next weeks !

The entry will be free for players rated over 2000, the prize will be 200 Epoints.


Three possibilities (swiss pairing) :

a) 6 rounds (1 hour + 15 sec/move), 2 rounds played each day - monday, tuesday, wednesday

b) 6 rounds (1 hour + 15 sec/move), 2 rounds played each day - friday, saturday, sunday

c) 6 rounds (30 minutes + 15 sec), 6 rounds played in a single day


Case a) could be organized next week or the week after, case b) couldn't be organized before about 1 month, case c) could be organized quite easily.

In cases a) & b), the best time for the daily 2 games remains to be found... IMO 8pm & 11pm server time or 1pm & 4pm server time are good choices, what do you think ?


Garvin Gray    (2009-10-07 13:03:35)
dates please

To answer whether a set of dates are good or not, it would need to be declared what the dates actually are?

For me this is more important. I would suggest going with the Friday, Saturday, Sunday option as for some people they will have to play at really 'rude' hours, so scheduling for the weekend would be more likely to more entries.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-10-07 16:03:42)
Freestyle cup dates

Hi Garvin, I mean the days of the week should be chosen "in general", for the next tournaments as well.

Well, if noone disagrees we'll play it on friday, saturday & sunday... I'll give the dates as soon as possible.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-10-08 12:47:47)
Message transmission (with slow moves)

Hi all,

Sorry to all players who use the slow moves process, I just realized the problem with 'empty moves (-)' at poker, you had to copy your message, now it is fixed... Please just warn me here if you still encounter any problem.

Thank you.


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2009-10-08 21:09:52)
< 2000 rated players

Which will be the entry fee?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-10-08 21:17:42)
< 2000 rated players

10 Epoints, most probably.


Nick Burrows    (2009-10-09 20:12:28)
Another played this week




Scott Nichols    (2009-10-10 10:15:23)
b or c

For me option "a" is not possible since I am a Mon. thru Fri. working stiff. I may even have to request a first round "bye" if that's possible. Will that be an option?

With all respect to Eros and the other top dogs here, the Dark Horse is Sebastion Boehme. He is one of the best Freestyle players I've seen.


William Taylor    (2009-10-13 14:08:30)
C

C is the only option which I would have time to play (at the moment that is - in uni holidays I'd have time for any of the options). I may not play anyway though during term time, so I don't have a strong opinion on this.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-10-17 16:26:23)
Cheers !

Thank you :) Well, there are so many improvements to do yet (an AJAX interface & so on), I still feel that FICGS is in its starting phase, but I'm optimistic, I only hope that more players will mean an even more friendly place !


Garvin Gray    (2009-10-18 14:56:42)
arrived

I have received fritz 12 a couple of days ago. I have not yet played it against Rybka at all, but I do have one question for those who also have it.

How do I open a current database of games that are located on my computer? Seems like a silly question, but I can not seem to work it out.


Benjamin Block    (2009-10-18 21:36:58)
I agree

Thibault you make a really good work. I hope you take some money self from the google ads you are really worth it. It is hard to think any person that can take over this site when you do not want or can. I really hope that my grandchild will play on this site and have that fun as i have and always will have (i´m still i child). PS: Please stop smoke we don´t want you to die in prematurly. You really work hard. Do you ever sleep?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-10-18 22:52:59)
About PS :)

Hi Benjamin ! Do not believe photos, I never smoked (even this one) so I'll haunt this site for decades :) I hope our grandchild will play chess together ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-10-22 20:23:32)
Results

Almost all games are finished on tables 2, 3 & 4 .. There is no doubt that Yura will win the tournament on table 4! (the Morra gambit is really hard to play against a good player, definitely :))


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-10-22 20:41:56)
Huayong Yang is the new Go WCH finalist

Congrats to Huayong Yang who made it in the Go WCH 4 preliminary tournament with an outstanding 8/8 !

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WCH_TOURNAMENT__000004

He will play Svante Carl von Erichsen in the next Go WCH final match...

Huayong started with the minimal authorized rank (10 kyu) without an official rating but obviously he's much much stronger ... His current rating is 2334 (3 dan) already, so the question is : do his opponents have an idea on his real strength ? :)


Hannes Rada    (2009-10-22 21:57:22)
Peter Schuster is playing ICCF - final !

All the best to Peter Schuster for his
ICCF - World Championship Final
http://www.iccf-webchess.com/EventCrossTable.aspx?id=18349&order=p


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-10-23 14:16:12)
ICCF - final

Congrats Peter, a very strong tournament!

That's a pity the top seeds 2700+ do not play this one :/


Hannes Rada    (2009-10-23 14:50:46)
Top Players

It's quite funny the top players are always whining on the ICCF - forum, that the finals getting weaker and weaker ....And most of them refuse to play one.
However in my opinon Elo - rating means nearly nothing in these days.


Janeen Walden    (2009-10-25 23:16:06)
Crazyhouse

How many would play crazyhouse if it was running here?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-10-26 02:13:10)
Crazyhouse

I used to play bughouse at blitz time control, I'm not sure about crazyhouse but would it be funny as well at correspondence time controls!? I'm not sure, what do you think?

Anyway, the question is always the same, should FICGS introduce more games just for fun or focus on competition for a few games only...


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.


William Taylor    (2009-10-26 14:00:00)
Correction

I said 'crazyhouse is a 1-player game' in my last post... I did of course mean 2 players, 1 board.


Garvin Gray    (2009-10-27 14:09:09)
Playchess

I am wondering, how many of our players here are also on playchess. Care to share identities?


Scott Nichols    (2009-10-28 02:43:53)
Sure

On Playchess, I'm Dolmol, who are you Garvin.


Benjamin Block    (2009-10-28 08:07:15)
ofcourse

i´m there as the-best-player.
Computer room and main hall.


Benjamin Block    (2009-10-28 08:09:55)
Chessvariant databas

Thanks a lot. I will use that database when i play on schemingmind.com


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-10-29 23:01:27)
Most active players, amazing statistics!

These statistics (updated every 2 days) are available at :
http://www.ficgs.com/about.html


And the overall winner is........ :)

Players most active : General (moves played)


1. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff : 124234
2. Rolf Staggat : 81806
3. Anderson Barradas : 55829
4. Stephane Legrand : 47936
5. Scott Nichols : 46711
6. Mark Noble : 37387
7. Findlay Murray : 35874
8. Volker Koslowski : 33241
9. Don Groves : 29539
10. Thibault de Vassal : 26104
11. Francisco Gramajo : 25281
12. Sergey Uzdin : 25256
13. Michael Sharland : 24890
14. Josef Riha : 24193
15. Jason Repa : 22765
16. Laurine Ségur : 22577
17. Alexis Bromo : 20198
18. Benjamin Collette : 20112
19. Fernando Vasquez : 19928
20. Laszlo Kis-Kos : 19174
21. Christian Koch : 18450
22. Evgeny Yarkov : 17168
23. Xavier Pichelin : 16559
24. Garvin Gray : 16388
25. Ranganathan Raman : 15750
26. Sebastian Boehme : 15190
27. Zdravko Stoyanov : 15186
28. Nick Ioffe : 15151
29. Phil Cook : 15007
30. Sean McNabb : 14572
31. Daniel Parmet : 13814
32. Ilmars Cirulis : 13118
33. Joaquim Malpalma : 13057
34. Dmitriy Panov : 12733
35. Nelson Bernal Varela : 12119
36. Marco Roncagliolo : 11741
37. Dmytro Romaniuk : 11648
38. Miroslav Rakovic : 11435
39. Nick Burrows : 11242
40. Janeen Walden : 10967
41. Claude Brisson : 10812
42. Sandor Porkolab : 10714
43. Christophe Czekaj : 10678
44. Janusz Kepinski : 10675
45. Peter Willoughby : 10634
46. Benjamin Block : 10633
47. Kate Lubeck : 10155
48. Charlie Neil : 10076
49. Darko Pipac : 10072
50. William Taylor : 10036



Players most active : Go


1. Don Groves : 17026
2. Claude Brisson : 10812
3. Nick Ioffe : 10795
4. Alejandro Suarez-Moreno : 10018
5. Mickaël Simon : 8986
6. Thibault de Vassal : 8870
7. Sean McNabb : 8666
8. Sergey Tarassov : 8236
9. Phil Cook : 8186
10. Tetsuya Kobayashi : 7816



Players most active : Chess


1. Josef Riha : 24119
2. Fernando Vasquez : 19820
3. Zdravko Stoyanov : 14523
4. Anderson Barradas : 12587
5. Ilmars Cirulis : 12200
6. Laszlo Kis-Kos : 12068
7. Janusz Kepinski : 10675
8. Garvin Gray : 10638
9. Scott Nichols : 10211
10. Charlie Neil : 10076



Players most active : Chess 960


1. Christophe Czekaj : 1224
2. Joaquim Malpalma : 916
3. Frederick Estieu : 672
4. Ilmars Cirulis : 605
5. Pavel Háse : 600
6. Sefa Sarihan : 524
7. Sandor Porkolab : 512
8. Jay Melquiades : 495
9. Christian Koch : 470
10. Rick Spangler : 447



Players most active : Big Chess


1. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff : 5583
2. Peter Willoughby : 4368
3. José Carrizo : 3319
4. Thibault de Vassal : 3199
5. Mark Noble : 2949
6. Sandor Porkolab : 2467
7. Volker Koslowski : 1887
8. Paul König : 1790
9. William Taylor : 1706
10. Ranganathan Raman : 1620



Players most active : Poker Holdem


1. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff : 111119
2. Rolf Staggat : 75570
3. Stephane Legrand : 41639
4. Anderson Barradas : 38671
5. Scott Nichols : 36500
6. Findlay Murray : 33008
7. Mark Noble : 31172
8. Volker Koslowski : 25829
9. Michael Sharland : 20721
10. Francisco Gramajo : 20431


Congrats Heinz-Georg, definitely you're the most addicted player ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-10-31 13:18:45)
vacation time

Hello Miloš, yes it is allowed, as in any tournament but while playing a bullet/lightning/blitz game.


Milos Budnar    (2009-10-31 16:32:14)
vacation time

Thanks William and Thibault,
There was just the diction "All games during the whole cycle are played in 30 days + 1 day / move" which confused me. Now, I am relaxed about that. Milos


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-03 11:36:47)
5.2 % !!

Another amazing statistic : Heinz-Georg played 5.2 % of all moves played on the server........... (thanks to poker of course)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-03 11:40:33)
FIDE november rating list

Finally, Magnus Carlsen crossed the 2800 mark and reaches the 2nd place on the FIDE november rating list, ahead of world champion Viswanathan Anand. The next months will be interesting, at last :)


FIDE November 1st 2009 – Top 20 Players

Rank Name Title Country Rating Games BirthYear

1 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2810 10 1975
2 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2801 10 1990
3 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2788 0 1969
4 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2786 13 1982
5 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2772 0 1975
6 Gashimov, Vugar g AZE 2758 11 1986
7 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2758 11 1968
8 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2754 17 1976
9 Leko, Peter g HUN 2752 10 1979
10 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2750 0 1977
11 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2748 10 1987
12 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2739 13 1969
13 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2739 5 1983
14 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2736 13 1983
15 Jakovenko, Dmitry g RUS 2736 10 1983
16 Wang, Yue g CHN 2734 27 1987
17 Eljanov, Pavel g UKR 2729 15 1983
18 Karjakin, Sergey g UKR 2723 12 1990
19 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar g AZE 2719 25 1985
20 Shirov, Alexei g ESP 2719 18 1972


More details in the Chessbase news :
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5879


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-03 11:58:36)
If anyone could comment any game...

As far as I can remember, in an old discussion we decided that anyone couldn't comment any running game (despite of the fact that rules allow players to use any kind of help)... That's why I made the "public comments" field for the players only.

Do you think that something could be improved ? What about a kind of thread displayed after the public comments ?

Anyone could write and comment any game... Now 3 options, the thread could be created only when the game finishes, it could be created when the game starts, or (thinking about Malkovich games) it could be created when the game starts, but the players can read it & write only when the game finishes !

What do you think ?


Philip Roe    (2009-11-03 18:15:59)
Only after the finish

Suppose A is the strongest player in a WCH qualifier, and B is his nearest rival. A could use the thread to give advice to B's opponents.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-03 18:28:43)
Options

Actually this player could do it quite easily by many ways, including private messages.

To be clearer, the options :

1) The thread could be created when the game starts.
2) The thread could be created only when the game finishes.
3) The thread could be created when the game starts, the players can read or write only when the game finishes, the specators can read/write at any time.
4) No thread at all.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-03 19:10:11)
FICGS WCH 6 stage 2

I finally built 5 groups of 7 players (=35 players) for the 2nd stage of the 6th chess championship.

As you probably noticed, we had much less players in the 6th championship than in the 7th, also as there was 9 players by group, there was much less groups in the 6th championship.

Finally the choice was to build groups of 5 players playing a double round-robin tournament (wch rules have been updated for this case) with a few players invited, or to invite 10 more players from stage 1 in order to build 5 groups of 7 players. This last choice was best & more natural IMO to limit the number of games by player and to follow the idea to have more chances to see the very best players in the final stages.

Consequently the 3rd stage of WCH 6 (round-robin final) will be most probably a double round-robin tournament including the winners of these 5 tournaments (as there will be no need to invite any player to complete this group)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-03 19:44:40)
FICGS WCH 6 stage 2

To "clarify" the way groups are built, when looking at previous cycles there was 4 groups in most round-robin stage 2 and 7 players in every round-robin final, so there was 4 players qualified +1 from M group in stage 1 +2 players invited due to their result in the tournament (~1st place shared).

So I could have chosen to build 4 groups for this stage 2 as well, but there isn't a M group in this cycle and 3 players should be invited for the round-robin final which is a lot compared to the initial number, or it could be a double round-robin of 4 or 5 (with 1 invited) players, that I try to avoid as I think it is less efficient than single round-robin tournaments with more players... well I try to explain this complex way to decide how the groups are built to make it transparent at least, if not clear. As it is not possible to make a perfect algorithm, finding the best player should be the priority while building these groups, that's why IMHO it seems correct to see 2 (3 in rare cases) players qualified in these stage 1 tournaments.


Garvin Gray    (2009-11-04 12:20:13)
2 or 4 for me.

I vote for option 2. This could already occur, could it now?

1 and 3 open up all manners of pandoras boxes about cheating and probably worse and more likely, paranoia about cheating and advice.

This already could occur with people advising outside of this site, but I do not think this is something that should be encouraged by having a forum dedicated to it.

Also there would be no way to prevent a player in the game seeing the comments/analysis while they are a guest viewing unless only those who sign up to view thread can see said thread.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-04 12:56:42)
Guest account

The guest account is not a problem as there are several user modes (active, silent, inactive -> like the guest account), then instead of "cheating" maybe one could reasonably speak of "lack of fair play". You may be right as it may encourage it, however I'm convinced it would have real consequences in very(!) rare cases. Just my opinion, any others?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-04 16:58:01)
Advanced games (blitz) : improvements

Hi all,

You probably noticed that there was many forfeits in advanced games as :

1) Many new players try it but do not read the instructions.
2) The system is not efficient enough to warn the players when a game starts.

The facts :

a) When you enter a waiting list for an advanced (blitz, lightning, bullet) game, you HAVE to withdraw before leaving, or the game may start without you - the way to do it may not be clear enough.
b) When you challenge a player, you may leave the computer, the system will not start the game without you (or in rare cases).

The idea of FICGS is to provide a web interface without any software to download, consequently everything is not possible... Now it only opens a pop up (if possible) & sends an email when a game starts, and it updates the page if you are in My Games.

Possible improvements :

1) To add a sound or voice message when a game starts.
2) To close advanced games waiting lists :/
3) ...

Well, it looks like I need some ideas. Anybody help ? :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-04 22:33:08)
Knockout Final 05

I would be surprised... but we will see, Marc may want to play only WCH tournaments. Anyway, it happened already in previous cycles and it will probably happen again, as in every high level correspondence chess tournament :/


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-05 11:19:28)
Is Poker holdem a game of chance ?

I'm always surprised when a poker player tells me that (in brief) Poker holdem is a game of chance...

You probably know that quotes (in FICGS file) saying that "Statistics are often overestimated", "98% of statistics are made up", "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. (Mark Twain)", it is often used as an argument.

So the question : Do you think that Poker holdem is a game of chance (in what measure & why) ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-05 11:20:56)
#2

Ok, so I'll make some changes to allow players to make comments after the end of the game. Thank you !


Michel van der Kemp    (2009-11-05 16:19:28)
Luck

Luck does not explain why the same poker players are always at the end tables of the poker tours. So there is definitely skill involved. I think the draw of the cards is more important than skill though, anyone can beat anyone.


William Taylor    (2009-11-05 18:36:33)
Is it worth improving?

FICGS is mainly a correspondence games server, and I wonder whether it's worth spending lots of time trying to improve its live games. Personally, when I want to play a live game, I go to one of the many servers which are dedicated to that. Perhaps the main disadvantage for me of playing a live game on FICGS is that the page keeps refreshing - it's annoying and you don't see the opponent's move instantly.


Hannes Rada    (2009-11-05 18:42:10)
Sicilian Najdorf

Candidates Final 04
Riccio - Brunner: 8x Najdorf

Quarter Final 2 06
Noble - Gueci 8x Najdorf

Although the games are really interesting
Guys, isn't it a little bit boring playing 8 times the same opening ?
Maybe I am hypercritical today :-) but are chess openings reduced to Najdorf only ? Is this the only valid opening for cc nowadays ?
Any comments on this development in cc ?
Any comments ?


Lazaro Munoz    (2009-11-06 05:09:02)
Is Poker holdem a game of chance ?

The "luck" factor bears no part in the long run since good and bad hands will eventually equally one's "luck".

As a programmer myself I see hold'em poker as a state game as opposed to a stateless game such as roulette where the next roll is independent of the previous. The state is important in the past history of cards having been played. Of course too much knowledge of state in Blackjack will get you booted out of the casino :)

There are two sets of skills that a player possesses, probability and human nature assessment, it terms of detecting patterns of bluffing. In hold'em as opposed to other types of poker where there is less shared information, knowledge of probability becomes the more prominent skill as opposed to other types of blind pokers.

So "chance" is a part of the game but the open nature of hold'em brings more skill to table than other poker games.


Daniel Parmet    (2009-11-06 06:05:32)
Yes.

As someone who made well over 100,000 dollars playing poker professionally over the board... I cannot deny its luck. Everyone will argue with you how much is luck but only a fool will deny there is any luck. Skill plays a factor but is significantly reduced by playing poker online as opposed to over the board.

The litmus test of luck: Can you still lose the game after having made all the right moves?

In poker, no doubt! The river can screw you completely even if you played all the right moves and the odds were always in your favor.

Ask the same question of Go or Chess and you will get a different answer. If you make all the right moves you could never lose a game of chess.


Nick Burrows    (2009-11-06 06:56:01)
"At a Vacation Exercise in the College"

Hi Phillip. I had a look around also, many sources site the quote as being wrongly attributed to the baseball player Branch Rickey.
The poem itself was written in Latin & English, then finished with lines of prose which are usually not published.
The quote is said to come from this prose and not the main body of the poem.


Sebastian Boehme    (2009-11-06 23:00:55)
Interesting topic

Hello Hannes and the others, in very official and important games I still highly rely on the Najdorf. But I also test openings like : French, Russian Petroff, Modern Defense with e4 g6 or for what it's worth e4 e5 followed by Ruy Lopez

But the tendency for many is to go with fashion. And fashion currently still is Najdorf.
So who to blame? Anyone's own choice what they want to play, I would guess.

Kind regards, Sebastian


Nick Burrows    (2009-11-06 23:29:52)
1.e4

Maybe it's equally boring to play 1.e4 in all 8 games??


Lazaro Munoz    (2009-11-07 01:56:13)
Advanced games (blitz) : improvements

For blitz can you not define the start of the as move two (when to start the clocks too) so that you are assured that both players are present. If not continued after move 0.5 you can throw it after a period of time and go back to move 0 where both players need to start again. Or take the forfeit if the player does not return before the beginning of the next round.

--laz


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-07 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".


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-07 16:16:28)
"blitz cc"

Well, FICGS cannot & will not become a fast games server to play eg. "2 0" or even "5 0" (by the way even on the fastest servers, there are lag - and other - problems) but I hope there will be more and more players interested in classical time controls (called blitz here) & 'freestyle chess'... William, I can't remember the last time when you played a fast game here, the page now only refreshes when a move is played, and faster now... With an AJAX interface, it will be almost completely transparent.

Lazaro, actually the fast games with less than 2 moves will be replaced when a new challenge is accepted, to delete the forfeited games.


William Taylor    (2009-11-07 17:14:04)
I'll try

You're right - I haven't played a fast game here for a while. I'll try it again soon.


Eros Riccio    (2009-11-11 23:49:00)
Knockout Final 05

Emails should have been sent by default to him when tourney started and when I sent him my first 4 moves... I am also disappointed, I had never played him before, and I was happy when I saw I was paired with him, I was looking forward to testing his "unusual" openings...


John Smith    (2009-11-13 02:56:53)
Introduction to Centaur Chess

Hi all,

While I have played allot of chess, so far I only used my computer for an occasional analysis and mostly for the database features.

I am assuming it takes to know engines quite well to become good at advanced/centaur chess, so any advice would be really helpful.

1) Which engines are better at what type of positions? Is Deep Junior best at unclear sacrifices?, Rybka best for positional play?, Schredder best for endgames?

2) Which engines understand different pawn structures better, e.g. which is the best engine to study a stonewall-structure game and which is best for a King's Indian Mar de Plata game?

3) How to interpret the engine value for the position? e.g. if I, say as White, sac a pawn and the evaluation is -0.1, that is less that 1 pawn, does this mean I have enough positional compensation for the pawn?

4) Which engines take long-term weaknesses into their evaluations, even if they can't see anything concrete within their horizon?

5) Which free engines are worth consulting? toga? stockfish? Glaurung? thinker? Which of these are good for complex positions, which for quiet ones?

6) Are there any engines which improve their play during time, that is they learn? e.g. if in a position guiding the engine by hand proves that another move than its preferred one is best, will it be able to spot the move again, if the same position is re-entered?

7) Which is the best interface for analysis?

8) Is there a page with statistics of how each engine performs in every opening?

Thanks!


Michel van der Kemp    (2009-11-13 10:38:55)
Hi

I think for pretty much all these questions you are on your own. On the web you will find many rankings on how certain engines perform, mainly whilst playing other engines. All engines are able to make nice sacrifices or play positionally, as long as it doesn't go beyond their calculation horizon. If we as humans want to make decisions with a little help from our computers, well that's what determines if you are a top player I guess. But if there was a recipe to become such a player, I wish I knew it :)

Experience, and good understanding yourself is the key I guess.


Michel van der Kemp    (2009-11-13 19:26:27)
If I really want to delve into it

If I really want to delve into a position, I let two different engines analyze a position. If I'm out to win, I let both engines look for closed lines that don't lead to quick exchanges, unless they lead to clear advantages.

If engines evaluate a certain position very different, then those moves will catch my interest very quick, because those are the lines that may be highly imbalanced. I let both engines descend into those lines playing them against each other, and when you see the evaluation of one of the engines drop or go up, then it's a good time to draw a conclusion.

I hope that was clear a bit.

So yes it's good to have multiple engines.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-14 22:22:16)
"Spy games"

Hi Vjacheslav ! Rules here authorize to "spy" other players :) Only mirroring games is forbidden.


Garvin Gray    (2009-11-15 04:35:02)
team play

The reason I ask is that I would like to know how my team is going in a particular match just in case I wish to offer a draw or am offered one.

Having to wait till a few more results are in does not work because the above information is required asap.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-16 21:09:57)
First move

Hello Ahsan, feel free to read the Help section - http://www.ficgs.com/help.html

You may play your moves by going to "My games" or "My messages". Feel free to ask if you have any question.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-17 09:05:44)
Bill Gates, chess and Go

Billionaire Bill Gates cites go as one of his personal failures. "When I was young... I wanted to be the world's best chess player and, of course, I didn't succeed. I wanted to be the world's best Go player, too...so I've had plenty of disappointments", Gates said in his 1997 book, Bill Gates Speaks: Insight from the world's greatest entrepreneur (page 227)

http://books.google.com/books?id=Qoho6AIXTksC


Just read in the AGA newsletter.

Did he really try ? Any FIDE or AGA rating ? :)


John Smith    (2009-11-17 09:54:56)
engine styles

I would be thankful if I had a little more information on engine styles:

- Which is the most positional engine(s) (has positional knowledge+plays more positionally)?

- Which is the most solid engine(s)?

- Which engine(s) that goes for wild complications most often (and is strong in complex/unclear positions)?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-17 10:10:55)
Rybka

Most solid+positional+knowledge is most probably Rybka, as for the term of "complications", this is a complicated question :) IMO any good player is better than any engine to find it & go in, then a centaur with Rybka is probably best to play it.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-17 12:15:57)
One engine vs. several engines

Naum discontinued ? Really ? That would be bad news...

In my experience, other engines do not really give "additional informations". One chess engine give informations, several chess engines give odds. Other (weaker) chess engines may give bad odds as well and actually quite often. Only your analysis will give you true informations, you just have to explore not only the best variant provided by your engine.

Finally most important is to NOT trust chess engines IMO. In most cases at correspondence chess against strong players, in some ways "I" won some games (by analysis and ideas) and "engines" made me lose some others, that's correspondence chess... (hear me, of course it was my entire responsibility in all my losses & I wouldn't have been able to get good results without the help of engines :))


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-17 18:35:09)
Shocking news..... Marc Lacrosse is dead

I just discovered the news when searching the web, as I had no answer from Marc by any way.....

http://www.enaos.net/P1230.aspx?IdPer=129725&IdAN=70997

Marc Lacrosse is dead in Profondeville on august 13, 2009. He was aged of 48. I have very few doubts, he is the Marc Lacrosse we played and enjoyed with... The dates & informations match.

My thoughts go to his family of course, that's appalling :(


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-17 18:44:19)
Marc Lacrosse vs. Eros Riccio

His match with Eros Riccio is canceled of course. We will remember him here by his fantastic & original games, with an outstanding rating of 2557... He lost only one beautiful game to Marius Zubac at FICGS in 2007 :

http://www.ficgs.com/game_12869.html


More games by Marc :

http://www.chessgames.com/player/marc_lacrosse.html

We'll miss him.


William Taylor    (2009-11-17 20:44:08)
Terrible news

I remember him beating Anand in a simul on the ICC (he was the only one who won). The game can be seen here (in a posted comment, which also confirms his death): http://www.chessgames.com/player/marc_lacrosse.html

I didn't know him personally, but it's a great loss for the whole of FICGS.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-17 23:27:59)
Wch 7 Group N 01 (chess)

As it was impossible to build one or two new groups in coherence with existing groups with the players who entered the chess wch waiting list lately, I had to build a special group that I called N_01 .. somewhere between M_01 & regular groups. Most probably 3 or 4 players from this group will be qualified for stage 2.


Don Groves    (2009-11-18 05:01:43)
Bil Gates

The man was so attached to Microsoft, it's a wonder he had time to even think of anything else. He did play in a few duplicate bridge tournaments later in his working life.

A former co-worker of mine told me he was turned down for a job at Microsoft because "he had too many outside interests." Gates was once quoted as saying "If a programmer doesn't spend all his waking time thinking about making his program better, he hasn't got religion."


Henri Muller    (2009-11-21 18:38:03)
marc lacrosse

hello marc!! on s'est connu à l'occasion de nombreux échanges d'idées - sur les échecs et autres.
Nous avons aussi joué qqs parties ensemble. Mais que s'est-il donc passé ?? Je viens seulement d'apprendre la triste et pénible nouvelle. Repose en paix, Marc. Je pense que tes amis - tu en avais bcp ! - se souviendront de toi comme d'un joueur au fair-play exemplaire ; aux idées larges et à la compréhension totale et amicale de tes adversaires. Tu nous manqueras. Adieu l'ami.


Dmitry Domanov    (2009-11-22 15:06:57)
very sad news

I have played one game against Marc in far 2003 on the playchess.de server. The game has been begun by Marc's favourite 1.Nc3! His nickname was Comcat there.

Rest in peace, Marc...


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-24 12:37:53)
Cards shown at showdown?

A friend of mine just told me that both players cards may/should be shown at showdown (only after the river - the 5th shared card), like in casinos and a few other well known servers, but not all of them.

It would be a well known rule at poker texas holdem that avoids certain ways to cheat. I'm not sure I completely understood the interest in head's up like here, but I would be curious to know your opinion on this point if you have one.

Thanks in advance!


William Taylor    (2009-11-24 14:46:22)
Hmm

I'm aware of two commonly used rules for who shows down first. One is that the person to the left of the dealer shows down first, and the other is that the last person to bet or raise shows down first. In both cases the second player to show can muck (not show his cards)if he/she chooses to. Whenever I have played live (in a casino, or elsewhere) or online, one of these rules has been used, and I have never been forced to show my cards.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-27 19:30:34)
Ivanchuk may quite professional chess

What's wrong with Vassily Ivanchuk ? In his interview in Chessbase news, he says he may quit professional chess because of this match lost to an unknown player... Not only a match, a "crucial" match he said (like any other?), but it seems to me that there are a lot of things hidden behind the words. Maybe it's just time for him to change his life, at least I hope it is so simple.

End of the interview : "I only feel that the world has crashed down around me. Everyone is against me, and I don't see the way out…"

Strange...

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5941


Nick Burrows    (2009-11-29 03:19:18)
What would Kasparov's Ficgs rating be?

Just out of curiosity, are there any educated guesses as to what Gary Kasparov's Ficgs rating would be if he played seriously but without any computer analysis?

I noticed GM Nigel Davies played here and his rating was in the 2300's and i suspect without computer assistance, though i'm not at all sure about that.

Kasparov = 2500??


Hannes Rada    (2009-11-29 08:55:25)
FIDE GMs at CC

There are several examples where an OTB GM played cc and could not dominate the other (hobby) players.
i.e.
Young Austrian Fide GM Markus Ragger here at the Austrian cc team championship
http://www.iccf-webchess.com/EventCrossTable.aspx?id=18429
Further I had a draw at chessfriend against FIDE GM Daniel Fridman (Elo > 2660).
As far as I know Fide GM Ulf Anderson played at ICCF without so much success.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-29 17:15:18)
Nigel Davies & Garry Kasparov

Hi Nick,

Nigel Davies played with computer assistance but IMO only to verify his moves, he was very creative in some games. As for Garry Kasparov, if I remember well, he said a long time ago that he could become easily the best correspondence chess player (if assisted by computers, I guess). However I'm not sure if his preparations for OTB chess would be useful here, but most probably he could achieve this. Hard to predict what rating he could reach as a centaur, maybe 2650-2700....... Without computer assistance, it would be much harder, maybe 2300-2350 ..

It seems to me that Peter Leko played some games at ICCF, without so much success also, right?


Michel van der Kemp    (2009-11-30 12:51:02)
Andersson

Didn't Ulf Andersson become ICCF World Champion? At least I remember a game where he beat then world champion Gert Timmerman (2200-2300 FIDE rating) with black. I know for a fact he was at one point the highest rated player in ICCF.


Hannes Rada    (2009-11-30 13:55:08)
Andersson

No he was never ICCF champion.
But what I heard, in contradiction to his OTB chess preference, he played risky and very tactical in ICCF.
Andersson played in real chess extremely technical and low-risk, but winning every equal and boring endgame .....


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.


Hannes Rada    (2009-12-01 18:08:56)
secretary of billionaire Joop van Ooster

Quite interesting ....
Secretary of an ICCF WM seems to be more lucrative then playing and winning usual OTB chess tournaments .... :-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-02 14:21:48)
Marc Lacrosse memorial

Dear chessfriends, the waiting list for the next chess thematic tournament is open, this thematic #100 will be named the Marc Lacrosse memorial in honor of our lost chessfriend, we will play one of his favorite openings, the Basman Sale sicilian : 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bc5

Best wishes,
Thibault


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-02 17:50:27)
Major update : Go openings (joseki)

A major update just occured, finished FICGS Go games (chess & poker as well) are now analyzed by the server that gives the name of each known joseki [the first 2 moves at the moment] played in each corner, sometimes it also gives the way it should be played...

See an example at the bottom of this page :

http://www.ficgs.com/game_2481.html
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=2481

Finished games are not analyzed in real time, but this update opens new perspectives to see one day a function to search games by joseki.

Please do not hesitate to comment this update or to report any bug you may see.


Don Groves    (2009-12-02 22:39:39)
Joseki

Isn't there a Go proverb that says when a player studies joseski, he loses two stones in playing strength?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-03 00:22:23)
Joseki

True, true... but it may attract a few players more via Google :)


Don Groves    (2009-12-03 04:05:09)
Joseki

Also true, and we do need more Go players!


Daniel Parmet    (2009-12-04 05:27:11)
Re: Korchnoi and castling

I and My opponent had to ask the arbiter if castling was illegal in the same situation was Korchnoi... only the Arbiter didn't know! We had to ask about 7 other chess players before we found someone sure that it was.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-04 13:09:53)
E-Points

Hi Scott, well actually there are tournaments with entry fee (silver, gold.. as you know). By winning some tournaments with entry fee & prize, you may ask for a money prize... This is the only way to spend E-Points at the moment, but any idea is welcome.

I should be able to play lightning games in a few weeks... still waiting for a large broadband at home :/


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-06 15:50:16)
Multiple nicknames

It is not authorized, particularly to use several accounts at the same time in order to try to cheat (that is detected in most cases)... Anyway the system discouraged the few attempts.

I also know that a few players do not use their real name (eg. that was authorized for the match Igame.ru), generally they do not find motivation enough to stay and reach the top ratings, that seems quite logical and consequences are negligible.

You may send a private message to me if you think that there is cheating in a tournament.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-06 16:03:33)
never :)

Hi Iouri, well it happened to other well known players in the past... thinking about Valery Salov, Gata Kamsky, those who prefered Backgammon or Poker and so on... and it may happen even more often in the next years, times are quite discouraging for those who are not the very best, whatever the art or sport (or any other sector). I think he was sincere and as he said, he was not quiting chess, only the professional road. He may change his mind again IMO.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-06 16:45:22)
Idea to avoid DMD at Poker holdem

Maybe an idea to avoid the "Dead Man Defence" at poker... I feel that this is not employed really often actually (at 2000+ ratings at least) as it is not at the player's advantage after a while but it may be an improvement anyway.

The idea is to keep the same time control but to force players to play a certain pending move before to play a new move in his other games again. In example, I have a pending move in poker games 1,2,5,6 : I play my move in games 1 & 2, my opponents play their moves, then I cannot play in games 1 & 2 again (the symbol in My games wouldn't be "!" but "#") before I played the other moves. Atually it wouldn't be so simple as it may be quite uncomfortable at every move, but something like this if I can detect real DMD.

What do you think about it? BTW did you notice that some of your opponents may use DMD while playing other games?


Don Groves    (2009-12-06 22:56:17)
Problem?

What if I have several tournament games running and also a real-time game? If I had to respond to all other moves before playing again in the real-time game, I could lose on time.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-07 16:22:02)
He already did change his mind (?)

True, true...

So you say he changed his mind again? Where did you read it?

Maybe he'll play Go (or Big Chess) :o)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-07 16:24:01)
Predefined order?

No, of course it would be hell :) And it would be really painful to find the "right" game to play... No, I have to find a more subtle way where players who do not use DMD wouldn't make any difference with the current system...


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-08 21:58:39)
Magnus Carlsen vs. Pat Cash

Great idea, a chess champion plays with a tennis legend to promote the tourney (and the player).. way to go !

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5969

Too bad, I did not find the result of the tennis match :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-11 20:32:59)
Rybka + a lot of MIPS

That's not the same thing, it may be worth it in playchess events.


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-12-11 21:08:34)
clock implementation

Hello Thibault. In my tournament SM11 my clock increment may not have been added after first 10 moves in all my games. If you have a time stamp would you please examine it. My remaining days left does not suggest that 40 moves have been added at end of the 10 move slot in my games. Knowing my operating habits it sure sound wrong.

Understand this please, unless you can verify with time stamp or whatever I do not want any adjustments. I will play as the remaining time in each game remains. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-11 21:32:06)
40 days increment

Hi Wayne, I see no problem with the clocks, I can see in the logs that 40 days have been added after move 10, you can see it in our game at least where you have more than 40 days remaining. About the other games, your opponents played fast, that may be a reason, by the way you also take several days per move in our 8 games match. Too many running games may be another reason (I know that :))

Time flies away, definitely !


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-15 22:37:30)
How to join a game?

Hello Anthony,

You may challenge players in My games (best way), or you may enter a bullet, lightning or blitz waiting list in an advanced tournaments category in Waiting lists - in this case do not forget to retire from the waiting list if you don't find an opponent.

Most players here prefer to play tournaments at a long time control.

Feel free to read the help section - http://www.ficgs.com/help.html


Gino Figlio    (2009-12-16 02:34:16)
benefit for FICGS

Hi Thibault,

The main benefit for FICGS would be that if you ever have team matches against other organizations that use XFCC, your players may be able to make their moves from your server even if the event is hosted elsewhere.

Best wishes and happy holidays,

Gino Figlio


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-17 11:16:54)
3dGo

True, thanks Philip.

I created a thread at GoDiscussions on that topic, a member mentioned another discussion :

http://godiscussions.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10871
http://www.godiscussions.com/forum/showthread.php?t=250

It reminds me that I played 3d Blokus a few months ago, it is a quite strange game also, particularly compared to 2d-squared Blokus !


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-20 14:23:36)
Boris Spassky vs. Viktor Korchnoi

Entitled the "Battle of the Giants", a match just started in Elista (Kalmykia) between the 10th World Champion Boris Spassky (aged of 72), and Viktor Korchnoi (now aged of 78, multiple World Championship challenger mainly during the Karpov era, but still active in competitive play).

Korchnoi won the first game, game two ended in a draw. This kind of match is always a pleasure to follow for long time chess fans :)

Here is the first game !




Scott Nichols    (2009-12-22 03:36:06)
very unofficial results so far...

This includes games which may still have one playing, but will not alter the result. Of course, many are unreslved as yet.

#1. (as expected, :)) Dark Knights 8.0 #2. The Knights who say "Ni" 5.0 #3. Yellow-Blue Warriors 4.0 #4. Two with 2.0


Hannes Rada    (2009-12-22 20:02:59)
Korchnoi

I have never been a fan of Korchnoi and his defensive style, also Spassky is not my favourite player .....

But anyway quite immpressive for age 78 ...
And if a defensive player, then the most weird one - Tigran Petrosjan and his very strange and passive style.


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (2009-12-23 21:05:17)
A second

( Player are not good because, they find tactics, it si about the way to find the position in which those tactics are hidden. )


Pablo Schmid    (2009-12-26 22:21:54)
Rating calculation

Hello Thibault, j'aurais préféré parler en français mais puisque je suis sur le forum...

Could you explain how exactly chess rating's calculation works in ficgs?

And I think games with 10 moves or less should be counted, maybe not every games but sometimes 8 or 9 moves can be sufficient to punish someone (nice miniatures or quick mates are possibles) and it enables the loser to resign (or be mated) without losing points. An example of an abusive situation: imagine I play the Traxler and I resign before 10 moves if I see a good choosed line by my opponent which I don't like to play as Black because I know I might suffer or even lose...

J'espère que je t'aurai convaincu et que mon exemple ne donnera pas de mauvaises idées! Sur ce, bonnes fêtes, Pablo


Pablo Schmid    (2009-12-27 02:02:01)
rules of 10 moves

Thanks for the quick response, my proposition would be no limit of move at all to win points, as in OTB chess. Maybe an idea could be to not make winning points in a game where the player did not connect for a long time before the tournament begin as it is clear that it is a "forfeit", as in OTB when someone don't come.

But maybe you will convince me that your idea is better than mine?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-27 14:08:37)
10 moves rule

IMO this rule is important because :

1) It dissuades cheating by creating several accounts playing together through proxies... This rule makes it really hard to win some points this way, it would be detected even more easily.

2) In many cases, new players (who did not realize that computer assistance was authorized, who do not like the correspondence time controls or who just wanted to try) forfeit their games after 3 or 4 moves rather than let it go. There is no doubt to me that this phenomenon would have much more bad effects on ratings.

3) It is likely that a player who "miniatures" another player is actually much stronger than his opponent, so his rating shouldn't increase so much.


Finally and that's the main point IMO, "unfair" situations are statistically negligible compared to the other possible rules. See the other servers...

So far I'm quite convinced that it is one of the best implemented rules here, and this is exactly the way I optimise the programs: "Statistics give better results than looking for perfection" :)


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (2009-12-28 05:07:00)
I'm jalous

Seeing match like that, make me want to play in one of those match, I like the idea of playing 7 match with the same opponent.


Hannes Rada    (2009-12-28 21:45:47)
Sicilian ?

I see only 1 Sicilian in this match.
And I see many different openings. That's good - That's more entertaining than 8 times Najdorf ....
So no need to advertise for this Sicilian. It will be anyway played to much for my taste :-)

Originally it was very doubtful for me to play 8 times the same opponent. But then I realized that it can be quite interesting. At least when you're rating is better than those of your oppoent .... :-)


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-12-29 00:56:03)
Rybka demise

Howdy all. I feel like voicing my opinion of Vas and Rybka. I honestly feel his hold on the chess community has weakened to the point of breaking. He has his problems. His source code apparently has been compromized. This has led him to not releasing a Rybka3+ as promised. The release of Rybka4 is very cloudy. Then there is this cloud Rybka internet rentel thing that is supported by no one it seems, me for sure.
Anyways this is just back drop for recent developments in free software engines that are very strong and are pushing R3 in ratings. I am thinking about the following engines, that I have downloaded and find very interesting AND strong :

Stockfish 1.6
Brite 0.4A
Spark 0.3

I have minimal experience with these engines. I just want all my friend here on FICGS to be aware of them and if interested they can download them and be on equal footing. My wish is for better chess and I have no ambition to have secret progams.
The important thing I feel is that the loss of Rybka engine does not put much of dent in play quality. It was gonna happen sooner or later, and now it seems sooner.
My honest evaluation today is that Rybka3 still provides the best insite to best mid game play.
I want to put in a word for Zappa. I fairly often use Zappa as my CC engine partner because of better end game analysis. Rybka has no peer in mid game analysis. Well I share these thought with you all for what it may be worth. Best 2010 Cheers. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-29 14:37:07)
Rybka demise

Thanks for sharing your views on the current computer chess world, Wayne. It is always interesting :) As for Rybka, I did not (want to) imagine this outcome... I continue to think that the little fish would have been catched by her older brothers within a few months/years. But if Rybka's source code has indeed been compromised, the future of chess engines is quite uncertain.

In a way, it could have some interesting consequences for correspondence chess to see clones with the same strength playing different chess.


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-12-29 19:50:45)
RobboLito vs. Rybka 3

What are RobboLito, Ippolit and Igorrit ? It looks like these names are invading computer chess forums... As you may have read in the discussion mentioned below, the Rybka 3's source code may have been compromised and these engines "may" be clones of Rybka 3 (everyone does not agree on this). Good or really bad news, anyway this open source chess engine may have many consequences on the computer chess world, and correspondence chess as well...

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8031


From the wikispace mentioned below :

IPPOLIT : Intellectual Persons Promotion Of Leninist International Tradesunions (!??)

Q. What is RobboLito?
A. RobboLito is the version of IPPOLIT that now contains endgame tablebases, the RobboBases.

A few links on RobboLito 0.085f1a, Ippolit & Igorrit (says it all IMO) :

http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/RobboLito
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/Igorrit
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/FAQ

see also : ippolit.wikispaces.com/Clone+(Question)

http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/News
-> IPPOLIT banned from chessprogramming wiki!
PlayChess banned IPPOLIT from use online also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r_V_QkmHjo
http://www.chesslogik.com/robbolito.htm
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/free-chessengine-robbolito-is-1-at-swisstest-rybka-2?lc=1
http://www.cyclonechess.com/rybka3.htm

"RobboLito is an open-source UCI chess engine by: Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, Igor Igorovich Igoronov, and Roberto Pescatore."

RobboLito does not yet support: multiPV, own book, egbbs, tablebases, multiple CPUs/cores, chess variants

Estimated rating: ~ 3300 ELO

Available versions:

RobboLito 0.085g3 w32 (optimized windows 32-bit executable and source code)
RobboLito_0.085g3_w32_no_SSE2 (optimized windows 32-bit executable - for older CPUs that don't support Intel SSE2 instruction set)
RobboLito 0.085g3_x64 (fast windows 64-bit PGO executable compiled by peterpan)
RobboLito 0.085g3l_x86 (optimized linux 64-bit executable and source code ported to linux by unisky)

http://www.cyclonechess.com/robbolito.htm
http://www.cyclonechess.com/rybka3.htm

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1261597025/4
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1258991841
http://queenchess.blogspot.com/2009/11/fritz-12-vs-robbolito-e2-latest-version.html
http://lefounumerique.xooit.com/next?t=663 (french)


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-12-30 19:10:08)
Rybka clone

Nick I think you have hit the nail on the head. Yes that is suspicious. Commercial programmers of programs like shreddar, Fritz, Junior and Zappa, etc have worked a long time and not come to Rybka playing floor yet. So it would seem unreasonable these recent free programs have made the jump mostly right at the start. A huge compliment to Vas I would say
Wayne


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (2009-12-30 22:35:09)
games

A little bump, we can say.


I have just finished 7 games with that gambit, winning them all. And not only with poor players.

Some games where really sharp.... The move c4.... is something to look for.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-01-04 19:08:52)
New feature implemented

This is it... Now everyone can discuss any finished game ! Players & participants of the discussion will be notified by email if they checked the "email notification" option for forums in Preferences.

Feel free to report any bug. Any feedback welcome ! :)


Scott Nichols    (2010-01-05 05:06:18)
Poker Software?

This has come up alot recently. I'm sure there are many claims by new programs that tout their analytical ability. Sure they could give you the best statistical move, but could they bluff? I think their play would be predictable and easy to beat. I don't use them and wouldn't trust them. Just one man's opinion, any others?


Nick Burrows    (2010-01-05 05:13:56)
Poker Software?

I think they could be very effective at playing lots of low-level sit n go's.
Bad play is easily beaten with a simple system.
They would be useless in mtt's or against good players, where you need more sublety, bluffs & traps based on the observed patterns of your opponents.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-01-05 07:40:22)
Poker Software?

There was several discussions on poker engines, one is there :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=7510

I can't find the thread where someone talked about a match between a poker engine & a world champion but as far as I can remember, the poker engine won! Anyway I'm quite sure that a program may play quite good poker now. The question is how it could "understand" a complete situation like here with 3 winning rounds and so on...


Nick Burrows    (2010-01-05 07:52:00)
Poker Software?

There is a big difference between heads-up play & full table games. In heads-up the computers can apply perfect game theory

There have been a few human vs poker heads-up challenges with inconclusive results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_poker_players


Michel van der Kemp    (2010-01-05 16:55:19)
If anyone could comment any game...

Thank you.

Would it also be possible to link the new comments back to the forum? So people now which comments were made? Or some other way to browse through the comments?

Could be interesting if some high class players would comment their games.


Gino Figlio    (2010-01-07 05:51:27)
Fed Up

It does not really matter in my opinion.
Players will always use the best engine.
Players will always prefer the engine that shows consistent improvement version after version.
You just need to find out what engine fits this description on your own.



Thibault de Vassal    (2010-01-08 01:45:23)
Rybka

I understand, I assume & hope that Vasik Rajlich has good reasons to think that RobboLito is a clone, that would be a reason enough to forbid to mention it in the forums dedicated to Rybka IMO... But it is true that if noone can prove it is not a clone & if there is no real reason to think that it actually is a clone, it would be not very "fairplay".

That's why I said I have no opinion on this.

The most surprising thing in all that is that RobboLito is open source. That makes me think that it is not a clone, but who can say it...


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-01-11 21:33:11)
Fed Up

Howdy Thibault. Clone or no Clone. Technically I am not qualified to check source etc. But I will say this. The evals are very very often identical after checking .
Also, in some brief eng-eng matches, I find that Rybka is stronger, at least for longer timers which would suggest favorable CC play. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-01-12 09:28:43)
Problem with auto-refresh in My games ?

Hello all,

Two players reported a problem for the "My games" page when both 'pending' & 'poker games' (click the icon next to "Here are your pending games") are selected and only in this case. The page wouldn't auto-refresh correctly when there's a new move to play.

As it works fine for me, I would like to know if other players experience the same problem.

Thank you!


Don Groves    (2010-01-14 01:17:34)
Accept Draw and resign......

The player should get a quarter of a point -- half a draw ;-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-01-14 19:56:25)
Problem with auto-refresh in My games ?

... and it happens only sometimes, right? Quite strange.

Do other players experience the same?


Alexander Blinchevsky    (2010-01-23 22:37:31)
Problem with auto-refresh in My games ?

It happens to me for last few days too. I am playing only chess games and usually use "running" option. Firefox 3.5 is used.


Kamesh Nookala    (2010-01-24 19:34:39)
Resign before 10th move

Hello HOST,

I didnt know about this forum earlier and posted in the International Chat. I am sorry for that stupid mistake of mine. But the problem which i faced now is this. There is a guy whom i defeated in all 4 meetings where i played vs. him. This poor guy found me yet again and having known by now that he cant beat me, he simply resigned. I have no grievance against him. But in my very first Rapid B tour here at ficgs, i got an advantage of +-1.00 (approx.) vs. a player who simply resigned after my white 10th move. This meant that though I am awarded with a win, yet because my opponent resigned simply instead of playing the 10th move, he denied me earning some elo. That also implies that he saved his elo by simply resigning.

I dont know much above this site as i am pretty new to this. However, i have been already a victim of this sort of activities. For e.g., I could simply resign when i play bad openings and evals dip before 10th move and i can simply save my elo. That means i can simply resign vs. Big Guys as Black and play as Black only vs. weak players.

Just thought to express my views. Rest upto the moderators


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-01-26 16:24:43)
Go chinese rules : should pass count?

A player just told me that in chinese rules for the game of Go, consecutive pass change the score of the game (thus in some cases the winner as well), I just visited a few websites that do not even mention this rule that is taken in account by some Go programs.

In my opinion it does not have any sense to link this to the score of the game, but I may be wrong... Does anyone have an opinion on this and clear examples that show it should be taken (or not) here at FICGS ?

I'll add a word on this in the rules after it is clearer to me.

Thanks in advance!


Don Groves    (2010-01-27 06:01:17)
Go chinese rules : should pass count?

Since Chinese rules count occupied points as well as surrounded points, passing is a serious mistake unless that player is certain of victory (at least 184-1/2 confirmed points on FICGS).

Consecutive passes end the game, so how could the score change?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-01-27 23:23:10)
Go chinese rules : should pass count?

I must say that the case encounted was not clear at all to me as I had very few informations on how this program scores Go games, anyway I should have written "passing MAY change the score"... The document is very interesting, thanks !

I think I'll specify in the rules that "The score is not influenced by which player passes first or last", which looks like more conventional & logical, unless anyone can explain why this decision should be avoided.

Thanks again.


Don Groves    (2010-01-28 00:33:32)
Go chinese rules : should pass count?

That rule would only apply when both players pass consecutively, right?

If one player passes and the other places a stone, obviously the score changes.


Ulrich Imbeck    (2010-01-28 23:21:53)
Go chinese rules : should pass count?

If one player passes and the other places a stone, the game goes on.


Zholy Zhou    (2010-01-29 03:22:40)
make cool 3D flash banners for website

Recently I've been asked by a friend who wants to make a 3D flash banner for his website of wedding business. Many people included me thought that making a 3D flash banner is a very difficult thing for those who don't know flash skills, but I should say it's not like what you think if you have got a 3D flash banner making software Aneesoft 3D Flash Gallery.

This article will show you how to create a cool 3D flash banner without Adobe Flash. A viewer can click on the banner to be transported to your website. You can use it on your own website to present your products or services. Also flash banners can be used to market your website as a banner ad on another website. A flash banner is much more attractive than still images. I bet you'll be agree with me if you see the 3D flash banner.

What you'll need:
1. Digital photos and background music for 3D flash banner
2. Aneesoft 3D Flash Gallery(http://www.aneesoft.com/win-3d-flash-gallery.html)

Step 1: Download & install Aneesoft 3D Flash Gallery
We'll be using a very nice 3D flash banner making software 'Aneesoft 3D Flash Gallery' to making a cool flash banner for wedding websites, head over here and download the free trial version(http://www.aneesoft.com/download/win/aneesoft-3d-flash-gallery.exe). Next step is to install the program.

Step 2: Import wedding photos, add captions, edit photos
You can add up to 500 photos that you want to use in your flash banner, type in caption and arrange the photos here. 3D Flash Gallery supports a wide range of file formats for images, such as .jpg, .bmp, .gif. You're able to add hyperlink for each photo of your flash banner to be transported to your website.

Step 3: Choose from a variety of flash banner templates
3D Flash Gallery offer you an easy way to make a cool flash banner by choosing from variety of flash banner templates. A flash banner template automatically put preset decoration to your flash banners. When you select a preset banner template, you're able to enhance it by customizing some additional settings, such as background, thumbnail effects, playback options and scrolling actions. For the adventurous users, explore the powerful advanced features and tools that gives you total control over how you compose your flash banners.

Step 4: Add some background music files to flash banner
In this step, you can add background music files to play along with your flash banner. To do so, click Add Music button to browse and add your music files. You can add, remove and edit the music files. And you may check the option to control the background music looping or not.

Step 5: Preview and publish your cool 3D flash banners
It is advisable that you preview the 3D flash banner at least once, before your publish it. Click and drag mouse for scrolling and tilting the 3D flash banner. Click on the thumbnail to zoom in and out the photos. You have several options to share and publish your 3D photo gallery. It depends on your needs.


Lazaro Munoz    (2010-01-29 06:21:52)
Go chinese rules : should pass count?

AGA rules use passing stones, that is when you pass your opponent gets a stone. It does not matter too much at the end of the game when you get two passes in a row by alternate players.

Actually in AGA, The white player must always end the game so he may have to due a third pass (costing a real stone).

It sort of penalizes the player that chooses to try to end the game before all points have been taken.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-01-29 15:52:43)
Quote festival, part 6

"Chess is stupid. I'm a war historian. You never have all the facts in life or real war as in chess. Napoleon didn't waste his time on chess. Napoleon knew luck was more important than any genius. Chess hasn't been played since IBM solved it back in 2000 when Kas- err Karm I mean Kapov couldn't... beat it. No human has ever even drawn a computer since that match when chess was solved." - Dave Daring


Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2010-01-29 23:03:44)
Go chinese rules: should pass count?

Lazaro Munoz, the pass stones do not "penalize" anyone, they just make the score of AGA territory scoring always equal to the score of AGA area scoring. Under area scoring, failing to occupy even a "neutral" point instead of passing costs a point (unless no neutrals or an even count of neutrals is left), and this has to be reflected in the territory scoring. AGA rules thus have two exactly equivalent scoring methods.

A better explanation might be this: Under area scoring, each move is worth exactly one point more than under territory scoring, viz. the point that it occupies. Under the assumption that both players make the same number of moves (that is the reason for the rule that White always has to move last), this precisely cancels out. Since a pass is worth 0 points under area scoring, it has to be -1 points under territory scoring, which is represented by the pass stone.


Scott Nichols    (2010-01-30 02:02:34)
Quote festival, part 6

Chess wasn't "solved", anymore than the mysteries of the universe are "solved". Obviously, Dave Daring doesn't play chess. All that happened was that a human lost to a computer at the game of chess. Did we think when calculators came out way back when, and could out calculate humans that mathematics was "solved"?


Scott Nichols    (2010-01-31 01:04:06)
1st team tournament : games & results !

Hello everyone! I thought it was time for an update to our first team tournament. I will give my totally (doesn't mean a thing) IMHO the outcome here. After looking at all the unfinished game positions, consulting the stars, and taking into account there is a full moon tonight...here is what I think will be the first four teams. Tied for third will be---The Dark Knights & The Yellow-Blue Warriors! One point ahead of them will be----The Knights who say "Ni"!, give them a hand. And finally, a full two points ahead of the field is the winners-----FSF En Passant!! Of course, like I said this is just my humble opinion. Seriously, one game to watch is #32188 between two up and coming players who just broke over 2300 each and still climbing, Boehme vs Hladky.


Lazaro Munoz    (2010-01-31 11:54:48)
SuperGMs watch Corr?!

The Vidalina-Kabachev games goes:

[Event "WC-2006-F-00005"]
[Site "LSS"]
[Date "2007.9.12"]
[Round ""]
[White "Vidalina, Franjo"]
[Black "Kabachev, Andrey"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco ""]
[Annotator ""]
[Source ""]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.Bd3 Ne7 12.Nxe7 Qxe7 13.c4 f5 14.O-O O-O 15.Qh5 Rb8 16.exf5 e4 17.Rae1 Bb7 18.Qg4 Rfe8 19.cxb5 d5 20.bxa6 Bc6 21.b3 Kh8 22.Nc2 Bc3 23.Be2 Qf6 24.Rd1 Rg8 25.Qf4 d4 26.Bc4 d3 27.Ne1 Be5 28.Qe3 Rg5 29.g3 Rxf5 30.Ng2 Rg8 31.Rc1 Bd4 32.Qd2 Rf3 33.Rce1 Rgxg3 0-1

Interestingly Shirov played 23. Qh3 in his game. Rybka thought the move absolutely sucked and would have responded with the material grab: 23...Bxe1 24. Rxe1 Qc5 25. Bf1 Qxc2 giving it +0.11. It thought that white was much better before 23. Qh3 with the simple 23. Be2 (as was played by Vidalina).

Vidalina may have resigned prematurely since after 34. hxg3 Rxg3 35. Re3, Black is better and has some attacking chances there does not seem to be knock-out move.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-02-03 16:59:57)
Go chinese rules : should pass count?

Thanks again Svante Carl, these pages are really interesting to read. There are so many rulesets for Go... I'm not sure to understand everything though.

I can't understand why, in a deterministic game such as Go where Black always plays the first move, there should be an extra half-point or full-point for White if he plays last or not, the same for any pass stone, so in my opinion the way games are scored here shouldn't change, but I'm not sure if something should be added in the rules. Do you think that something like "pass stones are not counted" would be useful & clear enough ?

Any opinion ?


Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2010-02-03 18:25:37)
Go chinese rules: should pass count?

Pass stones are irrelevant for area counting, so I think that you should not even mention them. It would only cause confusion.

Pass stones and last move compensation are methods to reconcile area and territory scoring. Last move compensation has another merit: in area scoring, the usually possible results always differ by two points, because when a point changes ownership, it is a loss of one point for one and a gain of one point for the other player. Last move compensation "sharpens" the possible results, and makes scoring very similar to territory scoring. However, this also is not necessary, so, at least as long as you don't fully understand this yourself, I would advise to keep simple area scoring and not mention anything else.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-02-05 21:48:48)
Advanced games : Problems & solutions

Hi all,

There's a real problem with the advanced games so far, anyone who tested it lost on time at least once without having played and/or won a game because his opponent forgot to play or to retire from the waiting list.

The challenges partly solves the problem as the program verifies if both players are connected to the server (also I added some warning messages explaining how to use the advanced games) but it seems it is far to be enough.....

Anyway I agree that a web interface is not really designed to such games, particularly when it is hard to find an opponent for these games (which is probably the main problem).

Whatever the way, both opponents should probably be able to discuss just before their game in the chat bar, so one solution would be to verify if the players wrote (or even posted a kind of "start" message) in the chat bar during the last few minutes, it would be a way to be "SURE" that both players are ready to play, even if I'm not sure that it would be enough again.

In my opinion, no more advanced game should start if both opponents did not confirm their presence to the other player in the chat bar.

Any opinion on this ? Any other idea to solve this ?

Thanks in advance and sorry again to all players who experienced this.


Scott Nichols    (2010-02-05 22:05:29)
Advanced games : Problems & solutions

If you could figure a way to automatically remove the player from the waiting list if he signs off. Of course some players stay signed on, even if they are not at computer. That solution eludes me I'm afraid.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-02-05 22:39:18)
Advanced games : Problems & solutions

When a player signs off (or sign on), his challenges are cancelled, the problem is that players rarely sign off (/logout) anyway. And it would partly solve the problem only, this is a web interface, people jump on other pages while waiting an opponent and just forget, even pop up windows are not enough.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-02-08 14:01:52)
E. Kotlyanskiy new FICGS chess champion

Great fair play from both players once again. Thanks Edward & Xavier for the show, the games are really interesting!


Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2010-02-21 02:51:44)
Learning Go

Recently, someone asked how to learn Go, or who would teach Go, on the side bar chat. The question and my answer has been removed from there, so I'll post some hints here.

First, to learn the rules, I would recommend "The Interactive Way to Go" at http://playgo.to/iwtg/en

To learn playing, play as much as possible, first on small boards (9x9), then going to bigger ones (13x13, 19x19) when you feel that you can keep track of the game there. Play with proper handicaps to keep the game even and improve your feeling for the board.

Teaching can take the form of simple game reviews, where the stronger player analyzes a single game and shows the weakest points and how to correct them; the "Go Teaching Ladder" organizes a lot of such reviews (http://gtl.xmp.net). It can also be done in interactive sessions; these require either face to face contact or a "live" server, though (e.g. KGS at http://gokgs.com). It is generally thought that the teacher should be about 5 stones stronger than the pupil.

Especially in the beginning, the advice is to play, play, play, and not be too fixated on ranks or winning percentages.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-02-21 23:37:28)
Rating calculation

When you go to calculate a game's rating is it based off the rating of the players when the game started or when it ended since this can be radically different.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-02-22 01:21:35)
Rating calculation

What do you mean exactly a game's rating?

Rating calculation takes account of the Tournament Entry Ratings (TER) for each game and of course the current player's rating when the calculation occurs.

See - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_chess


Daniel Parmet    (2010-02-22 01:28:05)
Rating calculation

by a games rating I mean how it effects the two players ratings. So you are saying it uses both the starting and ending rating? This makes no sense! According to the link you gave it sasy TER meaning only starting rating which makes sense.


Garvin Gray    (2010-02-22 08:37:37)
E-point tournament

Been thinking about this for a while. Do you think it would be worthwhile to offer a tournament where there is an e-point entry fee?

For instance, Seven player entry, entry fee is ten e points and the winner receives 65 or so e points. I would like to see it at least tried once.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-02-22 23:23:05)
E-point tournament

Yes, it would be great of course and actually it was implemented a few years ago, but there was no players enough with Epoints... Maybe we could envisage it again soon.


Teudis Naranjo    (2010-02-23 04:03:55)
Go

How to play in the tournaments of in this sites?


Pablo Schmid    (2010-02-24 18:46:11)
Conditional moves

Hello Thibault, I don't know if that proposition has been made in the past, but there are somes servers that use conditionnal moves, it's an useful tool to win time for both players on forced moves. Do you think it would be possible to put that fonction in ficgs?


Je profite au passage pour te demander ce que tu penses finalement du règlement sur 3 fois la même position.


Hannes Rada    (2010-02-24 22:09:15)
Conditionnal moves

--------------------------------------
In many forced sequences, only one side may take advantage of conditional moves to save time, that's not fair and that's the point according to me
--------------------------------------

Thibault, that was your argument against conditionals almost 2 years ago.
However I did not understand and still do not understand this explanation.
I my opinion both players benefit from time saving conditionals.
However maybe you could add an option under player's preferences - "conditionals yes or no" and if both players agree than conditionals could be switchend on for that games.

FICGS is really a great server offering so many different features, other server don't, but missing conditionals is in my opinion a major deficit of this server.
(Some minor things could also be improved)


Iouri Basiliev    (2010-02-25 10:55:16)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)

Could someone explain to me the reason to play a game for monthes, when there is mate in 7 moves for example? Any engine will found it in a seconds. Any player above 1200 elo understand immediately...


Hannes Rada    (2010-02-25 13:50:31)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)

Dear Iouri

This is the so called Dead Man Defense(DMD) ....
There are various reasons to play that defense:

1.) Your opponent does not like you
2.) Your opponent does not find the 'resign checkbox'
3.) Your opponent does not want to risk his rating and therefore delays his loss until the next rating calculation period
4.) In good old correspondenc chess times, a player had to write down the words 'I resign' on a postcard - nowadays modern technolgy helps a lot - the player has only to tick a 'resign checkbox' and click a 'send-button' - but this seems task seems still to hard ....


Benjamin Block    (2010-02-25 14:07:21)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)

...

5.)Your opponent want you to lose on time. You maybe stop playing because it is too boring.
6.)Your opponent want you to lose on a blunder.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-02-25 14:56:37)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)

I couldn't say it better than you guys :)

Hi Iouri, if you want to stop the game, you may use the rule 11.5 : You may call the referee a first time, after one month, just call the referee again & the game should be adjudicated.

"11. 5. Adjudications

In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious.

If time control is superior to 1 day and if a player doesn't want to resign (or accept draw) and obviously last the game, his opponent may report to referee a first time. If the player takes 30 days more to finish the game, his opponent may call referee another time, then the game will be adjudicated. An analysis submitted by a player should contain sufficient information so that no doubt is possible. This may include a sequence of moves, but in some circumstances it may be sufficient to claim a win or a draw on the basis of material or positional advantage. Final decision belongs to referee."


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-02-27 00:14:28)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)

I can't remember such a rule, but this has been discussed for sure... It seems to me that we concluded that any player (so a player without engines as well) should be able to "see" the end of the game -particularly difficult endgames- if he does not last it for any DMD purpose.


Don Groves    (2010-02-27 01:49:27)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)

Reason #9: There are many players out there with zero integrity. Unfortunately, some of these players also find their way to FICGS...


Lazaro Munoz    (2010-02-27 16:46:21)
Hosting tournaments

Would FICGS be able to host a closed group tournament? For instance lets say some chess club, or group wants to have a tournament. Could they, after getting themselves an id on FICGS send you a request to create a tournament for that group?

As an enhancement for the future you might want to create a group(s) concept that can be stored in each users profile, so that one can in the future create group tournaments that are open to that group. Since this site is built in the spirit of openess it need not be enforced but people should understand that some groups many not want to be so open so they should request it from someone, so maybe the group info should have the user and email of the moderator for that group who will give the ok to join the group.

For instance some groups may want specific language so they converse in their native language in the chat box, or geographic area. Or even opening specialist can create thematic openings (although it could get tricky there if someones enters one these thematic groups and decides to play a different opening).

There really isn't anything like it for free anywhere, ICCF will host tournaments however they charge a fee, for instance.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-03 14:29:25)
Hosting tournaments

Sure it is possible, I would even create such tournaments for free (if not too many ones) but it would be played with FICGS rules which are slightly different from FIDE rules. About players able to create their own tournaments, closed or not, I would have to think about this, I'm not sure it is really necessary as e.g. I always add thematic chess tournaments that I'm suggested, and "private" tournaments may be not so easy to start, but if there is a strong demand, I could arrange that.


Pablo Schmid    (2010-03-03 14:43:42)
Conditionnal moves

Hello Thibault, I think this feature might be useful for everybody: a chess board for the analysis where we can just play moves and why not put comments with the positions. I say that to be able to find ideas when I just have an internet page outside. What do you think?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-03 15:01:34)
Conditionnal moves

Hi Hannes (sorry for the delay).

Well players may save time thanks to conditional moves, but not at the same time and nothing guarantees that it will not be at the advantage of one player only during a particular game. Anyway, a conditional field exists in the database so there is some hope to see it one day, but it will be a big & complex work to make it coherent for the different games. Not for these months as there are other priorities, I'm afraid :/

But feel free to mention the other minor improvements, if I can do it within minutes, it will be done.


William Taylor    (2010-03-03 15:21:08)
E-point tournament

Good idea. I'd definitely play tournaments with 1-2 e-point entry fees, and would be quite likely to play higher ones too. I like Scott's prize structure.


Garvin Gray    (2010-03-03 15:31:00)
E-point tournament

If the tournament is to go ahead, perhaps since it will be for some kind of entry fee, it could be trialled as a four player double round robin event.

By having only four players, it would make it much easier to get the tournament started considering only a small percentage of the players on here have e points.

Also by having double round robin, this ensures fairest possible circumstances for an entry fee tournament. It also means the same amount of games as a normal seven player, single round robin tournament.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-07 20:35:54)
Great day for FICGS (and for me :)) !

Hello all...

As you may know, I built the major part of FICGS with a 33 kbps (actually more looking like a 5 to 8 kbps) broadband which is very very slow, even slower than the prehistorical modems... Internet is definitely not a priority in the french campaign (by the way, looks like nothing is not a priority anymore in the french campaign)

Since today, I've got 2 Mbps anyway (thanks to WiMax and Powerline technologies), which means several things :

- Regular freestyle cups (finally !)
- New improvements more regularly.
- I can play advanced chess :)

After a few days of vacation, I should be more active on the server, definitely :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-07 21:53:47)
Great day for FICGS (and for me :)) !

Yes, the most funny is that it's the main reason why I tried to play correspondence chess, cause I couldn't play on most servers without losing on time because of this **** broadband :/


Daniel Parmet    (2010-03-08 06:41:29)
Great day for FICGS (and for me :)) !

this is already my favorite place to play as is... I can't imagine how much better it will be once you start changes from this news!


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-12 18:38:47)
Poker Min Bid

In some cases I guess that there is no other choice than to bet less than the big or small blind !?

Even if players have no reason to do that, I preferred to offer the choice... maybe I was wrong, maybe it will be changed, not a big deal IMO.


Ralph Deline    (2010-03-12 19:36:04)
Rating calculation

Hi Thibault,
Thanks for your earlier explanation. I wanted to respond sooner but then when I was at the FICGS site, I saw another player, also confused about his chess rating, questioning you about it so I threw in my two cents. In my situation, my opponent was rated about 80 points higher so when I drew, I thought I would actually go up in ratings points instead of down. That is still confusing to me.
Maybe my age is catching up with me, but for fifty years or more, using the formula for establishing ratings in Canada, I was always under the impression that your score and your opponents ratings, with a bit of math thrown in, determined your rating. I know at one time it was possible to win a tournament and lose rating points but I believe that was corrected about a decade or so ago. I wasn't playing for over a decade so I'm not certain on dates.
However, let me acknowledge the fact that I understand what you are saying, play less, win more, and your rating will improve. But I still have a hurdle to overcome. When a lower rated player ties with a highed rated player, regardless of colour, why does he get penalized instead of rewarded for achieving a result that is performing above his present rating? It doesn't seem logical.
You are probably busy and I've taken enough of your time. I don't think I will understand any explanation, you know, can't teach an old dog new tricks, so you don't have to try to explain any further. I just wanted my voice to be heard.
I have had three gross blunders in the last half year so maybe I am playing too many games. I hate to do it, but maybe I will try playing less.
Thanks for listening.
Ralph


Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2010-03-13 00:09:43)
Poker Min Bid

Actually, since this is heads-up, one player is always small blind, the other big blind. If the small blind is 1, and the big blind 2, that means that this amount is already in the pot when the players get their hole cards. It is then still the first betting round, so the small blind can then "complete" for 1 (so that his bet in this betting round is now 2), or raise to at least double the big blind. See No-Limit Rules: http://www.pokerlistings.com/texas-holdem-betting-rules

Strategically, the bets should always be seen in relation to the current potsize. This follows from the calculation of odds and outs. It cannot be said that you should at least always bet potsize.


Lazaro Munoz    (2010-03-10 12:34:40)
Tournament Leaders

I am confused. In my section FICGS_CHESS_CLASS_C_000127 I have a full point lead and have had this lead for several weeks, yet I am listed as co-leader with another player (Panov) [I am not complaining, just confused]. I know that I have completed a game more than Panov. Is this 'leadership' based on total points? If so it has a bug; if it is based on points gained vs points loss then we are tied (just like every player would be at the beginning of the tournament). Btw, my game against Panov was a draw, I don't if that goes into the calculation and we both have a game in progress against the same opponent.


Don Groves    (2010-03-11 05:25:31)
Poker Min Bid

It's not illegal but why would any poker player do that?


Garvin Gray    (2010-03-12 05:02:35)
Poker Min Bid

Having watched quite a few poker tournaments on TV, I have seen quite a few instances where players have been told that the minimum bid is a certain amount. This is usually the amount of the big blind.

I think this change would speed up some of the games and does make sense, to me at least.


Don Groves    (2010-03-12 06:52:06)
Poker Min Bid

It doesn't make much sense to me to bet less than the pot. If you feel you have the better hand, bet at least the pot amount. Otherwise, you are giving the other guy better odds to chase you. A smaller bet may entice the other guy to call with a losing hand, but most players here are too smart to fall for that.


Lazaro Munoz    (2010-03-13 16:18:17)
English translation

Not to nitpick, but I have seen a lot of references to "inferior" or "superior" when specify ratings or rate of play. In English "inferior" or "superior" are measures of "quality" not "quantity". In English we do not that a rating or rate of play is inferior to another instead we say that it is "less than" or "greater than" depending on whether the first item is larger than second.

If you told a man that his height was "less than" yours he might be slighted but might accept the truth, if it is true; however if you told him that his height was "inferior" to yours, you better get ready to be punched in the face or more likely, if his height really was "less than" yours, be ready to be kicked in the groin area.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-13 21:24:37)
Poker Min Bid

Well, it seems that I often like to change well established rules, sorry :) .. I'm not sure if this change is necessary or not, I understand that "official" holdem no-limit rules have been designed to speed up the game but I quite like to play with the current FICGS rules.

Do you all think that it should be changed for the ruleset mentioned by Svante Carl?


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    (2010-03-16 10:37:01)
Interview with E. Kotlyanskiy

Congrats again to Edward Kotlyanskiy, new FICGS chess champion after beating Xavier Pichelin (2577) in the 12 games final match of the 3rd cycle.

Edward kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match and correspondence chess in general :

_________________________


> Hi Edward, first of all congratulations for winning this 12 games match against the former FICGS chess champion, Xavier Pichelin. You had to score at least one point more than your opponent, what was your strategy when the games started?

Knowing that I had to score at least +1 against Xavier, I had to try to get the games into complex positions where there are many options to play for both sides. At the point when the games started, I was the underdog to Xavier (mainly due to the face that I was rated about 200 points lower). In part, I think that one of the reasons why Xavier allowed the games to reach such complex positions is due to the fact that his rating was undoubtedly higher than mine and therefore he probably assumed that he could “outplay” me. Although this was simultaneously a brave and admirable choice, I think an option that many other players would have pursued would have been to play “drawish” lines with the hope of having all of the games ending in draws. I have great respect for Xavier due to the fact that he didn't choose such a path and allowed us to put on a hard fought show that was worth watching.

> What could you say on the hot moments of the match?

The first game in which I thought I had very good chances to win was game 34739. In this game (particularly on move 18) Xavier played the move Nb8?? Looking back at the move, I realized that the game was lost for him. I assumed that Xavier probably underestimated the threat of f5. There were no good responses and/or countermeasures for the move f5. For example, if 19) gxf5, I have 20) Nxh5 Nc6 21) Rc3! Bxh4 (Qd8 was also possible) 22) Qf4 Be7 23) g4! His king is just clearly caught in the attack! 19) exf5 also fails to 20) e6 f6 (trying to keep the king safe) 21) Bxh5!! gxh5 22) Nc6 Rc3 and therefore it’s easy to see that it is just a matter of time. Xavier did try something better although even that failed due to some nice moves. I believe that 21) g7 came as a surprise to Xavier (or that at least he hadn't seen this move when playing Nb8). After Nxh5 (another neat move), another line that I thought Xavier would enter (which is also losing) is 22) Qxc2 23) Qxc2 Rxc2 24) Nf6+! Bxf6 25) exf6. Clearly my pawns are just too strong! Knowing that I am winning after the mentioned alternatives, the other games (although I won three others) were just necessary to hold without falling for any tactics/tricks.

A second game I want to briefly comment on is game 34729. I played a very nice (although I am not sure if it is winning just yet) move known as 17.a4! It was a very nice way to open the position on both of our kings. In all honesty, the move that I think was winning in this situation 25) Rd3, I did not even consider too highly until the position reached that very move. After a relatively short analysis, I was indeed pleasantly surprised to see that; overall, it was completely winning for me.

> What could you say on the advantages and inconveniences of this 12 games match format played at a quite fast time control?

From the days when I first starting playing correspondence chess, I have always been accustomed to making moves rather quickly. In fact, when I first started playing, in some games I made moves within 10 minutes of looking at the position. Although I take a lot more time to analyze now-a-days, I still consider the speed of my play to be relatively faster compared to most other correspondence players. Playing 12 games simultaneously can have drawbacks as not having enough time to properly analyze; however, I didn't have such a problem. With the exception of a few games that I was playing on IECG at the start of the FICGS Championship, the 12 game series was my main concern.

> Without revealing your secrets, how would you define modern correspondence chess as a centaur (playing with chess engines)?

These days, it is impossible to play correspondence chess on a high level without consulting the engine. It is also unlikely that one can achieve a lot of success just by following the engine blindly (even after a long analysis). Personally, I know that some of my friends believe that in correspondence chess you are just following the engine but I believe that most “high level” correspondence players know that it just doesn't work that way.

In my opinion, one of the most important skills that a correspondence player should have is having some sense of where the engine he is analyzing with is faulty. To give a well known example, many people know that there are certain endgame positions that an engine alone can't be trusted in (a simple case is the wrong color bishop). In essence, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of whatever engine you are analyzing with is critical to playing correspondence chess at a “high level”.

> Why did you choose to play correspondence chess, do you play OTB (over the board) chess as well?

Before starting correspondence chess, I played OTB chess for quite a few years. When my schedule became busy, I realized that I wouldn't have much time to play OTB in clubs. I came across correspondence chess and got hooked on it very quickly. Also, I began to enjoy more of the subtleties of the game; something that is just lacking in OTB blitz games. I imagine that some people prefer to play practical chess (OTB) in which a move order wouldn't make much of a difference; however, I guess I am a perfectionist and believe the game should be played on as high of a level as possible.

> How many correspondence games do you usually play at the same time (on different chess servers or by email)? Would you say that it is an addiction?

Usually, I played about 5 to 10 games on average on all different sites. I did play via email on IECC but wasn't fond of playing by email therefore I went back to server only sites (IECG, FICGS, Schemingmind).

I can definitely say that correspondence chess is an addiction. All too often, I catch myself analyzing games when I really should be doing something much more time sensitive. Well, at least I can say that this addiction paid off in that I am the new FICGS champion!

> Are you interested in other games?

As far as board games go, chess is primarily the only game I play. At times I do play games like monopoly and scrabble with my friends. Another interest that I have is billiards.

> The next challenger for the FICGS chess champion title is SM Eros Riccio (winner of several PlayChess PAL freestyle tournaments). Do you think that you'll play him? What does this perspective inspire in you?

I can't wait to play Eros! I believe that he would be my toughest opponent yet (although I have played GM Leitão, Rafael (fide elo: 2619) and managed to draw). Eros is like an unstoppable juggernaut in corr chess. That said, I look forward to our games and I am certain that they will simultaneously be challenging and entertaining.

> Thanks and best of luck in your future games!


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-17 14:42:57)
1st team tournament : games & results !

Hi Iouri... Well, my old computer can't even see it (just realized that modern computers are about 40x faster :/) , but I just checked the shredder bases online, this is checkmate in 21 moves indeed. It was predictable anyway :) .. I just resigned.

Table 1 : 4 unfinished games remaining (Iouri leading)
Table 2 : 0 unfinished games remaining (Volker won)
Table 3 : 2 unfinished games remaining (Ostap leading)
Table 4 : 0 unfinished games remaining (Yura won)

One thing is sure already, our yellow-blue chessfriends did it very well !

So...

"Team 1" - "Team 2" : points (score)

"Ni" - "FSF" : FSF leads by 1 point
"Ni" - "Dark" : 1-1 (2-2)
"Ni" - "Happy" : 2-0 (3-1)
"Ni" - "YB" : 1-1 (2-2)
"Ni" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Ni" - "No" : 2-0 (leads by 2 points)
"FSF" - "Dark" : 1-1 (2-2)
"FSF" - "Happy" : FSF leads by 1 point
"FSF" - "YB" : 2-0 (2.5-1.5)
"FSF" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (leads by 3 points)
"FSF" - "No" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Dark" - "Happy" : 2-0 (2.5-1.5)
"Dark" - "YB" : 0-2 (1.5-2.5)
"Dark" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Dark" - "No" : 2-0 (3-1)
"Happy" - "YB" : YB leads by 1 point
"Happy" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Happy" - "No" : 2-0 (3-1)
"YB" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (2.5-0.5)
"YB" - "No : 2-0 (2.5-1.5)
"Ghost" - "No" : 0-2 (1.5-2.5)


Total :

Knights who say Ni : 8 points (-)
FSF en passant : 7 points (++)
Dark knights : 8 points
Happy pawn : 4 pawns (--)
Yellow Blue warriors : 7 points (+)
Ghost knights : 0 points
Our team king (knights with no name) : 2 points

(+) meaning : leads in a match yet, (-) meaning : is leaded in a match yet

Nothing is decided yet... but it looks like Yellow-Blue have good chances, which is particularly impressive with a player who made 0/6 !


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-21 22:52:10)
SSDF rating list (march 2010)

The new SSDF rating list reveals at least one thing : Between an old Athlon 1200 and a modern Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, there is at least a 120 point gap. Unfortunately, Ippolit/Ivanhoe/Igorrit/Firebird are still out of the list.


SSDF RATING LIST 2010-03-21 %120316 games played by 311 computers
Rating + - Games Won Oppo
------ --- --- ----- --- ----
1 Deep Rybka 3 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3227 27 -25 1005 83% 2962
2 Naum 4 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3149 25 -23 986 74% 2963
3 Deep Shredder 12 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3124 26 -24 863 70% 2972
4 Deep Fritz 12 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3117 37 -36 373 60% 3043
5 Deep Rybka 3 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 3090 39 -38 332 58% 3033
6 Deep Fritz 11 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3081 22 -21 1142 68% 2946
7 Zappa Mexico II x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3068 27 -26 696 59% 3002
8 Naum 3.1 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3052 30 -29 572 59% 2990
9 Deep Hiarcs 12 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3039 22 -21 1087 61% 2958
10 Deep Shredder 11 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3038 26 -26 726 58% 2981
11 Hiarcs 11.2 MP 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3010 25 -25 761 54% 2984
12 Glaurung 2.2 x64 MP 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3007 22 -22 1001 60% 2933
13 Shredder 12 256MB A1200 MHz 3006 39 -39 320 45% 3040
14 Naum 4 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2998 29 -29 574 50% 2996
15 Deep Junior 10.1 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2975 25 -25 766 48% 2992
16 Rybka 2.3.1 Arena 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2926 22 -22 964 52% 2912
17 Fritz 11 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2915 27 -27 669 47% 2935
18 Deep Fritz 8 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2912 25 -26 753 39% 2991
19 Shredder 8 MP 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2908 28 -29 603 39% 2984
20 Deep Shredder 11 256MB Athlon 1200 2907 30 -30 534 45% 2941
21 Hiarcs 11.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2879 23 -23 941 49% 2882
22 CM King 3.5 x64 MP 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2866 31 -32 530 33% 2990
23 Junior 10.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2864 19 -20 1271 47% 2882
24 Deep Junior 8 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2859 29 -30 589 36% 2961
25 Fritz 10 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2851 34 -33 458 64% 2749
26 Zap!Chess Z. 256MB Athlon 1200 MH 2842 21 -21 1060 50% 2840
27 Fruit 2.2.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2833 19 -19 1385 62% 2750
28 Spike 1.2 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2817 26 -26 714 57% 2766
29 Chess Tiger 2007 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2775 25 -26 748 46% 2805
29 Rybka 1.0 beta 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2775 64 -69 115 38% 2860
31 Zap!Chess 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2737 30 -29 562 53% 2713
32 Gandalf 6.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2735 24 -24 855 56% 2693
33 Pocket Fritz 3 Hiarcs Ipaq 214 624 MHz 2733 64 -58 142 66% 2617
34 Chessmaster 9000 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2720 36 -35 385 56% 2680
35 Pro Deo 1.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2714 24 -23 876 57% 2660
36 Pocket Shredder Ipaq 114 624 MHz 2698 83 -70 100 74% 2520
37 Deep Sjeng 1.5a 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2675 31 -31 493 52% 2663
38 CEBoard Fruit 2.3.1 XScale 400 400 MHz 2647 65 -61 129 62% 2564
39 Revelation Rybka 2.2 XScale 500 MHz 2632 47 -45 240 62% 2549
39 Ruffian 2.0.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2632 49 -49 205 46% 2661
41 Pocket Fritz 3 Glaurung 2.1 Ipaq 614C 2528 69 -74 100 40% 2604
42 Pocket Fritz 2 XScale 400 MHz 2508 48 -46 225 57% 2459
43 Resurrection Rybka 2.2 StrongARM 203 MH 2484 43 -43 260 51% 2477
44 Resurrection Fruit '05 StrongARM 203 MH 2395 67 -63 120 60% 2320
45 Hiarcs 9.5a/9.6 Palm TungstenE OMAP 126 2392 35 -35 400 45% 2426
46 CEBoard Crafty 2004 HP RX4240 400 MHz 2375 52 -54 180 41% 2443
47 R30 v. 2.5 2274 41 -38 343 69% 2136
48 Palm Tiger 2009 Tung C 400 MHz 2229 66 -71 110 38% 2317
49 Chess Genius 1.4 SX1 OMAP 310 120 MHz 2151 50 -48 210 60% 2081
50 Chess Tiger 14.9 Palm m515 16MB 42MHz 2103 69 -74 100 39% 2182


Garvin Gray    (2010-03-22 02:44:37)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010

Thibault,

I would like to propose that the competition be postponed for one week. So the playing dates are April 10 and 17. I have just realised that April 3 is the Easter weekend and I am not available.

I suspect that others will be in the same boat and so this will reduce entries.

Please change the dates to April 10/17.

Cheers,

Garvin


William Taylor    (2010-03-22 12:50:15)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010

The original dates are better for me, as I may be playing an OTB tournament on the 17th. That said, Garvin's desire to play in this event may be stronger than mine. ;)


Garvin Gray    (2010-03-22 13:02:26)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010

William, we could play on two consecutive days ie 9/10 or 10/11.


Garvin Gray    (2010-03-22 14:42:00)
Blitz time controls

The Classical time controls now being used are
1) 40 moves in 2 hours, 20 moves in 1 hour followed by 15 mins + 30 seconds.

Also used sometimes is 2)

40 moves in 100 mins, 20 moves in 50 mins fb 15 mins, all with a 30 second increment from move one.

I think the second time control would be better here as it guarantees that each player has some time to make their move, considering slow internet connections and technical issues.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-24 19:30:09)
Blitz time controls

My point (if there's one) is that longer games like the current time control probably mean games of a better quality, the blitz time control is really long actually... so why not playing the lightning time control if you want faster games ? By the way there's no bad surprise with an increment at every move.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-26 15:40:02)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010

Maybe I'll change that next time... The current rules are "If several players obtain the best score and the best Sonnenborn-Berger, they will share the prize.", in other words: The winner takes it all.


Garvin Gray    (2010-03-26 22:54:42)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010

Sonnenborn-Berger is a terrible tie break and I strongly recommend that the tie break either be progressive or buchholz.

SB does not tell you much about the path a player took in the tournament (Progressive), or the strength of the opponents they played (Bucholz).

Why does there need to be a tie-break, when we are talking about first place here?


Josef Riha    (2010-03-29 08:53:24)
Immediate start of tournaments

Hello Thibault, is it possible to start a tournament immediately when more then one player has signed in? At playchess.de it works very well.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-30 14:48:36)
Affiliate link

Sure, players coming from these links are identified thanks to their internet address that are stored in a file then compared with their internet address when they register. There could be easier ways but that's the best way I found in matter of SEO (& to avoid duplicate pages).


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-30 21:17:07)
Playchess PAL tournaments winners

Hi everyone, does anybody know where I can find the list of all winners of Playchess PAL tournaments ?

Thanks ;)


Samy Ould Ahmed    (2010-03-30 22:16:43)
Playchess PAL tournaments winners

http://www.freestyle-chess.com/tournaments.htm


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-30 22:35:35)
Playchess PAL tournaments winners

Thanks Samy, so the list of winners so far :

1. ZackS
2. Zor_champ (Hydra)
3. Rajlich (Rybka's author)
4. Xakru (Jiri Dufek and Roman Chytilek)
5. Flying Saucers
6. Rajlich
7. Ibermax
8. Ultima (Eros Riccio)


Don Groves    (2010-03-31 06:45:47)
Bug in game 41452

White did not play b15, yet it shows on the goban.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-31 10:01:23)
Poker dealing algorithm

I mean that there is no card generated 'randomly' [without any control] like on many poker sites that can e.g. give better cards to super players and say "it was just luck"). I can prove that all cards come from the same algorithm, but of course if I reveal it, I'll have to change at least some parameters of the algorithm for the next games.

Anyway I can make a study and generate billions of hands (would it be enough, I'm not even sure) automatically to see accurate statistics but really, I would be surprised to see any problem.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-31 10:03:10)
Bug in game 41452

Ahh... strange then!

Please report (before to play) if you see something like this again. Thanks a lot.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-31 17:06:17)
Touch move option !

Here it is, now you can choose if your moves should be sent as soon as played (without having to push the "Send" button), this works for chess, chess 960 & Go !

This should be a much more convenient option for freestyle/advanced games... at last :)

See your Preferences to change the option.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=data

As usual, please report any bug... Any suggestion is welcome ! Thanks.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-31 17:22:26)
Touch move option !

Of course you still can write a message to your opponent & offer a draw or resign after you choose the touch move option, but you will have to do all this before to play your move.

If you want to resign without playing a move, naturally you'll have to push the "Send" button after checking the box. I hope this will look obvious to everyone.

If (for chess) you touched a piece that you didn't want to move, of course you're not forced to play it, 3 solutions for "j'adoube" :

- Just go back to My games then choose your game again and play your move. This is the more secure option.
- Play an illegal that should be not accepted, the page will be reloaded.
- Reload the page by focusing the address of the page in your navigator then pushing "Enter" on your keyboard (do NOT use the reload function of your navigator that would re-send a previous form)


Andres E. Leon    (2010-03-31 19:06:50)
Difference between class A / rapid A

FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_A Tournaments admits chess players with 2000-2200 ELO and FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_A is for 1900-2100 ELO players. Why there is this difference?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-31 19:15:30)
Difference between class A / rapid A

Hello Andres.

The reason is that many players asked for this to help players rated 2000-2100 to reach the 2200 mark.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-31 20:30:54)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010

To the players who will participate to the next freestyle tournament, be sure to read the following discussion before to play :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8345

I recommend to practice this new option (touch move) by playing a few bullet bronze games before the tournament ;)


Garvin Gray    (2010-04-01 01:20:04)
Difference between class A / rapid A

The main reason is that in one division you are one of the top rated players and in the other you are one of the bottom rated players.

Also, by having the rating bands as they are means it is more likely that different players will meet, which increases interest and also makes the rating system more accurate.


Michel van der Kemp    (2010-04-03 16:58:45)
Weird technical problem

Thibault, thanks for organising this nice tournament. Lot of fun. I lost my first game against Xavier Pichelin, which I will totally accept, Xavier played excellent. However I do have a weird question.

About the game I receive this email:

[Event "FICGS__CHESS__FREESTYLE_CUP__000002"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2010.4.3"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Pichelin,Xavier"]
[Black "van der Kemp,Michel"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2405"]
[BlackElo "1921"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Be3 Bg4 16.Qd3 Rae8 17.Nd2 Re6 18.a4 Qh5 19.axb5 axb5 20.Qf1 Bh3 21.Bd1 Qf5 22.Qe2 c5 23.Nf3 Bf4 24.Qd2 Nxe3 25.fxe3 Bh6 26.Qf2 Rfe8 27.Bc2 Qh5 28.e4 Rf6 29.Bd1 Bg4 30.Rf1 g6 31.e5 Rf5 32.Ra5 cxd4 33.cxd4 Rc8 34.Ra3 Rc1 35.Qe2 Rb1 36.d5 Bh3 37.Qe4 Bxf1 38.Qxb1 Qh3 39.Qc2 Bc4 40.Be2 Rxf3 41.Rxf3 Bxd5 42.Bf1 Qg4 43.Rc3 Qd4+ 44.Qf2 Qxe5 45.Bg2 Bc4 46.Kh1 Bg5 47.h3 Kg7 48.Bf1 Bd5+ 49.Kh2 h5 50.Qe2 Qd6 51.Rd3 h4 52.Bg2 hxg3+ 53.Kh1 Bxg2+ 54.Kxg2 Qc6+ 55.Kxg3 Qc7+ 56.Kg2 Qc6+ 57.Rf3 f5 58.b3 Bf6 59.Qd3 1-0



Move sent : 2010.4.3 - 16:34:26
Move replied : 2010.4.3 - 16:34:55


Last move sent : g7-h7




WhiteELO : 2405 ... 2405
BlackELO : 1921 ... 1921


This email was generated automatically by http://www.ficgs.com/

It says last move send g7-h7. How did I actually lose this game if the server still received my move? The result of the game came as a little shock to me, because I thought I had about 10 seconds left when I send the move, and the server did receive it as well, and somehow registered it.

Anyway I should have been faster and accept my loss.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-03 21:33:36)
Weird technical problem

Hi Michel, yes we were a few ones (Mauro, you & I) to play with fire with less than 5 seconds (sometimes 1 second only) on the clock... the real problem is that everything can happen anytime with internet, by the way I lost my last game on time with William because my connection was broken after only 2 moves :( .. And Mauro was playing with a GSM because of his internet provider also.

So I have no clear answer on what happened to your move if you had remaining time, but it is sure that the server received it too late. The email only says that you "tried" to move to h7 (actually this is a way to verify that you didn't resign accidentaly) but as the email does not say that you resigned, it means that you lost on time.

Sorry about this and thanks for your fair play!


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-05 00:58:06)
Advanced chess ratings calculation

For some reasons that I'll explain below, I updated the advanced chess (bullet, lightning, blitz, freestyle) rating calculation rules to the following :

"Performance = Opponent Current Rating if the game is drawn, + 350 if the game is won, -350 if the game is lost.

The following bonus / malus applied to White and to Black makes ratings fair, as it is not possible to force a player to take White or Black before a game :

(White) Performance = Performance - 50
(Black) Performance = Performance + 50

If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2400, his new rating his :

New Rating = ((8 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 10

Otherwise :

New Rating = ((9 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 10

The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is greater than 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player.

In case of a draw or loss against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Current Rating - 200. A player who wins a game cannot lose Elo points, a player who loses a game cannot win Elo points."

More details :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_advanced_chess


The rule that just changed is "If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2400, his new rating his : New Rating = ((8 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 10".

This rule will probably be updated again in a few months with a rating limit of 2200 instead of 2400, when advanced chess ratings will be more coherent with correspondence chess ratings.

The reasons are :

1) Advanced/freestyle chess is often neglected partly because players will likely lose some rating points (many strong players using Rybka 3-like engines still have a rating of 1800 or 2000, there are several reasons to this), the main point is probably the interface but I'm fixing it (e.g. the new touch-move option - see Preferences).

2) Chess engines are just stronger and stronger while the ratings do not increase with the previous rules, as a consequence players who just tried advanced chess once years ago shouldn't still top the rating list. It is of course a way for players to find their place quicker in the rating list & to incitate players to play more games as well.


Garvin Gray    (2010-04-05 16:48:43)
Poker Min Bid

There is also the other side of the story about rating accuracy in this situation where if players are getting bored with how long the games are taking because things just go back and forth, then they are less likely to play.

This leads to more inaccurate ratings. I think it would be easier to get more accurate ratings by there being many games against different opponents, even if each individual game is not perfect because the minimum bid has been increased.


Garvin Gray    (2010-04-05 16:49:53)
Blitz time controls

Has a decision been made on this? Awaiting to start a match, so want to play the same time control in each game.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-05 18:04:46)
Issues + New pairings

Hi Garvin, what is your browser ? I guess that you use cookies so your problem is quite strange to me as the links posted in the forum only open a new window (that should use the same session - works fine on Firefox & Chrome, at least)...

About the freestyle tournament, I just tried to add a new player during the tournament and the software seems to accept it. Finally I think it cannot be bad to authorize players to enter the waiting list until the end of the tournament, so I just added this rule.

Consequently the pairings for round 4 changed :

Table 1 : Boehme - Taylor
Table 2 : Evans - Pichelin
Table 3 : van der Kemp - Petrolo
Table 4 : Moreira - de Vassal
Table 5 : Gray - Nichols

Sorry to the players for this update, but I'm still trying to find the best rules for this kind of tournaments.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-06 15:41:33)
Ratings calculation

Hi Lazaro, correspondence chess ratings are not calculated in real time, it is calculated every 2 months, see the complete rules :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_chess

You may see an estimation of your future rating (taking account of the games played after the last rating calculation) at :

http://www.ficgs.com/players/munoz_lazaro/history.html

A 1885 rating should look like more logical to you :)


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-04-07 19:53:55)
Replacement in rapid silver 18

Howdy players, I will give the 10 E points to the player who replaces me. BTW I have not moved. Thibault has agreed to the 10 E points
Thank you
Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-10 14:20:52)
Freestyle vs. Access providers

It looks like that access providers are a real problem during freestyle tournaments... In 4 rounds, 2 players (at least) lost a game on time because of them and 1 other had to play with his mobile phone card because his access provider was not able to see ficgs.com during a few hours.

It is possible that week-ends are a quite bad choice to play as most internet providers encounter most problems from friday evening to monday (and take much more time to solve it).

I do not see a clear rule that could solve all this, maybe more rounds would attenuate the problem... If you have any idea, let's discuss it!

Thanks.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-10 17:49:40)
Freestyle vs. Access providers

Another lesson is that maybe I shouldn't organize such tournaments (the last round was launched about 40 minutes late because of a new connection problem) before that my own access provider makes the necessary to be more stable :(

That's a shame but there's nothing else to do than to wait. It was a good tournament anyway that will allow me to improve some things for the next editions.

Thanks to all players who participated!


Lazaro Munoz    (2010-04-06 12:40:44)
Ratings calculation

I don't quite understand the way that ratings are calculated (for initial ratings).

I entered my first chess tournament with an initial rating of 1785 (my ICCF rating at the time). I won 5 games and drew 1 and got a rating of 1837.

My fellow tournament entry Chris Brooks entered also for the first tournament with an initial rating of 1800. He won 4 games and lost 2 and got a rating of 1906?! No complains to him, only to the rating system.

Is there some draw penalty built in? We played the same set of players(so the tournament average rating is exactly the same) and played the same number of games (and no more, I checked this has so far been our only tournament for both of us), yet with my extra point and half I wound up with a much lower rating.

What's up with that?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-07 16:42:57)
Replacement in rapid silver 18

Hello all, we're looking for a player interested to replace Wayne in the Chess rapid silver #18, anyone interested ?

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_SILVER__000018


Don Groves    (2010-04-10 18:22:19)
Challenges

Is this so hard to do? I keep getting Chess challenges but I'm only playing Go now. I don't have time for both.


William Taylor    (2010-04-10 18:27:50)
Challenges

I'll second this request. Another related issue which I and several other players have been experiencing recently is that of repeated spam challenges (i.e. a player keeps sending challenges even when they are turned down). Perhaps it would also be a good idea to be able to exclude certain players from challenging you (like an ICC 'noplay list').


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-10 19:37:35)
Congrats to David Evans!

David Evans wins this 2nd FICGS freestyle cup!

Here are the final standings (please note that the FICGS crosstable may be slightly different from the pairing software's one) :

1. Evans, David : 4,5 / 6 games played (berg 11,75)
2-3. Petrolo, Mauro : 4 / 6 games played (berg 12,5)
2-3. Taylor, William : 4 / 5 games played (berg 9,5)
4. van der Kemp, Michel : 3,5 / 5 games played (berg 6,75)
5. Boehme, Sebastian : 3 / 5 games played (berg 6,25)
6-7. de Vassal, Thibault : 2,5 / 5 games played (berg 6)
6-7. Nichols, Scott : 2,5 / 5 games played (berg 4,25)
8. Pichelin, Xavier : 2 / 6 games played (berg 5,75)
9-10. Moreira, Jose : 1,5 / 4 games played (berg 3,5)
9-10. Gray, Garvin : 1,5 / 3 games played (berg 3,25)

Of course and unfortunately, the number of "played games" includes losses on time without playing. There were numerous problems with access providers during this tournament...


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-10 21:19:28)
Challenges

This is the software's fault (my bad), not the player's... because there's a "challenge all players" function that is supposed to be used... so this is unlikely to be harrassment! Please keep cool in this case, you may move the challenges at the bottom of the window if you don't use it by clicking the arrow (towards the bottom). I'll add an option in Preferences to completely hide it, and probably a blacklist function also. Now working on.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-10 22:18:47)
Prize : 170 Epoints or...

David also won the total prize in this tournament, 170 Epoints (100 Epoints + 70 Epoints of entry fees as 3 titled players on 10 total entered the waiting list), or 100 Epoints + 75% of 70 in real money according to the rules, at the winner's discretion.

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#prize

Congrats :) .. let's hope the next freestyle tourney will be free of all these problems with access providers!


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-10 23:19:20)
Challenges hidden

New option for the challenges ! (see Preferences) .. now you can "hide" the challenges function. This means that a player still can challenge everyone (including you) but you won't see it. Not a perfect way but to be improved. There should be a blacklist function (during a session only) soon.


Robert Mueller    (2010-04-11 09:12:03)
Match Against Rybka Forum

Thibault, I see there is going to be a match Rybka Forum vs FICGS. They are recruiting eight players to play individual games against FICGS members. Who is going to play for FICGS? Do you still need a player? I would be interested in playing, but I will be on vacation from May 8 to May 15.


David Evans    (2010-04-11 11:38:59)
Freestyle vs. Access providers

Nothing u can do Thib even if u played in the week which has it own problems as it it easyer to play on weekends.

losses due to internet happens


Garvin Gray    (2010-04-11 12:18:37)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010

For the next tournament I would like to see the time control increased to 60 + 15 or similar. I found this time control way too fast for decent freestyle play.


William Taylor    (2010-04-11 14:19:39)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010

Not sure I agree with Garvin about the time control. I liked the fact that we could play 3 games (often of decent quality IMO) and still not use up an entire day.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-11 15:20:48)
Match Against Rybka Forum

Hi Robert, I'm not sure yet if there are so many members at Rybkaforum interested to play (actually it looks like the most are FICGS players until there), but if it can motivate them, let's try to build a team already :)

Vacation would not be a problem as a long time control should be the option but there is no rule well defined yet. However the rules will probably look like the ones used in FICGS vs. Igame.ru

The thread at Rybkaforum is there :

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=16132

Do not hesitate to post here and there if you're interested to play such a match!


Garvin Gray    (2010-04-11 16:18:23)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010

It may or may not lead to more draws, this I do not know. But what it will do is allow more time for analysis and human decisions ie centaur play, which I think is the main part of freestyle and one of the main reasons we all participate in these competitions.

If the time control is too fast to allow decent analysis, then each game is just engine v engine with different computing speeds as a variable.

This whole issue could be viewed also as each freestyle comp will have slightly different paramaters to try and satisfy most people's taste.


Robert Mueller    (2010-04-11 16:21:54)
Match Against Rybka Forum

Actually, it seems they already have seven players:

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=16195

If you build a team, please count me in.


William Taylor    (2010-04-11 17:48:52)
Match Against Rybka Forum

I'd be interested in playing, and I also like the suggested rule of Rybka forum members only being assisted by Rybka, and us only being assisted by other engines.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-11 20:59:51)
Match Against Rybka Forum

Oh ok, thanks Robert, I didn't see this discussion at Rybkaforum before...

The idea discussed with "Vytron" is : Half players would play their game here at FICGS, and the other half would play their game at the Rybka forum... Of course there would be a kind of time control there but this would be a friendly match before all!

So please post here if you're interested to play in the FICGS team and specify if you would be ok to play your game at the Rybkaforum.

I'm in, of course (if my new rating allow me to play :)), and I'm ok to play at the Rybkaforum.


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-04-11 22:01:50)
Blitz Games

They seem to be gaining in popularity. I offer a suggestion. After playing three bullet games I feel an improvement would be to highlight the move made for easier recognition. Other game servers have this feature. Is it difficult to implement Thibault ?
Wayne


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-04-11 22:47:43)
Match Against Rybka Forum

I am in if you need me. I think you will have many volunteers. I will play my games at either server, just as long as I am a FICGS member
Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-11 22:59:12)
Blitz Games

You mean on the board? I must say I don't like this feature much...

It is true that the only way (until there) is to scroll to see all moves in text or to "mouse-over" the last move played by your opponent to see the last 10 moves played if you use the fast moves process. I'd like to find another way to display the move before but some screens are quite small.


William Taylor    (2010-04-11 23:43:06)
Match Against Rybka Forum

I'm in if my rating's good enough, and am happy to play at Rybka forum if necessary. If you get too many people volunteering I'm happy not to play.


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-04-11 23:53:12)
Blitz Games

Thibault, I do not follow you, and perhaps you dont understand my intent.
I am proposing that the last shot made on the board be highlighted. Example: white play's nb3. when that move is entered I would like to see the knight on c3 highlighted so that it can be quickly spotted. I think it very fair and useful Wayne


Scott Nichols    (2010-04-12 03:59:40)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010

First of all, thanks to Thibault for having this tournament. I have some ideas for the next one for us to kick around. First and foremost we know the connection issues need to be resolved. Second, the time control. I've played both 30 & 60 minutes with 15 second increments and my preference would be the 60+15, but 30+15 is ok also, not a big deal for me. As for the time to have it, (days of the week, hour of the day), I think there is no way to satisfy everyone because of the wide range of time zones, so you just have to make a time and we will find a way to make it. -----The main new idea I have is to make it an open tournament. This means anyone can join, but only those who pay the entry fee will be eligible for prizes. The reason is to get many more players involved, but only the highest entry-paying player will win prize money. Since there are far more players here without any E-points than those with. It might even inspire more to buy points.


Robert Mueller    (2010-04-12 05:14:47)
Match Against Rybka Forum

> So please post here if you're interested
> to play in the FICGS team and specify
> if you would be ok to play your game
> at the Rybkaforum.

Thibault, I would like to play for the FICGS team. I would prefer to play here at FICGS.


Garvin Gray    (2010-04-12 05:57:57)
Match Against Rybka Forum

I would like to know about how boards are going to be decided? Will it in rating order for both teams.

If so, then I am interested. If teams are able to put their players in any order, then I will pass.


Garvin Gray    (2010-04-12 06:02:19)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010

I would certainly prefer only one or two games per night a longer time control.

I am strongly against the idea of allowing free entries whilst other pay. With allowing free entries, they have not done anything to show their commitment to finishing the tournament and could just withdraw/not show up at any stage.

While this can also happen for those who have paid an entry fee, at least these players would lose their entry fee.

Also, I am strongly against this idea of free entries and no chance to win prizes as it means some players can just play risk free with no concern for their overall tournament standing, whilst those competing for prizes have to be mindful of their tournament position.

In effect it will create two different mini tournaments and some players will be adversely affected.

I would rather a smaller tournament, but where all the players are playing under the same conditions ie time control, entry fee, ability to win prizes.


David Evans    (2010-04-12 11:51:37)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010

Hello as winner of the tour i feel apart from some internet problems the tour was a success.

It needed some more advertising to get more numbers but 30+15 was enough for me to play to a high standard.

Anyone who knows freestyle chess i play under the nick of Ultra-d a freestyle chess player who has made chessbase freestyle tour finals.

I thank u for the games and hope to see u guys in the next one.

D.evans (Ultra-d)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-12 14:43:45)
Blitz Games

That's what I thought but again I don't like much to see several colored squares on the board. Do other players would like to see this feature?

Anyway, this could be an option.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-12 14:46:39)
Rating order + Unrated games

Garvin, a problem is that most Rybkaforum players may not have any rating yet, so it will be probably not significant. By the way, all games will be unrated, of course.


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 :)


Michel van der Kemp    (2010-04-13 11:00:06)
Match Against Rybka Forum

I would be interested to play also.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-13 13:07:23)
Accounts at Rybkaforum

Hi Garvin, finally pairings will be arbitrary, so are you interested to play? (if yes, would you like to play at Rybkaforum or at FICGS?)

Michel & Mircea, would you like to play at Rybkaforum as well?

Currently Wayne, William & me will play at Rybkaforum, we need only one more.


Michel van der Kemp    (2010-04-13 14:19:59)
Match Against Rybka Forum

Yes I can play on their forum also, though I prefer the FICGS interface here :)


Mircea Hrubaru    (2010-04-13 15:58:44)
Match Against Rybka Forum

I think I want to play at FICGS.


Garvin Gray    (2010-04-13 16:14:50)
Match Against Rybka Forum

If the pairings are going to be arbitarly, which I take it mean that players can be paired in any order, then I am OUT.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-13 17:06:16)
Match Against Rybka Forum

Okay Garvin! So we still need one more player, anyone?


Garvin Gray    (2010-04-13 17:22:52)
Match Against Rybka Forum

I have a proposal though. We could ask the organisers from the Rybka team if they would be willing to play their team in 'rating order' or whatever they are going to use.

The reason I am against having players play in any order is that it will lead to more mis-matches and does not tell much about the players of either forum.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-13 18:03:22)
Match Against Rybka Forum

True, Garvin. I just made the suggestion at Rybkaforum.

Robert, Rybkaforum members who will play at FICGS will enter a real name for sure, just like other members. We do not have to specify our real name at the Rybkaforum, just following their rules.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-13 20:37:31)
@ Garvin

I'm not sure if the ratings will mean something... e.g. G.Clement at Rybkaforum is rated 2129, but probably uses Rybka. I don't know their other ratings yet so we may have a few provisional 1800 players among our opponents. Ratings ordered or not, all this looks like quite arbitrary.

Just tell me, Garvin... we have a player in replacement if needed.


Lazaro Munoz    (2010-04-13 20:40:15)
More ratings questions

This time one big chess. According to rules for big chess (I actually read it first before posting :), it says that the original rating that is used for calculations is the correspondence rating, which should have been 1785, however it appears that 0 was used instead. In the section that I almost finishing I am now 5 out 5 with 1 game left. The ratings of the other players ranged from 1800 down 1200 (roughly) initially. My current provision rating is 1609 and it seems that all my opponents have lost at least 200 ratings points in the process of playing in this tournament.

If rating system had used a real low rating as the initial for myself it would have been unfair to both myself and all of the other players in my section.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-13 22:30:46)
Big chess ratings

Hi Lazaro!

"Big chess ratings are first estimated from current correspondence chess ratings (current rating -300 points, with at least 1400), then adjusted in real time after each result (...)"

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_big_chess

When you entered your first big chess tournament, the TER was not specified but your current correspondence chess rating was used (minus 300) to calculate your first big chess rating with your first result, so a rating of 1609 seems ok taking account of your opponents ratings. The first results may look quite arbitrary but some rules prevent to lose too many points when losing against a strong opponent with a low rating. Anyway there should be more class categories to get more chances to improve ratings (to be continued), we needed more players but maybe we can do it now.


Garvin Gray    (2010-04-14 05:35:49)
Match Against Rybka Forum

Ok stick me in anyways :) Which will make the eight players.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-17 16:35:57)
The 42106 case, strange poker bug

For my personal records (if it happens again), a one time bug happened in game 42106 for a completely unknown reason...

The moves : 1.fold 1 2.check - 3.check 1 4.1 - 5.check 1 6.1 - 7.check 20 8.fold - 9.fold 1 10.check - 11.check 1 12.1 - 13.check - 14.*

Actually player White played more than 4 moves in a row after 13.check, which is impossible in theory.

Even more strange, when I corrected the game & replayed the 13.check, it was Black's turn so everything ok.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=42106


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-17 21:34:42)
Match Against Rybka Forum

We need a 10th player for the match vs. Rybkaforum, this player would play his game at Rybkaforum... Anyone interested ?

Our current team :

Wayne Lowrance 2479 (will play at Rybkaforum)
Harvey Williamson [2425 ICCF] (will play at Rybkaforum)
Thibault de Vassal 2376 (will play at Rybkaforum)
William Taylor 2110 (will play at Rybkaforum)
??? (will play at Rybkaforum)

Robert Mueller 2383 (will play at FICGS)
Michel van der Kemp 2226 (will play at FICGS)
Garvin Gray 2133 (will play at FICGS)
Kamesh Nookala 2126 (will play at FICGS)
Mircea Hrubaru 1988 (will play at FICGS)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-17 22:54:30)
Match Against Rybka Forum

Our almost definitive team :

Wayne Lowrance 2479 (will play at Rybkaforum)
Harvey Williamson [2425 ICCF] (will play at Rybkaforum)
Thibault de Vassal 2376 (will play at Rybkaforum)
Sebastian Boehme 2288 (will play at Rybkaforum)
William Taylor 2110 (will play at Rybkaforum)

Robert Mueller 2383 (will play at FICGS)
Michel van der Kemp 2226 (will play at FICGS)
Garvin Gray 2133 (will play at FICGS)
Mircea Hrubaru 1988 (will play at FICGS)
Samy Ould Ahmed 1889 [ICCF 2418] (will play at FICGS)

Stéphane Legrand 2222 (will play at (?))
Kamesh Nookala 2126 (will play at (?))


Kamesh Nookala    (2010-04-18 05:53:45)
Match Against Rybka Forum

I will play anywhere on this planet via internet Thib :p


Gaetano Laghetti    (2010-04-20 09:29:54)
Match Against Rybka Forum

Dear my 'old' chessfriend Thibault,
if you need another player I'd be happy to join you.
Regards
Gaetano


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-21 15:20:31)
Match Against Rybka Forum

About the rules :

Time control 20 days + 20 days / 10 moves at FICGS... for the games played at RybkaForum it is 24/48 hours per move in average & in relax mode, there will not be "losses on time"...

It seems to me that there is no other special rule, I just asked Vytron to confirm.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-21 15:25:11)
Go (weiqi) is...

... a game for humble players! :)


Garvin Gray    (2010-04-21 19:06:39)
Wider rating range tournaments

That title reads like I am doing some back-tracking (for those keeping track) and in a way I am.

I have previously asked for the rating bands of the standard and rapid waiting lists to be 200 points apart as rarely does someone join from outside those rating ranges.

Since then I have noticed that I am getting 'stuck' having to play the same people (feels that way at least).

We have only a couple of tournaments a year where players from different rating ranges are paired together and even in the World Champ groups, the 2300's or so are protected from the rest of the membership.

I would like to see some RATED tournaments created which allows more play between players of different rating ranges.

I believe this would also help with rating list accuracy as it gives the potential for players to increase their rating if they perform and would also sort out the over-rated players quite quickly.


Garvin Gray    (2010-04-21 21:30:59)
Wider rating range tournaments

Returning to the 400 rating range will not help for two reasons.

1) Players have shown with both the 400 and now 200 rating ranges that they will not join a tournament if most of the other players are rated below them, even if e-points are offered for winning the tournament
This will not change by going back to 400 point rating bands.

2) The only time players participate in tournaments where they could lose rating points is in the World Champ tourneys, where the prize (qualifying for next round and six games against strong opponents) is greater than the risk of losing rating points.

Hence why I have at least brought up the idea of another set of tournaments. The idea would be every one enters, players are allocated to groups (each group is as equal as possible), then the winners of each group go through to another round robin final group.

The difference between this and the World Champs is that there is no knockout stages and everyone starts from stage one. This means even the 2400's would have to play in stage one to win the tournament.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-21 23:49:04)
FICGS Cup or Open tournament

Here comes back the idea of a FICGS cup or whatever the name... I'm not sure if this is a good idea as WCH tournaments take a lot of time to most of us already, best is to gather most players in the same competition IMO.

Of course I could create a rated category with no rating range at all in Special tournaments, but I'm not sure if there is really an interest in it, any opinion ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-21 23:53:02)
Final Match details

Well, the only rule is "getting any kind of help from a different player is forbidden, players are meant to play alone"

Now we can start :) I'm to create the games.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-22 00:14:03)
Match Against Rybka Forum

All games started !

You can see all boards for games played at FICGS here :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__FICGS_VS_RYBKAFORUM_MATCH&boards=1

The other games played at Rybkaforum :

Bobby C Vs. Harvey Williamson
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=16385

Kamesh N. Vs. Mark Eldridge
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=16389

omprakash Vs. Sebastian Boehme
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=16388

Thibault d.V. Vs. SpiderG
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=16383

Weirwindle111 Vs. Wayne Lowrance
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=16384

William T. Vs. Vytron
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=16390


Have nice games :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-20 15:59:34)
Match Against Rybka Forum

Hi Gaetano! Very nice to see you in, by the way even in the opposite team as Rybkaforum needed one player more... :)

Thanks to you both teams are complete now, the match should start very very soon!


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-20 16:02:07)
FICGS team (final)

Wayne Lowrance 2479 (will play at Rybkaforum)
Harvey Williamson [2425 ICCF] (will play at Rybkaforum)
Thibault de Vassal 2376 (will play at Rybkaforum)
Sebastian Boehme 2288 (will play at Rybkaforum)
Kamesh Nookala 2126 (will play at Rybkaforum)
William Taylor 2110 (will play at Rybkaforum)

Robert Mueller 2383 (will play at FICGS)
Michel van der Kemp 2226 (will play at FICGS)
Stéphane Legrand 2222 (will play at FICGS)
Garvin Gray 2133 (will play at FICGS)
Mircea Hrubaru 1988 (will play at FICGS)
Samy Ould Ahmed 1889 [ICCF 2418] (will play at FICGS)


Don Groves    (2010-04-22 00:31:45)
Go (weiqi) is...

A game that humbles players!


Don Groves    (2010-04-22 07:14:46)
Speeding up Poker games

Does a Poker player get an extra day on the clock for every move like in Chess or Go? If so, that could be a big reason why the games are so long.

One move in Poker is insignificant compared to one move in other games. Maybe a player's clock should only increase one for each hand completed.


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2010-04-24 01:17:43)
Wider rating range tournaments

What about paying an entering fee? Example If I want to play in a higher class tournament, for example M class, I pay an amount of whatever e points the tournament director( in our cases Thibault) stablishes.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-24 00:08:44)
GoDiscussions & LifeIn19x19

FICGS Go players may have read this article in the latest AGA newsletter on the 2 Go forums... So there is a new Go forum called lifein19x19.com , but what happens with GoDiscussions?

Like many other members I experienced some problems regularly for a few months but what is behind the technical problems?

Does anyone have more informations on this?

http://godiscussions.com
http://www.lifein19x19.com


Garvin Gray    (2010-04-23 18:33:33)
Wider rating range tournaments

Thibault- This is the system used by IECG but I'm not sure if it is best, and what if several players share first place & so on...

Garvin- If several players share first place then probably it would have to be the same as for the world champs, the person with the highest TER gets the slot, or the person with the highest TER if the winner is already eligible at the end of said tournament.

Does that make sense?


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2010-04-22 18:55:53)
Wider rating range tournaments

I do not know how made this suggestion before, but what about a special tournament which enables the winner to play in an upper category, for example winner of c group special tournament is allowed to play in a b ranked tournament. Comments about this proposal?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-23 00:26:49)
Wider rating range tournaments

The problem is either it would ask a big update to make it automatic or an action from a tournament director each time... If I make an update, it should probably work for all class tournaments. This is the system used by IECG but I'm not sure if it is best, and what if several players share first place & so on... Ratings move faster than at IECG to avoid that and allow players to reach higher categories in a shorter time. Simple rules are often best IMO.


Garvin Gray    (2010-04-22 17:01:33)
Wider rating range tournaments

An all in rated category would not work.

I understand that the World Champs is meant to be the focal point and the main tournament, I am certainly not trying to take away from that.

Just that I am seeing an issue that has to be bugging people more than just me and trying to find a solution to this.

If you need help with setting up the groups and making pairings, I am willing to help with that to get the idea of the ground.

As for workload for the players, well I guess that is for each player to decide. If they think it is too much, then they will not play and the tournament goes no further than one trial.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-24 17:02:39)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Tano-Urayoán just posted an interesting idea in the following discussion:

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8507

I was totally opposed to this idea at a first sight, but after a while I found some real advantages.

The idea : Any player could pay an entry fee to enter a high class chess tournament (e.g. 20 Euros for class M, 40 for class SM, 60 for class GM), whatever his rating.

Of course what we all see first is : Anyone can pay to make increase his rating faster, that is just unfair!

But let's imagine that a player rated 1800 pays an entry fee of 40 Euros to enter the class SM waiting list.

1) The waiting list will be filled faster!

2) If this player is actually stronger than its rating show, he'll find its place faster (the other players will not lose so many points because their ratings are protected - see rating calculation rules).

3) There could be such an extra rule: Players who are already in the waiting list or who will play the tournament may share 50% of the entry fee in Epoints, which would be a kind of compensation for them.

4) These entry fees will help to have more prizes in free tournaments (another compensation) and bigger prizes in e.g. freestyle cups, although I don't have any idea on how many players would be interested in this, so the site will become more popular and so on...


Anyway, please share your views if you have any idea to improve this one, and your opinion is needed here of course!


Garvin Gray    (2010-04-24 12:03:25)
Wider rating range tournaments

Thumbs down for the paying an entry fee to get into a higher rating.

It just seems to me that it goes against the whole idea of earning your way into a higher rating group by improving your play and rating to justify an opportunity in the higher group.


Garvin Gray    (2010-04-24 12:08:38)
Wider rating range tournaments

Thibault,

The idea of qualification for a higher rating group might get people entering more tournaments in their 'correct' rating group.

Also, even if there is just one lower rated player in a higher group (earned by winning), is that really so bad as it at least gets that division playing, rather than sitting around waiting for someone to join.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-24 14:30:18)
Wider rating range tournaments

I also think about the possibility to imitate the advanced chess (Go as well) rating rules :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8375

There may be several advantages to this:

1) It would give a better image of the quality of the games compared to the past as engines are stronger and stronger but ratings do not increase in average...

2) It would allow players to access more easily the next category...

3) Old best ratings achieved a few years ago wouldn't be unbreakable anymore...

4) It may motivate retired players to come back to the fight :)


What do you think?


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-04-24 20:25:52)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

I do not like it. What you will see is a higher bracket classification in the waiting list stage will see presumably some qualified players entry, soon to be filled up with a host of players with deep pockets entering, so it ends up being not a higher bracket but a lower class bracket. This just does not seem fair. It means (as you have already pointed out) players with deep pockets can buy there way into rating points. I will not support or tolerate that notion if I can avoid it.


Don Groves    (2010-04-25 01:45:46)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

I still like the idea of allowing the winner of a tournament to enter the next higher level one time. It serves the same purpose as this suggestion but is limited to one player at a time so it doesn't dilute the level of play in the higher tournament. It also helps a new player find their appropriate level faster.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-25 01:50:10)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Okay, that's what I thought :)

Anyway, the silver games are another way to play stronger players. So that was not necessary in any case.


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-04-25 02:00:36)
Careful wht you do with our loved F

Thibault, I have been here since the beginning. I have grown with FICGS. I am very proud to be a member of FICGS in good standing.

I see dangers ahead for you and our FICGS.
You need to be very careful my friend about Changing the overall makeup of FICGS. I think overall the "E" point conditions here is ok, as long as it does not infringe outward from where it is now> This latest proposal (buying into a high classification) is very bad and changes the premise of FICGS, which is: If you are good, diligent and work hard you will advance and be rewarded. Tites should not come easy. Same for rating points. For if they do come easy then they have no meaning.
Players who have earned their stripes do merit certain considerations, that is good and proper.

Another potential problem that I see is that FICGS is headed in a direction down yahoo chess lane. We all like these bullet games, they are fun. I am not at all suggesting their elimination. I am just counseling "be careful". Do not let it become the face of FICGS chess. Yahoo chess is a total disaster. I do not want our site to even look in that direction.
I have been monitoring the chatter on bullet chess and it is great, all are enjoying it. That covers the main points of interest for me. I am not against changes. I do not want changes that change the make up of FICGS as we know it now. Its your server, you may do as you wish of course Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-25 02:52:37)
FICGS

I understand you Wayne, I don't want to make such mistakes and that's why we talk so much about these changes in this forum :)

On entry fees for a higher class tournament, I agree on the main point of course, but some advantages had to be discussed. The success of this site is also money and money prizes in the future IMO so I prefer to discuss such ideas than to do nothing.

That was the first point. Then there are some other points that remain to be discussed IMO : 1) Maybe correspondence chess ratings should increase (in average) as engines become stronger. 2) Titles calculation rules should probably be harder as a consequence, maybe it should have been changed already.

Correspondence/Advanced chess is constantly evolving, our marks move fast, so rules may have to change. I don't think that FICGS can turn into a kind of Yahoo chess (I did not ever play there btw), the most important thing is the atmosphere and I know that if I make a mistake, someone will let me know very quickly as it happened once a few months ago. We all make that success in that way!


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-25 17:56:03)
Anand vs. Topalov, world championship

Wasn't this move played before?

So maybe Anand is following your games guys ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-25 18:50:23)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

By the way it would be possible to set as a limit 1 "sponsoring" player per tournament as well.

Maybe this rule would look like more acceptable if I can make an update so that winners in a tournament get a ticket to entry a higher class tournament.

Once again, I'm not saying I want this "entry fee for higher class tournament" rule at any price, but if we find a way to make it not too unacceptable, maybe it would be worth a try before to see the real consequences so let's discuss it again!


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-04-25 21:50:58)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Or, maybe you want the money entrance requirement to compensate the "class" players for permitting the entry.
I am ok with this as well
Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-27 10:37:30)
FICGS down, server HACKED!

The server was down for about 1 day, all my apologies. FICGS is still secure and was not in danger or compromised at any time, nothing was lost during the process, but another site on the server was hacked so the server was blocked to avoid to spread the virus. Everything should be ok now.

To be sure that no game will be lost on time because of this, I've added 2 days to any player expected to play and 12 hours more to all players. Thanks for your patience and sorry about all that!


Hannes Rada    (2010-04-27 22:18:11)
Higher division

quote
I would rather have to pay a membership fee per year of say $20 for increased access (or something like that) than being able to pay an entry fee to get into a higher division.
unquote

Garvin, what do you expect from playing in a 'higher division' ?


Hannes Rada    (2010-04-27 23:52:33)
interesting games and rating

I think interesting games as well as boring games can be played in every class ...:-)
And rating means nothing nowadays.
1800 Elo player can be as strong or weak as a 2600 Elo rated player.
It's quite interesting: on the ICCF-forum the people are complaining that it is not possible to win a cc-game anymore.
Here people are claiming that it is not possible to increase the rating anymore.
Guys simply play chess, try different openings + ideas and you will have again fun, even if you don't win the game or you don't increase your rating :-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-28 08:53:55)
Careful wht you do with our loved F

Very true Hannes...

Many players try to reach the highest ratings before to relax and play more for fun & more openings (there is often a period to learn to lose &/or break the ego at correspondence chess, unlike Go)

A way to find more fun may be in faster games, with more madness and wins/losses... I hope that more players will try bullet games here :)

But that's not a reason not to talk about the ratings issue to try to make it more coherent if possible.

On the rate of draws, I'm not sure if it is so high yet, games played at the highest level may have less draws than in the category below as players do everything to avoid drawish lines. It is probably always too high anyway :)


Hannes Rada    (2010-04-28 19:52:28)
Draws

quote
On the rate of draws, I'm not sure if it is so high yet, games played at the highest level may have less draws than in the category below as players do everything to avoid drawish lines. It is probably always too high anyway :)
unquote

This is in my opinion another interesting topic to be discussed in another thread
How to avoid drawish lines ?!


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-28 21:22:41)
Game 4: Anand wins again

How to explain so many wins in this match? Let's hope it can continue like this as a way to promote chess as a still living & not drawish game. Do you think that the players took many risks so far? Nice game anyway.




Mircea Hrubaru    (2010-04-28 22:14:49)
Anand vs. Topalov, world championship

I think we should put aside the first game. In my view black played allright until the blunder 23...Kf7? which gave white the chance to blow away black's position with 23. Nxf6!! (Anand saw the pawn in f6 under the threat Nxf6 and that's why he defended with the king, but I think he didn't consider the immediate capture).
In games 2 and 4 Anand showed a superb preparation in an opening that haunts Topalov since his match against Kramnik. Game 2 showed a Topalov looking for deadly attacks and ignoring the lack of sufficient force in the attack. Until now the game with the highest quality is surely game 4, where 10. Na3!? caught Topalov offguard. Between them Anand showed in game 3 that he can chill out and play for safety.


Stephane Legrand    (2010-04-30 22:38:41)
Speeding up Poker games

Maybe, one day more for each player after 3 or 4 fold.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-04-30 23:00:09)
Speeding up Poker games

Sure, but what will happen if your opponent always play when you're going to bed? :)


Stephane Legrand    (2010-05-01 02:25:48)
Speeding up Poker games

you dont sleep 24hours !
if he waits you go to bed he losses more time than you!!
but you are right some players can play with this rythm in certain case!!


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-01 19:44:21)
chess engines

Hello Adam, yes chess engines are authorized & encouraged here... Many reasons to this, there was numerous discussions in this forum on this question (I'll try to find some links if you wish).

There is a NO ENGINES category in the CHESS SPECIAL TOURNAMENTS (see waiting lists), but of course you cannot be sure that you will not play against an engine...


Daniel Parmet    (2010-05-02 08:29:18)
How many games at once?

How much Chess Corr do most players play at once? I guess in addition do you have any OTB play to it or Go games?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-02 15:16:12)
How many games at once?

Hi Daniel, in my case I used to play almost 100 games at once 2 years ago, including Go games... I had to reduce this number to 2O~30 before to turn crazy :)

This could be an interesting statistic to calculate... when I'll find some time.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-06-05 16:20:30)
FICGS chess database

Hello all,

As a reminder the complete FICGS chess database is available here (or see the link in Search Games in the menu) :

http://www.ficgs.com/databases/chess.pgn

Bullet, lightning & blitz games (including freestyle cup games) are no more included in this database to make it more coherent and of a better quality (too many losses on time because of connection problems or without any move played by one player)... This way bullet games are even more just for fun!


Daniel Parmet    (2010-05-02 16:59:50)
How many games at once?

Interesting, I also try to keep my games to 20-30 usually. I currently have 39 though and I have had as many as 75 at once (which was crazy for me!). Still in addition to this I play anywhere from 5-20 otb games in addition a month.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2010-05-02 17:19:25)
Speeding up Poker games

There will be a problem for those players who can only move once a day. If they live on the "wrong" side of the world and / or they only can move between 5 and 6 o'clock of our time, 10d+12h will not work. If you only offer this time control they will not be able to play.


Ryan Cross    (2010-05-02 20:05:07)
Speeding up Poker games

One option that wouldn't be too drastic as far as changing the way the game is played, but I'm sure would take some effort to implement, is simply conditional moves.

You called a raise off the button with a hand that doesn't hit so you check. However many hours later your opponent bets, as you expect. However many hours after that you finally fold.

With something as simple as a 'check/fold' switch for the current betting round, three moves could happen in practically the time of one. Not every time, but enough to make a difference.

Taking it a step further, one could create a list of advanced conditional moves. If my opponent bets between x and y, raise z. If my opponent bets between a and b, call. If my opponent checks, bet d, if opponent bets, fold.

So on and so forth. I've seen conditional moves work quite well in correspondence chess games, and to some extent conditional moves already work well in real time online poker games.

After that, one could consider programming starting hand ranges to fold, call, raise on the button. Though it would be nice if that somehow took stack size into consideration. But I digress, that's a suggestion for another day.


Ryan Cross    (2010-05-02 22:20:58)
Speeding up Poker games

Well, some other random ideas: Decrease the amount of time available to take any single move, currently 60 days, to something like 10 days, 14 days, whatever.

Or, play to one point instead of three. Or simply best out of three.

Somewhat off topic, I notice that when one player scores a point, one player starts with 101 chips (100 in hand and one in pot) and the other with 99 chips (97 in hand, 2 in pot). Seems like a bug to me.


Ryan Cross    (2010-05-02 22:24:38)
Speeding up Poker games

...Furthermore, another idea would be raising blinds to 2/4 after hand 25 or thirty, then 4/8 after hand 50, raising every ten hands after that. Blinds at 2/4 seem to be incentive to make bets much bigger often enough.

Admittedly, I haven't been playing poker here long enough to have a fine tuned idea of what exactly the problem is as far as poker games taking too long, so I'm just throwing these out there.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2010-05-03 00:22:51)
Speeding up Poker games

I like best of 5. I would not like to miss it.

I think small blinds could raise earlier: 20/2 35/4 50/8 65/16 80/32 100/64.

"there is a "bullet" time control for poker": That's true, but not an alternative to a tournament. I have tried it once. After more than 2 hours and (only!) 265 moves my opponent had to resign because he has to do other things. If I think that I played many poker games with more than 1000 moves ...

Conditional moves are too complicated for poker I think.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-03 01:15:13)
Speeding up Poker games

Bullet poker games should go faster with the recent changes...
(including touch move).

On Ryan suggestions :

> Decrease the amount of time available to take any single move, currently 60 days, to something like 10 days, 14 days, whatever.

I think that this time limit per move is fine... too much pressure is not good. And it would not solve the whole problem.

> Or, play to one point instead of three. Or simply best out of three.

The way blinds increase and the number of points is the best scheme so far for the balance "chancy factor vs. game duration" IMO.

> Somewhat off topic, I notice that when one player scores a point, one player starts with 101 chips (100 in hand and one in pot) and the other with 99 chips (97 in hand, 2 in pot). Seems like a bug to me.

Huwow... would be a real bug! could you tell me what game & what move you saw that?? (you can see the previous moves of a game in the game viewer page)

Thanks for the suggestions anyway!


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-03 14:09:07)
How to avoid drawish lines ?!

Thanks for the up Garvin :) Yes, this question can probably be answered by revealing one's book secret lines only... so most players won't answer ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-05 15:41:56)
Topalov wins Game 8

Topalov strikes back in Game 8, now the score is 4-4, and as Mircea noticed it, the game follows a line until move 18 in another game played here "de Vassal vs. Leemans 1/2-1/2", I'm not sure if 18.a5 is a real improvement but it worked well against a world champion, at least!




Sebastian Boehme    (2010-05-07 18:41:23)
How many games at once?

Hi guys,

at prime time I used to play about 230 games at once. This can be quite stressful though and I have reduced this number quite a bit by now.

I think with good time management 100 games at once can still be managed.


Don Groves    (2010-05-08 09:12:52)
How many games at once?

Back when FICGS was younger, I believe there was a limit of 50 games at one time.

I think this limit should be reinstated. A player may think he or she can handle 100 or more games but what about the opponents who then must wait up to a year for a game to finish?

I still feel there should be a rule that mandates a shorter maximum time between moves (no more than 7 days) but limiting the number of simultaneous games could have the same effect, that of speeding up games to a reasonable duration.

If a player cannot make at least one move per week in any game, then they don't have enough time for the number of games they are playing.


Hannes Rada    (2010-05-08 20:04:09)
How many games at once?

> still feel there should be a rule
> that mandates a shorter maximum time > between moves (no more than 7 days)

I am sure such a rule would cause many players to quit playing here.
Hey this is corr chess and not Blitz !
What is a reasonable duration for cc games ?
I had some games at the ICCF server which took more then 2 years.
Patience is one of the most important skills for a (cc) player.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2010-05-08 20:12:05)
How many games at once?

I agree in no point with Don.

By the way, if you play more than 50 games of chess or go you cannot enter a chess or go waiting list. The same is valid for poker games.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-08 21:08:51)
New proposition

Here's a new idea, based on the fact that I don't think I'll have time (before a while, at least) to implement a script that would allow 1 or 2 tournament's winners to enter a higher class waiting list... many particular cases, not so easy.

The idea :

We could allow one (actually 2 would be still ok IMO) tournament's winner to enter a higher class waiting list for 10 Epoints (not Euros, big difference as most Epoints are won in free tournaments and cannot be cashed out if not played in tournaments with entry fee). I would place the players in the waiting lists by myself but finally it may satisfy everyone -> A player rated 1900 could enter a 2000+ waiting list but could not enter a 2200+ waiting list, the server can offer more Epoints prizes (that just increased for chess tournaments, by the way), and players could find their place more easily in the ratings.

Any opinion?


Don Groves    (2010-05-08 23:23:15)
How many games at once?

With some talking about so many games, I did not know there was still a rule for 50 games maximum. Those other games must be on other servers then and FIGCS has no control over that.

As for the proper length of correspondence games, I would not willingly play if I knew a game would take more than three months. It's not a matter of patience, it's a matter of reasonableness. A two-year game is simply unreasonable to me. I've never had a postal game last nearly that long.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-08 23:45:26)
New proposition

Actually the main problem is IMO what to do if let's say 5 players rated 2000-2200 suddenly ask for an entry in a 2200+ (class M) waiting list... It may take so much time for the 5th player to be able to enter it (waiting for a 3rd M tournament starts if 2 players can have a ticket per tournament) that he may reach the 2200 mark before that his ticket be useful.


Garvin Gray    (2010-05-09 03:17:39)
Careful wht you do with our loved F

Thibault,

I have previously addressed the issue of what happens if players tie for first.

In my opinion, it should be person with highest rating at the end of the tournament that gets the invite to the next division.

I have proposed end of tournament rating for this at it would be a more accurate guide to each players potential.

The entry fee for this qualified player should be the amount they won in their previous division.

I am against four or five players qualifying as it could lead to collusion between players, or at least the appearance of collusion (paranoia).

Also having the possibility of more than one player going through could lead to more draw agreements as players realise they do not have to score 5.5/6 or so to get the spot in the next division.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-05-09 03:36:39)
How many games at once?

If you lower the time limit for response on games to 7 days then I will ask for you to delete my account. This little time defeats the entire point of correspondence. You have no right to dictate how I can and where I should spend my time. The reason I play correspondence is because I can spend 10 days on juicy positions or sit on draw offers or if my real life gets too busy ignore my games all together. If you take this away from me then correspondence is dead to me or at least this site is.


Don Groves    (2010-05-09 05:01:36)
How many games at once?

Vacations take care of life getting too busy to play. The other stuff is a matter of opinion. Ours are different.

I have no problem with taking 10 days for a juicy decision, but some here take several days for almost every move! That becomes too much.

Another thing that happens is that when a new tournament begins, one player may let his clock go red before he starts to move in a game. Then he will play one move per day to avoid losing on time, but the other player must wait for several weeks before the game begins. Is this fair?


Daniel Parmet    (2010-05-09 06:13:15)
How many games at once?

Absolutely its fair. Both players knew the timecontrol when they signed up. One player is using the timecontrol and the other has no right to be annoyed since he agreed to the timecontrol.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-09 23:24:12)
How many games at once?

Of course it is laughable, I took the extreme opposites but while everything goes faster & faster on the internet and everyone MUST become more & more addicted so that the world runs fine (just meaning more money), my choice is definitely not to follow that way, also because this system will not work so long IMO. People will slowly quit Facebook after a time or at least will not use it the same way, and many already started to stop to play all these thousands stupid applications. Maybe it cannot be really a good comparison but the idea is there.

Correspondence chess was much slower before email chess & server chess, and it is now fast enough IMO. I don't know how other players feel it, some ones have time for sure, as for me I have some time to play but a 14 days limit per move would be really stressful to me though... I cannot imagine how many games more I would have lost with such a rule.

I know that a few players would like faster moves, however I feel that most players are fine with the current rules and I really want everyone to be cool here. We've lost a bunch of good players because of the previous rules such as unlimited number of games.

Now we should debate it game after game as most players who would like faster moves at chess still play in class tournaments (while rapid category was designed for them). Go is a game of patience definitely, but I have some work to do to accelerate some games (something towards automatic adjudication), and the major problem will be for poker games.

So, what are we talking about? :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-09 23:31:20)
Careful wht you do with our loved F

Sorry Garvin, I was not clear enough, I meant "what to do if let's say 5 players rated 2000-2200 (who won 5 different tournaments !) suddenly ask for an entry in a 2200+ (class M) waiting list".

We can discuss your other suggestions of course, everything is possible there, but we must find an "agreement" on the other points before :)

> The entry fee for this qualified player should be the amount they won in their previous division.

I guess that we could try this way, but it seems a bit unfair for the winners of strong tournaments, any other opinion?


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2010-05-09 23:35:54)
How many games at once?

Mr Groves if you want faster games, in the Rybka forum they play games at one move per day, maybe you will not lose your precious time waiting for your opponent moves.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-09 23:44:16)
Time, time

I don't think we should hear Don this way, I understand that correspondence chess or Go asks us to have a "flash forward" of 1 year, sometimes more, and that may be a real problem in some cases.

I remember the case of a strong player & gentleman, Einar Andreassen, who had to forfeit several games kind of that way :/


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    (2010-05-10 12:34:09)
More Big chess categories

Also I've added a few more big chess tournaments categories to help players to find their place faster in the rating list.

It is also possible to play Big Chess bullet bronze games, as a test for now...


Garvin Gray    (2010-05-10 14:42:11)
Careful wht you do with our loved F

First of all, can we change the incorrect spelling in the thread title, it is start to shit me lol

Anyways, on to the thread topic.

Ok, now I understand what you are talking about Thib. Different tournament winners decide to exercise their right to enter the next highest division at the same time.

Rule One: Winning a tournament entitles you to enter the next highest division up. This is valid for the next tournament only in the division you have qualified for.

Upper qualification can not be stored for use at any future time.

The qualification only exists in the section you qualified in ie standard or rapid. It can not be transferred to the other section.

Thib, I do not think there will be ever be a situation where 5 players try and exercise their qualification rights into the exact same tournament at the same time.

Also the two rules above should help in reducing the chances of this happening.

In cases where two or more players do attempt to enter the same 'upper' division, the first person to pay their entry fee will get entry.

The idea of first person to pay is the earlier the commitment, the more benefit the 'committer' receives.

I have not yet come up with an idea for those who try to exercise their earnt option and miss out. Should they lose their opportunity, or it retained for the next tournament that they could enter.

Could be quite a long reserve list and also by the beginning of the 2nd tournament, the player may have lost more rating points and it can be shown by their results that they probably should not be going up.

Maybe on the reserves list, it should be listed by TER and the highest TER gets first option when it comes to second tournaments.

Does this make sense?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-10 15:16:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Well, the discussion continued in another thread :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8555

Garvin's ideas may work fine, but while some players will like the benefits, some others will be deceived not to be able to take advantage of it (quite a chancy factor)...

Here is my new proposal (based on a few Epoints, not real money) :

- Winners of any standard (class) or rapid tournament, whatever the game, may buy a ticket for 10 Epoints to enter the waiting list for the next tournament category according the following conditions :

* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.

* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.

* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.

* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].

* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.


Please correct anything that looks unclear and let's discuss it again :) Thanks for all your help Garvin & all!

I'd like to have Wayne, Michel's & other opinions on the proposed changes, is this at least more acceptable according to you?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-11 13:31:14)
Georges Stibal dies on May 1st, 2010

Our well known chessfriend George Stibal (born 1-8-1936) died on May 1st, 2010 after a massive stroke. My thoughts go to his family.

George were involved in the Correspondence Chess scene for more than 30 years, he was a Director of Play & Tournament Director for ICCF (he obtained the IA title as an Arbiter), he was also the CCLA International Secretary from 1992-2001.

He was also one of my very first opponents in a correspondence chess game...

The whole correspondence chess world lost a good friend.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-11 15:25:54)
A suggestion

Hi Don, of course that's very feasible but I just drastically optimized the My games page so that it displays faster (it seems to work, the number of SQL requests went in average from about 30 to 2).

A consequence is that one can see if a player is in vacation on this page only if it's his turn in the game, maybe that's not definitive but I have to make this test and observe how the server reacts.

I'm not sure if your suggestion is really useful (maybe for those who hide the challenges form) but it would be kind of bonus, so if I can do it while avoiding too many tests, why not. For now, I prefer to let this page as it is.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-11 18:01:16)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Hi Michel! Thanks again for discussing it.

> What's next? Next FIDE world championship challenger is going to be the one that brings the largest bag of money to the table?

I don't know if this was designed to be humor (I guess, but maybe you meant FICGS instead of FIDE?) but in the context of current FIDE rules I find it very funny :) .. by the way if the same rules were applied at FICGS, anyone could challenge the champion for the title for $500,000 or something like this. Of course that would be great for FICGS and the current champion may appreciate such a prize as well, but that's not the point here.

However yes this FIDE rule may be compared to my suggestion, at a very different level though (the basic idea is the same: to build prizes for more interesting [free?] competitions), in my opinion an entry fee of 10 Epoints is quite different from what I suggested before already. Note that even if FICGS was not free, it would not justify such special entry fee more (not saying it cannot be justified!), after all there's an entry fee in the vast majority of OTB tournaments, if you don't pay it (but GM/IM that are generally invited to play for free - and most often take the prize), you cannot improve your rating, the problem is that the entry fee depends on the tournament, and the entry fee for closed tournaments (the main/only way to get norms) is often much higer.

I agree that things are somewhat different here as the main idea of FICGS is to be completely free. So the real question is : "Is FICGS still 'free' if a tournament's winner can choose to pay an entry fee in a virtual money (by the way it is quite easy to get Epoints without having to pay anything) to enter the next tournaments category".

- If despite of all the answer is "no", then FICGS is NOT free right now anyway as any player can play a rated 2 games match RAPID SILVER with an entry fee against a higher rated player to have more chances to win elo points. This way even IECG was not free (chessfriend), and even if something is really 100% free, it still doesn't mean fair, which is the main point here. Even if a tournament's winner could enter the next tournament's category for free, such a rule would NEVER be completely fair, as I described the particular cases.

Quite complex :)

Finally I'm not saying you're wrong in any way. Free or not free is a really complex question IMO, in my point of view, FICGS will remain free as noone needs to pay to become champion or to achieve the highest ratings (unlike FIDE). But if it is 99% free only while offering money prizes, I'd choose it anyway for sure.


Benjamin Block    (2010-05-11 18:19:01)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Ficgs is still free... I think it can be very good indeed.

1.Some players maybe want training...

2.It will also stop an inflation. Because some new player came here and already have a high rating from example iccf.
And they start playing this site. Maybe they don´t have time for the games and left this site. With just giving a way some points.
Am i right?


Stephane Legrand    (2010-05-11 18:37:09)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

I agree with Garvin, Wayne .... I am in favour of the winner of the immediate section below being able to earn a spot in the higher division.
An i propose that if this player obtains 50% or more he can have a new one in this division.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-05-11 19:25:22)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

I am very much in favor of the winner of his/her own class tournament earning as a prize the right to play one up class. This actually brings a relevant prize to the tournaments! Up until I have had no reason to care if I won a tournament or not. Why? What do I get? Pride? Ego? Bragging Rights? Epoints? I get nothing! Now I earn the right to player stronger players! A true prize indeed!

I don't agree if two players tie though that one just mystically be given the prize and the other not. I understand you don't want to dilute the rating pool... but you can force one person to wait til waiting list fills and each person can sit in it one at a time.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-11 19:37:04)
6 options

So, to be clearer here are the 6 options :


1) Tournaments winners may entry the next category waiting list according to the conditions described a few posts above and for 10 Epoints.

2) Tournaments winners may entry any higher category's waiting list for 10 to 100 Epoints according to his rating (e.g. 10 Epoints for the next category, 30 for 2 categories above, 60 for 3 categories above, 100 for 4 categories above).

3) Any player may entry the next category's waiting list for 10 Epoints.

4) Any player may entry any higher category's waiting list for 10 to 100 Epoints according to his rating (e.g. 10 Epoints for the next category, 30 for 2 categories above, 60 for 3 categories above, 100 for 4 categories above).

5) Any player may entry any higher category's waiting list for 10 to 100 Euros [not Epoints] according to his rating (e.g. 10 Euros for the next category, 20 for 2 categories above, 40 for 3 categories above, 100 for 4 categories above).

6) No change.


Please choose :)

As for me, while choice #2 looks like a non-sense between my first proposal (choice #5) and my last proposal (choice #1), I feel that choices #1 and #4 could be ok, the #4 may help to build bigger prizes while the #1 is the most fair (after choice #6 of course).

How would you rank these choices?


Daniel Parmet    (2010-05-11 19:39:23)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

I very much like option 1. I would also point out that this is the appeal of the WCH tournament. You get to play some stronger players and if you manage to win your group... your prize is even stronger players!


Kamesh Nookala    (2010-05-11 19:57:10)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Dear Thib,

Points 1 and 4 are quite good. However, here comes the question.

What if the winner of the preceding (lower) category, after paying 10 e-points and entering into the next higher rated tour, fares decent enof, for e.g. finishes 2nd in the higher category (or doesn't lose a single game)? Will he have to again win his category of event and then pay 10 e-points and join the immediate higher rated event again? Or, he will "earn" a chance to play that higher rated category again considering his previous performance?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-11 20:14:40)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Hi Kamesh, I think we should just follow the conditions that I copy again here (valid for choice #1, a tournament winner may buy a ticket if) :


* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.

* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.

* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.

* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].

* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.


Let's say the winner of a class B tournament then wins a class A tournament after having bought a ticket, he has good chances to see his rating increased after the next rating calculation and before that his possibility to buy a new ticket (for class M) expires. Maybe the possibility to buy a ticket should be valid 3 months, I'm not sure.


Philip Roe    (2010-05-12 01:07:56)
A suggestion

Don, Somone who is not as nice as you might move against players who are not present, so as to put extra time on their clock.


Don Groves    (2010-05-12 05:37:23)
A suggestion

Philip, This happens all the time anyway since we have players from around the world. When I log on, usually very few of my opponents are online, sometimes none.


Garvin Gray    (2010-05-12 08:51:01)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

To answer one point, as opposed to point one hehe.

While it is true with hard work and good results, it is possible to get into the very high rating groups, the way this site works makes it very difficult indeed.

In fact, it is more likely that a persons rating will stay the same or reduce due to the fact that more players come into the system, take away rating points from those with established ratings and this keeps happening.

With how this site is set up, there are very few opportunities for players in the 2100 rating group to get back those points by playing opponents in the 2200-2300 or more as it stands atm.

So it is highly likely that a player, or players, could be improving their games, but their rating does not improve because they do not have the opportunity to improve their rating because they do not play people rated above them as much as they are playing people rated below them.


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-05-12 16:42:29)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Eliminating the voice of the players down to just one being more representative. Now that is an original thought. I think many of us here are weary of this proposal.
Thibault I trust your judgement. Whatever you wish, is ok with me.
Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-12 16:51:21)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Not exactly a vote Garvin, anyway a few opinions are much better than nothing and still matter to discuss.

My answer to Scott & Tano-Urayoán : I agree that none of these proposals is more fair than the current rules, but here is why at least choice #1 has also many advantages, for FICGS but also for the players : Of course, those who made it the hardest way like Wayne may feel that this is unfair to change the rules, but rules constantly evolve & this would be really a minor change (in the case of choice #1). The point is that while e.g. IECG uses this promotion system, it is unfair the same way that a player from IECG can register at FICGS with his IECG rating that benefited of this rule. From the start FICGS rules were harder than IECG rules when registering, but as ratings move faster here I thought that it would be a compensation, but it is not a reason enough not to improve the rules again if possible.

The reality according to me : choice #1 is less fair than current rules, and choice #4 is even more unfair, but the current rules aren't so fair either. Rules that would be completely fair may exist but would have too many bad consequences for sure, and at least FICGS would not have been a success by using it. Anyway, I will not take any decision today, let's wait for some more arguments, the whole discussion is actually even more interesting than the point that is discussed in. Finally, I'm quite favourable to try (as Garvin suggested) the choice #1 and discuss the consequences after a few months.


Kamesh Nookala    (2010-05-12 19:08:03)
I need a break !

Dear friends,

Day after day, i am getting addicted to playing chess at this forum as well as other servers. I think it is time for me to cater and spend some valuable time with my lovely family. I am damn sure that i am failing to perform the responsibilities of a loved husband and father towards my little daughter and my adorable wife. And here I made the decision.

I am gonna quit playing for present, not sure when i will be back (i may come back). But i need to do a severe restructuring of my entire personal life. Balance things. I can be a good player when i have a good family and for that I need to perform (every individual) needs to perform his or her obligations.

I am honored and highly indebted to you guys who played with me and gave me a chance to showcase my skills.

I render my sincerest thanks to each and every player.. As a beginning, i am resigning all my games here and I wont be in action for indefinite period.

Good Luck all, you guys simply rock !!


Daniel Parmet    (2010-05-12 20:25:24)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

I think option1 is the best. But I completely agree with Garvin. Why not try it? We tried those silly rating band idea even though we knew it was bad. Why not try this? I think its a good idea. I agree that options 2-5 are silly.

Right now as it stands, you get nothing for winning a tournament, you might not even get many points either. If you are 1990ish and beat 6 1800s. They might have been much stronger than 1800 but the results also came in slowly 1/1 for each rating period... you don't stand to gain very many points maybe not even enough to get you to the next rating band... but you would be guaranteed to play the next rating band for sure because you won the tournament. I think you'll see alot of the invitations into the rating bands helping people out that are only missing it by a few rating points anyways. Besides its a REAL prize for winning the tournament, right now all we give is a pat on the back!


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-05-13 18:20:15)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Been giving a lot of thought to this post. At first I was opposed to it. I think primarily maybe I was influenced by my thinking " I climbed through the levels", so anyone can if they dedicate the effort as I did.
Now I am swayed to support Garvin Grey posting ideas.
I recognize very well that there are many players qualified to move up but find it frustrating to make headway.

It comes down to this. Chances are if they win a class tournament, they probably deserve to advance an level. If not competitive, they will not stay at that level. So anyhow I am posting as to what I believe the proposal #1 is in fact.


- Winners of any standard (class) or rapid tournament, whatever the game, may buy a ticket for 10 Epoints to enter the waiting list for the next tournament category according the following conditions :

* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.

* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.

* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.

* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].

* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints. That is a paste of your thread Thibault. If that is what you and Garvin want or close to it then I say why not ! Give it a go. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-14 12:26:10)
Rybka 4 beta is playing...

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=348113&t=34270

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=16655
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=16620

"Rybka 4 will be available on May 28."
http://www.newinchess.com/Shop/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=2479&utm_source=New+In+Chess&utm_campaign=de04452343-Campaign_36_12_5_2010&utm_medium=email


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-14 14:23:53)
Big chess engine

It wouldn't be so hard to make an engine, I'm just very curious on which level it can play... I hope there will be people to throw themselves into that challenge, that would be interesting! :) .. I replied at talkchess, let's see how this will evolve.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2010-05-15 01:25:36)
Big chess engine

Does the world really need a Big Chess engine? I can live very well without it. If I absolutely like to play against machines, I can play normal chess.


Garvin Gray    (2010-05-15 11:43:02)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Thank you for your compliment Wayne.

Another benefit is that it will allow the higher divisions to fill quicker, allowing more games between the top players.

I quite often see posts asking for more players to join the top divisions. With this idea, while it will mean one person from the lower group, it will still allow more games between the 6 'genuine' people in that division.


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-05-16 21:42:34)
Quick review Chess Engines

Howdy, Rybka 4 Beta 5 is out for beta testing. It is much too early to draw conclusions regarding elo strength. So far it is not looking great.
Many of the bugs from R3 are at present in R5 beta. For example the tablebase bug, bishop under promotion still not fixed, 5.04/5.12 bug tree search is reportedly still there.
In addition It is said to have severe time problem.
This is a summary of what I have been reading. But, these reports are beta remember. So R4 may still be top program after release.
In the mean time Stockfish and fire are 2 programs that are right there with rybka3 and maybe a little stronger. On my computer testing R3 is still tops.
Now, there is a new program, Houdini is available. I downloaded it this morning and have been running eng-eng matches with R3, 2 threads. So far Houdini is holding it's own. You can download the program here.
http://www.cruxis.com/chess/houdini.htm
I think CC players now have many equally strong engines available to help with their Centaur abilities and should be interesting to see the progressions Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-17 20:16:52)
Big chess engine

Of course we do not need an engine, but it would be really interesting to see a program playing Big Chess IMO. It would reveal the real complexity of the game. I don't think it would ruin the fun as most Big Chess moves are equally playable in most cases....


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-17 23:18:18)
Question

Still thinking about the last Garvin's idea... the real question is IMO: can one estimate that it is fair that a player who is 50 elo points below the rating cutoff, let's say a player rated 2150, have the same right than the winner of a previous class A tournament to buy a ticket for the next class M tournament?

There are advantages to this idea of course, a problem is that there will be even less possibilites for tournaments winners to have a ticket... (well, it goes in the other way also)

I like the idea though... My personal answer to this question would be probably: All this is far too complicated to be summarized this way to this question, winning a tournament IS a matter of chance also, winning a game IS a matter of chance (we prefer to call it statistics) also, and this rule, whatever the details, IS unfair anyway. So there is no clear answer IMHO, but if someone has one, please share it now :)


Arno Bezemer    (2010-05-20 14:57:17)
Late resignation

Normally I don't mind to play out a winning position, but my opponent in game 32535 keeps on playing for ever, with just a pawn vs my rook and 2 pawns. On the lowest level i can maybe understand this but not in a class M 2200+ tournament. Is there anything i can do about it?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-20 15:28:19)
Late resignation

Hi Arno, best is to call the referee a first time (most often it is enough), see the rules :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#adjudications

It was not so easy to build rules that fit to everyone (centaurs & non-centaurs), so you may have to play a few moves yet, but not so many in loooong & obvious endgames.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-05-27 00:13:35)
Number of rated FIDE players

There would be 116,362 rated FIDE players all over the world within 143 federations (most important ones are Germany, Russia, Spain, France and India.. only 26 of them have more than 1000 rated players, e.g. only 398 rated players in China)

A Chessbase article that is worth to read!

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6364


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-06-02 18:26:28)
Incredible poker hand

Just look at this strange hand between Jason Repa & Nelson Bernal Varela... the community cards and player's ones are really amazing... Pair of aces, pair of queens and a straight flush appears in the community cards... quite rare. And only 12 chips in the pot.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=43092&move=1023

Any comment on this one? :)


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2010-06-02 20:44:57)
Rybka 4 wins ICT10

It was not Rybka 4, it was Rybka 4b3 cluster and is really different from Rybka 4.
From the chessbase note:“Note that both Rybka and Sjeng played on 128 core clusters; Junior and Hiarcs each had 12 cores, Shredder had eight.”


Lazaro Munoz    (2010-06-03 19:23:41)
Number of rated FIDE players

FIDE has always had a bit of an elitist streak with rating, but also most national tournament administrator do not send in tournament reports from local events to them so that is another reason why do not the expected bell curve of ratings.

The traditional method for a lower rated player to get a FIDE rating was to play in major open event such as the World Open and hopefully play against a FIDE rated player. But since these events are broken in under-xxxx (by ratings) sections, most lower rated players never get a chance to play against a rated opponent unless they were brave enough to enter to top open section.

ICCF had a similar elitist attitude but that has changed in recent years; however at in countries that have a established national CC federation, you use to need to be a member of one to play; it use to be you needed to be invited by your national federation, but that part has changed and as long as you a member of national CC organization you can enter any ICCF that you qualify for (based on ratings).

BTW, ICCF has announced a Webserver open tournament that is free to anyone that does not currently have an ICCF rating. If you have one (ICCF rating) you can join via your national fed or at the ICCF site; I found that the ICCF site was more expensive than going through the national federation.

--laz


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-06-04 00:39:43)
Fire 1.31 vs. Rybka 4

! implied that 1.3.1 is stronger than 1.3.0 But maybe not. I have some testing results using Nunn2 database, eng-eng.
R4- Fire: 9-6=15 I terminated match.
R4-Stockfish: 15-11=24
Not making claims for strength just my short results thus far. But I like R4, lots of settings to play with. BTW R4 settings were not default.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-06-06 00:56:52)
New fields in Preferences : Profile

You may now complete your profile by answering a bunch of questions (24 so far) more or less relevant, such as your favorite engines, favorite chess player, favorite chess openings, spoken languages, your personal website and so on... feel free to suggest other questions!


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-06-14 22:26:02)
10 moves rule for Poker

An interesting case... a Poker holdem game finished after only 6 moves (6 played by each player)! The winner was surprised to see that he didn't win any rating point, indeed there's a rule at FICGS (11.6) that says : "Games are not rated for the winner if less than 10 moves have been played by his opponent (most probably forfeit, silent withdrawal or obvious cheating)"

Another reason for this rule is that any player who lose to another one in less than 10 moves is most probably overrated so he should lose some points but his opponent may not win points, so I think that this rule may be ok for poker as well (and I'm not sure if playing all-in each time deserves to win some points :)), but I'd prefer to read some other opinions anyway.

What do you think?


Francisco Gramajo    (2010-06-15 01:44:15)
10 moves rule for Poker

My oponent CALLED ALL-IN with better cards than me in three times.

He had top pair 1st.
Better pair
and A-K
<CR>
We are playing one to one poker (Heads Up) In the real life I saw many Heads Up matches end up in the 1st hand.
<CR>
This Rule must be voided for poker.


Don Groves    (2010-06-17 01:25:53)
10 moves rule for Poker

I agree with Francisco on this. The length of a poker match should be decided by the cards that are dealt and the players' betting decisions with those cards. To make an artificial limit opposes this basic idea.

Poker is not like Chess and Go where games normally never end in less than ten moves. In those games, the ten move rule makes sense for the cases of silent withdrawals and players who never even begin a game.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-06-17 01:50:33)
10 moves rule for Poker

I'm not sure, the temptation to try to cheat (well, in a certain measure of course, it would be harder above 2000 elo) may increase. Anyway, if players know the rules, it is quite easy to avoid this rare case, what do you think?


Garvin Gray    (2010-06-17 01:50:54)
10 moves rule for Poker

I also agree with not having the 10 move rule for poker. If players want to just keep going all in and lose in less than 10 moves, they should not be protected from losing rating points.

Having the knowledge that you could lose rating points regardless of the length of the game might deter some players from the all in practice described above.

Or, having the 10 move rule could serve as an encouragement to try going all in all the time as their rating is protected if they lose.


Sophie Leclerc    (2010-06-18 02:58:26)
Great

HI..

First of all, I am sorry for being not there and the worst friend possible, Yugi is very angry at me, (Ouch on me, but I earn it. )


This rules is a great one,in order to lose in less then ten move, someone has to go all-in very quickly, and it won't happen often, that very aggressive players always get A-K, A-Q, AA, in whose cases, all-in on the first turn could be justified, but imprudent. Tought, the rule is a low limit.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-06-29 12:28:42)
Speeding up Poker games

50 hands is the minimum to avoid a too high chancy factor, IMO. A few games are very long (longest almost 1650 moves played by each player), but that's necessary. We have to find another way... We will find, question of time!


Gino Figlio    (2010-08-03 04:39:59)
Match vs. ICCF

I am not involved in ICCF management anymore but my suggestion would be to ask the ICCF President if he would be interested in promoting such a match, hosted in the ICCF webserver.

Make it ICCF rated and free. Maybe 10-20 boards.
Suggest that only players rated 2500 or more participate in the ICCF team.
Mention that FICGS will play with their top players.
Mention the total number of members in FICGS and how some of them may decide to play in ICCF events in the future if promotional events like this are created.

ICCF needs to see FICGS as a potential partner and not a competitor otherwise this match will not happen.

My personal view since I do not represent ICCF in any way.


Rolf Staggat    (2010-07-06 11:43:46)
Speeding up Poker games

In two games I play since 18 months... Please try "rapid"-games, maybe in smaller groups than 7. 10 days + 12 hours sounds good to me, maximum 30 days (not 100).


Peter Unger    (2010-07-06 17:40:19)
XFCC Play

In Aquarium 4 you can play corr-games with the XFCC-protocoll.
Will it be on FICGS-server in the near future?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-07-06 17:55:40)
Speeding up Poker games

(thinking... thinking...)

okay I agree that the accumulated 100 days limit is not relevant for poker games, I just changed it to 60 days for poker holdem! That's a lot yet but thus players will always see their clock running (as 60 is also the time per move limit) which may have a psychological effect... Let's see how this work as a first step.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-07-06 18:50:14)
XFCC Play

Hi Peter,

The answer is "most probably" no. This has been discussed there:

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=7973


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-07-07 12:07:52)
Class GM 2 : Rating average 2496

It seems to me that the strongest FICGS chess tournament (7 players or more) so far just started, I would like to apologize to my opponents, if I didn't lose so many points, it would have been a category 11 tournament for sure... :/

https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000002

Good luck everyone!


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-07-07 13:33:08)
Round-robin stages in the chess WCH

Just a word on stage 1 & stage 2 for the chess WCH round-robin tournaments: I understand the disappointment of players who share 1st place but do not qualify while some others do... Sometimes we need a few more players to build 7 players tournaments, in this case most often players who share 1st place are ordered by place in the tournament, then by current rating. As there are many special & complex cases though, the official rule is "Players may be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player".

I know that the round-robin system may be quite frustrating (that's why I wanted the knockout in parallel that I'm sure now it's more interesting & fair) for the players who share 1st place, particularly in the round-robin final (Alberto Gueci knows that..... he shared many first places before to play the knockout matches), but the round-robin is the only way so that everyone can play and once again the idea is: "if you share first place but you didn't qualify, at least you won rating points for the next cycle". I have no idea of a better system...


Francisco Gramajo    (2010-07-09 20:22:16)
FIFA world cup 2010, predictions

@Rolf Staggat

Korean Soccer Success Secret

Look at the players, they are similar, they just use the hair diferent.

At the half time they put to play a new set of 10 players, no body notice the diference.


Rolf Staggat    (2010-07-12 14:23:33)
FIFA world cup 2010, predictions

@Francisco

Sorry, Francisco, but the North-Korean players are NOT similar, and they are well-known in Europe. One of them now plays in Bochum, Germany. Another one in Rostow, Russia. Some play in Japan and South-Korea. They all look different, maybe not for you, but for me. Ask the South-Korean player CHA, he is born in Germany, he knows them all.


Rolf Staggat    (2010-07-12 14:32:55)
FIFA world cup 2010, predictions

@ Hannes

Let Paul PLAY the next FICGS-championship. He has nine brains, nine more than most chess-players.....


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-07-14 18:15:14)
Wch 7 Group N 01 (chess)

Hi Jeroen, yes it was not the initial idea (it could have been though), but I had to "invite" one player from the N group to build a 7 players group for the future round-robin final (did not forgot you :))... but this was fully deserved anyway!


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-07-15 16:45:22)
How to link?

Hi Svante Carl, you may open the homepage www.ficgs.com in your browser, then follow TOURNAMENTS, you'll find the public links to the tournaments & games.

The public link to any game is displayed at the bottom of the pages user_page.php?page=viewer&game=xxxx, it looks like www.ficgs.com/game_xxxx.html

Not the simpliest way, but anyway I'll add a small script to redirect from user_page.php to the public pages if the visitor is not logged in.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-07-25 18:56:22)
Layout improvement

I'm now trying a few improvements for the layout (mainly for the fast moves process), please report if something displays badly because of a long name, tournament's name, anything... Feedback is welcome :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-07-27 00:12:45)
Layout improvement

I just added a "next / list" option in My games (the same one than "next" option in Preferences, but the change remains only during the session), which makes it easier to change the option - available only with the fast moves process.

In my opinion the "next" option is great when combined to the poker games filter... Then when you're done with poker, you may change to "list" and no filter to play your other games... I feel I save more time this way.

Any opinion ?


Kamesh Nookala    (2010-07-28 15:38:18)
Match vs. ICCF

Dear Friends,

Why not we have a match vs. ICCF. I think, we have players who can shake the hell out of any opponent on board and highly qualified corr. chess players.

Thib, let's do it. Try and induce them for a battle to take REVENGE (if at all FICGS lost previously).

What you guys say?


Kamesh Nookala    (2010-07-28 15:47:07)
Match vs. ICCF

Dear Scottie,

That's why i felt the need to make this post to prove that no longer FICGS is for only weak players :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-07-28 15:56:50)
Match vs. ICCF

Did ICCF play such a match in the past? I would be surprised... anyway it would be great, and a real challenge for sure...


Kamesh Nookala    (2010-07-28 16:00:14)
Match vs. ICCF

Hello Thib,

I am not sure. Somewhere from within my 1kb memory, i vaguely remembered that FICGS played with ICCF in the past and lost. I may be wrong too.

But, that's a real challenge and we got players who have nothing to lose. They know the tricks of trade and can grill the ICCF players. I suppose they will come up with weaker players, but not the top level. Once we show our mettle, only then will they know that FICGS means Real Business.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-07-28 16:21:55)
Match vs. ICCF

No, there were no FICGS vs. ICCF match yet. We lost our two previous matches against IGAME.RU (with engines, against a very strong team mainly from Ukraine! the site died since that time) & GAMEKNOT (without engines).

I doubt that ICCF will be interested in playing such a match (maybe Gino or anyone involved can say it), but maybe someone can throw the idea in the ICCF forum, like I did in RybkaForum... who knows after all.


Kamesh Nookala    (2010-07-28 16:26:42)
Match vs. ICCF

Exactly Thib,

A person with some repo at ICCF, who also plays here can do the job. We can shield the names of our top players to induce them


Sebastian Boehme    (2010-07-28 19:56:33)
Match vs. ICCF

Hello there,

great idea indeed. Facing the 2600 elo giants of ICCF.

Maybe even J. van Osteroom would play (although I doubt it a little bit ;-) )

I am looking forward to future matches and would feel honoured to be a part of the FICGS team in these.

Go FICGS Go! ;-)


Ruben Comes    (2010-07-29 07:43:42)
Match vs. ICCF

Seems like a good idea.
But Thib said I do not think they are interested, at least institutionally.
Perhaps they can form a team of ICCF private.
Of course, I would play for Ficgs team, I'm not sure if I have the strength you need.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-07-31 13:33:58)
Match vs. ICCF

I'd play :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-01 15:50:59)
Match vs. ICCF

Salut Xavier ! Merci pour la proposition, et en effet (mis à part le fait que j'aie du mal à trouver de bonnes raisons à l'ICCF de jouer un tel match - à part la passion de la compétition) l'un des problemes majeurs dans l'idée est que quasiment tous les meilleurs joueurs du site sont également actifs à l'ICCF... A chacun de choisir peut être, ou bien seuls les joueurs actifs sur un site seulement pourraient jouer, pas de choix simple :/

________

Well, Xavier may submit the idea directly to the ICCF president, but one more obvious problem is that most of the best FICGS players are also active members at ICCF... If such a match would happen, the selected players would have to choose... Or only players active at one server only may be included in a team... no easy choice :/

Or maybe FICGS, ICCF and players wouldn't care about all this and only want a nice match that wouldn't mean anything, why not :)


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-08-02 05:06:18)
Match vs. ICCF

Howdy. I think this would be fun. I would suggest some sort of mechanism that will prevent more than 2 to 3 days response with normal TC of 1 move/day. Maybe no increment.
I would be very pleased to represent FICGS team. Lastly I think the players should play tables starting at table 1 highest rank and so forth.
Just my view point. I am really overloaded with games but would add this to my list.
Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-03 11:49:16)
Match vs. ICCF

Hi Gino, thanks for your precious advices... Good ideas, and indeed ICCF could host the whole event (if they wish).

Still thinking about it... another idea (among others) : if only FICGS players who are not members of ICCF could enter the FICGS team, maybe the experience could be interesting as well as I feel that many 2200-2300 players here are getting stronger [maybe also due to the increasing level of engines] and will probably reach 2400 in a while, so they would have a chance to play a match against very strong ICCF players... The idea would be to see the real strength difference between these 2 categories of players (ICCF would be almost sure not to lose but for us the challenge would be even greater).

The other idea behind this is that ICCF may see an opportunity to make discover their server to these new players.

Finally we may suggest several ideas to ICCF, Gino's one, this one & maybe others... Whatever they choose, it could be interesting for the players, what do you think?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-03 12:46:54)
Congratulations to "FSF en passant"

Finally here are the final results !!!

"FSF En passant" won this very interesting tournament by 1 point ahead of 2 teams !! The suspense was until the very last games to know the final team ranks.

The fact to note: Yellow Blue warriors finish second while they were actually 3 players in the team, Yura Lemekhov played an amazing tournament (5.5/6 , perf 2456) ... (the last player stopped to play :/)

Thanks to all players, it was lots of fun! I'll try to make the things clearer in the tournaments pages for the next edition...


10 points for : FSF En Passant

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2270)
Volker Koslowski (2264)
Sebastian Boehme (2175)
Roland Markus (2096)

9 (tot: 15.5) points for : The knights who say "Ni"

Michael Aigner (2602)
Xavier Pichelin (2577)
Hannes Rada (2559)
Thibault de Vassal (2473)

9 (tot: 13.5) points for : Yellow-Blue Warriors

Iouri Basiliev (2173)
Dmytro Romaniuk (1937)
Ostap Hladky (2176)
Yura Lemehov (2171)

8 points for : The Dark Knights

William Taylor (2140)
Scott Nichols (2089)
Don Groves (1991)
Josef Riha (1989)

4 points for : Happy Pawn

Stephane Legrand (2209)
Garvin Gray (2125)
Daniel Parmet (1961)
Ilmar Cirulis (1805)

2 points for : Our team King

Alexander Blinchevsky
Stanimir Denchev
Benjamin Block
Ranganathan Raman

0 point for : The Ghost Knights

Vadim Khachaturov
Yugi Inving
Sophie Leclerc
Jorge Orden


Ni FSF Dark Happy Blue Ghost King

Aigner 1 = = = = =
Pich 0 = = 1 1 1
Rada = = 1 = 1 =
DeVas = = 1 0 1 1

0 Lehnh = = = = =
1 Koslo = = 1 1 1
= Boehm = 1 = 1 1
= Marku = 1 = 1 1

= = Taylo = = = =
= = Nicho = 1 1 1
= = Grove = 0 1 =
= = Riha 1 0 1 1

= = = Legra = = =
= = = Gray 1 1 1
0 0 = Parmet 0 1 =
0 0 0 Ciruli 0 1 1

= = = = Basili = 1
0 0 0 0 Romani 0 0
= = 1 1 Hladky 1 =
1 = 1 1 Lemekh 1 1

= 1 = = = Khacha =
0 0 0 0 1 Inving 0
0 0 0 0 0 Lecler 0
0 0 0 0 0 Orden 1

= = = = 0 = Blinch
0 0 0 0 1 1 Denchev
= 0 = = = 1 Block
0 0 0 0 0 0 Raman


"Team 1" - "Team 2" : points (score)

"Ni" - "FSF" : 1-1 (2-2)
"Ni" - "Dark" : 1-1 (2-2)
"Ni" - "Happy" : 2-0 (3-1)
"Ni" - "YB" : 1-1 (2-2)
"Ni" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Ni" - "King" : 2-0 (3-1)
"FSF" - "Dark" : 1-1 (2-2)
"FSF" - "Happy" : 2-0 (3-1)
"FSF" - "YB" : 2-0 (2.5-1.5)
"FSF" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"FSF" - "King" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Dark" - "Happy" : 2-0 (2.5-1.5)
"Dark" - "YB" : 0-2 (1.5-2.5)
"Dark" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Dark" - "King" : 2-0 (3-1)
"Happy" - "YB" : 0-2 (1.5-2.5)
"Happy" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Happy" - "King" : 2-0 (3-1)
"YB" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (2.5-0.5)
"YB" - "King" : 2-0 (2.5-1.5)
"Ghost" - "King" : 0-2 (1.5-2.5)


Definitely, even if the "Knights who say Ni" team decided before the match to play unusual openings in most games, this tournament shows again that the strength gap between top players and players rated 2150-2300 is not big at all as many of these players tend to reach the 2400 barrier...


Jorma Hakkinen    (2010-08-07 22:45:53)
Match vs. ICCF

Why not? But there are players at both sites; can I play against me;-))


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-08 13:12:37)
Stay on Same Board

Hi Phil, ok now I see what you mean : "redirected to the viewer page after playing your move", yes it could be useful for Poker (in the fast moves process). Ok, I could add a checkbox somewhere so that when one play a move, the next window be the viewer (to see the new card or result)... Added to the wishlist.

I had some busy times these last weeks but there should be numerous updates at the end of the month.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-09 19:40:51)
Future Rating Question

In some cases, games are not taken in account in the rating calculation, e.g. if less than 10 moves are played (for the winner only).

Complete rules:

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html

Feel free to ask if you have any doubt...


Scott Nichols    (2010-08-09 21:12:59)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Just a note to say how this new rule is affecting at least one player here (me), :) I "earned" entry to a higher class tournament by winning the class just below. I paid my ten E-points and received entry into the next higher class. We have been playing for a while and I am holding my own ok. I have met new players and am overjoyed at the chance to play them. They are all friendly and welcoming. Life couldn't be better, ......but....... Maybe it's just me, but I feel at this point that I never REALLY earned my way into this realm. The old way was to suffer through months and years of climbing the rating ladder a little at a time and then finally reach that next level. Also, just my opinion, is that these days there really isn't a big difference in strengths between 1850 and 2450 given that we all have fast computers running on Rybka mostly. The difference I find is the human side of the ratings. The old days whether Shredder could beat Fritz, or Deep Junior could beat Hiarcs are long gone. So I guess what I'm trying to say without rambling any further, is that as much as I like playing in the higher section, I would prefer to "EARN" it the old way. Just one players opinion, Thank you


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-10 00:01:37)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

It is true that there isn't a big difference in strengths between "many" 2150 and 2450... That's a reason why this rule may be useful IMO, particularly while 2450 ratings are somewhat "protected", it is more an advantage for you than a disadvantage for 2450 players.

Anyway this is still an experiment... So far, only 2 or 3 players used such a ticket.


Don Groves    (2010-08-10 10:00:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Scott: In a way you did earn it, you won a next lower rated tournament which "earned" you the right to play one time in a higher rated one. The purpose is to allow players to improve their ratings faster if they are good enough to win some games at the higher rating.

As you say though, and Thibault seems to agree, with fast processors and the best software, there isn't as much difference between players as there used to be.


Andres E. Leon    (2010-08-11 00:41:41)
Future Rating Question

I am sorry to bother you, but I do not understand why the system does not take into account three of my last four games, in the moment to calculate my future rating. For example, the last game that I finished in the FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_A__000075 tournament was:

Game 39469

Last move : 1-0 2010 July 3 22:30:1

[Event "FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_A__000075"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2010.01.20"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Leon,Andres E."]
[Black "Faust,Dieter"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1904"]
[BlackElo "1980"]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 Ne7 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.Qg4 Kf8 8.Bd2 Qa5 9.a4 Nbc6 10.Nf3 c4 11.Be2 b5 12.O-O bxa4 13.Ra2 Ba6 14.Rfa1 Bb5 15.h4 h5 16.Qg5 a6 17.Bc1 Kg8 18.Qd2 Nf5 19.Bf1 Rh6 20.g3 Re8 21.Ba3 Rg6 22.Bh3 Rh6 23.Rb1 Rb8 24.Bxf5 exf5 25.Qe3 Nd8 26.Ne1 Ne6 27.Ng2 Rc8 28.Qf3 g6 29.Nf4 Nxf4 30.Qxf4 Rh7 31.Bd6 Rg7 32.e6 fxe6 33.Qh6 Qd8 34.Be5 Qf8 35.Re1 Rc6 36.R2a1 Kf7 37.Qxg7+ Qxg7 38.Bxg7 Kxg7 39.Kf1 Kf7 40.Ke2 Rb6 41.Rab1 Rc6 42.Kd2 Ke7 43.Kc1 Rc7 44.Kb2 Rc6 45.Ka3 Rc7 46.Re5 Kf6 47.Rbe1 Bd7 48.f3 Rc8 49.Ka2 Rg8 50.Rb1 Bb5 51.R5e1 Rc8 52.Rb4 Rg8 53.Rg1 Rb8 54.Ka3 Rb7 55.Rgb1 Rg7 56.Rg1 Rb7 57.R4b1 Rg7 58.Kb4 Rc7 59.Rh1 Rh7 60.Rh2 Rb7 61.Ka5 Rh7 62.Rg1 Ke7 63.g4 fxg4 64.fxg4 hxg4 65.Rxg4 Rh6 66.Rh1 Kd6 67.Rb1 Rh8 68.Rxg6 Rxh4 69.Rbg1 Rh2 70.R6g2 Rh3 71.Kb4 Rh6 72.Rg8 Rh2 73.R1g2 Rxg2 74.Rxg2 Be8 75.Ka5 Bb5 76.Kb6 Kd7 77.Kc5 Kc7 78.Rg7+ Bd7 79.Rh7 a3 80.Rh1 Be8 81.Ra1 Bb5 82.Rxa3 Kd7 83.Ra5 Ke7 84.Ra1 Kd7 85.Rh1 Kc7 86.Rh7+ Bd7 87.Rg7 a5 88.Rh7 1-0

Besides, I am playing the FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_13__000008 group of the WCH, and I already finished three games.

Game 45063 Leon - Leclerc
Game 45064 Piantadosi - Leon
Game 45065 Leon - Dsouza

In one of them less than 10 moves were played (Game 45063 Leon - Leclerc ). However, in the other two games more than 20 moves were played, but when I finished these two games they were not taken into account in my future rating. Some of these games, particularly the Game 39469, I like very much and I spend a lot of efforts. It is a bitter that it is not used in my rating. I am afraid that the system is not actualizing my future rating, Can you help me to understand what is happening?

Again, I apologise for this inconvenience and I appreciate any help, thank you very much.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-11 11:09:44)
Future Rating Question

No problem, it is always good to check from time to time if everything works fine :)

So, your current rating is now 2031.

1) Game 39469, win against TER 1980, more than 10 moves, the game counts! It is obvious when looking at the Opponents elo average in the Future rating : Games calculated : 1, Result : 100 %, Elo opponents : 1980

2) Game 45063 : less than 10 moves played.

3) Game 45064 : does not count, explained by the rule "The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is greater than 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player." <- see http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_chess

4) Game 45065 : same reason.


Of course you cannot win Elo points by beating opponents who are much weaker (even if you have to play them sometimes, e.g. in WCH tournaments)... That's the core of the Elo system.


Andres E. Leon    (2010-08-11 14:35:34)
Future Rating Question

Thank you very much Thibault, now it is clear. My apologies to waste your time with such things. Thank you very much again and I take the opportunity to congratulate for building this place where all chess fans can play, and discuss about engines, data bases, etc..


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-12 22:46:32)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6

Hello all, 2 players are needed for a replacement in the tournaments CHESS CLASS GM #2 (average 2496) and CHESS RAPID SM #6 (average 2408).

Please send me a private message (or email info*ficgs.com) if you're interested, thanks in advance.

Note: There's no specific rule when choosing players for replacements so the fastest players with the strongest ELO will play.


Don Groves    (2010-08-13 05:30:05)
Speeding up Poker games

I agree with Rolf. Make a Rapid Poker tournament category for the faster players.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-13 10:50:25)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6

One player did not play a single move yet, with a few days only at his clock, same in rapid SM 6...


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-15 00:27:46)
ICCF games database

Hi all,

Does anyone know if it is possible (& where) to download a database of all or quite recent games played at ICCF?

Thanks in advance!


Daniel Parmet    (2010-08-14 04:15:28)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6

I'd play but i'm sure you can't use someone so weak :P


Philip Roe    (2010-08-16 00:55:23)
Tournament entry conditions

Thibault,

Is it reasonable for someone to enter a new tournament when they have twenty four existing games and have not played a single move in any one of them?

This situation makes me hesitate to enter either B 00120 or Rapid B 00158.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-16 14:55:01)
Tournament entry conditions

Hello Philip, thanks for warning me... I just removed the player from the waiting lists & sent him a message about this. If it happens again, I'll make some replacements.


Jay Melquiades    (2010-08-17 20:05:55)
Speeding up Poker games

time controls here are too slow

tell that to those who play live :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-18 00:07:41)
Speeding up Poker games

"Correspondence Poker" is not a so easy idea, even if I like the possibility to play only a few hands from time to time... Definitely some changes are needed, but we still need the good idea. Patience ;)


Jay Melquiades    (2010-08-18 00:36:42)
Speeding up Poker games

but seriously thibault ,in the poker competetions u should have a 'check/fold' button available to buth players in their games


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-18 17:12:00)
Speeding up Poker games

Okay Jay, just added the fold button when "check" is also possible...

Scott, I still do not agree with this as I think it's really important to avoid speed poker... Do other players agree with Scott there?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-18 17:37:52)
Newest/oldest posts first

You mean something like the last message at the bottom of the forum page? I may display several (5, 10) messages instead of 1 only, would it be enough?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-18 18:29:28)
Newest/oldest posts first

So an option to display the forum posts in a reversed way ?!

Not so usual (?), it seems to me that posts are displayed this way only under the response form to keep an eye on the message we're to reply to.


Sebastian Boehme    (2010-08-19 01:29:35)
Speeding up Poker games

Maybe bringing up another idea related to speed up poker games.

What about creating an "upper time limit" for each poker game?!

Say 90 days per player for the entire game or another more suitable number. (matter of discussion and wishes of the community of course)

Just my 50 bucks added. ;-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-19 01:40:04)
Speeding up Poker games

Hi Sebi, would be too easy IMO :/ I don't think that such a solution could go without any problem... We must absolutely avoid that any game be lost on time by playing one move per day just when the opponent sleeps or something like that.


Jay Melquiades    (2010-08-19 19:54:58)
Speeding up Poker games

my chess rating is abysmal :(
played too much poker here :)


Robert Mueller    (2010-08-21 06:23:05)
Waiting for CLASS_SM_000013

Hello Thibault,

On May 1, I signed up for the CLASS_SM_000013. It has been almost four months now and there are still only two players signed up for this event (including myself).

Wouldn't it make sense to merge the SM (Elo 2400 to 2600) and GM (Elo 2500+) classes?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-21 09:23:04)
Waiting for CLASS_SM_000013

Hello Robert,

It is possible that the class GM waiting list be closed in a while if no new player enter it... I'll deal with it in a few days. It is always the same thing in July/August though.


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2010-08-22 15:07:08)
Quote festival, part 6

From a French movie, Roman de gare:
"A good murder is better than a bad divorce"

Dedicated to all happily married chess playes :-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-08-27 17:08:50)
Newest/oldest posts first

Thinking about it, actually I should change many things in this forum (e.g. response form at the bottom for the way messages are displayed right now...) I'm not sure if top posting is best but an option would do it of course, I'll do it as soon as possible (not so urgent anyway).


Scott Nichols    (2010-09-05 23:33:10)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6

What is the time limit for replacing players? I have already finished all but one game in Rapid_SM__00006. It wouldn't seem right to add a player at this late stage.


Josef Riha    (2010-09-08 18:03:34)
Magnus Carlsen vs. The World

At rwcc.g-star.com you can sign in and play as a member of the worldteam against Magnus Carlsen. Startdate is September 10th.
The team is supported by GM Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, GM Hikaru Nakamura and GM Judit Polgar.


Garvin Gray    (2010-09-11 19:03:18)
Next freestyle tournament

Hello all,

From just seeing a couple of comments in the chat section, I am very concerned regarding plans for the next freestyle tournament.

It seems like it is going to be organised at short notice ie just one or two weeks notice.

I think this is a major mistake and would result only in those who happen to be available by coincidence being able to play.

I really do hope I have wrong. I think the next freestyle tournament needs at least one months notice so it can be properly promoted.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-09-16 13:01:23)
Chess WCH knockout final #6

Alberto Gueci beats Peter Schuster 7.5-0.5 in their match in FICGS__CHESS__WCH_KNOCKOUT_FINAL__000006

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__WCH_KNOCKOUT_FINAL__000006

As this is a general forfeit at the end, according to the rule 11.6 it seems to me that all games should be rated for the winner except Game 45571 where the advantage is not obvious.

The score looks severe but Peter's play is always interesting & risky (look at game 45574)...

Alberto's future rating is now 2620, congrats you're the man to catch now :)


Scott Nichols    (2010-09-16 22:44:58)
Corr. Chess Maxims

We should start a list of Corr. chess maxims (rules of conduct). Some suggestions...#1. There is more honor in resigning than to just quit playing and leave. #2. Generally one offer of a draw is enough for at least 10 moves. #3. The player with the most to lose, e.g. rating points, should be the first to offer a draw.

I'm sure others have suggestions, :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-09-17 00:29:38)
Svante Carl von Erichsen on Go WCH #4

As you probably read in the news, Svante Carl von Erichsen won the 4th FICGS Go WCH, beating his challenger Huayong Yang 3-2, Svante Carl wins the Go championship for the 4th time in a row!

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000004

Svante Carl kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match & computer Go:

FICGS - Hello Svante Carl, congratulations once again for winning this match against a surprising challenger who started here a few months ago with a 10 kyu rank, Huayong Yang, now rated 2438 after scoring 2 points in your 5 games match (which is a great achievement for sure). What did you think about his play & yours in these games?

Svante Carl - I think that he greatly underestimated his rank initially. As far as I know, he had not played for a long time and believed that his ability had therefore deteriorated. I do not think that you can drop more than one or at most two stones, though -- it is like cycling or swimming, you never unlearn it. I had the impression that we were quite evenly matched in summa, but our strengths are in different aspects of the game; I cannot really put my finger on the difference, though.

FICGS - After a previous win, you said that you spend a quite long time to analyze, which probably helps you to reach a higher level than 2 dan (your EGF rating) compared to OTB play... It looks obvious to me that correspondence chess moves generally ask for much more time than Go moves at a high level but I may be wrong, how much time did you spend on your longest analysis during the match? Do you remember for which move?

Svante Carl - I usually spend at least a few minutes on each move, except when the continuation is obvious. I often use more, and if I do not find a satisfactory move then, I will even postpone the move to another day, so that I can sleep over it and let my subconcious work on it.

FICGS - Do you watch other games played by your future opponent before starting your match? Do you think that this is really important in preparation like it can be in Correspondence chess?

Svante Carl - I sometimes glance over the games in the championship qualification tournament, but I do not try to prepare this way. I do not think that such preparation has any value in Go, especially in correspondence Go, since you have time during the game to do deep analysis. I usually try to take each game out of standard fuseki patterns pretty quickly, anyway. Of course, I know that my opponents in these title matches are always very tough and demand my utmost respect.

FICGS - Do you still follow the recent developments in computer Go? What do you think about the latest Go engines? How much time do we have yet before the best Go players are caught by computers according to you?

Svante Carl - I have the impression that the currently most promising technology (Monte Carlo/UCT) has the potential to achieve a rank of about 2 or 3 dan (EGF/KGS). I think that the next fundamentally new idea or breakthrough might add 2 stones, to get to 4 or 5 dan. I do not have any idea where it might go from that, but I think that it gets always harder.

What I would find interesting is having more intermediate board sizes. The best bots are almost on par with the best professionals on 9x9 now. I would propose to try to achieve a similar level on 11x11, then 13x13, then 15x15 etc.. Regarding 9x9, I think that the currently predominant komi of 7.5 points is too big, and that this has a negative impact on the experiments because the bots do not play in a balanced environment. It might be worthwhile to introduce the Taiwan rule (last move compensation) to get more fine-grained scores.

FICGS - What programs did you use this year to analyze? (just trying, of course it may be part of your secrets ;))

Svante Carl - It is not a secret. I just use an editor, usually EidoGo or CGoban3, to visualize the variations I imagine.

FICGS - Finally, what thoughts would you like to share on your 5 games, that could help us not to miss the best times or to help us to understand the most complex moves...

Svante Carl - I cannot give a detailed commentary, but I can try to summarize my impressions.

I think that Game 5 was quite balanced until move 21, but I think that the white invasion was a bit ambitious then. Of course, White did not need to die there, but after moves 32-33 I think that Black had a good result anyway (move 32 should go out faster in my opinion; note how E14 helps Black in enclosing White).

In Game 3, I think things got quite difficult for White in the lower left, but I let him take the initiative by backing off at move 35 (I should have simply closed off F10 then). White gained control of the centre as a result, and in the large endgame, I lost too many points there.

In Game 4, I fell behind in the opening through some slow moves (there was some discussion on the Life-in-19x19 forum about this, see the link in the comments of that game). In the endgame, Black then lost some points in the centre, so that I was a bit ahead when the game timed out.

In Game 1, I made some bad decisions on the left side, and never managed to turn things around. I think I was behind by about 5 points in the end.

In Game 2, I think that Black should not have ignored move 24. After I got quite some territory from my moyo and also reduced his top side, I could play it safe.

I look forward to the games with Olivier Drouot that recently started, but I also hope that Yang Huayong will re-enter the championship cycle.


Garvin Gray    (2010-09-17 09:29:23)
Corr. Chess Maxims

Time to look for new opponents when you have played the same person 30 times ;)


Sebastian Boehme    (2010-09-17 19:25:48)
Corr. Chess Maxims

Good idea Scott!

Here comes my 50 Pence about this.

# A short welcome message at the start of the game is matter of politeness and shows respect to your opponent, the way you would want to be respected.

Sadly used by not all players.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-18 19:23:42)
Corr. Chess Maxims

I disagree with two of your ideas Scott. The first player to offer a draw should be the higher rated is wrong. And a draw can only be offered every 10 moves. These are clearly wrong ideas.

In fact you may recall from our own game, where you admitted to being wrong on said issue.

In general, I think it should be the person with the reason to play on should be the one to offer a draw. If its clearly so dead equal then either player. Definitely not by rating though.


Scott Nichols    (2010-09-19 00:07:15)
Corr. Chess Maxims

It is precisely our game Daniel which brought up the draw offer maxim idea. To offer a draw every move or two is clearly distracting. Plus it also included the other maxim about rating differences. You were Black, about 80 points lower in rating, so I had the most to lose by accepting any draw offer.

Maybe in the endgame when it is a book draw, either player can offer the draw "once". But our game was barely out of the opening. Of course these are just "general rules of conduct" and each game is different. So I stand by my original ideas.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-19 00:17:31)
Corr. Chess Maxims

Our game was already a draw by my first draw offer on move 19. I offered a second draw on move 26 and the third and final draw which you accepted on move 38. You achieved zilch from an opening which has been known as a draw for 100 years. I could have offered a draw on move 4 and most people would accept it in that position.

Sorry but you have to prove your rating should be higher by playing real openings and outplaying the other person in them. Just stating well my rating is higher therefore you are never allowed to offer draws!!! is the most absurd logic I have ever heard.

Your own words on accepting the third draw offer were "You're right, this is a complete draw. Sorry for dragging it out."


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-19 00:57:47)
Corr. Chess Maxims

upon looking through my games I found only one instance where I went overboard on draw offers and my opponent asked me to stop at which point I did (it should also be noted I managed to lose the drawn position in the end though I was playing way too many games at once close 150).

Anyways, I know to some Corr ratings are the end all be all of life but to me they are the most meaningless rating I have. Even my blitz ratings are more meaningful. Because, corr is where I test ideas and see if they work or not. I'm never playing seriously and I really don't care about the results hence you see me in way more thematics and unrated events than rated events.

But I will say this, the difference in strength between a 1800 and 2100 is almost zilch. OTB that difference is HUGE. Corr it is meaningless. 80 pts? This difference is less zilch, you might as well be the same rating. So when you talk about "the right" to offer draws based on rating, I have to laugh at you. These are certainly unacceptable "maxims" and if you want maxims to be followed they have to be acceptable otherwise they will simply be ignored.

I played OTB two weekends ago against a player who outrated me by 400 pts. I was crushing him. In his lost position, he offered me 7! Draws. After I beat him, several players came up to me stated I should have called the TD over the repeated draw offers. Being a TD myself, I replied the ambiguity of the situation. It is his RIGHT to offer those draws. I was by no means forced to accept them (and did not). But there is a gray area in the rules that repeated draw offers (in the rule book it says LITERALLY every single move for 10 moves) the td could rule as distraction and issue nothing more than a warning. A second offense also the punishment is only a warning. ONLY on a third offense can the td actually do anything punitive.

So the real answer is, if you don't want a draw. Turn it down. If you don't want to be offered two draws, tell your opponent so. Each person is different and views their scenarios differently. But trying to make up a rule that no one will follow is beyond silly. I will offer a draw to someone whether they are 1000 pts above or below me if I think the position is drawn.


Paul Valle    (2010-09-19 01:36:36)
Suggestion

Something that I do:

If I suddenly realize that I'm lost to a tactical mating attack, I will play the position out till the bitter end.

You might say that I'm just wasting both mine and my opponents time, but I disagree. If your opponent has outplayed you, and you are mate in 5-10 moves to a tactical beauty... then in my book the honorable thing is to play it out. You owe it to the game and your opponent.

I'm not talking about K+Q vs. K, but about positions that could be given as a mating problem. By playing it out you also etch into your head.


kind regards, Paul


Scott Nichols    (2010-09-19 01:45:45)
Corr. Chess Maxims

I remember that game now, it did end in a draw. And you are right about what I said at the end. But I also remember the repeated draw offers that were rejected each time. You were Black, lower rated and we were barely out of the opening, so it was a distraction. I play OTB chess also and believe me, continued rejected draw offers would get that person a loss for that game. A person shouldn't have to ask someone to please quit doing something irritating, most people get subtle hints. Also, I disagree about "telling a person so", that should be done by the TD or Webmaster. That could be another maxim. "in case of any disagreements, please consult TD."

A "maxim" is just a suggestion, not a "rule". So people, especially newcomers, can know what IS and IS NOT proper during the course of a game.


Scott Nichols    (2010-09-19 19:13:28)
Corr. Chess Maxims

I was going to let it drop, but...since you are from the same state as Obama, YOU need to have things explained further. You are probably right on the rules part, I indeed don't play as much as I'd like OTB. THIS is more about ethics, etiquette. Yeah you have the RIGHT to offer as many draws as you'd like. Just as you have the RIGHT to talk loud on your cell phone in a movie theater or a restaurant, you have the RIGHT to drive slow in the fast lane. And I am SO sure you avail yourself of ALL your rights.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-19 22:34:47)
Corr. Chess Maxims

The more you talk Scott the less you make sense. You should just stop. Your idea for Corr Maxims is good and your #1 Maxim makes sense. The fact that #2 & #3 don't just means you made a mistake. Everyone makes mistake. But okay on to your rambling points.

What does Obama or IL have to do with anything? I don't even get it.

Hmm bad analogy time, okay yes talking on your cell phone in a theater gets you kicked out. At small establishments even just banned. Certainly not a right nor is it proclaimed as such anywhere. It is not "protected" and is well known to be improper. Unlike offering a draw being 80 pts lower has no negative connotation anywhere. Its not illegal. It is protected by the rules. It is not known to be improper. Incorrect analogy.

Driving slow in the fast lane. Highways actually have minimum speed limits and I have seen people get tickets for going below the minimum. On top of that, most states have laws about he fast lane being for passing purposes so they have rules about "slower" traffic keep right (state dependent). So not only is it again something protected by law, it is improper, it can be illegal (state dependent). So again an incorrect analogy.

As much as you wish to live in this strange world where you have to be a higher rated to offer draws, thats not how the rules of chess work. In fact, I would quit playing chess if things did work that way (because it makes no sense). I know people that have as their personal rule not to accept draws if they are the higher rated (fine, thats silly but your choice) (and it always backfires too since they usually end up losing the trying position so badly trying to win it as the "higher" rated should). But at least in the end the rules are preserved - my right to offer a draw was not revoked. You seem to be missing the point that at move 1, ONE player would always be at a disadvantage under your system of only the higher rated being allowed to offer draws. This is quite silly because as all chess players know - no rating system is perfect. Trying to tell someone that a 1989 is 100% better than a 1988 is impossible yet you willing to deny the 1988 his rights of offering draws when he plays that person 1 pt above him? You might just be better off declaring you don't accept draws (I know players like that too). But then you might see people head towards drawish positions knowing your policy and playing them for 200 moves until you're bored. You starting to see the point yet? Whatever system you concoct, there are tradeoffs. The one you proposes has tradeoffs that make no sense for anyone.


Scott Nichols    (2010-09-19 23:26:52)
Corr. Chess Maxims

Of course you don't get it, and by this point I am sure you never will. In the analogies, we all have met "these" type of people. Sometimes they get punished, sometimes not. I think anyone playing in your tournaments could get away with most anything.

AGAIN, in my system as you call it, it is just a GENERAL rule of conduct. Of course players rated 1 point apart do not fall into this category. The main point I make is that most players take their rating seriously. Players work their whole life to achieve a Master or Grandmaster title. They are titles awarded players as a token of respect for their accomplishment from their peers. Maybe we aren't IM's or GM's, but our rating has been EARNED.

So for one player who is a good deal lower rated than the other to offer a draw, especially in the early part of the game, is showing a lack of respect for what that person has accomplished. If fact one draw offer is not bad at all, no matter what, it happens, but to keep at it again and again is bad form.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-19 23:45:16)
Corr. Chess Maxims

Yep, I'm afraid you're a lost cause. No players cannot get away with whatever they want in tournaments read the rulebook dude. You are rating crazy. Do you not realize that for a person to improve they have to be playing beyond their rating? Ratings represent past performance. You need to judge a position based on its features not the person's playing its rating. Many positions reach draw positions early in the game as ours did when people play unambitiously. But I give up trying to convince you of your illogical ways.

Just know this: it is irrelevant whether you use the right to offer draw but it is important that you have it so your point is mute here as well.

A funny incident also happened a few weeks ago: two players kept offering each other draws every 2 moves, declining their opponent's draw then offering it themselves two moves later. It was funny because it was perpetual check and they both knew it. But everytime they offered a draw, the other one would decide maybe he'll mess up. Turn it down and offer it again about 2-3 moves later. By the end of the game each player had offered the other over 15 draws in the perpetual check scenario but the game managed to end decisively strangely.

And btw, your definition of respect and others will different. I certainly don't respect someone cause they've had more time than me to study and made a 2001 rating. I already explained I have no respect for Corr ratings whatsoever. I have also explained my rating does not represent my strength because I do not take it seriously. Do I respect people that have made a career of this? Of course. But I digress because here opinions will vary wildly and be to each their own. We have left the realm of facts. I just think it amusing to always remember that however good you are, there is always some one better. Or put even better, if you could buy a man for what he is actually worth and sell him for he thinks he's worth there would always be a huge profit. Ie there is always arrogance involved when you include ratings. A fun quote to conclude on: "First-class players lose to second-class players because second-class players sometimes play a first-class game." - Siegbert Tarrasch


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-20 00:13:09)
Corr. Chess Maxims

I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking your silly ideas which I've proven 100% wrong and you have yet to defend in any way. You are attacking me. Therefore, your own quote defeats yourself. Irony for you.

I think its best to finish this note on the fact that most players who play this game have never read the rules. Not for USCF, FIDE, or any of the sites they play on. Try looking up the draw rules sometimes, you might be shocked to find out about the fact that no place would ever honor your maxim.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-20 01:22:07)
Corr. Chess Maxims

Haha you're psycho, you call me the bull head yet you're the one who has managed to make 7! posts without a single point. All insults. Obama this Obama that. What the f does Obama have to do with anything? You brought up and you keep bringing him up for god knows what reason.

Your lack of logic is astounding. You admit 1 rating point is enough that the lower rated should still be allowed to offer a draw but not at 80pts. What about 2 pts can he offer a draw here or is it still illegal? Where do you draw the line? Can't you see how stupid this is? You know ratings are considered on 200 pt bands right and anything within 200pts is always considered comparable skill levels hence why terms such as Class B( 1600 1799) and Class A 1800 (1999) developed in the first place. Guess what, 80 pts is less than 200 so its the same skill band hence why they were in the same tournament in the first place.

I know exactly what a maxim is and what a rule is. I know the damn difference. You seem to not understand that your proposition is not acceptable as either. In no circumstance should rating ever matter when a player is thinking about whether he/she wants to offer a draw. It is irrelevant as I've proved to you time and time again.

I do care about my OTB rating yes because I try my hardest there when I have time. But my corr rating nope. Its meaningless. I've given draws in winning positions many times because I don't care. What you describe is utter insanity (must be your philosophy). You realize whether your 2084 or 2240 or 2300 or 2400 you're just a fish right? Trying to brag like its an accomplishment is a joke beyond all measure. There is ALWAYS someone better. As IM William Hartson aptly put it, "playing chess badly is where the growth is."

And don't worry you don't have to check for my tournaments as TD because I wouldn't permit you in my tournament anyways. I don't want known trouble makers.

oh well: " If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong."


William Taylor    (2010-09-23 01:42:30)
Road to Grandmaster

Hello FICGS friends,

On the 1st of September I started a chess website - http://roadtograndmaster.com - which documents my attempt to become a GM (otb). The first post and 'mission statement' can be read here: http://roadtograndmaster.com/?p=11

Of course I realise the goal is extremely ambitious, but I'm going to give it a shot. :) I probably won't be playing much serious correspondence chess for a while, as I'll be focusing on OTB games, but I'll still be keeping a few games of one sort or another running here. Comments/suggestions about the site or the goal are welcome.

Will


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-09-23 12:34:49)
Best Games

Not so easy to find the right balance for this, depends on the number of votes per month, the number of voting players and so on... Now the total number of votes taken in account is 50, with 5 per player, the oldest votes are deleted when there are new ones.

What numbers do you suggest?


Don Groves    (2010-09-24 00:15:19)
Best Games

A player should be able to vote for as many games as s/he wishes but only once per game.


Scott Nichols    (2010-09-24 15:51:16)
Best Games

Thib, I've tried to think about this. First, I believe we should have all the votes we need to use. Second, I don't think poker games need to be voted on for best game. If we could get this more popular we could add some interesting ideas.

I would like to see a "Featured Game", both in Go and Chess to come out every 2 months with the rating cycle. This would be the game voted on the most by players. Ideally, it could be annotated by the victor.

The games here are of the highest quality. Even GM's could benefit from some of the novelties that have come up here. It would also give people incentive to be honored with being the feature game.


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-09-26 20:46:49)
whole database transfers made simple

Is this what your talking about ?


How to import my Chess games in a chess database ?

There are several ways to import your chess games played at FICGS in a chess database like Chessbase or SCID. 1) You may download the complete FICGS correspondence chess database: Click "Search games" in the menu, right click & save "All games (PGN)". Import the file in your database, then you may filter the games by using your name. 2) You may create a PGN file by going to "My games" (please use the chess filter, click the rook icon if you also play Go or Poker, you may also select pending, running or all games) then clicking the printer icon. You just have to copy/paste the content of the new page into a new text file, then importing it in your chess database. 3) You may download the PGN file of a particular game or tournament, right click and save the "download" link at the bottom of

Do you mean "left mouse click" if I right click I get Link copy options, none of which seem to do what I want. I do not see a way to save "all games pgn" in any case which is what has stopped me for days. Left mouse click copies all database to where i want to open, Ie scid (which I cannot figure out either), notebad, but i see no filtering capability in notepad. So I do not know how/able to do "Import the file in my database" as your instructions say, sorry Thib, I am a pain in the butt. can you clear these things up for me ? especially your step 1.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-09-30 13:26:12)
WCH Stage 1 Tiebreaks

1) This is correct. Actually, when it is possible, 2 players per group (the second one is chosen according to his number of points in the tournament and his rating compared to all other players in the same case in the same cycle) may play the next round.

2) The tiebreaker is the TER because it does not change during the tournament, so whatever the difficulty (and the difference between TER) the challenge is known and it gives a chance by influencing the risks to take, just like in the knockout cycle! (it answers the final question as well) When the TER tie, the current rating is the best way to do it IMO, it is rare enough anyway. The WCH rules are based on ratings, thus all rated tournaments "count" in a way for the final result & title.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-09-30 13:35:58)
Next freestyle tournament

A "freestyle chess tournament" is (according to me) a chess tournament played OTB or on the internet by players using any kind of help (chess engines [Rybka, Fire, Houdini, Fritz, Shredder, whatever...], databases, other players...) with a fast time control (a few hours per game at most).

The "FICGS chess freestyle cup" is a freestyle chess tournament played on the internet...

As "correspondence" implies all freestyle features but the fast time control, freestyle 'must' probably mean played at a fast time control, or the two words would mean the same.

Well, it may be worth to add the final definition in the Help section after all :)


Garvin Gray    (2010-09-30 20:37:21)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

I wish to propose that the stage one groups starting from the next WCH tournament be paired differently.

Currently, from my understanding, all the players who have not qualified for the high rated round robins or elimination matches are paired into separate round robins of about seven players in each group.

Seed number 1 is in group 1 and so forth until all groups have been allocated.

The idea of this being to try and ensure that each of the groups is of equal strength.

Where I think this falls down is the issue of players with provisional ratings ie players with new ratings of 1800, 1500.

I have had the experience of having one or more of these 1800's in my group and after the group is finished, it is clear that the 1800 player has achieved a rating of 2100 plus, meaning that my group had three players with playing ability over 2100, meaning my qual group was unfairly disadvantaged.

How I would like the stage one qualifying to work from now is:

1) All players with recognised ratings are paired as per normal.
2) All the provisional rated players are put into groups by themselves.

Then normal qualification rules apply for getting to stage 2.

It is highly unlikely that a low rated player will qualify from the provisional rated groups as someone from each of those groups will be about 2100 or so by the end of the first qualifying stage.

I do ask for this to be endorsed for the next WCH.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-30 21:56:55)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

I agree immensely!

Further i've noticed that the color pairings tends to be very very bad for seed 2 & 3 but great for seed 1 & 4.

As seed 2 I get black against 1&4 as seed 3 I get black against 1 4 but as seed 4 I get white against 1&3. Yet these color disadvantages are not at all included as a tiebreak in any way.

The result is that in the last Wch as seed2 I never got a useful white having two tough blacks with seed #1 & #4 but in the Wch before as seed #4 I have no tough blacks because I had white against seed #1 &#3. I'm not quite sure the solution other than to somehow tie the colors into tiebreak before ratings.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-01 01:42:40)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Hi Daniel, maybe it would be more fair to reverse the colors (seed 1 plays black against seed 2 and so on)... I'm not sure if it is better but we can think about it. The color is not a good tiebreak IMO, does anyone else have an opinion on this?

Hi Garvin : "2) All the provisional rated players are put into groups by themselves." , you mean they play together in special groups? We can think about it as well but one goal of the championship was to help those players to find their place quicker in the rating list before the next cycles. I'm not sure if a 2300 player provisionnaly rated 1800 is an advantage for anyone else in the group more than seed 1.


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-01 13:21:12)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Colour allocation- There are two answers to this, the most pure solution is to have double round robin groups. If this means six player groups and more groups in total, so be it, but at least it would solve the issue.

Berger Pairing Tables- It seems that the round robin groups are not paired using the Berger Pairing Tables for single round robins, why not?

If they are not, then they should be, solves all these issues of colours. This should be the case for all round robins on this site.


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-01 13:30:27)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

GG- "2) All the provisional rated players are put into groups by themselves." ,

TB- You mean they play together in special groups?
We can think about it as well but one goal of the championship was to help those players to find their place quicker in the rating list before the next cycles. I'm not sure if a 2300 player provisionnaly rated 1800 is an advantage for anyone else in the group more than seed 1.

GG- It is not an advantage to have an 1800 in your group if they play to a standard of 2100. It is a severe disadvantage.

It means there is one more person in some groups that plays to a rating way above their provisional rating.

I am very concerned that you seem to be putting the needs of increasing those players ratings in the WCH above the integrity of the competition as a whole. It means you are unfairly affecting other players chances of qualifying, just for the sake of allowing new members the chance to gain a few extra rating points.

The new members still have a lot of chances to increase their rating through playing in normal tournaments, which is where the longer term members had to get their ratings from.

I am saying that those with provisional ratings should be seeded into groups by themselves in stage one.

Whoever wins these groups will clearly be about 2100/2200 playing strength and so will not be crushed in stage two anymore than those with long term 2100 ratings.

A secondary option is to seed some of these players using their advanced rating (if they have one), so at least then there does not end up being three or four 2100's trying to qualify from the same group, while having other groups with only one or two 2100's.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-10-01 17:36:43)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

I agree with everything Garvin said.

I would also like to note that I agree DRR would be great to solve the color issue but understand if thats not possible.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-01 17:39:15)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

I only meant that it is an advantage to play a 2100 player actually rated 1800 rather than 2100 in his group... Gives more chances to qualify but of course, a few Elo points will probably be lost in the process. There is a matter of luck there of course, just like when a player loses on time or forfeits his games in a group, that's why I try to launch almost 2 new cycles per year, it is not possible to avoid the lucky factor in a championship but it is possible to give more chances to everyone...

Anyway I don't think it is possible to build groups of perfectly equal strength (btw many players rated 2000-2100 after 50+ games are actually worth 2400 and more, but lost many games on time) while we need clear rules (if those players are in special groups, do they qualify the same way?).

Another option would be to prevent players who have not finished a certain number of games to enter the WCH waiting list... :/ I don't think it would be appreciated.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-01 17:51:59)
On colour allocation

On colour allocations, there was numerous discussions on this topic during the 1st year of the server. Well, I cannot remember exactly all my arguments, but briefly 1) Double round-robin is too much effort for the players while it does not eliminate totally the chancy factor. 2) On Berger, the whole FICGS WCH idea is to give more importance to the non-WCH tournaments, the very best player must be champion IMO, not only the winner of a few tournaments, that's why ratings are so important in the tie breaks (and that's why my first idea was to give White to the top seed in round robin groups)!

Less games for everyone per cycle + More cycles = More chances to find the real champion (and more fun :)) !


Scott Nichols    (2010-10-01 19:29:31)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

In my last WCH bracket I was rated 514 points above the avg. of my opponents.

I would like to suggest--All players over 2000 with at least 50 ficgs games played should be "seeded" into round 2. This would give players an incentive to play more and to try to reach the 2000 plateau.

Players below 2000 and less than 50 games would all have to play stage 1 to "qualify" for stage 2.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-02 00:03:55)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

The number of players in each round must be coherent (round 3 : 5 to 9, round 2 : 5 to 9 x 5 to 9, round 1 : 5 to 9 x 5 to 9 x 5 to 9) ... if things are easier for players rated 2000-2300 during the first round, it will be harder for them later (e.g. 1 player qualified in a group of 11 players!).

But it is true by experience that the rating limit for the M group may be below 2300 (by the way it was for the last championship)

I'm against such a rule "All players over 2000 with at least 50 ficgs games played should be seeded into round 2", a bit complicated IMO, and players rated 2250-2400 will have the same kind of complaining then :)


Daniel Parmet    (2010-10-02 00:06:39)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

In response, I don't mind a stage 2 being 11 players if 2000+ was seeded into it.


Scott Nichols    (2010-10-02 13:14:17)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Can you tell me what the standard is for being seeded into round 2? Then I can just wait until I reach that point (if ever) to join WCH, thank you.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-10-02 18:14:34)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

This is what the rules currently say "Players with a rating superior or equal to 2300 will play 1st stage in high rated groups if possible. Winners of these groups will be directly qualified for stage 3, others will play stage 2."

Though by that, it means that all players have to play stage1 regardless?


Scott Nichols    (2010-10-02 21:45:32)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

I'm sorry Daniel, but it still doesn't seem to be any clearer...


Daniel Parmet    (2010-10-02 21:51:28)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Yea its not clear to me either. I thought that it meant 2300s get seeded into stage2. No one gets seeded into stage 1. Winners of stage1 have to play stage2 to get into stage3. However this is not at all what it says.

It says EVERYONE plays stage1. If someone 2299+ wins stage1 they can skip stage 2. If someone 2299 or lower wins stage1 they go on to stage 2.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-10-02 21:52:10)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Err should say "no one gets seeded into stage 2"


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-02 23:26:17)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Hard to answer it. It only means what it means (but if you find a better way to say it, I can update the WCH rules), it can be concluded from the whole text (not from this excerpt only) that everyone plays round 1, indeed.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-10-04 01:02:30)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

I would say a better way of wording it is that Everyone plays stage1. If someone 2299+ wins stage 1 they skip stage2. If someone 2299 or lower wins stage 1 they go on to a stage 2 group.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-04 19:20:13)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Yes, but it doesn't mention the M groups, this way the number of players in the final round-robin tournament would be quite hard to predict.


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-05 10:54:29)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Thibault must be impressed. The whole topic has moved away from the orginal discussion point, so that issue has dropped off the radar, meaning changes are not likely while it is not being discussed.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-05 13:09:20)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Hi Garvin, to continue on your original point, I don't think that a player provisionally rated 1800 in a WCH group is a real problem: It is not a significant advantage for anyone in the tournament (the chancy factor always exists in 7 players tournaments anyway), there is a rule [for ~2 years now] that prevents high rated players to lose many points in case of a loss or draw against such a 1800 player who is actually worth 2300 or more (there are other occasions to get free points btw e.g. general forfeits), and WCH groups help these players to find their real rating quicker. As I said the number of cycles is the point, giving more chances to everyone.

But it is true that the colors (top seed playing White against seed 2) may be reversed, so far the idea was "the rating does count to give more chances to the best player to become champion" but maybe the advantage is too big. It still needs to be discussed though.


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-05 13:36:15)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Thibault,

You have missed my original point. I am saying that having a 1800 player in your group can be a DISADVANTAGE.

In none of my postings on this topic have I mentioned anything about ratings, except to express a lot of concern that you seem more concern about using the WCH tournament to improve ratings than to try and qualify the best player from each group and to have each of the groups of as close to equal standard as possible.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-10-05 13:56:29)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

I must say I agree with Garvin on all points though I have nothing more constructive to add that he hasn't said.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-05 14:21:22)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

If it is a disadvantage, it should be consequently an advantage for someone else, I meant this way... So your point is that it is a disadvantage "in the tournament", right? I do not agree with this, if the best player was actually this 1800 player, he should be able to play the championship anyway (and you have the advantage of ratings there for tiebreaks)... If players with a provisional rating play together in special wch groups, the winners (probably still under-rated) will play stage 2 and we'll have the same problem then IMO.

Do other players have an opinion or similar arguments on this point?


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-05 16:31:02)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Thibault, I am more than happy to let others give their opinions, but I really do not think you understand at all what point I am trying to make.

This is now three times that you have misunderstood what I am trying to say.

Geez I wish we could quote better in these forums. It would make discussing points much easier.

Thib: So your point is that it is a disadvantage "in the tournament", right? I do not agree with this, if the best player was actually this 1800 player, he should be able to play the championship anyway (and you have the advantage of ratings there for tiebreaks)...

GG- I am not arguing at all that the 1800's should not be able to play in the championship. Please stop mis-quoting me. I have also stated this previously. I am stating that they should be in groups in stage one all by themselves.

The disadvantage is with how the groups are paired and I finding it very difficult to not get completely pissed off with having to explain items many times for you to understand what I am trying to say.

You keep failing to respond directly to my points and I keep having to point out how you have mis-quoted my points, which does not help in the debate at all.

The groups are currently paired in the first stage with the highest rated player in Group 1, second highest rated player in Group 2, third highest rated player in Group 3 and so forth for eleven groups (in this example there are eleven groups). Then the 12th highest rated player is placed in Group 11, the thirteen highest rated player in Group 10 and back we go to the 22nd highest rated player in Group 1. The pattern keeps repeating back and forth until all players in stage one have been allocated to a Group.

Now with the 1800's being seeded in these groups with their 1800 rating is that they end up being about the 4th or 5th seed in some groups, but are not allocated to each group.

Now when some of these 1800 players start performing at a rating of 2100, it means in some groups that the top seeds have received three players of similar playing level and some other groups have not. This makes some of the groups disproportionately unfair.

If these 1800 players were somehow seeded accurately according to their playing standard, meaning they entered stage one in their proper seeding position, it would push all the rest of the players down one spot and so the Group allocations would be fairer.

Another option could also be to make it a rule that players must have a proper rating ie not provisional, before being able to play in the championship. I have tried to avoid suggesting this with my proposal to have them play in a group all by themselves.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-05 17:09:25)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Aaaaaah... makes me mad :/ Okay, one more time:

GG- I am not arguing at all that the 1800's should not be able to play in the championship. Please stop mis-quoting me. I have also stated this previously. I am stating that they should be in groups in stage one all by themselves.

Thib- I just said "if players with a provisional rating play together in special wch groups", that's the way I (mis-)understood you, so I did not say that you argued that they shouldn't play wch... The thing that is not clear to me is "I am stating that they should be in groups in stage one all by themselves.", so does it mean:

1) Provisionnaly rated players should play in special groups
2) There should be the same number of provisionnaly rated players per group
3) Tie break shouldn't be TER for provisionnaly rated players
4) Provis. rated players should earn their WCH entry, eg. # ended games >50
5) Something else

About cases 1), 3) & 4) I answered it in the discussion that I just re-read entirely.

Sorry for mis-understanding you & thanks for your patience... If I still completely miss it, maybe better would be that another player try to explain me what you mean by "they should be in groups in stage one all by themselves".


Philip Roe    (2010-10-05 17:20:42)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

I think that the management of the WCH should not be too heavily weighted toward ensuring that "the best player" wins. On behalf of the underdogs, I would like us to have at least a sporting chance. If the cards are too much stacked against us the idea of an "open" tournament is lost, and we won't enter.

I looked at the statistics for cycle 000007. The top seed won outright 7 times, and tied for first on 7 other occasions. The second seed won outright twice, and tied first 7 times. The third seed won 5 times and tied twice. The fourth seed won once and tied twice. Out of all the winners, only the the two fourth seeds who tied had provisional 1800 ratings.

Are these numbers really a cause for concern?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-05 17:58:43)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Hi Philip, thanks for taking some time to give us these numbers, really appreciated!

Well, I did not hide that I thought about this championship this way, simply because I wanted it also to look like the old classical chess championship. The point that is discussed here is a tiny detail only compared to the whole idea... Of course the 8 players of the knockout cycle have much better chances to reach the final, and the current champion is by far the favourite. Why to play a WCH that would be a boring copy of IECG & ICCF WCH?

I think that everyone has a real chance though, maybe hardly on 1 cycle but by playing 2 or 3! Have a look at Edward Kotlyanskiy's tournaments, he started WCH 3 with a rating of 2132, seed #2 in a RR group... he is champion!

http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_10__000003.html


Daniel Parmet    (2010-10-05 19:12:30)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

My point is that seed one has a HUGE advantage because of the fact 1) Tie breakers AND 2) colors are always in their favor. So it makes it very very hard for another player to overturn this. Black against the highest rated usually best you can ask for is a draw resulting in the fact you now have to win the rest of your games in order to not Tie the highest rated (or pray for an upset). Cause if you tie... they just win on tiebreaks.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-10-05 19:13:39)
WCH Stage 1 Tiebreaks

Well you said was "when it is possible, 2 players per group (the second one is chosen according to his number of points in the tournament and his rating compared to all other players in the same case in the same cycle) may play the next round. "

SO you're saying its possible the tiebreaker may never matter because you might need another player to continue to even your numbers in one of the other stages.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-10-05 19:16:44)
Match Against Rybka Forum

darn I was interested in playing in this! Oh well maybe next time! Good luck guys, win!!!! Go ficgs :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-05 19:32:33)
WCH Stage 1 Tiebreaks

"the tiebreaker may NEVER matter" is strange or wrong cause it may matter... but more simply a few players may be invited to play stage 2, according to their results & rating. The same occurs in e.g. IECG championship (until the very last tournament if I remember well).


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-05 19:36:41)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Well, according to the numbers given by Philip, the number of wins by a player who is not seed 1 is over the number of wins by seed 1, but I agree that the advantage is big, that's why we could reverse the colors (I'll open a new topic to discuss it if we continue this way). But I still think that 7 players are open enough, everything can happen.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-10-05 20:41:54)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

No according to the numbers given by Philip my point is huge.

7 wins, 7 ties meaning 14 went on.
2 wins, 7 ties meaning 2 went on.
5 wins, 2 ties meaning 5 went on.
1 win, 2 ties meaning 1 went on.

Notice that because of color and tiebreaks the giant separation in place 1 2 and 3. It actually went back on spot 3 because they had white most likely. Clearly spot 2 is the worst position to hold in the tournament. Everything is against you. Color and tiebreaks.

Anyways, I agree it needs to be discussed. If others disagree with me then thats that I guess.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-05 21:22:04)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Okay, the numbers must be taken carefully, 2 wins 7 ties for seed 2 do not necessarily mean 2 went on... And I just counted for WCH 6:

Seed 1 - 2 wins 4 ties 6 qualified
Seed 2 - 2 wins 1 ties 3 qualified
Seed 3 - 5 wins 3 ties 5 qualified
Seed 4 - 1 wins 0 ties 1 qualified
Seed 5 - 0 wins 1 ties 1 qualified
Seed 6 - 0 wins 1 ties 0 qualified
Seed 7 - 1 wins 0 ties 1 qualified

And for WCH 5:

Seed 1 - 2 wins 2 ties 4 qualified
Seed 2 - 3 wins 2 ties 3 qualified
Seed 3 - 2 wins 3 ties 4 qualified
Seed 4 - 0 wins 0 ties 0 qualified
Seed 5 - 2 wins 2 ties 2 qualified
Seed 6 - 2 wins 0 ties 2 qualified

Definitely everything can happen in these groups, and I did not count the players invited to join stage 2, that do not favour top seed and that actually favour seed 2 over seed 3... Anyway as I said, I'm ok to discuss the idea to reverse colors in a new topic.


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-06 01:37:29)
Colour allocation change in WCH round robins

Currently in the WCH Stage 1 groups (new players) thread, there has been a side discussion occurring about allocation of colours in round robins on this site.

Since Thib has said that he is open to discussing it in a new thread, this is a new thread.

I have made mention of the berger pairing tables, which is the accepted format in otb round robins for how to pair round robins fairly.

The Berger pairing table for seven and eight player round robin is now provided:


Round
1 1:8 2:7 3:6 4:5
2 8:5 6:4 7:3 1:2
3 2:8 3:1 4:7 5:6
4 8:6 7:5 1:4 2:3
5 3:8 4:2 5:1 6:7
6 8:7 1:6 2:5 3:4
7 4:8 5:3 6:2 7:1


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-06 08:39:16)
Colour allocation change in WCH round robins

Hi again Garvin, I must say I didn't even know the Berger pairing tables, very interesting to pair 6,8,10,12... players, but maybe not so interesting for 5,7,9,11... as there is a bye.

Anyway, I may try to code it for these cases!

On the original topic, the discussion should continue on the question: Must we reverse the colors in WCH round-robin groups so that Seed #2 play White against Seed #1, as the tiebreak (TER: Tournament Entry Rating) is an advantage for Seed #1 already.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=9097
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=9093

As I explained in the other discussions (you can find some statistics in the first one), the whole idea of the chess championship is to find the best player, and rating is an important element in the process IMO. By the way I'm not sure if such an update would change the results significally.

Reverse or not reverse the colors in WCH groups, we need your opinion on this point!


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-06 14:20:56)
Colour allocation change in WCH round robins

Just noticed that Berger pairing tables for 8 players really look like the way 7 players tournaments are made at FICGS... Seed 1 plays White against Seeds 2, 4, 6, 8 while Seed 2 plays White against Seeds 3, 5, 7, 8 and Seed 3 plays White against Seeds 1, 4, 6, 8. Not really different and not a solution to solve the disadvantage of Seed 2.


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-06 14:43:08)
Colour allocation change in WCH round robins

Thib: Is there a table to view for how the pairings are made on here? From looking at the pairings from my current WCH group, I was struggling to find out how the pairings are different from the 7/8 berger pairing table.

I am seed 1 and I have white against 2, black against 3, white against 4 and so on.

Seed 2 has black against seed 1, white against seed 3, black against seed 4 and so forth.

I think this is right, but without the tables provided for this site, I can not confirm this.

I am not sure whether seed 1 should be white or black against seed 2. This is because the TER rules mean that if seed 1 ties with seed 3, then seed 1 progresses regardless of which colour.

Which colour seed 1 is allocated probably means more depending where in the serpentine pairings the group 1.

If it is group 1, then seed 1 will be playing seed 22(overall)(seed 2 in Group 1) and then seed 23(overall)(Seed 3 in Group 1).
But if we are talking about Group 11, then it is a battle for seeds 11 and 12. Seed 3 in Group 11 wil be around seed 33(overall).

I am not fussed either way, but this would depend on alot on what tables are used for pairings on here.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-06 15:29:07)
Colour allocation change in WCH round robins

No table, only a simple algorithm (with eg. $p1 = 0,1,2,3,4,5,6...) :

for ($p1=0;$p1<$players_count;$p1++)
{
for ($p2=$p1+1;$p2<$players_count;$p2++)
{
for ($round=1;$round<=$rounds;$round++)
{

if (NOT $reverse AND ($round+$p2-$p1)/2 is EVEN) OR (YES $reverse AND ($round+$p2-$p1)/2 is ODD)
{ $player[$p1] plays White against $player[$p2] }

else { $player[$p1] plays Black against $player[$p2] }

}
}
}

Games are created the order they appear in the tournament. (may be hard to read, the idea may look like obvious to you though)


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-07 14:09:49)
Paul König is dead

After that Ingo announced it in the chat, I was waiting for an online source to publish the sad news in the forum... Paul officially left us during the month of september 2010.

www.bien.de/sauerland/index.php?view=article&id=209:schachbezirk-trauert-um-paul-koenig

Many of us played him here at FICGS, at other chess servers or over the board.

My condolences to his family.


Kamesh Nookala    (2010-10-07 19:27:54)
Paul König is dead

It's a very unfortunate thing to happen. Somebody is here with you today and the next day you realize he is no more. The cruelty of life. That's why i like to enjoy my time, playing chess and meeting people from very cultures.

May his soul rest in peace. I had the honour to play vs. him in couple of tours during the early phase of my career here.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-08 15:11:13)
Colour allocation change in WCH round robins

Okay, not exactly an algorithm, this is mostly simplified PHP. The result for a 7 players with 1 round (single round robin) tournament is:

White : Black

1 : 2
3 : 1
1 : 4
5 : 1
1 : 6
7 : 1

2 : 3
4 : 2
2 : 5
6 : 2
2 : 7

3 : 4
5 : 3
3 : 6
7 : 3

4 : 5
6 : 4
4 : 7

5 : 6
7 : 5

6 : 7

So here is the table for 7 players single round robin.


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-08 15:26:38)
Colour allocation change in WCH round robins

Hello Daniel Parmet,

In the other thread WCH Stage 1 groups (new players), in your first post-

Further i've noticed that the color pairings tends to be very very bad for seed 2 & 3 but great for seed 1 & 4.

As seed 2 I get black against 1&4 as seed 3 I get black against 1 4 but as seed 4 I get white against 1&3. Yet these color disadvantages are not at all included as a tiebreak in any way.

From looking at the pairings posted above by Thibault about how colours are determined on this site, I believe your post contains a factual error which does not help your argument at all about the unfairness of pairings on here in the context of colours.

On this site-
Seed 2 is black against 1&4.
Seed 3 is WHITE, repeat WHITE, against 1 and 4.
Seed 4 is BLACK, repeat BLACK against 1&3.


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-08 15:29:24)
Colour allocation change in WCH round robins

Now that I have seen the full list of pairings used on this site, I can not see any difference between the berger pairing tables that I have listed and the pairings used here.

The order of games is different, but this is because Berger Pairing Tables are normally used in otb tournaments, whereas on here all games are played at the same time, so no need for separate round game allocations.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-10-08 20:05:47)
Paul König is dead

oh my... I am sorry to hear this! I played Paul many times. He always seemed so nice.


Ruben Comes    (2010-10-10 07:00:31)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Guys, beyond the technical, I think that is a world champion, be able to pick any group players have 1800 or 2100. This is my humble opinion.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-10-12 01:40:51)
Road to Grandmaster

You know this little blog and chessbase article has sparked a debate on whether people believe in whether its possible for a 1900 21 yearold to ever make GM.

Despite the fact I've constantly said it is. I've been told i'm flat wrong again and again by every person i've talked to. But I don't understand why, Kasparov said Talent is all a matter of time and effort. I don't see why not. The reason kids excel at chess is because they have no responsibilities. They have PURE time and when a kid gets attached to something... their effort is also unwavering.

I have offered the answer that the problems with adults improving is mostly the fact they have too many demands on their time already (work, family, school, other hobbies) or lack proper motivation (getting too easily discouraged or not wanting to work on their weaknesses).

However, I've noticed the naysayers tend to fall into three camps. 1) The camp that says talent is genetic and you can't make up for it regardless of how much you work. 2) People that say 21 is too old, only kids can improve. These people irk me the most. I have only been playing chess for 2 years and I went from 1000 to 1900 in under a year because I spent alot of time on it. I see no reason why any other adult can't do the exact same. Granted 1000 to 1900 is not 1900 to 2500 + 3 norms... but the point remains the same: time and hardwork. I think here multiple studies about the 10,000 hours required to master an activity is relevant. 3) People that are flat out freaking jealous. They know they themselves won't make GM or maybe even IM so they decry anyone else that wants to try.

Anyways, curious what others peoples thoughts are?


Brian Williams    (2010-10-15 18:45:21)
Connected players :

hi - is it possible to have an icon next to the names of my opponents that are currently online? or a separate list of my opponents that are connected? - cheers


Scott Nichols    (2010-10-15 19:45:31)
Connected players :

WHILE we are at it, as if you don't have enough to do Thib, I would like an array of happy faces, (emoticons), we could choose from, something more fun than-:) :( :-0 etc. :)


Lalit Kapoor    (2010-10-20 08:18:46)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

The same happens to me. I started as 1805 (provisional) in WCH 8. Now after 5 games finished I scored 4.5/5. Against 2nd seed I got a draw. And against seed 1 I will get at least a draw with slight advantage as Black in endgame.

Garvin Gray question is right. The 1800 (provisional) player gets an advantage for being an underdog.

But at last there would be only one champion and he have to qualify all stages.


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-20 08:42:43)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)

Wow, finally a new post. :)

I am not sure if you have received an advantage by being in a group with other fully rated players.

My premise is that you should have been a group, or groups, with other provisionally rated players, so that those who have worked to get an accurate rating get to try and qualify in roughly even strength groups (in comparison to all the other qualifying groups).

As someone who has shown themselves to be of decent standard, you would have still probably qualified through that group of provisionals and most likely would not be out of your depth in stage 2.

Which again is the whole premise of my position.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-20 12:43:13)
Connected players :

Hello Brian!

This issue was discussed a few months ago, a problem is that players may use this information to play only when their opponents are not connected.

Scott, you mean smilies in the forum?


Scott Nichols    (2010-10-20 19:44:48)
Connected players :

No Thib, something we could add to the chat to liven it up, :)


Scott Nichols    (2010-10-20 20:06:33)
Freestyle Fun

Freestyle tournament is only 11 days away and already it promises to be an exciting event. Hopefully more will join, especially our friend from India, :)

We have an exciting array of players already though...,

Yuriy Perikov-a new player from Russia who has raised his rating almost 100 points in just two games.

David Evans-Last years winner. I am sure he will be looking to repeat. A definite threat.

Uh-Me-I'll be trying, :)

Marcel Jacon-I don't know anything about Marcel, but I'm sure he will be a tough opponent!

Garvin Gray-A longtime player with much experience. He seemed to improve dramatically after his computer went into the "shop" for a week towards the end of our 24 game drawn match. He will have to be watched out for.

Ruben Comes-What can I say? He is a definite favorite in this event. With his powerful openings, middlegame and unerring endings, he will be hard to beat.

Robert Mueller-I don't know Robert, but I hope to one day if I can ever get up to his level. Another strong favorite here. With an 80% win rate against top level competition, how could anybody bet against him!

Jose Moreira-Another strong unknown to me. Very experienced and I am sure a threat.

Thibault de Vassal-Our glorious leader! If his connection can hold out, we all know Thib is as strong as anybody. It would be nice to see him pull this off.

Sebastion Boehme-Don't be fooled by Sebi's relatively low Advanced rating. He is very strong, experienced Freestyle player. Another shaky connection cost him last year. I consider him to be right in with the favorites of this event.

So there it is "so far". Exciting huh?


Don Groves    (2010-10-20 21:11:06)
Connected players :

Why would anyone want to play only when opponents are not connected? What advantage is there to that?


Don Groves    (2010-10-20 21:23:57)
Connected players :

Also, it is very easy to search the list of connected players to see if a particular player is online.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-20 21:32:25)
Freestyle Fun

You said it all Scott, thanks for this very nice presentation :) Let's hope that a few of our italian freestylers will try to shake the tournament! The prize increased to 150 Epoints + Entry fees this time, not so much yet but always trying to offer more & more Epoints in all tournaments...

A small word about the connection, I noticed that when http://www.ficgs.com is not available, the internet access providers often let you reach https://ficgs.com , think about it if you encounter such a problem (whenever by the way), just like it happened to Mauro who courageously played half the tournament on a smartphone during the last event, the trick may have helped him :/


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-20 21:36:31)
Connected players :

The aim is either not to receive a reply too early, or to push the opponent towards the flag (I saw that already) during rapid games...


Don Groves    (2010-10-21 07:52:52)
Connected players :

During rapid games, won't each player be online all the time unless a connection problem?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-21 10:31:12)
Connected players :

Sorry, I meant rapid "tournaments", not blitz games.


Kamesh Nookala    (2010-10-21 16:45:12)
Freestyle Fun

Awesome!!

Very well put Scottie and thanks for those sweet words. I am not certain yet whether to join or not as there are lot many things which need my immediate attention. I never played a freestyle before, this is one aspect which is tempting me a lot. Personally speaking, I want to participate, but for the circumstances.


Don Groves    (2010-10-21 19:43:07)
Connected players :

Ah. For what it's worth, it's still very easy to scan or search the list of connected players if one wants to play that way.


Brian Williams    (2010-10-21 23:00:41)
Connected players :

sorry guys - I thought it would help to keep a closer eye on the games where my opponents were online ... and know when they disconnected - will search the list of connected players to see who is/isn't online ... cheers


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-22 10:25:55)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Hi to all the FICGS players! In the last few days there has been in the works a strong tournament on the Rybka Forum. I know that most of you play a lot of games not only here but on others sites. I have been looking into the interest of having a type of World Chess Corr Blitz Championship. With the time controls being 2 to 3 days per move. There will be a time out or some kind of extra time system in place to get you a chance to AN critical positions. As of now there are discussions on the Rybka Forum for a Tournament Format that would be comfort to most of the players who play. I have been talking to the person who does the web design there and would are working out a new sub forum to keep this tournament organized and working a clock system so everyone can keep track of there time. I'm also having a prize fund organized to the top 10 finishers. Not so much for give money to the players, but as more a means to keep all the players interested and not have any problems with aborted games. This tournament will have 3 TD's to help with any problems that may come up. We are planing on having the tournament just after the new year. I have the interested of Wayne Lowrance and Ruben Comes has said he will play. If any are interested in playing in a World Chess Corr. Blitz Championship or if you have any questions or comments. Let know on here or your can leave a message on the rybka forum my user name is "thehug"


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-22 17:01:57)
Freestyle Fun

Deadline : 2010 october 30 - 13:00 server time

Thib- Can you please confirm that the times mentioned above are accurate for when play will be occurring for the upcoming freestyle tournament.

Also would you be able to post some time zone conversions for major cities, so all of us from all over the world can work off those times.

Cheers,

Garvin


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-22 18:11:38)
Freestyle Fun

It is accurate!

First game will be played at :

Paris - 1 pm.
London - 12 am.
Los Angeles - 4 am.
New York - 7 am.
New Delhi - 4 pm.
Berlin - 1 pm.
Buenos Aires - 8 am.
Moscow - 3 pm.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-22 20:56:57)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Hi,

Gary- Thanks for your interest, I do remember to some of your replies to the FICGS vs Rybka Forum match. As you are a guy who likes some order in the matches. When I make the the pairings for the tournament I will be taking into account of ratings. And will make them fair. There are a couple of people who may not have official rating on the rybka forum, but I have a good idea of there strength :) One of them is actually playing reben a great game in the B90 a variation.

Daniel Parmet- Thanks for your interest I have you down.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-23 02:39:34)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Just after the new year, It will be flexiable as I will give all the players a chance to make it the games. It will be something like a 1 to 1 1/2 week window to get all the players sign in and know what the groups would be. As of now I'm still working on how many games will be played. I will be caping it around 30 people or so give or take a couple. So I will update you on how many games. For rounds Im going to say right now it will 2 rounds as I know most don't want to drag it out to long.(If there is interested I will look into having a semi final, and championship match if people would want it.) The number of games will be flexiable for the FICGS players. As I know most of you have a lot games going on.


Sebastian Boehme    (2010-10-23 02:41:41)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

I would be interested in playing, in case such details as time control (especially how this shall get done on a forum software like Rybka forum, i.e. keeping track of the time used up for a move) and tournament mode are clarified in beforehand.

Cheers,

Sebi


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-23 23:57:41)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

I have the interest of Gino Figlio and a couple of other strong FICGS players Im still trying to find out witch ones they are. The FICGS side is starting to look very strong if all players will play. The tournament format is coming a long. And when I have an update I will post.


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-10-24 22:57:48)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Jimmy I am following your progress. I continue my interest in the Tournament. We have discussed my thoughts via PM, but to review here are the things of concern to me. First I do not want to overload my chess obligations in Tournaments I am involved with at FICGS now. I have a hunch that a Start date at or shortly after the year will work out provided it is possible to have no more than one (1) game running at a time.
Other features of interest to a lesser degree are management/monitoring of matches to make sure that excessive time outs are infrequent. A player should not be allowed to go on vacation so to speak during a match. In the event of hardware problems a player should have to live with the timer obligations and not making a unfair match delay.
Player ratings could be considered in pairings. Somewhat like board seeds. Top rated sits at board #1 etc.
I think this can be sorted out easily. Your have excellent inputs from others such as Vytron etc regarding timer details. 2 days/move sounds good to me Jimmy.
So continue your good work, I would be proud to participate god willing.
Wayne


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-25 01:30:27)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Thanks for your continue interested Wayne! Yeah as of now. I think we are doing a two game per round(1 white and 1 black) set. And I think there are players who will being playing a one game at time approach. And to help with the time difference we are working on a quicker format to help offset the time difference. I still believe that Havery Williamson will still consider playing if the gameload is not that great. Even if he still declines I think with yourself I have 3 or 4 players that are inside the top 25 on this site. I'm hopeful that devassal thibault can help me get the word to the other top players in a effort to get a couple more of the top 50. It will help when I finally can have a 100% idea of the format. I'll you posted on here or on the Rybka Forum. When we finally have more or all the details worked out.
Jimmy


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-25 02:42:33)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Hello Jimmy! Sure, I keep an eye on the discussions... I may spread the word when all this will be a little clearer to me (maybe I'll consider to play if I'm not too busy and if the tournament is open btw, will it be a round-robin tourney? what happens if you have too many players?) Feel free to use the chat before that though.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-25 08:28:18)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Thanks Thibault, My hope is to finish the details within the next 2 weeks. No not a round-robin, because that would simply be to much and to long. So I have gone with Vytron idea of a type of Elimination/Knockout tournament that is currently being discuss. As you are good about getting tournaments formed if you can read the current discussion and give some feedback on here or the rybka forum I would be grateful! It is in the corr chess section on the rybka forum.

Here are some of the key points and some interesting ideas that are being thrown around.

As I know most of the FICGS players play a lot of games so I have made a system that you play a 2 game match per round (One white and One Black). This would usually be a bad idea because of CC high draw rates. But we are thinking of using a unique draw odds system. Thought to many this may sounds a little strange its actually a great idea to inspire fighting chess for both sides. The idea was given by FICGS player Gino Figlio

"The scoring system idea- to draw with white (0.4), draw with black (0.6), win with white (1.0), win with black (1.1), loss with white (-0.1), loss with black (0.0)"

Another thing we are working on is the pairing system. As of now the only idea is to use a swiss pairing system after the first round.

Time Control- Since this is going to be called a "World Blitz Correspondence Chess Championship" The time controls are going to be a little faster than normal corr chess. It will be 48hr per move. But there will be a bluff time in here to help AN critical positions. This is also being debated. Right now we are looking at something between 1 weeks to 2 weeks(168 hours to 336 hours).

I had announce on the Rybka Forum in the last couple of days that a prize fund was being offer. I haven't had all my sources comeback to me yet. But as of know the fund is $1500 USD. It could be more, but I'll make official amount known before the tournament will start. I would say the winners share will be between 500 to 750. It all depends on what info I get back. I'm going to try and make all the prizes reasonable. And try and make it for the top 8 or 10 players. Also the winner will be announced the "World Blitz Correspondence Chess Champion"

I will be trying to finalize the details of the tournament in a quick fashion so I can figure out if the players interested would want to play or not. The tournament will begin just after the new year. It will be flexiable so get all the players in and know who they are playing.

The final details are that we are working hard to make the Rybka Forum really to play this kind of tournament. There is a new sub forum that will be made to help with out the traffic that would be going on with all the games. There is almost plans on getting a clock system work out. As at these time controls that would be critical.

Thanks in advance for any feedback form Thibault de Vassal and any other FICGS player!

Jimmy


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-25 21:16:09)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Well, I still do not understand how a scoring system can exist in a knockout tournament... but let's take an example, what the tournament will look like if you have 16 players? Best is to do a complete simulation.

As I just posted on Rybkaforum, I suggest several double round-robin class tournaments of 5 players with a longer time control (on forums I suggest 10 days + 3 days per move). The whole tournament would be played in 1 round, with less stress for everyone as I really think that 30 days + 1 day/move is the fastest acceptable correspondence chess time control.


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.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-10-26 01:04:19)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Wait what? You are going to drop a player that drew 2 games because they might be rated 1 pt lower? Insanity. What horrible logic.


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-26 18:53:19)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

I am not a fan of the Double Elimination concept for this. Does not mean that I would not participate. But since DE is being used, why not just have it as an open swiss instead?

With an open swiss, those that do not want to continue can just withdraw, instead of being eliminated. Those that want to finish the tournament can keep playing all rounds to enjoy the experience.

A couple of issues with DE that need to be explained further:
1) After round one, are the first round losers seeded to the other half of the draw so they can not meet their first round opponents again till the preliminary final.
2) For the person who gets to the Grand Final without losing a match, do they stil have to be beaten twice to be eliminated ie the winner of the preliminary final has to beat them twice to win the competition.

I have wondered how long an open swiss would actually take in competition like this and would prefer to play in that rather than a DE.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-26 19:27:17)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

An open swiss should be at least 6 rounds long, that's the main problem. I still don't get how this tournament may run, a complete simulation with 16 players would help me, definitely.


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-26 19:39:15)
Freestyle Fun

With still ten players, if nothing changes, perhaps we could make a single round robin, rather a swiss.

Either this would mean playing 5 rounds on the first day and four on the second, or adding a third day and staying with three rounds in a day.

Thoughts of others?

I do hope that more people enter and it says a swiss, but thought I would float this option in case we have ten players.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-26 19:44:18)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Two more quick announcements.

1.The new forum for the WBCCC-->World Blitz Corr Chess Championship has been made as of last night my time. But has not been up to everyone yet. It will be soon, I'm still talking to my Technical TD about that.

2.I'll be capping the tournament very soon as to keep the numbers reasonable and to have a tournament done in a more timely fashion. I'm going to guess when its all said and done. The finally number will be between 24 to 28 players that will play. I'll being posting a list here shortly


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-26 20:11:52)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

The players that have said they would play or are interested are as follows

For FICGS-

Wayne Lowrance
Garvin Gray
Daniel Parmet
Sebastian Boehme
Thibault de Vassal
Gino Figlio
Kevin Plant
Scott Nichols
and one guy called "Djevans" on my forum still trying to get a name. He has said that he is a FICGS__CHESS__FREESTYLE_CUP winner and twice finalist in the freestyle tours on chessbase. So a pretty strong player.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-26 21:28:08)
Freestyle Fun

We cannot change the format now... 6 rounds is a lot in 2 days already, 9 rounds would kill most of the participants (IMHO) :)

It is always hard to guess the final number of players until the very last moment as registrations are authorized whenever. All I can say is that one new player is to enter the waiting list, maybe two. (ah, finally one player entered it before I can finish my message :))


Peter Marriott    (2010-10-27 00:01:33)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Hey Jimmy! I would like to play.


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-27 03:10:37)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Now Thib sees why 6 or so round swiss would not be any longer than Double Elimination :)

Also with the DE format, the player from the winner's side has to wait a full round while the two remaining losers play their preliminary final two games.

In regards to tie breaks from second round onwards, the person who has the better score from previous rounds could have draw odds.

To explain- lets say in round one Player A wins 2-0 and Player B wins 1.5-0.5. In round two Player A and B meet. In this scenario Player A would advance if their match was drawn.

This method of tie break would count no matter what round it was. So in the Grand Final, who ever had scored the most amount of points previously would have draw odds.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-27 03:34:59)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Sorry Kamesh, I didn't know if you was really to play mores games or not after reading your email. I'll put you on the list now.

Also sorry to Peter Marriot who I have on the official list on Rybka Forum :)


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-27 04:58:50)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

I would love to get these two great players to play! It would be helpful that the tournament conditions be clarified. With the kind of money that could be on the line. It maybe of interest to them. But I don't think that would be the most important thing to them. I know Eros has account on the Rybka Forum, but I haven't hear form him on there so I don't know.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-27 05:53:42)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

@Scott-Myself and a couple of other friends who love chess. By the way I send you a message on the Rybka Forum to help with game details. If you have other questions let me.

@Daniel- Right now I its 1500 USD total, but I don't have all my sources bact to me yet. So it will probably be more. I'm planing on having prizes down to 8 to 10 players, with the winner most likely will win 500 to 750 depending on final numbers. Also the winner will the World Blitz Corr Chess Championship or so I dubbed.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-27 06:28:36)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Well Kamesh, maybe playing on the Rybka Forum has brought you luck :), BTW interesting game between you and Vytron


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-27 06:37:02)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

The games could always be played on ficgs :)


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-27 06:48:42)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Not at all my friend, Kamesh. I was joining you with humor. I can understand the feeling of playing in your first place like this.

@Garvin- With all the efforts to play it on Rybka Forum I don't know if I could change it. If the tournament is successful I may consider playing the next one on here. Of course I would have to talk to Thibault about that.


Scott Nichols    (2010-10-27 19:47:48)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Thibault is also offering a generous prize for freestyle tournament this weekend. We would welcome any Rybka forum players to come and compete!


Kamesh Nookala    (2010-10-27 20:15:05)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

I will only play to win if the prize is an EVGA SR-2 mobo and 2 Xeon processors :-p


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-27 21:07:22)
Freestyle Fun

Gino Figlio entered the waiting list, Jai Prakash Singh as well and another player is obviously to follow... This should be a nice tournament, come on :)


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-29 05:21:56)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Just to let everyone know I've added a standing page and an unique commentary and recap page for fans and players a like a chance to look at all the game a little deeper. I'll invite any of the strong players to comment on the games as they go. As long as they don't give moves away that may affect the game. I thought this would add to unique style of the tournament.


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-29 11:21:06)
Freestyle Fun

Thib,

How will you be deciding the draw for round one? What I mean is will you be doing a registration period and collecting names and then entering only those players in round one, or will you be entering all those who have registered via the waiting list, regardless of whether they are online or not at 1300 ficgs time.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-29 11:40:25)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

The tournament format has been decide. It will be a 2 game a round swiss tournament. Now my working on a pairing system as we spoke. I've been told by garvin gray that he is an official FIDE arbiter who has the latest programs to be used on swiss tournaments. I'll keep that in mind going forward. As everyone here has official rating. It will be my job to work something out with the other players on my forum who don't have ratings. This being a Swiss tournament with having a chance to play with both colors. I should be about to just do subjective pairings and be fine. I have a pretty good idea of were the players stand rating wise. I hope everyone is really for an competitive and enjoyable tournament!

Jimmy


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-29 12:38:29)
Freestyle Fun

Great to see you in Kamesh, definitely this tournament will be tough :)

Garvin, good question! Last time I did it regardless... Best is IMO to decide just before the start, if only one player (maybe two, depending who) is not connected, I'll include him in the list. If three players are not online and if I'm not sure they'll play, I'll send an email to them, wait a few minutes more, then we'll start without them. Not so easy to optimize anyway :) Actually that's a good point, I'll probably add that players must be connected before the start of the first round in the freestyle rules.


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-29 12:48:08)
Freestyle Fun

I think only those that are online at 1300 should be paired in round one. This ensures that the tournament gets started on time.

The only exception would be if someone has let you know that they will be turning up, just will be a bit late.

Players can always be paired starting from round two.

I ask for this for two reasons:

1) It allows you to cover any last minute points and you know that all players have seen the messages because they are actually online. and

2) Not everyone is playing this tournament starting in the afternoon. The tournament starts at 9pm for me, so it will finish each day late enough as it is. I will certainly not be happy at all if I have to wait around for late comers and will not mind saying so.

It will mean that I get 'punished' by not starting on time because of those who could not make it on time without letting you know beforehand. How is that fair?


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-29 12:50:29)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

With it being two games and a swiss, the initial ratings do not matter so much.

Players will get sorted pretty quickly. With using total game points as the first pairing criteria, each score group will have less players, meaning that most of the time there will only be two or three players in each score group, rather than 10 or twelve like in an over the board tournament.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-29 12:54:10)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

well to keep within a 2 month point I thought of 25 days a side with 10 more days after 40 moves. That seems pretty reasonable even with 2 games with the same person. As a interesting side note Kevin Plant has sent an email to ICCF GM Arno Nickle if he would have any interests in playing in this event. I doubt that there not many people who don't know who this very strong corr player is.


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-29 13:38:24)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Are the 10 days repeating, so after 80 moves the players receive another 10 days?

If not, then I can see major issues with players running out of time in long games, if for the only reason of time difference between countries around the world.

I would advise a time control of something like 14 days plus 2 days per move.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-29 13:56:36)
Freestyle Fun

Well, the connected players issue is for round 1 only, the third round should start at time. When it didn't happen, it was because I had connection problems, as far as I can remember... (but my connection works fine these days)


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-29 14:33:16)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

I've trying to look at the other players games for the Rybka Forum match. I got the feeling that most players made there moves fairly quickly. I would say there are players who think that 5 days a moves isn't blitz time controls.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-29 14:38:24)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

The problem is: Sometimes (Scott knows it), it is possible to play a complete corr. game [more than 60 moves] in about 30 hours! But sometimes it takes 8 months... Believe me, if I chose 30 days + 1 day/move as the fast time control at FICGS, it is because faster was not possible. And that's why there is a WCH cycle every 6 to 8 months, no more.


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-29 14:42:27)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Jimmy- I think it is extremely unlikely that any kind of correspondence tournament can finish in one year, unless you have an extremely short time control and are willing to have many games time out. It is just the nature of the beast with players from all over the world.

Also, what Thib means is that a new WCH cycle starts every 8 months, not that the WCH cycle takes 8 months to complete.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-29 14:48:56)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

I see the flexiable of playing something like 30 days + 1 day/move. My intend was to try and make a tournament within say 60 to 70 as a max. But that probably means this is more a tournament for players that make a move 1 to 2 days at a time


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-29 14:54:31)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Each tournament is slightly different and if a faster time control is used, then players will adjust. Just like playing rapid time controls in otb chess.

It is advertised as a blitz tournament, so of course the time controls will be shorter than the normal type of corro time control. All I have been trying to do is point out issues relating to players competing from different parts of the world.

I am certainly one of those who would be seriously affected by using the 40 move time control you have suggested previously.

I live in Brisbane Australia, so most of my opponents will be at least 4 to 8 hours at least behind me, so it is very common for me to receive moves in the middle of the night, or have a whole batch of moves awaiting me when I wake up.

This can mean that I already start with losing about 8 hours on the clock before I even get to look at a position.

I accept this in the time controls on here because that is just how it is and I am not that disadvantaged as it works the other way where I reply and my opponents are asleep/at work.

But under the 40 move time control posted, I would be severely affected and my only 'crime' would be living in Australia.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-29 15:11:05)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

I know Wayne has told me that he is trying to draw some of his games. Before my tournament starts. What he is doing is honorable. But I don't wish for others to have to do drastic things to play in this tournament. So I'll try to adjust the best I can.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-30 01:02:41)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Your right Daniel, some players will have games finish by then. By now I understand what is being talked about, by not having time on the end to have for the endgame. I'm thinking of some kind of adjustment like after the 30 move mark to have something like 15 days per 20 move after that so players don't get kill by the time


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-30 11:27:56)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

my user name is Thehug, The tournament will begin in January. Be prepare as the name subjects its going to be a Blitz Corr Tournament. So most players will make a move a day or over other day


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-30 17:19:19)
Freestyle round 4, careful winter clock!

To all players involved in the Freestyle tournament, important : Tomorrow it will be 1pm. 1 hour before !!!

So do not miss the start of Round 4 at 1 pm. while taking account that France (like most countries) goes to winter clock...


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-30 21:32:50)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Jimmy, will you apply strict rules during the tournament? What happens if a player suddenly takes 2 days, then 3 days, then 4 days for each move? Will there be a flag applied by the forum software or by the tournament director?

As there may be obvious problems in both cases, I'm really curious to know how you'll handle it. Also will players have a few days of vacation?


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-31 02:46:18)
Freestyle round 4, careful winter clock!

Damn, that means play starts here at 10pm tonight.


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-31 02:44:01)
Freestyle Fun

Could someone post the current scores for all players.

Preferably a cross table :)


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-31 13:27:35)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Your right Thib, there are going to be some risks in playing in this kind of tournament. I had to think about a lot of things. I would love to do a round robin system as this is probably the most flexible of all of them. By a majority was against it because there would just be to many games to play and not enough time to go around for all of them. I to have a lot of ideas to make a swiss system work. I believe with the input I have gotten back. That all the players that are playing are going to play and if they couldn't that wouldn't play. I know as well as you that in the end there really isn't one system that is 100% prefect. And you just have to make adjustments. Dadi Jonsson is working very hard to get the time system to work 100%. So yes the flag will be in. If not then such a tournament probably couldn't happen.


Garvin Gray    (2010-10-31 14:41:18)
Creating an opening book

No, I do not except people to give away their opening secrets, but I was wondering.

How does one create an opening book? I have just been changing options in the fritz or rybka books from green to red and vice versa, but I assume that quite a lot of the decent players on here have proper opening books.

What process did you go through to create these books?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-31 19:00:19)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !

Congratulations to Eros Riccio who convincingly won this 3rd Freestyle Cup !!

As for me I'm really happy with this result... I could have lost the last game on time (connection lost just after the draw), and time pressure decided in a lost position vs. Sebi... :/

- The standings :

Place Name Score Berg.

1 Eros Riccio 4.5 - 15.25
2 Thibault de Vassal 4.5 - 14.25
3 Kamesh Nookala 3.5 - 11.5
4 Robert Mueller 3.5 - 10.75
5 Gino Figlio 3.5 - 10.5
6-7 Ruben Comes 3.5 - 8.75
6-7 Yuriy Perikov 3.5 - 8.75
8-9 David Evans 3 - 6.75
8-9 Sebastian Boehme 3 - 6.75
10-11 Richard Bitoon 2.5 - 5.5
10-11 Jai Prakash Singh 2.5 - 5.5
12 Scott Nichols 2.5 - 5.25
13 Garvin Gray 2.5 - 3.5
14 Marcel Jacon 2 - 2.5
15 Xavier Pichelin 1.5 - 3
16 Jose Moreira 1 - 2

(the score is the one shown in the software, it may be not the same in the FICGS tournament page)

Finally we avoided the connection problems (really lucky), this was a really nice event, I would like to thank all players & especially Garvin who was up very late to play!

Lots of fun, definitely... I'll try to organize the 4th edition in about 3 months!


Kamesh Nookala    (2010-10-31 19:10:44)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !

Congratulations Eros,
you got a cake* to eat !!
Thanks to all who played vs. me and those who didn't.
You guys rock !
Finally, thanks Thib for hosting such an eventful tour :)


Sebastian Boehme    (2010-10-31 20:11:04)
Creating an opening book

Hi Garvin,

Book making ia for example in my case always been a very time-intense and manually tuned process. I never do import any outside games to my book.

Guidelines on how to starting out in creating an opening book you can find (or probably have already found), here:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=11798

That site got some useful links

General rule of thumb, work on each system one by one. My favourite example: I as white play 1. e4 and Black replies 1....f5, so the Elephant Gambit arises.

Now I want to find good white moves for it, so I enable in my Book allow move adding and check my Correspondence and Playchess Games database for the replies of white. Also I see what major engines think about the moves offered by the database in say 1-2 minute analysis and what these engines themselves gotta offer. This way a reply to the elephant gambit (or maybe more) for move 2 of white can be found.
Also not in any case 1-2 minute analysis will be sufficient. You need to figure this out for yourself.

The less time intensive process: Create a database where you import games filtered by very well chosen criteria (for instance recent games i.e. 2008-2010). Then import the database games into a new empty book.

That's all I know about how it could be done.

Sebi


Eros Riccio    (2010-10-31 21:33:09)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !

A big thank you to everyone who played, making this event possible, and especially to Thibault, who did the efforts needed to make this event possible, and also did a great TD Job! (and let's not forget his second place ;-)

Ciao,
Eros.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-10-31 22:52:16)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !

Great job to all the players! Eros you have proven to be one of the best on the forum and possible the world. Keep up with the great work :)

Jimmy


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-11-01 00:48:48)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !

Wow, my congrats to all who played. I feel I missed a special time. My chess work load did not permit me to play, But I am hopeful to join next time. I am chessed out, putting a ton of time on my FICGS games and falling further and further behind :)
Wayne


Garvin Gray    (2010-11-01 01:00:54)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !

I endorse all the comments previously stated.

I would like to see two changes for next time:

1) Longer time control. Yes I realise it will take longer to play, but I felt a lot of the games were about the computer and not much about true freestyle.
2) Starting at a different time :) and starting the days on time.


Gino Figlio    (2010-11-01 04:04:09)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !

Congrats Eros!
I enjoyed all the games and friendly atmosphere. This was a first but very nice freestyle experience for me.
Many things to learn from and hope to do better next time!
Special thanks to Thibault, how do you manage to play two roles at the same time and excel on both?


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-11-02 09:46:20)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Oh ok I have talk about about 30 days+ 1day as an option. As talking to you two. You have given me a lot of input. I think you Gray are a pretty fast player by most measures so on avg oh long can your games go at this time control? I really don't mind corr games going 2 or 3 months or so. As Thib pointed out some games at this control can go 8 months which to be honest isn't an option. I think I heard Gray say once something about 14days + 2days per move. Would that be a blitz control?

Again one to point out there not going to be a flag or something for taking 4, 5 days. The times will go as usually.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-11-02 09:56:22)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !

@Jai Prakash: do not be too deceived, we all (or almost) know the connection issues, I lost many bullet games including in freestyle tournaments because of this... the aim is always to organize more freestyle tournaments, so you'll have your full chance early or lately, just like in the WCH cycles (the chancy factor is everywhere)!

@Garvin: let's continue to discuss it, the first tournament was played in 1 hour + 15 sec/move, I feel that the quality of engines improved enough so that the brain can take fully part of the game [less time to navigate into the game, more to understand the position], by the way everyone agrees that the book is more important than to have 64 cores (that was not true a few years ago)... an increment of 20 seconds would be better though, but it is no more 2 hours per game :/ .. in my opinion, if we have players enough like this time, a 7th round (or even a 8th) would bring more benefit than more time to find the best player, and I must say I was quite frustrated not to play a few players during the tour. :) Finally... with 6 rounds only, the best player won, most probably. All opinions are welcome here.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-11-02 10:05:38)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

I know most of the players that have said they would play usually move pretty fast.


Garvin Gray    (2010-11-02 10:20:43)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !

With the 30 mins plus 15 secs time control, more rounds on two days becomes problematical.

With a 1300 ficgs starting time, those from the Americas were starting at about 5am and I was starting at 10pm on the second day.

So adding an extra round would mean either play starts early, or goes later.

The only other solution would be to add an extra day and play 9 rounds.

In part, the time zone issue is another reason why I think a longer time control might be better.


Garvin Gray    (2010-11-02 10:28:10)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

At 30 days plus 1 days, I think about 3 months is a fair average.

I am not sure if I am a fast player or not. I do use most of my time across all games, but that does not mean I am looking at all games all the time.

For just a two game match, I would have no issues with 30 days plus 1 day increment and it would not feel fast to me.

14 days plus 2 days per move I think is a better time control for a few reasons.

It will let the organisers know for certain early who will lose their games on time ie two weeks from when the round starts, so decisions about whether to let them continue or kick those players out can be made earlier.

With a 2 day increment, it does give some opportunity for players to analyse for a bit of time in endgames.

If you are wanting to avoid unnecessary delays, the easiest way to it to have rule that as soon as a game reaches a 6 man tablebase position, the result will be declared.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-11-02 10:33:17)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

14 days + 2 days / move is much longer than 30 days + 1 day / move. Maybe 20 days + 1 day / move, or 10 days + 1 day / move could be ok... 1 day increment is the strict min. 10 days initial clock is min as well IMO. So a game could last ~180 days at most = 6 months anyway !

Honestly, maybe you should give up the idea that everyone (eg. me) should be able to play, if you think that most players interested are ready to play a really fast corr. time control, maybe you should do it this way but IMO an increment less than 12 hours may lead to many losses on time.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-11-02 10:50:48)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

I can always say you have a very honest opinion. I can bet even if you decide not to play. You will be watching with interest. I know players like Wayne Lowrance liked the idea of a little faster controls. Gino, Scott, and David Evans like to play a little bit faster controls. And they will make this a very strong tournament anyway. And yes the add one day per move looks to be the min. It will just be looking at the total time.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-11-02 15:37:29)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Your doing a good job Garvin, everyone thought your idea of ending the game at 6 man tablebase positions was great 100%. And you more or less suggested the 2 game a Round Swiss was taken very well to. Maybe I should let you be my TD lol. I think I can let you do my Pairings to if you want. My only question to you is what rating list would be the best to use? As far as the ratings of the Rybka Forum players I'll have to give you my ideal ratings for them.


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-11-02 16:33:06)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Nice idea Garvin, (6 man). It means a lot of work for some one to check it. Not all players I think have very many six man, including me (about 30 of em). How would that workout ?
Wayne


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-11-02 22:18:30)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

yep, I am aware of both sites. That is not the problem as I see it.
Those sites are good if you have arrived at 6 man positions. The problem occurs far before that during analysis. Example player(a) in deep analysis with his hardware/programs determines that a 6 man tablebase will occur and player (b) with his hardware/program is unable to verify that and thus will object to 6 man ruling as He cannot verify it. Not much time will be saved I am afraid if the game continue until the current position is a 6 man position.
Of course a lot of communication can resolve it for player (b) but that is a big work load for someone. So I am very much in favor of the idea, but do not see clear solution to it.
Wayne


Garvin Gray    (2010-11-03 11:16:59)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Wayne, not sure much can be done about the situations you are talking about. I guess they are just how it is when games are being played with tablebases.

I still think my suggestion will knock off some time from each round.

Perhaps, what could occur is that one player claims either for win or draw and the arbiter investigates by asking the other player how they plan to get their desired result.

I know this sounds rather wishy washy instead of being a nice formulated rule, but I am not trying to post a forumulated rule at this stage, until I know if I am going to be person responsible for pairings, being arbiter etc.


Garvin Gray    (2010-11-05 02:09:05)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

The last pm I got from you was about the order of players and who has entered.

I have received nothing since then.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-11-05 23:12:32)
Magnus Carlsen drops out of FIDE WCH

An interesting interview of Magnus Carlsen on the FIDE World Championship cycle and privileges of the world champion.

Always the same question: Should the reigning world champion play the next cycle in the same conditions than the other players... (no IMO, by the way the 16, 32 {whatever} who would play this tournament do have privileges the same way)

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6789


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-11-06 03:44:55)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Well Thib it looks like a lot of people like the idea of doing 30days + 1day per move. That may open the door for you to play if you wanted to.


Garvin Gray    (2010-11-06 06:19:34)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Jimmy,

Possible slight change to start date proposal.

I would like to see the competition either start on December 1 (one month earlier), or on about January 14.

The reason for this is to try and reduce the impact of Christmas. If the competition starts on January 1, games could time out without people even knowing that they started due to being on holidays.

Perhaps starting earlier might be helpful as it means the competition starts while there is the current momentum for it.

But middle January is also good as it will give a chance for the new ficgs ratings to be used.

I think it would also be prudent about a week before the start of round one to personally contact all the participants and get them to confirm they are playing. Only those that confirm their participation will be paired for round one.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-11-06 07:30:29)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

You make a good point about Christmas and even sometimes people do things on the New Year. I have to probably go with the January 14th idea. If only because I would like to give Dadi as much time as he needs to get the clock system to work. By I will leave a line on the Forum and see what people say. As for the give a week to get play to reply. I had already decide on that. I will be so much easily to do it that way. As to have to repair 2 or 3 times.


Xavier Pichelin    (2010-11-06 11:41:08)
FREESTYLE CUP POKER

Who would like play the Freestyle Poker in the Futur?


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-11-06 14:42:22)
FREESTYLE CUP POKER

I would like to play in a poker tournament like that


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-11-06 15:00:19)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum

Hi Jimmy, good news! I'm sure that this format will attract more players.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-11-06 15:08:49)
FREESTYLE CUP POKER

Hi all, yes I was to post something on that topic... I'm not sure if we have poker players enough, but it would be interesting to already know who would play such a "live" poker tournament with about the same format than the chess Freestyle -> 6 games (swiss system) played in 10 mins + 10 seconds per move, one game every 2 hours or so.

Of course the number of moves may vary from ~10 to ~1000, some games may be quite long but it's worth a try anyway :)


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2010-11-07 16:33:07)
FREESTYLE CUP POKER

I would like to play this tournament if I have time.

Maybe we can use 10 min and 20 sec per hand as a time control. Thibault, is that technically possible? I think "hand" is a better unit than "move".


Rolf Staggat    (2010-11-10 18:58:34)
FREESTYLE CUP POKER

I would like to play, if the date is not in the football-season.....


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-11-16 00:19:46)
If you plan on playing in the WBCCC

I've posted an official post for things on the Rykba Forum. Look under the WBCCC Forum there look at the Rules and Sign In's Thread. If you plan on playing drop your name there or here. It will also all the official info on it as it is 100% decide.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-11-17 18:27:40)
If you plan on playing in the WBCCC

playing :)


Peter Marriott    (2010-11-17 18:58:47)
If you plan on playing in the WBCCC

100% I'll play.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-11-17 22:51:58)
If you plan on playing in the WBCCC

I have you guys as playing. I just will be waiting for you to give me a user name when that comes around. I would look at some of the CC games there so you know how to play. You can look at my game with Scott over there and you can see how it is done.


Peter Marriott    (2010-11-19 17:43:42)
Arena 2.5 Beta

Arena 2.5 Beta released!
http://www.playwitharena.de


Rolf Staggat    (2010-11-24 13:03:46)
If you plan on playing in the WBCCC

Jimmy, what is WBCCC ?
For me, WBC is World Boxing Council.
A kind of correspondence boxing?
I am cruiser-weight, you have an opponent for me?
My first move is UPPERCUT!


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-11-24 14:26:24)
If you plan on playing in the WBCCC

Hi Rolf :)

WBCCC stands here for "World Blitz Correspondence Chess Championship"

See this forum at Rybkaforum.net for all informations:

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/board_show.pl?bid=32


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-11-26 05:47:52)
If you plan on playing in the WBCCC

In my opinion the tournament rules and issues are done. You can read about it on the main page at WBCCC.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-11-30 22:32:53)
Improvements to score Go games

To all Go players,

I just made some significant improvements in the Go scorer (the option that enables to score Go games - see symbol "$" below the board in the fast moves mode)

Now the scorer recognizes many unfinished shapes & counts empty lines on the board correctly.

Still it shouldn't be totally trusted in all cases, particularly when some shapes in the center have no clear limits.

Any feedback is welcome. Note: you still have to remove dead groups by yourself.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-12-06 20:53:07)
Eros Riccio vs Eros Riccio in WCH 5 ?

He did it... Eros Riccio qualifies for the 5th chess WCH final match (all games drawn against Alberto Gueci in the candidates final, knockout/round-robin rule decides, not TER here), and obviously he has "some chances" to meet himself at the top !! (of course he will not have to play the 12 games match in this case)

The crown will be probably very... very hard to take these next years, but I can predict that the winner, whoever he is, will have very tough matches to play to defend the title in the 6th (Alberto's revenge?), 7th and 8th edition... so many exciting games :)

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__WCH_CANDIDATES_FINAL__000005

Congrats Eros!


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-12-06 23:31:19)
Eros Riccio vs Eros Riccio in WCH 5 ?

Well Thib, Although I'm not one to change your system. I guess you will see what these faster time controls are like form my tournament. As I have some of your top players there. It maybe a good measuring stick. Like I had talk about... Its like a longer Freestyle.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-12-07 08:54:50)
Eros Riccio vs Eros Riccio in WCH 5 ?

Be sure that I'll keep an eye on it (definitely I cannot play, my game vs. SpiderG at Rybkaforum shows how slow I am :/) I'm sure to learn from this experience though!


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-12-07 19:16:41)
Who's the favorite in the WBCCC?

This is just a poll to see what others think. I had do I similar on the Rybka Forum, but seeing there would have be bias base on each forum I decide to do one on each one.

So the question is simple.

Who do you think among the FICGS side will have the best finish? choices--->

Wayne Lowrance
Gino Figlio
Sebastian Boehme
David Evans
Ruben Comes
Scott Nichols
Daniel Parmet
Kevin Plant
Ramil Germanes
Peter Marriott
Daniel Parmet
Hrubaru Mircea

To my knowledge that is everyone on this side. Since there is no poll option just post a name and if you want give an answer. Pairing will be posted in less than 3 weeks. Good Luck to everyone playing! and I'll try to keep the forum posted on updates as the tourney goes a long.


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-12-07 20:33:27)
Who's the favorite in the WBCCC?

One note I forgot to mention... I can bet this will add some spice to this tourney. I'm going to talk to the rybka team about a chance for the winner of the tournament a chance to play a 2 game match against the rybka cluster. You can call it some kind of Centaur Champion vs Cluster Grand Championship. Of course there is still work to be done for this to happen. By I thought the players would be interested to know that.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-12-07 22:53:20)
Who's the favorite in the WBCCC?

Good idea! So one more correspondence chess event to come...

Hi Sebi, I don't know Ruben's play enough that's right, but I guessed that his preparations for advanced (blitz) chess may be sort of trap for himself, corr. chess is really different. The point is IMO that for some reasons Wayne will play correspondence chess in this tournament while many others may play something between advanced chess and correspondence chess... Question of time also... But as Jimmy said, this would be a "slight" advantage after all, everything can happen and you have good chances too!


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-12-08 01:05:03)
Thib can you make this more clear

Eros seems confused, and for sure I am. is this the quality statement ?

Knockout tournament winner will play round-robin cycle winner in a 8 games candidates final match (stage 4). In case of equality (4-4), the knockout tournament winner is qualified for stage 5 if all games are draw, the round-robin cycle winner if not all games are draw.
Wayne


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-12-08 01:20:40)
Who's the favorite in the WBCCC?

Its interesting. When I talked to Wayne about playing in this tournament. He said he could play if it was faster controls and the game count was low. I manage to do both. It seems he has played at this time control before.

To me the player with the lowest draw rate will win. And with the format winning with white will be a premium. Of course a long with Wayne. There are some dark horses to. With the elements of both Advance chess and CC play. David Evans and of course Ruben will both have to get some consideration.


Wayne Lowrance    (2010-12-10 04:17:30)
Eros Riccio vs Eros Riccio in WCH 5 ?

(1) The winner of KO matches is the highest TER in the event of 4-4 from all draws

(2) The winner of KO match is the lower TER entry if games are 4-4 but with wins/loss involved.

(3) If the score is 4-4 with all draws in the KO & RR match then highest TER player wins.

(4) If the score is 4-4 with win/loss then the lower TER player wins.

MY understanding is this correct. Is it more undertandable ? to me it is
Wayne


Kamesh Nookala    (2010-12-10 18:41:26)
Eros Riccio vs Eros Riccio in WCH 5 ?

Like the heavyweight boxing championship, I throw a challenge to any of the former or current champs to play a game vs. me.....
Ehem Ehem,, sorry out of context... btw, all and any rules always make me sick, so i hate reading them :-p

Hmmmm, who is Eros? any idea?


Scott Nichols    (2010-12-12 00:20:51)
Who's the favorite in the WBCCC?

"IMO that for some reasons Wayne will play correspondence chess in this tournament while many others may play something between advanced chess and correspondence chess..." (Thibault) That is a brilliant quote Thib. It got me to thinking, I played corr. by mail back in the early 80's, no computers, we had to think and replay each game constantly. I reached a respectable rank. Now, with the machines, I think we take their play to much for granted. I mean, we think, this prog. is 3000+ rated, it has to be the best move, but in many many positions where sacrifice is involved, or complicated endgames, these machines don't have a clue. I think it is time to get back to playing "real" corr. chess again. Thanks Thib!


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-12-12 14:38:22)
Who's the favorite in the WBCCC?

That's what I say to myself each time I lose a game after having played a move too fast :) Computers are still really weak in some complex positions (also in the middle game) but for some reasons we trust it... At the same time we always try to play openings that allow such positions, so not everything is lost yet.

The 80's were a great period for correspondence chess indeed. A friend of mine became very strong while playing corr. chess only during these years.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-12-13 23:14:40)
Chess positions too complex for engines

This topic may last a while but it could be interesting after all.

Why not trying to gather (and discuss) as many chess positions as possible that computers are still unable to solve with the best engines even working during days... It may help us to detect more weak points in the most recent engines.

Okay, I start with these ones:

Schuster-de Vassal : 1-0

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=36895&move=96

Peter played very well in this one but as far as I can remember this position was an easy draw... The plan was to keep the rook on the e column and White cannot progress. I knew that but at this moment, I had to play this move quickly and I made a stupid mistake: I trusted the engine... Rb8+?? 1-0 .. my comp was really a prehistoric one there but I wouldn't be surprised if the recent ones were still not able to avoid to play this Rb8+

The next position is less interesting but quite funny, and it looks like that the newest engines STILL do not understand it... Actually it shows +5.00 or even more while it is an EASY draw for any human player...

Utesch-de Vassal : 1/2-1/2

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=11345

Amazing, what do you think? :)


Hannes Rada    (2010-12-15 21:56:00)
Chess positions too complex for engines

Hi Thibault,
Thank you for the examples.
I do not agree with your position against Peter Schuster. Almost every engine is now playing Qe2 i.o. Tb1 ?
So the engines now 'understand' this position a little bit.
Your position against Wolfgang Utesch is a classical fortress and indeed a bit funny. Here all engines show +5 and Rybka even +6 .... :-)
The 'tragedy' here is not the final position, but the fact the engines would go for such a position in their analysis, as it seems to be a clear win for white. I would file this under typical missing endgame understanding.
I.e. Rybka still does not understand wrong bishop endgames....


Scott Nichols    (2010-12-15 23:20:40)
Chess positions too complex for engines

Hi Thib. This is one of the main games I had in mind when I responded to your quote.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__BLITZ_SILVER__000019

Or Game #40749

After 50. ...Be2 Rybka could only think of lines keeping the King close to the g4 pawn. Try it yourself anybody, the engine just didn't get it. It was a blitz game, but even at that time control I could see that my black Bishop could guard against the pawn advance from afar. So the winning strategy was to march the King to the other side of the board and escort the a-pawn to the queening square. This idea obviously was far beyond the engines horizon. After that game, my respect for Rybka's endgame play went down considerably.


Philip Roe    (2010-12-16 03:31:35)
Chess positions too complex for engines

This ending is taken from Nunn's Chess Endings (Om. Garcia-Otero,Cuba 2002).
ChessPosition (see diagram)

White, to play, can force a Queen and Pawns ending that would be a long slow win, but he can also make a very profound triangulation that leads much more forcefully to the win. Nunn was very impressed that White found this at the board.

I would be interested to know how the engines do on this position.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-12-17 17:36:47)
7 players tournament with fee & prize

Hi, 2 players recently asked for a 7 players tournament with entry fee & prize... Initially there were one in waiting lists but no players enough to play it, but it was years ago.

Would you be interested to play it? (just trying to see how many interested players one can find)


Scott Nichols    (2010-12-17 18:07:34)
7 players tournament with fee & prize

I would play in a second, I wanted this long ago...


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-12-17 19:16:31)
7 players tournament with fee & prize

How is this any different than a normal round robin?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-12-17 20:43:24)
7 players tournament with fee & prize

Ah, good question actually... well now that there is an Epoints prize in several free tournaments, the interest is a bit different.

The prize would be near 100% of the entry fees, so about 70 Epoints for a tournament with a 10 Epoints entry fee. As the rules state that players have to win a tournament/game with an entry fee to cash out a prize in real money, this is the other interest. Well, the main thing is probably always the "stakes" as an excitement after all.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-12-17 20:45:40)
7 players tournament with fee & prize

... and there wouldn't be any rating range there like in class tourneys. So another question is : must these tournaments be rated or not.


Scott Nichols    (2010-12-17 20:59:08)
7 players tournament with fee & prize

Make it "not rated", just play for the cash, :)


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-12-17 21:06:59)
7 players tournament with fee & prize

By the way Thib I've read a few threads here today about prizes and classes for tournaments. And how you would want to win a tournament to move up in a tournament class or that was the debate. With that thinking, I wonder if that is part of the reason. Why my tourney is as popular as it is. It gives some players of lesser rating a chance to play higher rated players. An as you said in your next line. My tournament will technically not be rated. Even tho ratings will be used for pairing purposes. With the system in place. I believe a lot of the lower rated players will get a chance to play players 200 rating points or higher at some point in the tournament. Anyway thanks for the explanation. Getting excited with less than 2 weeks to go before pairing and 3 weeks after that before the tournament is underway. I've had a couple more names to my list and was happy to hear kam was going to play.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-12-18 20:22:34)
7 players tournament with fee & prize

Good luck with the tournament Jimmy, definitely I cannot play, but be sure that I'll keep an eye on it! I'm quite certain that it will be very instructive.


Patrice Gosteli    (2010-12-22 14:35:43)
7 players tournament with fee & prize

Hi!
I wonder since my ''initiation'' to your site if a lot of members enter the fee systen. I have belived it was mostly for the poker fans.
I supose you think of a tournament with fee & prize to the big majority of chess players.
What about a GO tournament with same conditions?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-12-22 14:50:42)
7 players tournament with fee & prize

There are GO tournaments (2 players matches) with entry fee & prize, not really (or really not) popular yet, so we probably do not have Go players enough for such 7 players tournaments :/


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-01-25 09:20:38)
How to play in here..

Hi Mitha, we answered you in the chat but anyway, have a look at the Help section and maybe try to enter a waiting list (see Waiting lists)


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-12-29 11:37:07)
WBCCC news

I just got great word form Dadi Jonsson are Tech guy at Rybka. That are playing arena is in beta testing as we speak! And there is an 80% of be successful!


Jimmy Huggins    (2010-12-29 13:37:49)
WBCCC news

Form the letter I got. This is what I interpret it to be. First there will be a program that the players use. The program allows the players to play there games without having to look thought out the comments form the forum. As one player makes his move. It will go to the another player program ready to make his move next.

Now Dadi made the forum software so that when a move is made. That it will post the move in a thread form the present game between the two players.

So Gray I think Dadi maybe the one to create the games, but you will still be doing the pairings. I sent you his user name so the two of you can would on the other details so you can be the TD.


Gino Figlio    (2010-12-30 02:58:07)
WBCCC news

I doubt it will be XFCC based since the rybka forum does not support it as far as I know and the remote playing module will interact with the rybka forum to update the games.
I believe this is similar to the remoteschach.de setup where you have the option to send your moves from your computer via a remote program.


Peter Unger    (2011-01-03 00:26:00)
Private messages to the webmaster

I cant get to the following tournament - why - the accepted participants have no ELO 2300+
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_SM__000008
(type : rated round-robin, time : 30 days, increment : 1 day / move)

7 players, 6 game (1 game against each opponent)
entry fee : 0 , prize : 20 (E-Points)
elo : 2300+

POL Broniek, Mariusz Maciej 2106
SVK Gazi, Miroslav 2289
USA Nichols, Scott 2200


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-01-04 22:01:10)
WBCCC Pairings for Round 1 will be here

Hello to everyone, With in the next 12 to 24 hours the pairings for round 1 of the WBCCC will be known. I have a couple of other things to post here as well. 1.I will be running a commentary page here.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=19300

I invite all the FICGS players to follow. There fellow FICGS combatants in play and I and a couple of others will be doing live commentary as the games go on. I hope to see you ya there! (Thib, I know you will let your presents be know when you can ;)

The 2nd thing to be noted is the info the new software that is being used. All the info for that is here. Look below on the page and you will see my name with the info on it.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20068;pg=2

Good luck to everyone.

P.S. I will try to remember to use your real name on here. When I post to make it easier to follow for everyone else. I'll try to have an update as games finish to let everyone know what going on.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-01-12 21:01:31)
Eros Riccio is the new FICGS chess champ

Congratulations to SM Eros Riccio who made it in the 4th FICGS correspondence chess championship, beating FICGS WCH Edward Kotlyanskiy 6.5-5.5

As he already won the candidates final match in the 5th FICGS chess WCH, we'll have the next final match "Eros Riccio vs. Eros Riccio" :) .. just joking, means that Eros just won the 5th FICGS championship as well... 2 titles at once, an amazing performance!

Sure that we'll need veeeery strong players to try to move the new FICGS king (who also won 2 FICGS freestyle cups) in the next WCH cycles! :)

Congrats also to Edward who was really near in this match, maybe the players will explain what happened in the only game that didn't finish into a draw... Finally many thanks to both players for a nice show!


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-01-12 21:10:14)
Edward Kotlyanskiy vs Eros Ricco

That may have been the most beautiful tactical and combative match. I have ever seen, its says a lot since I've followed a lot of Wch matches on different sites.

Both players who have very similar artistic styles of play. Both made a lot of interesting problems for there opponent to solve. In truth one got the feeling the Edward Kotlyanskiy tired to hard at times in the match to beat Eros. But such a statement can be seen as an insult to him. But its not true at all because. Not many will have the resolve to play Eros Ricco that way.

Congrats to both for a match I won't soon forget.


Paul Campanella    (2011-01-12 23:37:37)
Eros Riccio is the new FICGS chess champ

It is my opinion that Edward could have easily held his championship title if he strictly played for a draw instead of trying to win any of the games.


Edward Kotlyanskiy    (2011-01-13 01:29:48)
Eros Riccio is the new FICGS chess champ

I'd like to congratulate Eros on a very well played match. He had a very good match strategy coming into our games where he would try to put as much pressure on me as possible and hope for me to make a mistake. And it worked! A few mental slips on my part and before I knew it, I was lost. Just to re-emphasize what everyone already knows: Eros is undoubtedly one of the best corr players in the world. He deserved to win the championship. I thank him for making the games exciting, although maybe more for him than me :), and I look forward to playing with him again in the future.


Eros Riccio    (2011-01-13 02:36:42)
Eros Riccio is the new FICGS chess champ

Thanks everyone guys... Thank you Edward, it was a real pleasure for me to play with you, not only for the interesting games, but also for the many friendly chats we had during our exchange of the moves, you are a very nice person and I also look forward to playing you again soon in the future.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-01-13 14:53:17)
Eros Riccio is the new FICGS chess champ

Two great players, a great match, much fairplay at the end, thank you... it will be hard to wait for about 10 months before the start of the next 12 games match in the 6th cycle (and yes I verified, Eros will not play himself this time :))


Paul Valle    (2011-01-17 21:44:53)
Eros Riccio is the new FICGS chess champ

Thanks to both players for a very entertaining match!


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-01-18 15:24:39)
Houdini 1.5 leads TCEC comp. chess tourn

Advanced chess "centaur" players should be interested by the following:

A "super" tournament for computers, named TCEC, just started. Premier Division finals started with the participation of the world's top engines.

Tournament format: double round robin

The participants:

1 Houdini 1.5
2 Rybka 4.0
3 Shredder 12.0
4 Stockfish 2.0.1
5 Naum 4.2
6 Ivanhoe B47cB
7 Hiarcs 13.2
8 Critter 0.9

I don't know much on this tournament, actually it may be a CCRL/SSDF system-like but as a tournament (and without rating list?), anyway thus it was able to reach the chess news in Chessdom & Susan Polgar blogspot.

The point is that the supposed "possible" Rybka-clones Ivanhoe & Houdini (both based on Ippolit, just like Firebird) entered the race... and Houdini is leading already, ahead of Rybka.

It is announced that Rybka 4 is playing, does anyone know who's behind this version of Rybka and what is the hardware? Does Vasik Rajlich know about that?

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2011/01/houdini-15-leads-tcec-computer-super.html

http://www.chessdom.com/news-2011/computer-chess-live-2011

http://www.tcec-chess.org/


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-01-18 21:11:52)
Following the WBCCC games Round 1

With less than 3 hours to go for the WBCCC Round 1 to begin. I will help everyone out here to follow what games they want to follow. Here are all the links for games.

B=Board, this is so you know who is at the top table and so on.

()=There real name on here if its needed.

B1-Wayne Lowerance vs ralunger(Ramil Germanes)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20187

B2-Uly(Vytron) vs Loboestepario(Gino Figlio)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20188

B3-Moz vs deka
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20191

B4-parmetd (Daniel Parmet) vs Sebastian Boehme
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20192

B5-National12 vs SpiderG (Peter Marriott)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20193

B6-Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein) vs Omprakash
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20194

B7-Mark Eldridge vs Weirwindle
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20195

B8-stepanie vs Ruben Comes
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20196

B9-Balabachi vs jitan
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20197

B10-Natmaku vs CumnorChessClub (Kevin E. Plant)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20198

B11-Keoki010 (George Clement) vs Tomski1981
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20199

B12-CumnorChessClub(Kevin E.Plant) vs wight054
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20215

B13-Scott Nichols vs indrajit_sg
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20201

B14-donkasand vs David Evans
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20202

B15-ppipper vs Fulcrm2000
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20203

B16-Anne-Marge vs SchachProfi (Alex)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20204

B17-Kamesh(Kamesh Nookala) vs TheHug(Jimmy Huggins)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20225

Everyone plays 2 games in our Swiss style format per round. This is everyone's 2nd game.

B1-deka vs Wayne Lowrance
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20206

B2-Loboestepario(Gino Figilo) vs parmetd(Daniel Parmet)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20207

B3-ralunger(Ramil Germanes) vs Moz
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20208

B4-Sebastian Boehme vs Uly(Vytron)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20209

B5-Weirwindle vs National12
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20210

B6-Omprakash vs stephanie
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20211

B7-SpiderG(Peter Marriott) vs Mark Eldridge
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20212

B8-Ruben Comes vs Schachmatt(Matthew O'Berin)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20213

B9-Tomski1981 vs Balabachi
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20214

B10-CumnorChessClub(Kevin E.Plant) vs wight054
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20215

B11-jatin vs keoki010(George Clement)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20217

B12-Sekos vs natmaku
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20219

B13-Fulcrum2000 vs Scott Nichols
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20220

B14-David Evans vs Anne-Marge
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20221

B15-TheHug(Jimmy Huggins) vs ppipper
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20222

B16-SchachProfi (Alex) vs donkasand
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20223

B17-indrajit_sg vs Kamesh(Kamesh Nookala)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20224

This should make it easier for everyone to follow the games. Please leave comments for the players. They will would very much like it. I will try to update the forum as games go on and finish.


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-01-18 21:32:48)
Following the WBCCC games Round 1

The undertaking of the software was very good! I was ever impressive with not only the Xxcfplay client, but the software being used to post all the moves to the Rybka Forum. Once a move is made it makes it to the threads you see above in just about a minute or less. Considering the time they had I gave them a A++.


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-01-19 18:24:52)
Following the WBCCC games Round 1

No Gray not an F for you. You get an A++ as well. You helped in many ways. And you will play a critical round in the games as the reach toward the end.


Scott Nichols    (2011-01-22 20:40:13)
Houdini 1.5 leads TCEC comp. chess tourn

Is it over, or do Rybka & Houdini have a playoff?


Mitha Sweet    (2011-01-22 21:57:16)
How to play in here..

Hello all, My name Mitha I am new here, Please explain how to play chess here.thanks.


Don Groves    (2011-01-23 07:43:59)
How to play in here..

Welcome Mitha! Go to Waiting Lists and enter a tournament according to your rating.


Scott Nichols    (2011-01-23 11:21:15)
Following the WBCCC games Round 1

Sad to say, Jimmy's one core computer gave out. He MAY have to forfeit first and maybe second round games before he gets back up. Meanwhile I will try to keep players up to date on FICGS side.


Mitha Sweet    (2011-01-23 13:06:37)
How to play in here..

Hello Don..nice to know you..but I only has 2 points, whether still can play..


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-09 20:28:47)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Okay, after another long thinking on the different effects of the possible changes, I think that we should try in a first time the following (something between proposals 2 & 4 plus minor improvements):

"All 2150+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) will play M & N class groups at stage 1. The two players with the highest scores (or TER in case of equality) of the M group will qualify for the round-robin final, while the player with the lowest score (or TER in case of equality) will be eliminated, the others will qualify for stage 2. The winner of the N group will qualify for the round-robin final and at most half the players in the group will qualify for stage 2, the others will be eliminated.

Also the new members declaring to use a chess engine when registering will get a provisional rating of 2000."

Let's see the effects during the next cycle, if things are not ok we'll reconsider the idea to prevent the provisionals to enter the wch waiting list. I don't like complex rules but I like the idea of "progressive" rules. Any argument in another way is always welcome.


Don Groves    (2011-01-24 03:42:49)
How to play in here..

You can play in the lowest rating group. For example, Class F in Chess is for players rated below 1200.


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 :)


Kamesh Nookala    (2011-02-06 04:14:32)
Segregation of Games on this Server

Thib,
I will tell why i face the difficulty with my database. I have one single database, which is a collection of games from everywhere, be it Correspondence or be it games from playchess. Then, whenever i download games, i happen to merge them into my main single database. Everytime, i have to run a doubles check.
There is also a funny thing which i noticed. The game file for these games from FICGS is always chess.pgn. I have to create a new DB with crap name (remember: not identical to any name of the DB from which i earlier merged games to my single DB, reason is though the games are different, based on the import database name, the games will be marked doubles) and then merge them to the single DB. Again filtering applies. So, we can help you a bit with ideas to create a collection of games, as I hope everyone deletes the LINE games, which are still underway :)


Dmitri Mamrukov    (2011-02-10 08:45:13)
playchess.com

Anybody plays Advanced Chess on playchess.com? I use the standard interface that comes with my paid membership. But in the Engine Room I can't play such chess because I'm told that I can't taskswitch (otherwise, their anti-cheating mechanism would be triggered, even though it's not human chess at all). For that, I need to buy some ChessBase product like the Fritz interface or ChessBase. Is there any way to legally play Centaur games? Anybody tried doing it on 2 computers: on one to make moves (in the standard playchess.com interface) and on the other to analyze with your favorite engine? Thanks.


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-02-12 04:18:32)
WBCCC Round 1 Update

This is the first update for the WBCCC, I guess some of you have been following some of the games there. There have been a lot of interesting games and some surprises a lot the way. As I'm reporting on the FICGS forum I will make most of this about the FICGS side. Here are some results so far and starting at the top boards.

B2 Uly(Vytron) vs Gino Figlio- Gino does a good job of defending a ..2.e6 line of the Sicilian. And both players agree to a draw after 34 moves.

B4 Daniel Parmet vs Sebastian Boehme- This was a Poison Pawn line of the Sicilian. The game ended before it even got out of book. A short draw, I think both people agreed that it was a good result for each player.

B6- Matt O'Brein vs Omprakash- A surprise if only for how short the game was. Matt shows his tactual muscles when his higher rated opponent much of had and oversight in this defense. As 23.g6! h6 24.Bxh6! and it looks like black has burned his bridges in this game.

B8-Stephanie vs Ruben Comes- This maybe the biggest surprise in round at least in terms of the bigger name on the FICGS side. Stephanie what looks to be a prefect opening all of the B90 lines and everyone agrees 32.Bc3! to be a new novelty and a very good one at that. Stephanie went on to grind Ruben down to a lost endgame. I very interesting game that has be to be seen to believe, I guess this going to show, that not all B90 lines lend to draws.

B13-Scott Nichols vs indrajit_sg- This was a long fought draw. When looking at the game early I thought white may have some chance to take advantage of his open g-file. But not a lot materialize later in the endgame(form the engines point of view).

B14-donkasand vs David Evans- David enter into dangerous territory with this B90 line. At move 19 he played ..Rb8 which looks to be a move to get out of book, because the other moves didn't look so good. Credit to David for finding a draw line in this game. Its another game with a look.

Kamesh Nookala vs Jimmy Huggins- What can I say I played an experimental opening and it backfired :) A well played game by Kamesh. Thanks for the chance to have a good fight with you.

Now on the 2nd set of games(Each player has 2 games in each round)

B3 Ramil Germanes vs Moz- Ramil here played a safe line in the B90 form the white side. So this looked like and easy draw.

B4 Sebastian Boehme vs Uly(Vytron)- Vytron plays and interesting side line of the Crao-Kann and play was very shape, but I got the feeling black played to ambitiously and had the worse of the position. He found a good defensive sacrifice and the good was hold to a draw. I think Sebi had winning chances, but I will have to look over the game to come up with an idea on that one. Anyway a great game to look over.

Ruben Comes vs Matthew O'Berin- Maybe the sharpest and most ambitious game in round 1. This goes in the the B97 lines, but Ruben goes for the Qf3 side line and produces a complex position after Rd3. I love this game so much I want to post the link again for everyone to please watch this game and post a comment about it.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20213

B13 Fulcrum2000 vs Scott Nichols- Scott tries his luck to be ambitious and backfires with his Bh4 idea. Even when looking at the game. I was thinking it to be a good idea, but as it turns out. It goes as just losing a tempo. I thought this was one of the more instructive games of the round. I liked the way white played the endgame.

And the last result I have for the round for the FICGS players is

B17-indrajit_sg vs Kamesh Nookala- This was an interesting draw were white plays and early sideline in the Sicilian that tends to be drawish unless black forces the play. Another well played game by both sides.

I just want to say there are a lot of games one should look at. As more results come in on the FICGS side I will posted. In my opinion one should follow Wayne's games I have enjoyed his play so far. He had to comeback some in his wild game with black vs deka, but I get the feeling this game will ended in a draw. I would also follow the underrated Matt O'Berin in games to come. He has proven to be a great player so far.


Kamesh Nookala    (2011-02-12 04:26:06)
playchess.com

You cannot play as Centaur in the Main Playing Hall. There is an Engine Room, where you have to press on Edit - Playing Mode - and then choose Centaur Option. Only then you will be able to play as Centaur. Playing as Centaur using the assistance of engine and taskswitching is not permitted in the Main Playing Hall or any other place, except the Engine Room


Kamesh Nookala    (2011-02-12 11:50:42)
playchess.com

Okay, in order to play as Centaur, you need a Fritz GUI, which comes with any of the products that are sold by playchess.com. You can check their store. You cannot play as Centaur using the Free Client. That's a Big No. If you shell out about 50 USD you can get the Fritz 12 GUI

Regards
Kam


Scott Nichols    (2011-02-17 00:38:10)
request again tour

Hi Thib, I thought I'd take another stab at this. I would like to request a new tournament format. It would be UNRATED WITH entry fee using E-points. Time control a total of 10 days with NO INCREMENT. Winner gets all the points.

This is working very well at the WBCCC. People use their time more wisely with no increment, instead of always waiting till the end and playing fast using just the increment.

And since it is unrated WITH entry fee, your argument about time losses from before seem irrevelant.

Thanks, Scott.


Kamesh Nookala    (2011-02-17 08:37:45)
request again tour

Dear Scott,
That's a nice suggestion. But its implementation as of now with the WBCCC already underway is something which, at least for me, is a bit stressful. I am not at pc, and cannot be, 24x7. Of course, for people like you and many others, this will be an interesting factor. Thumbs up for such a suggestion!!

In the present scenario, I would highly recommend hosting of Freestyles at regular intervals BUT WITH WIDE PUBLICITY in all possible forums. With the WBCCC Format and given the fact that Freestyle at FICGS finishes in just 2 days or can even be 4 days (two Saturdays and two Sundays depending on the number of rounds we can increase keeping in view the Number of Players), I put my thrust upon another Freestyle event soon. Many can feel comfortable with a freestyle than a 10 days (no increment) battle, where the guys at home can have full advantage of and those at work under constant pressure :)

This is just my opinion :)
PS:: I am, not for a single moment, saying what you suggested is bad. That can help people like you. I believe it is awesome. But, for the present situation at WBCCC


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-17 12:15:42)
request again tour

Stressful, for the least... In my opinion such tournaments are quite inhuman but I'm not sure if I could resist to play it myself :)

Anyway there may be a few points to discuss yet... With the use of the current vacation system, such tournaments may last a few months in the worst case.

I agree with Kamesh that Freestyle tournaments should probably be the priority, by the way I'll open a new thread for the next one soon. Finally the main difference is that round-robin tournaments don't ask any work (or so few) from my own, but I just wonder how many players are ready to play this format.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-17 16:46:15)
Silver chess games, W/B balance

Just an idea... as the Epoints balance for White and Black may be not fair enough (as a reminder the current rule for e.g. bullet/lightning/blitz is: "1 game match (regular) - In case of a draw, the prize is divided, however player Black will fully get back his E-Points whereas player White will get the rest."), what would be a better system according to you?

On the basis of 19.8 Epoints at the end of the game, maybe we could try:

If result is 1-0, W+ 19.0 / B+ 0.8
If result is 1/2-1/2, W+ 9 / B+ 10.8
If result is 0-1, W+ 0 / B+ 19.8

or...

If result is 1-0, W+ 18.0 / B+ 1.8
If result is 1/2-1/2, W+ 8 / B+ 11.8
If result is 0-1, W+ 0 / B+ 19.8

Any idea?


Kamesh Nookala    (2011-02-17 19:04:39)
Silver chess games, W/B balance

Well, considering the amount of Silver Games that are being played, I think you can give the 2nd one a try. No harm. That gives Black a chance to play with damm precision! Go for it :)


Kamesh Nookala    (2011-02-17 19:13:14)
Friends, let's revolutionaize FICGS!!!!

Hi Guys,

FICGS is a great place. Atleast for me. I am very much attracted to the style of play. For more competitive play and attracting more correspondence chess players, while maintaining the purpose of correspondence chess, I think we all can help contribute in making FICGS the greatest server of all times to come.

I know what matters is real stuff, like the ICCF, but why not strengthen the identity of FICGS itself. We can have some games with various other servers (for e.g. the Rybkaforum match we had)
This way, in a calendar year we can have our tours fixed with each server, be it German or anything else.

As far as Thib is concerned, he is too much preoccupied maintaining the server. So, I request each and every member of this Server to throw some of their valuable inputs.

Warm Regards,
Kam


Scott Nichols    (2011-02-17 19:18:19)
Friends, let's revolutionaize FICGS!!!!

FICGS has a warmth like home base. Lots of friends who are easy to talk to, and so many things to do! Eros is a GM at ICCF, but he still hangs here and plays many tours.

Getting the word out is key I think. Kam's idea is a good way to start.


Daniel Parmet    (2011-02-17 20:10:42)
Friends, let's revolutionaize FICGS!!!!

I think this is a great idea. I would love to play some of these matches too despite my weaker strength. Let me know how I can help. I love FICGS!


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-21 13:58:24)
Silver chess games, W/B balance

You're right, the main problem is obviously that we are too busy by games played at standard time controls but it is not a reason to try to improve the prize breakdown :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-23 12:59:06)
Conditional Moves

Well, I often see poker players moving instantly or almost (half a second?!), but they do no use any plugin for sure... But sometimes you may have to play 2 consecutive moves at Poker, that looks like your case!

I don't think that such a plugin would be efficient or useful.


Garvin Gray    (2011-02-23 17:22:21)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Topic is about the upcoming WCH.

I am wondering, are there any format changes in general?

And specifically in how provisionally rated and new players are handled in the group stages?


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-23 18:31:34)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

I hope there will be as few changes as possible. The "history" of the championships will be clearer this way.

I still have no idea of a better & clearer system for provisionally rated players but all ideas are welcome...


Garvin Gray    (2011-02-24 03:08:56)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

I have already offered mine, have them play in groups by themselves and the winner qualifies as normal by winning their group.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-24 18:14:53)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

IMO the "bad" (if bad, actually I prefer random) consequences are not eliminated but only postponed while adding more complex rules. Better (from a ratings & results point of view) would be to block the entry to these players, but but...


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-02-24 18:49:15)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

If it is a problem with unrated players. Is it possible to have all players have to play at least 1 tournament before they enter Wch, I know that is not a lot of info to go on. But a provisional is a lot better than no rating at all.


Garvin Gray    (2011-02-25 00:55:15)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

I really would like to see the idea of those who are provisionally rated playing in groups by themselves, while everyone is seeded normally.

There should only be two or three groups of provisionally rated players, especially if they are seeded in groups of 9 players.

A second possibility= remove the exemption for players around 2300 so that they have to qualify just like everyone else.

This might even reduce the number of stages by 1, shortening the whole cycle.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-26 22:44:09)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Okay, I'm really thinking about a solution but right now I'm not completely satisfied with this option of having these groups of provisionnaly rated players. I really think that it just moves & postpons the problem while losing some advantages, by the way many established ratings are still underestimated...

I would like to try to explain again my whole point of view on the current wch rules. The way I've been thinking this championship is purely statistical, the idea was to find the best chances to see ALL the best players in the final rounds about each 2 years. It worked quite well so far IMO, actually my main regret is not to be able to extend the knockout tournament of 1 round (we would have 16 players instead of 8), that's why it is not possible anyway to have less than 5 rounds for the whole cycle. Each one is 30 to 40 months long, it could be worse. So the whole cycle's aim is not only to find the best player of the cycle but to give chances enough as quickly as possible to the new underrated players for the next cycles!

On this point, I'm quite glad to see players like Wayne who made it the very hard way, starting from ELO 1400 (!) to reach 2540 in about 3 years only. The WCH cycle helped many other players to find their place quite quickly in the rating list, also over 2400, and I have no doubt that the best players of the round-robin cycle play the round-robin final. Usually none of these new underrated players play the RR final, they have less chances than 2200 ones to play the 2nd round because of the TER rule but they win some elo points during the 1st round. That is fair IMO, some logical improvements now protect the ratings of 2200-2300 players but I agree that it is still hard to cross certain rating ranges because ratings do not inflate the same way than advanced chess, Go or poker ones.

In summary, let's say that it is unfair that 2200 players play 1 or 2 underrated players + one player rated about 2000 who may be worth 2100 or 2200, 2300 & more... He will probably lose some rating points during round 1. However he has more chances to reach round 2 with few chances to win but more chances to get some/many elo points back.

I do not say that there is no "problem" with the current WCH rules set (there will always be border effects, whatever the rules) but my point is that I'm not sure that any change that will have heavy consequences will have good effects enough.

Finally, if the most is favourable to such a change, it looks more logical to me to forbid the provisionnaly rated players to enter the wch waiting list. By the way we will have less forfeits during round 1, so the quality of the results may be improved. What do you think?


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-02-27 00:40:41)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Do you have to have played at least one tournament. To not be a provisional?


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-02-27 00:41:45)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Or to put it another way. Would I be able to play? I think I played in 2 tournaments I think.


Garvin Gray    (2011-02-27 02:47:16)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Thib, I have explained my point of view quite a few times and when you reply you keep either accidently mis-interpreting it, or are doing it deliberately.

I suspect there might be a language issue between English as a first language and French as a first language.

My issue is with the first stage groups, to which most of the players are allocated.

In none of my previous posts have I mentioned UNDERRATED players ie those who have established ratings on here, but most likely their true playing standard is higher than their rating.

I will try and explain my position again and I now see I am not alone in having this opinion.

With 15 or so groups in the first stage and having some players provisionally rated at 1800, this means those '1800' are seeded in the different groups at player number 3 or 4.

But a few of the '1800's' turn out to be quite stronger than that rating, meaning the genuine rated 2100's in that group get another person who can play to their level, whereas in another group which did not have an '1800er', the group that did not have the provisional 1800 gets a statistical advantage by having one less stronger player to qualify for round two.

Now to the argument that putting the provisionals in groups by themselves only delays the problem.

If there are only one or two provisional groups, then this means that only one or two provisionals make it through to round two.

While this idea makes those groups of questionable standard, it is extremely likely that whoever comes out of the provi groups is going to be of decent standard.


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2011-02-27 07:26:35)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Why?

What happens if the level of all the provisional players in this special groups is really below or at least 1800?
At least one players in this group will have an easy ticket to the second round and that is unfair to the rest of the "regular" groups.


Garvin Gray    (2011-02-27 09:28:07)
Plea for classical rating help

I do not have a solution for what I am about to whinge about, but it is a situation I am getting a little tired of on this site and I see the situation as rather terminal to my participation here.

For the last 12 rating periods, I have had a rating between 2100 and 2200. In the one tournament where I got to play a field with consistent 2200's, I scored 50% or better.

What I am noticing more and more is that for me it is impossible to get opportunities to find out what my true standard is on here.

I am continually having to play people rated around myself or below and these includes those who are provisionally rated 1800 or 2100. When these games are drawn or lost, my rating is dragged down quite a bit.

I do not ever get the opportunity get those points back by playing people above 2200.

It is an issue that I am so sick of and I feel that my progress is being stunted because of it. My rating progress is certainly being stunted.

We do have the higher ticket idea, but that still takes six months to win one and that does NOT help a persons rating all that much.

With the WCH cycle as it is, I also do not have an opportunity to qualify straight through to group 2, like those with higher ratings do.

As I said, this is a bit of a whinge, but I really am sick of this issue and would like some more opportunities to try and find out what I am like against higher rated opponents.

It is part of the reason why I have also asked that the top rateds in the WCH are not segregated from the lower rated as they are atm. I think they should be made to start from stage 1.

Only the defending champion and possibly the defeated previous finalist should receive preferential treatment.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2011-02-27 15:48:42)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

It seems that nobody likes the special groups for players with rating > 2300 in the chess WCH - but those who can play in these groups.

Maybe the provisional rating of a player should be (1800+<rating of the engine he uses>)/2 :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-27 21:20:59)
Plea for classical rating help

I don't know if only the defending champion and/or finalist "should" have any treatment after all... That's the whole debate of the FIDE WCH and I wanted to make it quite the opposite way.

On the opportunities for 2100-2200 players to cross the 2200 barrier, your last 4 ratings were 2160, 2157, 2160 & 2135. The tickets system also allow you to enter the CLASS M (2200+) waiting list for 10 Epoints if your rating is above 2150. I'm not trying to sell anything there but it is an option that is dedicated to help in such cases.

On the WCH cycle, maybe another idea would be to "extend" the M Groups idea to the 2200-2300 players. With 2200 to ~2400 players in these groups, there will be more strong players in Stage 2... I'm not sure about the whole consequences but it may be worth a try, what do you think?


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-27 21:34:13)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Hi Garvin, sure there might be a language issue... sorry about that :/ I think I only try to interpret what you say in terms of consequences on the whole thing but I may be wrong at some points, be sure I'm not trying to avoid anything deliberately.

The provisional rating already takes account of if the player uses an engine or not (at least I try to make an estimation on what the new member says in the registration form).

As I just said in the other discussion, maybe we could try to extend the M groups to the 2200-2300 players, it may satisfy everyone as it is probably easier to cross the 2000 barrier than the 2200's, what do you think?


Daniel Parmet    (2011-02-27 21:57:03)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

I disagree vehemently with the extension of the 2200 for the M group. The whole attraction of the FICGS world group is that its a chance to play these 2200s that I can never play otherwise. If you remove this chance, all you do is create a zone where the 2100s risk points and gain nothing. I'd have no reason to participate.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-27 22:46:42)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

??! but this way 2000-2100 rated players have much more chances to win 1st stage groups and to play 6 strong opponents the stage after instead of only 1 in these groups... well, it looks like a bit a contradiction to me to agree what Garvin says and to say this, or maybe I did not understand something again. Let's see what Garvin & others will say.


Garvin Gray    (2011-02-28 02:09:54)
Plea for classical rating help

I do know what my previous rating are. That is my point, my rating is stationary and I believe this is because I am not getting the EVEN opportunity to improve it by playing higher rated players often enough.

If I had many games against 2200+ers and had a poor record, then the conclusion would be very different ie not good enough yet for that rating.


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-02-28 04:38:07)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Thib I feel for you :) Making a good tournament format is very hard. I know I pulled teeth to try and make my format. I had to do two things for my. 1.Make few games as possible and 2.Make it a reasonable time table for a blitz world championship. I believe Garvin did a great job with this in the parings. Lucky we didn't have a lot of unrated players. So Thib I would like to help, but can I ask a favor to you. Is it possible to get a breakdown of the ratings of the players for the last Wch? I think this would be helpful to maybe coming up with a solution. So maybe like..

What was the number of.

2300's+
2200's
2100's
2000's
1900's
1800's
below 1800's
provisional's

I know this maybe some work, but this breakdown can give us a picture of what you have. Personally speaking I think Garvin's idea is decent. Were you can put the highest advance provisional player in the lower stage round 2 bracket and the same for the lowest provisional player to go to the higher round 2 bracket, by performance of stage 1. I guess when you talk about statistical merits for your Wch tournament. You are trying to get the lowest error rate, but get the best value to it.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-28 16:05:47)
Plea for classical rating help

My point is that you never entered a class M waiting list while you were able to do it during maybe 6 months... During this time you entered many Rapid M & Class A tournaments (you play many games) so there may be also a rating management question into the problem IMHO. The same way you played 3 rapid silver tournaments, 2 against players with low ratings and 1 against Eros (good opportunity!) that you lost. These times many ~2200 rated players enter this waiting list.

Anyway I'll make other proposals in the other discussion today.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-28 21:02:18)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

@Garvin:

I suggest that all 2200+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M group at stage 1 OR that all 2100+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M group at stage 1 with the new rule that only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2 and still 1 for stage 3. This combined to another new rule that would allow new members declaring to use a chess engine (not so many so far, maybe 20%) when registering would have a provisional rating of 2000 would solve IMO this issue (2000-2100 players would lose less points to those strong provisionally rated players during the wch) and would help to somewhat inflate the ratings that would be a logical thing when seeing the whole correspondence chess standards at the other sites (some already use this 2000 prov. rating). The ratings may even deflate due to the 10 moves rule. Actually I think I would be very favourable to one of these changes.

@Jimmy:

Fortunately there are players like Garvin, Scott, Gino & others who really helped to build the FICGS rules :) On the numbers of players by rating range, it is quite different from a cycle to another, sometimes we have 2 M groups, sometimes there is no M group at all so I'm not sure if it would be representative. Still I'm not favourable at all to have groups of provisionally rated players.


Scott Nichols    (2011-02-28 23:04:11)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Wow, it's really hard to follow the rules, just to understand I mean. I would vote for two easy to make changes.

First, do not allow provisional rated players to enter. These players have a high drop out rate and there is no way to judge their strength. It wouldn't be that hard for players to just finish nine games. It would also say a lot for their commitment.

Second, I really think everybody should have to play all rounds. The chances of having a repeat champion would be far less. Getting to just move into the next round is a HUGE advantage.


Daniel Parmet    (2011-02-28 23:29:13)
Plea for classical rating help

I feel I have the same problem as Garvin. But it does not bother me as much as I consider playing otb the real place for improvement. I just use corr as a chance to test my otb ideas. However, I still try to seek out the strongest players I am allowed to play. The restrictions I have found in most correspondence sites though is that I am not allowed to play the stronger players. The 2150 rule does not help me as I am at a mere 2100.


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-02-28 23:37:33)
Plea for classical rating help

I guess that is one reason why you like my tournament. You get a chance to face strong players at every point, almost.


Daniel Parmet    (2011-02-28 23:50:22)
Plea for classical rating help

yes this is exactly why I love your tournament ;) losses do not bother me. I learn from them. This has been my philosophy ever since I picked up chess a mere 3 years ago. What bothers me is all the restrictions people put into to place to prevent players from improving. Most do it unintentionally. However, many US organizers do it intentionally. They either cap their event sections strictly for 2200+ or they make insane rating determine entry fees. For a non 2400+ player to enter a GM norm swiss event it can cost $400. Or for an expert to enter a 2200+ section will cost you an extra $50 at the Goichberg style events or an extra $100 for the National Open.

It is this kind lunacy that makes improvement hard. You can have all the time and money in the world and still find through no lack of effort or skill that you are not allowed to improve.

I find most of the otb tournaments I am allowed to play in now... I usually end up being seed 1 or 2. Not exactly encouragement for me to use my whole weekend is it? I would dream to be able to enter a swiss where I am the bottom seed. But for this to happen I have to break the barriers without the extreme advantage of being allowed to play strong players.

FYI, I practice what I speak. The local tournament I am running next in my area will feature 5 masters (1 IM, 2 FM and 2 NM) - and it has a low entry fee. This is the type of event I wish was more common...


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-01 11:17:27)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

The idea of this championship was to have a tournament looking like the old classical FIDE WCH, so it would be a non-sense to me to make such changes (the chess world will always be divided into 2 categories on this point :)), I'm not opposed to create something like a Cup tournament (the Freestyle tournament is one example) but it would be probably too much already for the addicted players that we are, so the WBCCC is a good alternative.

Glad to see that Daniel agrees on the 2000 prov. rating, does anyone have any opinion on the suggestions I made just after "@Garvin:" in my previous post?


Garvin Gray    (2011-03-02 14:59:29)
Plea for classical rating help

Thib- The tickets system also allow you to enter the CLASS M (2200+) waiting list for 10 Epoints if your rating is above 2150.
====================
Apologies for the slow replies. From looking at both threads on these items I wanted to wait to see if there were any trends. Not so far.

On to the comment I have picked out above, I just looked at the SM Rapid group and I notice three players who I think have accepted the 10 euro scheme into a tournament with 2300 players.

When I saw your comment about the ticket system, I was concerned that it could mean that a few 2150 ers enter the tournament and it ruins the experience for all.

This seems to have occurred where the scheme is in place to give the opportunity for a person to play higher rated opponents.

In fact, rechecking the SM rapid, no player is above 2300.

Perhaps the 2150 scheme should be limited to one acceptance per 2300 group. When that tournament fills, another 2150 person can accept.

So as it stands, I will not be joining that tournament as it will acheive nothing more than I am getting now, and I would be paying 10 euro for the privilege of getting nothing more than what I get now.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-02 15:44:26)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Hi Garvin :)

The main point is IMO this suggestion:

"All 2100+, 2150+ or 2200+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) could play the M groups at stage 1 with the new rule that only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2, while the winners will qualify for stage 3 as before.

Combined to another new rule, that would allow new members declaring to use a chess engine (not so many so far, maybe 20%) when registering to get a provisional rating of 2000, it could solve this issue.

Indeed 2000-2100 players would lose less points to those strong provisionally rated players during the regular wch groups, while they keep more chances to qualify for round 2, and it would help to somewhat inflate the ratings that would be a logical thing when seeing the whole correspondence chess standards at the other sites (some already use this 2000 prov. rating).

The ratings may even deflate due to the 10 moves rule."


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-03 14:26:01)
Plea for classical rating help

Sorry as well, I missed your last message in this discussion. So...

1) On tickets for class M ("...if your rating is above 2150"), that was my point, nothing prevented you to use this trick when your rating was above 2150.

2) On the next Rapid SM, only 2 players used it, Marius was above 2300 then lost many elo points as he had to forfeit several games, Miroslav also was above 2300 and lost a few points. That's a border case and it may happen. Anyway only 2 players under the rating limit can enter a waiting list.

3) To clarify, there is no 2150 scheme! 2150 is for the case of Class M, for Rapid SM you have to be rated 2250-2299 or to win a Rapid M event to use the ticket system.

4) You are probably right on the Rapid SM case anyway, maybe the ticket system rule should allow players to use a ticket only if there are no more than 2 players (including players not using a ticket) under the rating range.

5) Anyway you couldn't enter the Rapid SM waiting list unless you win a Rapid M tournament. But my point was only that you could have joinded a Class M several times (with most players rated above 2200)...


Garvin Gray    (2011-03-05 11:48:40)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

I do not think the proposed idea of TDV solves anything at all. Instead all it does is move the issue from the 2100's to the 2000's.

I am not in favour of this idea that a rating is dependant on whether a person declares if they are using a chess engine or not. What happens if they do not declare, then start using one? Are they kicked out of the tournament? How do you prove the issue?

I think that solution creates more issues than it solves.

More and more I am in favour of the idea from a couple of others than players need to have an established rating before being able to enter the WCH.


Garvin Gray    (2011-03-05 11:51:24)
Plea for classical rating help

Been thinking about this issue a bit more.

I think the only solution is that more tournaments are specially run where players from the different rating bands meet more often.

So there should be a couple of more tournaments where there are no special divisions where the top players are put together against each other, rather than having to fight it out from round one with the rest of the riff raff.

This idea seems great, but the old question comes up, it only works for the intended purpose if players from the top end of the rating list actually participate.

Would they? I am sceptical.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-05 13:43:30)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

There is no similar issue for 2000's IMHO, it is probably easier to cross the 2000-2100 barrier than the 2100-2200 and of course 2200-2300. And once again they would lose much less rating points against these new 2000 provisionally rated players (that's mathematical).

On provisional ratings depending on if players declare if an engine is used, even ICCF (as far as I know) grants a 2000 prov. rating to some players, I was not convinced so far but finally... Of course new players can "lie" or change their mind on using an engine, they'll not be kicked out of any tournament but such a rule is surely better than nothing to get ratings more coherent, btw it is just an improvement of the current rule (new players who have no rating anywhere can choose their first rating between 1200 & 1800, and of course I fix it if e.g. the player declares to play with an engine with a new rating of 1200).

Anyway the idea of players needing to have an established rating before being able to enter the WCH is also fine to me. Let's just try to have more opinions on this.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-05 14:03:29)
FICGS chess WCH : choose your rule

Hi all, we need your opinion to choose a new rule for the next FICGS chess WCH, here are the proposals:


1) All 2200+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M groups at stage 1 while only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2. Winners will qualify for stage 3 as before.

2) Same than 1) but also the new members declaring to use a chess engine when registering will get a provisional rating of 2000.

3) All 2100+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M groups at stage 1 while only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2. Winners will qualify for stage 3 as before.

4) Same than 3) but also the new members declaring to use a chess engine when registering will get a provisional rating of 2000.

5) Players need to have an established rating (9 finished & rated games) before being able to enter the WCH waiting list.

6) Same than 5) but also the new members declaring to use a chess engine when registering will get a provisional rating of 2000.


As for me, I think that 2) & 4) are ok for all reasons I mentioned before. 5) & 6) are ok as well but it's a pity to reduce the number of players in the wch cycle :/


Garvin Gray    (2011-03-05 14:07:55)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Ok for me.

In order, most want to see first:

5
3
1
4
2

Not sure how 6) works? If players have an established rating, how are they new members and need to declare.

Surely the established rating would be used.


Alexander Blinchevsky    (2011-03-05 14:40:26)
Strange game

I wonder to see that at such level someone will continue playing in that position: http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=41015
The game was completely decided over 1 year ago, for now it's even force mate shown by any engine.
The only reason to continue playing that I see for the black is waiting for the opponent's (me) death. Sorry, Mariusz, I am not planning to do that in nearest future. :)


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-05 20:42:50)
Strange game

There's a rule that can help in such cases: 11.5 "(...) if a player doesn't want to resign (or accept draw) and obviously lasts the game, his opponent may report to referee a first time. If the player takes 30 days more to finish the game, his opponent may call referee another time, then the game will be adjudicated."


Alexander Blinchevsky    (2011-03-05 23:45:15)
Strange game

@Thib: Thank you. I did it. Wanna see explanation of the opponent :)

@Sebastian: Agreed 100%. For me playing the obviously lost game is also distressing...


Garvin Gray    (2011-03-06 08:56:33)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Aren't having players segregated from the rest being elitist. Tano, you have voted for proposals that are surely elitist ie allowing players to avoid the general population and giving them increased chances to qualify.

If you do not believe in elitism then I would have thought you were would be arguing that all players from all ratings should start from round one, including the 2300+ players.


Mariusz Maciej Broniek    (2011-03-06 08:56:45)
Strange game

Hi;0)
maybe I am wrong in my opinion, but I think, that playing chess is for fun! I have a 7yo son, and he traing hard to learn playing chess. In lose position he play move by move and what is bad in that situation? It is only a hobby, its only for fun.. Not for rating, not for 1,0,=. All in FICGS used computers to play, he used a young brain and learn lose too. It is very important in my opinion. I have few games in the same sytuation - I am winner - but I have a time and... dont wont to die too ;0)) BECAUSE IT IS ALL ONLY FOR FUN.
Kind regards to you Alexander
Mariusz


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2011-03-06 15:03:21)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

I do not like this special treatment of players from a certain rating (no matter whether 2000, 2100, 2200, 2300) already from the beginning of the WCHs. And I don't like that the TER is decisive in the case of equal points.

I think it's bad luck if in a group are players with a provisional rating or a small rating (and the player starts to use engines now). But in my opinion all members should be allowed to play the WCH without restrictions.

Maybe games should not be rated for a player with an established rating, if the rating of his opponent is provisional only. But that's another theme.


Dmitri Mamrukov    (2011-03-06 22:30:23)
playchess.com

Thanks. I did have to shell out some handful of money for the Fritz GUI. Too bad there are very few centaurs on playchess.de...


Daniel Parmet    (2011-03-07 19:24:44)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

How hard is really for these people to play 9 games? I would amend choice 5 to say no provisional unless they provide another corr website they play on to get a point of parity for their rating (like LSS/ICCF). I mean really the players most likely to timeout are those who have never played a single game of correspondence ever in their life.

I would also point out that if the special rating group is extended to 2100 then I won't be playing. No reason for me to play stage 1 if i'm top seed.

Why did the groups get changed from 8 man groups to 6 man groups?


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-07 21:09:18)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Hi Daniel! In brief (before my huge next post):

"How hard to play 9 games": Not hard, but it may take months, maybe more than a year. That's a problem :/

On top seeds, I agree and that's the point to make "class groups" as much as possible. So everyone cannot have equal chances.

On the number of players per group, it only depends on the total number of players in the waiting list. Sometimes it is not possible to build groups of 9 players.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-07 21:18:26)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

On top seeds again, maybe I agreed too fast... Actually I agree that being the top seed is a good way to lose some elo points (but that's not the real point of playing a championship, the current FICGS champion will agree there ;)), but I think that I would prefer to play regular groups as the top seed with the 2100 limit than as the top seed with the 2300 limit. Less points to lose -particularly if the 2000 prov. rating rule is accepted- & more chances to play the next round!


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-07 21:45:17)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Well, I see that the idea of "equal chances for everyone" is still in the debate, that's quite strange as I thought it was obvious & accepted that such a thing cannot exist in correspondence chess.

No correspondence chess championship format can give equal chances to everyone because there is no time for this, and to try to do it only gives less chances to the best player to win it.

The way IECG & ICCF do it has probably as many advantages & inconvenients as we do it at FICGS but at the end the efficiency is quite similar to find as accurately as possible the best player among the highest rated ones IMO & everyone have NOT equal chances (either you have to play a few rounds more or there is a TER rule or whatever).

I'm not saying that one format is better than others, some will like the FICGS format, some will prefer other formats, that's all IMO. Do not think that the WBCCC format solves all problems, it tries to avoid the time problem but the number of players is very limited in the running edition.

Finally, why to play another ICCF/IECG championship here?

I think that there is no argument that can justify that all players (including the 8 players of the knockout after all) should play in regular groups, as well as no argument can justify the opposite. It was just a choice to make it different and somewhat looking like the old FIDE championship.

That's why choices 2) & 4) are really best to me. 2) may be better because the range 2100-2400~ may be too large for M groups, but another solution may be to build M (2250-2400)& N (2100-2250) groups like it was done in one WCH cycle, where the number of qualified players were different. Actually the idea of class groups with different numbers of qualified players is really interesting but of course, the chances are not the same for everyone once again.

Whatever the choice, surely it will not be ok for some players for any reason, but I'm now quite sure that a change should be done.


Wayne Lowrance    (2011-03-08 06:19:02)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Howdy all. I have stayed out of this discussion. I am biased for sure. Garvin I can see your side, it is tough. But I believe in the existing format. Maybe a few minor tweaks are ok, we will see I guess. Garvin if your good enough, in time you will climb the ladder. If that is your goal. I have played at ficgs for what seems like forever. I started out at 1400.I came here with a previous 4 year record at another side with a rating of 2300.
I did not think I would ever get past 2200. In fact a member told me face to face via ficgs I would never go higher. I got all the more determined. This does not help you but I just wanted to tell you it can be done.
Maybe it is not fair.
Another personnel observation of apparent unfairness. aboard a ship in the navy first class petty officers get to jump ahead in the chow line. It is not fair, but that is the way it was. Man when I promoted to first class I had no compulsion to jump in ahead of long chow line.
So Thibault I ask for no drastic step to ficgs rating posture.
Wayne


Garvin Gray    (2011-03-08 12:12:37)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Thib, originally I asked about the situation with the provisionals, so as the conversation has branched almost to a point where making any changes, I think for this one the issue of the provisionals should be dealt with first.

On the other issues, I have no real issue with the structure as is for the WCH, as long as other tournaments offered better opportunities to play higher rated players.

Put those in place and most of my concerns from this and the other thread are alleviated.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-10 02:45:04)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

I'm not clear enough, as too often :/

Let's say that there are 33 players over 2150 in the waiting list. 8 will play the knockout, 7 (over 2300) will play the M group and 18 will play in two N groups of 9 players. From the M group, 2 will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 will play round 2. From the N groups, 1 from each one will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 from each one will play round 2. So from these 33 players, 12 will play in the round-robin groups stage 2.

Maybe this formulation (that should be included into the wch rules) will be clearer:

"Players with a rating superior or equal to 2300 will play 1st stage in class M groups if possible. From these groups the two players obtaining the best score will qualify for the round-robin final stage 3, the player obtaining the lowest score will be eliminated, the others will play stage 2.

Other players with a rating superior or equal to 2150 will play 1st stage in class N groups if possible. From these groups the winner will qualify for the round-robin final, at most half the players from these groups will qualify for round 2."


Garvin Gray    (2011-03-10 02:46:05)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

I think I understand the changes Daniel, so lets see how this goes.

The top eight rated players who have to nominate to play in this section participate in knockout matches (that is still the same).

Stage 1.

All players rated above 2150+ are placed in their own round robin groups, these groups are called Group M and Group N.

For players in the M group, the top two point scorers progress through to the round robin final.

The lowest point scorer from these groups is eliminated.

Those who finish from 3rd to second last just move to stage 2.

For players in the N group, only the winner qualifies for the round robin final and at most half the players from this group will qualify for stage 2, the others are eliminated.


Daniel Parmet    (2011-03-10 02:47:44)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Ah so this change basically means I can't play until I get to 2150. Gotcha.


Garvin Gray    (2011-03-10 02:49:48)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Let's say that there are 33 players over 2150 in the waiting list. 8 will play the knockout, 7 (over 2300) will play the M group and 18 will play in two N groups of 9 players. From the M group, 2 will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 will play round 2. From the N groups, 1 from each one will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 from each one will play round 2. So from these 33 players, 12 will play in the round-robin groups stage 2.

I think this should be slightly changed.

1) The top eight rated players will play the knockout matches.

2) The next seven highest rated will play the M group round robin

3) Players 16 to 33 will play in 2 groups, called group N.

and then so forth.

The reason I offer this as a re-wording/change is that it is a little more flexible and it could be that more than 7 players above 2300 nominate, or that less than 7 players above 2300 nominate.

So in effect it just makes it clear that players will be allocated purely in rating order, rather than specifying a particular rating cut off.


Garvin Gray    (2011-03-10 02:51:35)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Daniel- Ah so this change basically means I can't play until I get to 2150. Gotcha.

Garvin- You can still play. You will start exactly as normal in the general round robin groups. It used to be that players rated over 2300 went straight through to groups on their own, now Thib has moved the rating cutoff to 2150.

For those under 2150, it should make it easier to qualify for the next stage.


Garvin Gray    (2011-03-10 02:52:59)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Daniel and others- I am just helping Thib out to clarify the changes as I understand them.

My personal position on the rating cutoff is that all the players except the champion and ex-champion should start from stage 1. None of this rating cutoff and special groups stuff.


Daniel Parmet    (2011-03-10 02:54:11)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

No, it makes it pointless. You are the top seed. You play underrated players or weak players both of which are a waste of time. You lose massive ratings points and never get a chance to play the stronger players. It is a complete waste of time to enter as the top seed.


Daniel Parmet    (2011-03-10 03:15:04)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

btw your assumption that all the 1st seeds get through is wrong. In fact, I didn't get through on my last go around because all the 1800s played drawing lines as white to try to make as sterile a position as possible. This of course forced to play for a win from a drawn position which exactly as you expect - lost. These new proposed changes are in my opinion extremely silly and biased towards people in certain rating brackets. Therefore, I can't participate until I'm on the better half of the bias 2150+


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-03-10 11:02:48)
Notes for WBCCC Round 2

With the last game about to come to a close. I wanted to remember everyone that the next round is going to be starting sometime next week. At some point today Garvin will talk about the next pairings. When they are official released. I will start making the next game links available. Directly for what games you want to see.

Players please give some input about the starting time for Round 2 if you have an opinion :)

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21156


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-10 12:40:21)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Hi Daniel, I don't get your point. Now you're rated 2094 so you would be probably a top seed in the next regular group, playing maybe 2 provisionals (maybe one centaur rated 2000 and one centaur or human rated 1800 or 1700) instead of ~2 centaurs rated 1800 + playing as Black against a player rated 2200. I really think that it is a better "deal" for players rated 2000-2100 also. Yes you may still lose a few points (less than before IMO), but your chances to go to round 2 and play stronger players are much higher... I cannot say more.

@Garvin: your proposal makes sense. By "if possible" I mean that the rule is not strictly 2150 or 2300, I'll just try to make coherent groups (in size & ratings) so it quite looks like your way in practice I think.


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-03-14 17:39:50)
WBCCC Round 2 to be a short delay

I'm sorry about this, but the tournament will be delayed by a day or 2, because of a withdrawal at the top of the pairings. If it was a lower point group, we could have probably winged it. For more details players please read this.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21227

Me and Garvin will work hard to get this fixed as soon as possible, follow this thread or here and I will get it corrected. When we have things fixed pairings wise I will post ASAP.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-15 14:08:19)
ChessVibes openings (get 10 issues free)

For correspondence chess fans who like to follow the openings theory, I just received an interesting offer from ChessVibes that I copy/paste here:
__________

Dear correspondence chess lovers,

First, we'd like to thank the administrator of this forum for giving us the opportunity to showcase our product which is especially interesting for this audience, we think. So, here we go:

Subscribe to ChessVibes Openings and get ten issues for free!

Which openings are hot in top level chess? Which are not? Receive the latest opening novelties right in your mailbox with ChessVibes Openings, a weekly PDF magazine (+ PGN!) covering the latest openings news, co-authored by International Masters Merijn van Delft and Robert Ris and published by ChessVibes since January 2009. If you subscribe and mention 'ficgs' in an email to us, you'll receive the last ten issues for free!

What is it?

Every issue consists of a PDF Magazine and the accompanying PGN file. The PDF consists of four pages (A4 size) with the following contents:

- What’s hot? A round-up of this week’s important opening developments, with statistics about the frequence and score of the week’s most important opening novelty (page 1)
- What’s not? Which openings are not recommended at the moment, according to the top players? And why not? (page 1)
Game of the week Each week you’ll find the theoretically most important game analysed by our two IMs, with a detailed survey of the opening phase (page 2).
- This week’s harvest Four more new important opening ideas from this week (page 3) revealed and described with explanation of the opening and early middlegame (page 3).
- It’s Your Move An interactive element: every week two exercises, of which the solutions/explanations will follow one week later. This will improve your understanding of certain opening, middlegame or even endgame themes even further.

Which opening variations have been discussed so far?
You can download an index in PDF here.

http://www.chessvibes.com/plaatjes/cvo/CVO_index_114.pdf

More info & subscribe: You can find more information about ChessVibes Openings, and subscribe, at:

http://www.chessvibes.com/openings/

By subscribing you would join several GMs and IMs, who have responded very positively to our relatively new chess magazine!

Best regards,

Peter Doggers
Editor-in-chief,
ChessVibes

P.S.
If you subscribe and mention 'ficgs' in an email to us at info {at} chessvibes.com, you'll receive the last ten issues for free!


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-24 15:36:57)
5th Go WCH, analysis by SC. von Erichsen

Svante Carl von Erichsen is FICGS Go champion... for the 5th time! After his win in the match that opposed him to Olivier Drouot, here are his analysis on the games:

_______________________


- Congratulations for this 5th win in the FICGS Go championship! By seeing the score you give less and less chances to your opponents who seem stronger each time though... Several games may look quite mysterious to weaker players. What happened during these games?

- Svante Carl von Erichsen:

Hi!

I do not have the impression that my opponents have less and less
chances. I also make many mistakes, and was in a clearly bad position
in at least one game. Olivier made many very unusual moves in the
opening, which were difficult to handle in a calm manner.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47578

In game 3 (47578), this is apparent at move 18. White has gone for a
very centre-oriented game, while Black has made more direct profit.
It is difficult to say who got the better deal. Move 18 itself is
very unusual, and I am not sure whether the result was satisfactory
for me. I think that moves 41 and 43 were important, as stabilizing
the group in the centre takes priority when the centre is dominated by
White like this. At move 53, it is clear that Black needs to stabilize
the top group, but D18 seems more important in retrospect. Move 62 is
a bit odd---I think that living with S16 instead would be better. I
think that Black got a territorial advantage here. Since White got
additional central strength, Black turned to make his central group
safe again, which should be enough to win now. White 94 tries to
shake up things again, but getting separated on the lower side makes
it very hard for him.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47580

In game 5 (47580), Olivier chose a very unusual move again at move 8.
I think that the outcome until move 17 favours Black, however. At
move 36, it looks like Black will have to live in the corner, but the
white enclosure does have its holes. Alas, White's response to the
forcing move at P10 was a severe blunder, as Black can take back the
right side. Move 55 was big, but I had not anticipated that the fight
after move 56 would be so hard for me. I think that after move 93,
White put too much emphasis on hollowing out what once seemed like
prospective black territory. The ponnuki in the centre was worth much
more than what White made on the second line. With that strength,
reducing the white framework on the left was no question. I think
that White then tried too hard in the centre.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47576

Game 1 (47576) was characterized by a big fight starting from the
joseki in the lower right corner. I guess that a stronger player
could point out several mistakes by both sides. It resulted in a big
exchange, where quite some aji remained in both positions. Move 90 is
an unusual idea, it would be more normal to extend on the side. 91
and 95 were intended as forcing moves to give some support to the top
side. I think that Black has good prospects after move 99 and
especially after 113. White started an interesting invasion on the
left then, which was however stopped by the blunder at 138.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47579

Game 4 (47579) again featured some unusual moves in the opening,
namely moves 7 and 9. I think that immediately plunging through at 10
was not good. It was quite difficult for me to keep territorial
balance afterwards. I think that my invasion at the top was
premature, but it seemed like I could not keep up without it. The
attack at L13 was severe. I got lucky that Black kept back a bit, so
that I could get the cut at E7, which was more important than the six
stones around N13. It would have been possible to save them at move
98, but at the cost of letting Black break through L10. Sacrificing
them allowed me to cement the centre to put me comfortably ahead. L9
was then the start of a desperate attempt to reduce the centre. I was
quite sure that I could capture it, even though simply connecting
would most likely have been enough. I then made a big blunder again
with move 130 (I had to double hane), allowing a game-deciding ko.
Black had a lot of threats against the lower right corner, and I think
that this exchange would have put him ahead. However, he thought he
had an internal threat at D10, which I think was not one, as there was
no additional eye in the centre yet.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47577

In game 2 (47577), he got me in the opening with another of his
experiments (move 7). I think that I could have been satisfied if I
simply played the keima to P2 at move 14. However, I activated the
central stone instead, which led to Black getting solid positions on
both sides, while I lived small in the corner and struggled in the
centre. I then succeeded in making him overconcentrated on the lower
side, but at the expense of a quite large corner and not making many
points myself. Move 80 tries to stir things up more. I think that if
Black had secured O13 with move 97, the game would have been over.
However, things only began to look good for White after move 127,
which had to be played at R8 (it is sente against the middle group
then, so Black can live with S5). It is still not over, however, as
White has two weak groups to take care of. The lower side group can
live locally with a ko at G1, but the other group has to struggle---it
would be nice to find a clean sacrifice plan here, because it is hard
for the two groups not to compete for eye space. This was the last
game to end, and my opponent seems to have chosen to resign all when
he did not see a way to win the overall match anymore.

All in all, these were very interesting games where I think I learnt a
lot. I wish to thank my opponent, who played very well.

Thanks!

Svante


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-29 14:59:17)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

Looks like about 150 players are in the waiting list so far... not bad. From the 1st to the 8th, the number of players was around 120 to 150, as far as I can remember.


William Taylor    (2011-03-30 19:04:59)
Active rating lists

Hi Thib,

The 'Active' rating lists currently filter out people who haven't connected to the server for 2 months. I think it would make more sense to filter people who haven't made a move in a game of that type for 2 months, as currently the lists contain people who are not active in that game type at all. For example, the poker list contains lots of people who have never played a game of poker on this site.

Will


Don Groves    (2011-03-31 03:30:35)
Active rating lists

I agree with William. In addition, I would like to see players who have never played any game after joining the site removed from all rating lists. Their presence tends to distort the lists.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-31 23:07:22)
FICGS Birthday?

Nope, I remember that I announced in the forums about FICGS in April 2006, and many strong players registered very quickly...

By the way the archives tell it:

http://www.ficgs.com/archives.html

At the very bottom of the page (or almost), the server started on April 5, 2006. About 220 players registered the first 25 days...


Paul Valle    (2011-04-02 21:59:27)
Conditional moves

I don´t know how difficult it is to implement conditional moves (I´m sure Thib has a short list of pending improvements with priorities). If it´s easy - I vote for including it. I can´t really see any major problems with offering it. On gameknot you can enter a long sequence of moves and I´ve had a game go the first 15 conditional moves before my opponent deviated. If something similar was implemented here, it would cut the average playing time for any tournament significantly.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-04-04 01:44:31)
Conditional moves

Hi guys, I understand your feeling, sorry about that... yes it would be a huge work to make conditional moves for chess or all games at FICGS, anyway I'm still not favourable to this for some reasons, eg. (from a previous discussion) "I think it's not completely fair and adds a (small) chancy factor to the game, so in this way I understand time abuse. (...) In many forced sequences, only one side may take advantage of conditional moves to save time, that's not fair (...) there are forced lines where only one player has no choice".


Don Groves    (2011-04-04 05:55:42)
Conditional moves

I agree Thib, particularly when a game is played in widely separated time zones. The conditional move could give one player several hours advantage on an opponent's clock while they sleep.


Daniel Parmet    (2011-04-04 07:33:36)
Conditional moves

if I may play devil's advocate... I believe it is precisely BECAUSE conditional moves are more fair that is why players want them. Now when a person is low on time or trying to extend the game into the next rating period they purposefully wait until the BEST hour in which to make a move to clip the most time off their opponent's clock. If conditional moves were in place, a person could sleep knowing that their forced response is already in the system for their sneaky opponent that just wants to flag them.


Paul-Iosif Guralivu    (2011-04-05 18:33:44)
FICGS Birthday?

Hi Thibault!

The truth is that I wasn't always active in the FICGS comunity. Nor I'm a very good player.

But I still do enjoy chess.
And I'm happy FICGS provides a place where you can say: "Hey I played in an unofficial World Chess Championshiop".


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-04-05 23:34:02)
Major update : Wikichess / hashtables

Finally....

Wikichess now supports hashtables, with some advantages :

- The program detects & manages transpositions by itself.

- If both players are rated over 2000, their moves will be automatically added in Wikichess if the move before is already in the database and if the line is not a transposition (still some work).

- By clicking "W" in the fast interface, the search is done by hashtable and no more by line, which returns better results.

So in a few months Wikichess should be much more useful than now :)


Please report any bug if you find ones... Thanks!


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-04-07 17:29:11)
Recent problems at FICGS (DNS, emails)

Hi all,

You've probably noticed that the server was unreachable during hours yesterday & today, and that some emails arrived late, the reason is that I'm trying to solve an old DNS issue.

12 hours have been added to all players in running games, I hope that everything will work fine soon.

Sorry about that.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-04-13 14:07:34)
CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000009

Hi Peter. It should be closed in 2 days from now, all replacements and/or new groups will be done then.

I must say I am quite surprised to see several very strong players entering the waiting list after the tournaments started. Too bad that other matches cannot start in the knockout tournament :/

So I may include you in another group M in the round-robin tournament, if you wish!?


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-04-13 15:40:43)
CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000009

Okay Peter.

@Garvin : There is no guarantee to play for anyone who entered the waiting list after the closing date, I don't think it is a problem to add new groups if coherent with the existing ones (may be discussed after all), but the main point is that replacements are really useful in some groups.


Daniel Parmet    (2011-04-17 10:27:09)
CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000009

I thought all strong players had free entry to the next round anyways? I thought that was the conclusion of the silly rule changes. This is why I chose to sit out.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-04-17 13:44:07)
CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000009

This is not the case anymore... even if most players with a rating > 2150 will probably play round 2.


Daniel Parmet    (2011-04-17 19:58:52)
CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000009

oh the rules were changed back?! In that case i'll play! :)


Daniel Parmet    (2011-04-17 20:53:43)
CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000009

The fact that all 2150+ were automatically seeded into round2. Making it completely pointless for anyone in the 2000-2149 rating range to play.


Peter Unger    (2011-04-19 23:34:25)
You can't enter this tournament

Why? There are players with 2145etc. in the waiting list?
See the following?

FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_SM__000008
(type : rated round-robin, time : 30 days, increment : 1 day / move)

7 players, 6 game (1 game against each opponent)
entry fee : 0 , prize : 20 (E-Points)
elo : 2300+


You can't enter this tournament :
Your chess rating : 2166 , is out of the restrictions.

Waiting list :

POL Broniek, Mariusz Maciej 2152
SVK Gazi, Miroslav 2272
USA Nichols, Scott 2184
DEU Wosch, Arkadiusz 2145
KAZ Alaguzov, Maxat 2415
PRT Pessoa, Francisco 2528


Harshil Meraiya    (2011-04-24 10:20:30)
Active rating lists

Actually it's outrageous. I've been playing for 1 yr and haven't lost single game. still my rating is 1767 while persons just joined and playing no game at all have 1800. Such a stupid site. I'm leaving this site. Nothing is more idiotic than this! Such a waste of time!!


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-04-24 12:03:10)
Active rating lists

Hello Harshil.

It is mathematical, actually. Your rating cannot reach 2000 if you play only class D tournaments (players rated 1400-1600), which is your case. By the way you played only 3 chess rated tournaments, that is still quite few...

High correspondence chess ratings take always 1 full year to be reached, every strong player knows that.


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-04-25 08:58:00)
Active rating lists

+1 If you want an OTB rating over 2200. It takes years to do. So it is actually quicker in CC play to be honest.


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2011-04-26 03:22:43)
Active rating lists

Hi Harshil, when I joined my ranking was 1400, now it is over 2000. I only played one class d championship. If you try to play chess rapid tournaments or the ficgs world champion with players whose ranking is higher than yours, you may progress faster. About the ranking system used here, it is pretty standard, you will find it in others chess sites or clubs.


Don Groves    (2011-04-26 05:49:34)
Active rating lists

The same happened in Poker. The first players who joined were given a 1600 rating. Then after a while it became 1800. I agree this is a problem that should be addressed!


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-04-27 12:40:42)
Active rating lists

Obviously such changes are not good, but not doing these changes would be just worse... for Poker this is different, new players can estimate their level, existing players with no rating start at 1600, but it is quite easy to reach 1800.

For chess, maybe it should have been possible to start at 2000 from the start of the site (as it is possible in some cases at other sites), but by experience I thought it was too much, and engines are stronger today. Well, actually better would be to have a test to estimate a provisional rating... Still it wouldn't be perfect and not sure it would be appreciated :)


Hermann Hartl    (2011-04-28 17:57:46)
Active rating lists

It´s better to play for challange and fun instead of playing for rating points.


Don Groves    (2011-04-28 23:45:42)
Active rating lists

Thib: I agree it easy to reach 1800 starting from 1600. But that's not the problem. The problem is it's much harder to reach 2000 starting from 1600 and unless one reaches 2000 one cannot play in Class A where most of the best players are.


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-04-29 11:23:50)
WBCCC-New stuff and Round 2 Update

Hello everyone! Its been a while since the last time I have updated. I would like to talk about recent happening. Then I will give an update on the games for this round.

I have had some talks with a few players. And I would like to announce that starting next year there will be more prizes. Besides the money prize next year. I haven't decide yet how many of these I will have yet. And its possible there could be more ideas to come by. Please also know that there will be money prizes still this is just something on also to add to the interests.

1.Subscriptions to annotated games. For example Chess Today, Chessvibes, chesspublishing.com and Opening Master. There can be others, these are just examples. If you have other good ideas here please post. Most likely this will be a combined prize here.

2.Rental time on the new Rybka Cluster- Not sure how exactly this one would work. It could be a lot different in a years time for the Rybka Cluster. But I think this would have some interests.

3.Hardware- Again not sure how I would do this. But I would probably have it as a middle to high end setup for a prize. Hardware is always a every changing process its hard to know what is good at that time.

Any other suggests are welcome. Probably the best realistic prize is the first one. If I have multiple prizes like this. The way it would probably play out is like a lottery system. Start with the winner and work your way down. On what they want and go 2nd, 3rd etc...

The last prize to talk about.(And maybe the best) I have had talks with the people of chesspublishing.com and next year. Whatever game is voted for "best game of the round". Will have there game analyzed, by one of the titled players on that site and have the game published. I will try and have it open to everyone that follows the games for the WBCCC.

The next thing of interest for next year. Is that we will have a conditional move system in place. It was thought in a blitz setting to be a great asset to have. For example if your opponent is in a different time zone than you and the next move to you would be a force move. It would be nice to have this option to make the forced play. Without having to say up late at night to make this obvious move. This is all the new stuff. Round 2 Update to come.


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-04-29 14:45:26)
WBCCC-New stuff and Round 2 Update

The last round was very exciting! And this round has had some great games as well. To speak of there is just 4 games left. Here is the report of the most important games this round.

Starting at the top boards. We have have...

B1-Loboestepario (Gino Figilo) vs CumnorChessClub (Kevin E.Plant)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21163-

This game followed a Catalan. Gino makes ambitious choice to go with 5.Nbd2! I gave this move a ! Not because of its theoretical standing. But because it will lead to a position were white will give up a whole pawn for rapid development. Never the less, black is equal to the task and managers to hold on to the pawn for most of the game and keep the game balanced. With my human eyes, I thought for sure white had an advantage! After move 20.Be4, It looks like white has 2 racking bishops. While black has one black locked in! But in depth analysis shows, that black can hold on. And shows great defensive technique. Down the stretch. Well played by Gino and Kevin. On of my favorite games to follow.

B3-Mark Eldridge vs David Evans
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21165-

David has gotten tested in both his black games in this tournament. And this game was no different. We had another B90 line in this game. And ...8.h5 was used. This is becoming a common line in this tournament. Mark's treatment on the white side was great! I think his future opponents will think twice before trying this line again. At move 22, the game reaches the sharpest point. After move 22.fxe5! I thought that Mark had a chance vs David. But David founds some good moves to exchanges pieces and hold for a draw. The best of which was the combo of ...33.Rf3 and ...36.Rxg3! This was a nice find by him. Great job to David and Mark! I look forward to seeing both these players again.

B4-Stephanie vs Fulcrum2000
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21166-

I would normally just post FICGS member games here. But this maybe one of the top 2 or 3 most important games of this round. In what turns out to be the most exciting game of the round IMO. White has shown that they are quite good in the opening phase. At move 18 they choose 18.b3 which was suggested as being the novelty move. White gets a very strong game and after a king tour to capture the pawn. It looked like a win for sure!, but it seems a mistake was made at move 38. Instead of 38.Qc1!? the move 38.Qe8! seems to be a near winner. I thoughts on why this move was missed is because, White was in time trouble in both games. I have to believe this was a favor. As we speak Stephanie is close to defeat in the other game that I will talk about shortly. I would watch her for the reminded of the tournament. I think they will learn form this experience and be even stronger going future. Well done by both players.

B5-NATIONAL12 vs Kamesh
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21167

Two of my good friends battling here. This was a B90 battle. The novelty move was the straight forward looking 27.h4, but after some exchanges. White has to settled for equality. A good match to follow, the one other note made was this was a line pioneered by Eros Riccio.

B7-Wayne Lowrance vs tomski1981
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21169-

Wayne plays a good line vs the french vs tomski. In fact by the database expert, it was in a 100% win line!! But after the queens come off the board. It burns out to a quiet draw. Wayne has had good opening results, but has yet to get in the winners column. I have faith that Wayne will win a game very soon. Good game to both in this one.

B8-Uly vs indrajit_sg
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21170-

This was a nice game to follow. A french defense was chosen. The point in which it gets interest is the choice to play 19.bxc3!? Which leads to 21.Nh6+!? I loves this sires of moves! 27.Rh3! was also a good move here. But its seems black has just enough resources to hold the balance. ..54.Bxg6! was a good finally touch. Well played by both players.

B9-Balabachi(William Fuller) vs Sebastian Boehme
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21171

What was talked about as a drawish Ruy position. I found to be quite a game with all the early fireworks. I also liked the material imbalance in this game. Sebi has a rep of being very difficult to beat with the black pieces. This helps when you have the Ruy and the Posion pawn line of the Sicilian. As two of your best weapons. ;)

B10-Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein) vs Weirwindle
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21172-

This was an interesting Richter-Rauzer game. 15.Qf4 was the novelty move, Form there it got crazy. 21.Nb3 seems to invite a pawn race. Which in the end white loses. This was a tough game for white. I think he should have been able to hold it. But it was still a good game to follow.

B11-donkasand vs Ruben Comes
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21173

This was a nice positional game by Mike (Donkasand), This was a 6.h3 Sicilian. And we get the usually good defense here. ..7.h5 White gets great positional pressure for the whole game and even gets a pawn, but Ruben wholes for a draw.

B12-natmaku vs ralunger (Ramil Germanes)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21174

This game was a Petroff with 5.Nc3. This kind of move gives white rapid development. Its seems black equalize pretty quickly. And on move 21 a draw was agreed on.

B13-Scott Nichols vs Omprakash
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21175

This was an interesting King's Gambit game. I think Scott didn't study his opponents rep. :) The King's Gambit is Om's specialty. So this was an easy draw for black.

B14-Keoki010 (George Clement) vs deka
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21176-

In this game black returns to his pet line of the Sicilian with 2.a6(Which he played in the last round) I believe this is called the O'Kelly variation. This time around he goes for ..7.Qb6 which looks a little better than ..7.Bb5!? A draw probably should have been possible, but George was able to grid out a win. Well played by both players.

B15-parmetd (Daniel Parmet)vs SpiderG (Peter Marriott)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21177

This was a King Indian by black. And white does a good job of out playing his opponent in this game. Unfortunately it seems Peter has gotten busy in his life. This game was decide by time.

B16-Banned for Life vs TheHug(Jimmy Huggins)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21178

I face off against Alan who has the white pieces. And is consider to be one of the best players when playing 1.b3. It was a difficult game for me as I decide before hand to play a dangerous line. Needless to say I lose this game after a few small mistakes on my part. I am founding that all the players in the WBCCC are good, I maybe better off being a commentator lol, but no one would have that.

This was the first set of games.

Here is the 2nd game of the 2nd round in the next post.


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-04-29 18:36:20)
WBCCC-New stuff and Round 2 Update

B1-CumnorChessClub (Kevin E.Plant) vs Moz
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21180

Kevin makes an interesting choice here with 2.a4!? vs the Silicon Defense. Not exactly sure what he wanted out of the opening. I can only guess he wanted to mix it up here. Anyway, black equalizes fairly quickly and is better. But after 18.a5! He finds the best way to equalize and both agree to a draw.

B2-jitan vs Loboestepario (Gino Figilo)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21181-

The somewhat unknown Jitan has had a good tournament. And is given his ICCF SM opponent all he can handle. In a game that is still going. Gino is down a pawn, but it appears to be a draw and I would guess the game is about to finish. This was an interesting approach by Gino who gets in b5 and h5 very early in this game. And Jitan plays the most naturally looking sac. 13.Nbxd5! it looked like for a long time Gino was in trouble, but he has found enough resources IMO. A well played game by both players.

B3-Fulcrum2000 vs Mark Eldridge
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21182

This was a nice French game to watch. The novelty move was ..11.Na5, OTB I would like white in this game and I had a feeling that white possibly could have risked an attack, but this game came down to endgame play and White was able to outplay black in the end.

B4-Kamesh vs Stephanie
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21183-

In my opinion this is the most important game the round and it is reaching its fianlly stages. I believe Stephanie to be one of the top players in this event. She has been doing well, but Kam has played the near perfect opening and got her in trouble. If you remember my previous post you remember I talk about Stephanie was in time trouble. Which has not help the cause. The one move I enjoyed the most so far in this game was 36.Ra5!, this was a nice exchange sac. And its given Kam nice pass pawns on the Queen-side. I would guess this game will be over soon. It has been a nice game to watch.

B5-David Evans vs National12
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21184

A battle of the English Countryman here. :) This was the Open Defense of the Ruy. Form the comments I got, it seems that the opening was played about as perfectly as you can get. David posed some problems to Paul(National12), but it ends in a fairly easy draw. One finally note ..10.d4 IMO is a very difficult move to beat.

B6-ppipper vs jitan
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21168-

This is one of the finally 4 games still playing. What looks like to be a draw here. The white black has been dancing for a few moves now, but blacks back rank is weak. That equals a drawish game. :)
This game started out form B90 and so has a ton of theory.

B7-indrajit_sg vs Wayne Lowrance
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21186

I fairly quiet B90 game. I don't think white got much out of the opening. Well played by Wayne here.

B8-tomski1981 vs Uly
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21187

A battle of good friends here. IMO I thought white played the this Queens pawn opening passively. And so we had an early draw at move 26.

B9-Sebastian Boehme vs Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21188-

This is one of the 4 last games. And I have to say its been a good game. We had an interesting Sicilian position. I had thought black was in trouble. But after he tripled up on the d-file. Then got massive exchanges. He looks like its headed toward a draw.

B10-Weirwindle vs donkasand
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21189-

This was a nice positional Sicilian game. Although it ends in a draw. Its a must see game! Watching the drawing combo at the end is very beautiful. It starts with ..27.e4! and you can watch it form there.

B11-Ruben Comes vs Balabachi(William Fuller)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21190

Ruben opened up this rep with 3.h3!? and we ended up with a closed type of Sicilian. But his opponent stayed strong. Though out the game. Even if it looked like Ruben had some pressure. In the finally position.

B12-ralunger (Ramil Germanes) vs keoki010 (George Clement)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21191-

This game saw the Exchange variation in the Queen's gambit. It has a high rate rate. But to Ramil credit he manage to give George a couple of weak pawns in the endgame, but not enough for any real advantage.

B13-Omparakash vs natmaku
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21193-

I would have hoped for more in this game. As I'm a lover of the 6.Bc4 (Sozin) Sicilian. After 14.e5!? this forces unneeded exchanges. After which, the game looked like a draw. And that is how it ended.

B14-deka vs Scott Nichols
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21194

Usually the Exchange Slav is pretty drawish. And this game was no different. But both players did try to mount some kind of advance. Both had good posts on each others side of the board. But a drawish opening is a drawish opening.

B15-TheHug (Jimmy Huggins) vs parmentd
(Daniel Parmet)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21195

I tried my luck in an opening that was not something with e4. And it didn't go as well I had hoped, Daniel was able to get a equal position fairly quickly. In my try at making new theory in a very uncommon line vs the King's Indian Defense.

And finally we have this last game.

B16-SpiderG (Peter Marriott) vs Banned for Life
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21196

This would have promised to be a nice Larson Attack game. By alas Peter timed out in this game as well. I would have loved to seen this attacking game with both sides castled on opposite sides.

Well that would do it for my reports for this round. This was a great round, and the next promises to be great as well. I will post info for the next round after the last game is over with.

Any feedback is welcome!


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-04-29 19:39:52)
WBCCC-New stuff and Round 2 Update

Well promotion is going to be important. And I have been talking to some people about it and seeing what I can and should do. After this tournament is over, there is a good chance we will have a top tier freestyle event after that. It will be before WBCCC II. It will be a good way to promote a nice tournament. I know a some of the FICGS players would like to play in such a tournament. As far as OTB GM's maybe lol. :) I think getting more titled players form ICCF, here, and other sites is possible. I have about 5 to 6 sources I will promote heavily. Add a couple of others. I'm going to be ambitious and say we can get 60+ players in next year. And maybe more. It will be a great 6 round tournament next time. Since it will probably go the whole year. I will try and add something for vacation time in there. If we go over by a month or something. That would be oh ok.(For WBCCC II) and thanks for the compliment. :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-04-30 01:28:03)
Amateur player beats Rybka 4 !?

What do you think??

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2011/04/amateur-player-defeats-rybka-in-match.html

Last but not least: "He knows by heart 20,000 books and 30 million digits of the pi number."

April 28, is this april fool joke in another country?


Philip Roe    (2011-04-30 01:34:38)
Amateur player beats Rybka 4 !?

The description of the play is not precise, but for sure what this guy did was to pull some version of the old trick of pitting Rybka White versus Rybka Black (Oh look, I can beat TWO computers!)


Paul Valle    (2011-05-03 23:40:03)
Starting Rating

First of all: This is a great site, and love the fact that the Thib interacts with users to improve the site. Many decent chess sites out there, but this is rare.

When it comes to starting ratings, I would like to add some ideas for improvement:

The point of ratings is that they should reflect playing strength.
Likewise, the goal with starting ratings is that it should reflect actual playing strength.
Rules for both should be as equal and fair as possible.

Assumption:
I) the composition of «Active Players» and their ratings here on FICGS, are a valuable source in guesstimating a new players rating. Most players here play aided by an engine and the site is free, so players here should reflect what comes in the door.
(BTW My minimum definition of an «Active Player», is someone who has made at least one move in the period leading up to the official rating list.)
II) Lightning rating is a good estimate of Correspondence Rating.

I further believe that any choices or complications made to the FIDE rules of one starting rating fits all, should mostly be done to aid good Advanced Chess Players, and good OTB-players. Such complications might not be fair, but essential for FICGS to be relevant to the elite.

My proposal:

«Newly Regs» have a choice of THREE options upon starting to play correspondence CHESS on FICGS:

A) Start with a set rating. I would suggest this be set at the average or median off all Active players. Or a fixed numerical constant times this average. You could of course set up all kinds of formulas, but the main point in should reflect the current composition of FICGS members and not estimates based on unverifiable data given by the player.

Some players might feel that they are way better than this and might be discouraged to join and fight for a long time to reach the top tournaments they feel they are entitiled to play. The seccond option is created to encourage these players to join, and give them a choice to prove their skill relativly quickly and accurately.

B) Play 10 preliminary lightning games (starting with the same rating as in A), and then using the end lightning rating as the starting rating for normal tournaments. These players will get a much more accurate starting rating, and may be well motivated to put in the effort if they care. (If all the 10 games went close to 60 moves, and both players used all their time, the playing time would be around 16 hours)

Then there are the top international correspondence or Over-The-Board players. Why bother these with 10 lightning games?

C) Titled players can start in Master with a higher fixed rating (same as in option A, but multiplied with a higher constant), but must register by credit card to prove identity.

Possible drawbacks and problems
1) Assumption I and/or II is flawed
2) A poor player might be highly overrated choosing option A)
3) Players can dump lightning rating points to a friend
4) Implementation cost – development

-What ya think folks?
reg, Paul


Paul Valle    (2011-05-04 00:00:05)
Amateur player beats Rybka 4 !?

The guy seems to be a complete charlatan:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7183
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7190
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7194
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/ukrainian-beats-rybka-4-blindfolded/

reg, Paul


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-05-10 12:09:36)
Big Chess championships 1 & 2

Hello all,

Finally the 2nd Big Chess championship started, with 3 players who should replace forfeiting players within 15 days. You still can enter the waiting list for replacements. Sorry for this month late :/

The final tournament of the 1st championship started as well... There was kind of a dilemma as I'm not comfortable with the idea of inviting myself to complete a tournament, but best was IMO to follow the current rules (tournaments of at least 7 players) so I had to invite 2 players. For the 2nd one, with 4 groups only I'll have to invite 3 players (most probably 2 players with 5 points out of 6 and the highest Big Chess rating when the tournament starts).


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-05-10 12:38:23)
Active rating lists

Hi guys, sorry for the delay for this one... :/

@Don : it may take a while, but I don't feel it's so hard for a good poker player... but it's kind of hard to say anyway.

@Paul : thanks for such a post with many ideas & questions! this issue is really complex of course but I made some observations during these years and my conclusions were:

- in average, self-estimated ratings are best. during the first years all players with no FIDE/IECG/ICCF ratings started at 1400 or 1700 and it quite distorted the list as many strong centaurs started from the bottom. your idea makes sense but it looks more "esthetic" for a centaur with no official rating to start with a 1900 or 2000 rating than e.g. 1937 :/

- your idea of 10 lightning games is very interesting! but not many players are involved in these games (I guess because of the time they spend on corr. games) and not many would accept to play unrated or low-rated players. I'll think about that though...

- about option C, there were early general forfeits by players FIDE rated over 2200, that's a pity and it distorted (not so much) a few ratings temporarily [actually it also helps to maintain a small inflation of ratings, which is logical] but in the other hand FIDE/ICCF ratings given as provisional ratings help to build a rating list with ratings that "tell" something... such choices are not obvious, obviously :)


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-05-15 13:08:49)
WBCCC Round 3 links and more

Here are the links for Round 3. Plus I have a quick announcement. I have talked to Garvin and I'm in the running to consider adding a 2nd tournament to the WBCCC. Probably called the WBCCC Inv. -> Invitational. This will be more of the standard style of blitz tournament. Something like 14d+1d per move, I don't want to set exact time control yet, I will probably open this discussion up after WBCCC 1 is over. What details I will give is this. What over the prize is next year will split with the other tournament plus a plaque to the winner. My hope is to have another drawing card for the WBCCC and I know this will probably bring more top players in.

Anyway here are the links for you to follow the games you wish to watch this round.

As always we will start at the top boards and work are way down. This time I will just do both of each board at the same time.

B=Board

B1- CumnorChessClub (Kevin D. Plant) vs Fulcrum2000- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21828

B1- ppipper vs CumnorChessClub (Kevin D. Plant)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21814

B2- Kamesh vs ppipper- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21829

B2- Fulcrum2000 vs Kamesh- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21815

B3- jitan vs Sebastian Boehme- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21830

B3- National12 vs jitan- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21816

B4- Loboestepario (Gino Figilo) vs WeirwindleX- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21817

B4- David Evans vs Loboestepario (Gino Figilo)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21831

B5- Sebastian Boehme vs David Evans- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21818

B5- Weirwindle vs Banned for Life- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21832

B6- ralunger (Ramil Germanes) vs National12- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21833

B6- donkasand vs ralunger (Ramil Germanes)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21819

B7- tomski1981 vs donkasand- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21834

B7- parmetd (Daniel Parmet) vs tomski1981- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21820

B8- Banned for Life vs Ruben Comes- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21821

B8- indrajit_sg vs parmetd (Daniel Parmet)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21835

B9- Keoki010 (George Clement) vs Indrajit- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21822

B9- Mark Eldridge vs Balabachi- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21837

B10- Wayne Lowrance vs Stephanie- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21838

B10- Balabachi vs Wayne Lowrance- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21823

B11- StephanieX vs Mark_Eldridge- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21824

B11- Omprakash vs Keoki010 (George Clement)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21839

B12- natmaku vs Scott Nichols- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21825

B12- Ruben Comes vs deka- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21840

B13- deka vs Omprakash- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21826

B13- Scott Nichols vs Schachmatt (Matt O'Brien)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21841

B14- Schachmatt (Matt O'Brien) vs TheHug (Jimmy Huggins)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21827

B14- TheHug (Jimmy Huggins) vs natmaku http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21842

Before I get off, I would like to thank Thib for letting me ask his great players to play in my tournament. Best wishes to all and enjoy this next year!

Jimmy


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. :)


Wayne Lowrance    (2011-05-26 01:23:39)
I am exhausted

Thibault Eros & friends.
I am exhausted. At 81 years I cannot play chess to my standards. Recent events have drained me and I do not know what to do. I dearly love this site, it has been good to me, I met a lot of friends but I cannot any longer function at the level I expect of myself. Please forgive me. May I drop out of current WBCCC matches with Eros.
Thanks to all for being my friend
Wayne


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-05-26 06:54:28)
I am exhausted

Wayne friend, you are IMO one of the most respectable men I know. Playing thought all these Robin Round and Knockout events can take a toll on you. Especially at your age, it has probably been years since you really took any break form it. You may need time away to collect yourself. You will always be an a good friend to me and if down the road maybe months or many months down the line. I will be very happy to just play you in a fun game. I don't know what happen to you recently, but if you need someone to talk to. Don't haste to PM me. Get better my good friend. My thoughts and prayers will be with you.

Jimmy


Wayne Lowrance    (2011-05-26 17:32:15)
I am exhausted

Thank you Jimmy so much. Your prayers will be much appreciated. I decided I would share the full extent of my problem.
My body is ravaged with arthritis. Have had it for man years Its in lower back, right hip and knee...no cartilage, bone on bone. It has progressed in last year. I have to take Pain killer drugs (Vicodin). A Operation is not an option. Doctors told me year or more ago this day would come. The Vicodin helps relieve pain but only for 2-4 hours.My mind is affected from the drug, all in all I am exhausted with chess pressure, trying to play at a level I am accustomed too. Drugs or no drugs, I am still in pain, I am invalid now, cannot walk, sitting hurts my hip, bah...on and on.
I was not gonna share the details but I wanted it known complete reason for my leaving CC world of chess that I love so much.
Wayne


Eros Riccio    (2011-05-28 08:06:21)
I am exhausted

Wayne... don't worry about the match against me, it's not important, and it can be resumed later... now only focus on playing the most important match, which can't be delayed, with life. Fight Wayne, and I am sure you will be the winner.

Eros.


Wayne Lowrance    (2011-05-30 18:23:03)
I am exhausted

Howdy Kam. Gosh I did not know about your illness. So pleased your feeling much better. Thank you so much for your prayer, helps me to know it. My future does not look promising Kam. The Doctor has told me my arthritic conition is advanced, only offering me drugs, which help some. I am for sure thru with chess Kam, I just cannot any longer do it. I could always just make engine moves, but I would NEVER be able to enjoy that.... I am proud of your play in the Jimmy Tournament, attaway to go Kam
Well b4n
Wayne


Sebastian Boehme    (2011-05-31 03:15:10)
I am exhausted

Two really great corr chess players and see how quickly life can take big burdens on you....this is sad to read and also from me all the best wishes that are possible to give.


Kamesh Nookala    (2011-06-01 14:08:38)
I am exhausted

@ Wayne - There is always a start point and a corresponding end point. You have done so much in your life. But, now, your life needs a bit care from your end. I am just 34 and your chess experience and game play are far bigger than my age. But, the end is inevitable. It is better to put an end for your games Wayne, which you did. What is important for me at this point of time is you and not your games. So, follow what doc says, take rest and I am pretty sure you will be strong enough again. But, then again, just WATCH chess, do not play it.. Else, it may drain your energy again. For whatever happened to me at WBCCC, I quit the tour Wayne. Just enjoying my life :)
Warm regards my good friend...

@ Thib - Yes, lot many changes. Had to quit smoking, though that was never a concern or a cause for my illness. I received only humiliation round after round at WBCCC. I couldn't take more and had to put an end to my corr. chess career for the time being. I am regrouping myself. And, certainly, FICGS is the place where I will come back to.

@ Sebi - Thanks friend. I am not a great corr. chess player. Just a player :p

Regards
Kam


Sebastian Boehme    (2011-06-08 02:45:02)
Improving visibility of draw offers

Hi guys,

have posted it in chat and thought I give it another shot here in forum too.

Sometimes players can maybe not see the draw offer, due to stress, playing the move quickly...
I know there is the little message box, like a letter below the game board that says "Draw has been offered".
But maybe there can be an improvement,i.e. a sort of colour....have seen it from other chess sites and there for example a red button
above the board has been implemented.

Or maybe some sort of red frame around the board in design could work it out. So in case of draw offerit gets visible.

I do not want to say players are too stupid to see a draw offer or anything like this, but maybe see it as a simplification for your eyes.

Just a wild idea, looking for comments, or not. ;)

Cheers,

Sebastian


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-06-13 18:39:31)
Improving visibility of draw offers

No problem for blink+red+anything, the real question is "where" it can be displayed so that everyone sees it for sure... Not so easy, but still thinking about it.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-06-13 18:44:21)
Unable to login for several days?

Hi all,

It looks like a few players are still unable to login (actually to access the whole website) during several days from time to time.

I thought I solved the problem a few months ago and I did not encounter this problem since that time, so I'm not sure about what happens for these players.

A trick may be to enter https://ficgs.com instead of http://www.ficgs.com in your navigator, it does not work every time but it may help sometimes.

If this issue happens to you, please describe what you can do and cannot do here... Let's try to figure it out.

Thanks for your help!


Mariusz Maciej Broniek    (2011-06-22 16:49:31)
Thank you!

Dear FICGS Friends, Because of very bad health condition I have to take a break of playing chess. I am so sorry. I want to thank you, my Friends, for all good games and friendship. All the best to you! Kind regards, Mariusz M. Broniek


Gaetano Laghetti    (2011-06-22 23:07:45)
Thank you!

Dear Mariusz,
I wish you a quick recovery and to return very soon to play chess with us.
Best wishes!
Gaetano Laghetti


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-06-23 05:04:22)
The rise of freestyle chess again.

Yes this was what we was hoping for. The results of the match were not as important to me. The broadcast was good, there will be a tournament later on this year. And I will invite my FICGS friends to play. :) My hope is the that system will support all the games for the broadcast and we get good commentary (I will most likely be one of them :) ). My aim for a date is between Nov-Dec. As this will be in between the first WBCCC and the next. The server is easy to handle once you have a first games under your belt. You are able to run everything though the server. So you can run your engines and books in there. The first freestyle event will be probably be a smaller tournament around 30 people maybe. But my hope is by the 2nd or 3rd edition the we will have good size tournament.

Anyone wishing to try the server and play a game let me know and we will work something out.


Lalit Kapoor    (2011-06-28 10:39:04)
When a player declared winner?

The following tournaments are finished with no unfinished games but site does not declared the winner so far:

1. FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_A__000093 (last game finished on June 16, 2011
2. FICGS__POKER_HOLDEM__TOURNAMENT_C__000049 (last game finished on May 24, 2011.)

Please let the players know about the rules upon this issue.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-07-01 02:50:07)
When a player declared winner?

Hello Lalit,

Tournament winners/leaders are updated about once every month only.

It should be done today.


Robert Mueller    (2011-07-10 07:29:08)
How come ...

... that in the established rating list there are players who have never played a single game here?

E.g. the current #1, Rene-Reiner Starke has not played any games and has no games in progress. He has not even logged on for almost a year.

The same goes for the current #7, Ryszard Kasperek. No games played or in progress and not logged on for almost two years.

Are these players just window-dressing?


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-07-11 23:26:36)
How come ...

Hello Robert,

The established rating list shows not only ratings built at FICGS but also at IECG or FIDE/ICCF (that are quite similar).

I understand your question and that point is similar to another recent discussion, that's why I'll make an update soon to distinguish players who never played any game at FICGS.


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?


Garvin Gray    (2011-07-12 17:40:13)
How come ...

Why are players who have never played a game here even shown at all?


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-07-13 22:42:29)
More statistics for every player

I've just added a new feature to see more statistics on every player, see in Preferences >> (statistics)

You can see such informations for every player by typing in example this link:

http://www.ficgs.com/players/devassal_thibault#stats

(wow, that's really not glorious :))

Any suggestion is welcome...


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-07-13 23:27:51)
Shogi in ficgs?

Sure, all players are invited to give their opinion on this point, I'm not really convinced by the idea for the same old reasons (too many similar games kill the games) but I'm always able to change my mind :)


Steve Lim    (2011-07-14 10:33:14)
More statistics for every player

Much appreciated Thibault.


Don Groves    (2011-07-14 12:37:04)
More statistics for every player

More hard work from Thib !


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-07-14 23:54:45)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament

Hello all,

I'd like your opinion on this special case in a WCH tournament (that did not happen yet, as far as I know). Currently rules do not allow to change anything there but I'm not even sure that something should be changed. Please note that I consider that correspondence chess is not all about chess, so resignations in equal positions are most often wins like other wins.

The case: Player A draws or wins a game in a round-robin WCH tournament, then resigns all his other games in equal positions.

Of course this is not good and maybe unfair for the player who offered/accepted the draw or lost the game against him. If player A resigned some other games in equal positions before, the rules allow the referee to adjudicate the game for the other player, but not here.

While I'm writing these lines, I feel and realize that the referee shouldn't be able to change such a result as the limit is unclear (what about 2 games, 3 games, 4 games or 5 games before those resignations in equal positions), but this may be worth to discuss anyway.


Gino Figlio    (2011-07-15 07:17:43)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament

Finishing games early in a tournament can cost you if the player you agreed to draw ends up losing interest and either resigns many games or withdraws.

Having said that, resigning games in equal positions could be grounds to a complain to the TD who may then question the player. If there is a valid explanation (health reasons for example) the player could be given the chance to submit games for adjudication instead of resigning.
I think the system should be ready for a change of results in these rare circumstances.
If the player does not have a valid reason for resigning games in equal positions the he should receive a penalty that prevents him from joining tournaments for a period of time (2 years maybe). The games should be sent to adjudication also. It's a lot of work but the effort provides a sense of added value to the site


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-07-15 22:39:40)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament

The current rules on this point are 11.6 : "Any player who forfeits (by resignation or silent withdrawal) his games in an equal or winning position, without giving an explanation to referee in a rated chess tournament could lose his other games in the tournament, get a limited access to the server and couldn't enter waiting lists anymore during a period of 2 months, at the referee's discretion."

Any suggestion to improve it?


Don Groves    (2011-07-16 07:51:33)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament

How about this:

"The game result of a resignation or silent withdrawal in an even or winning position will be adjudicated by the referee. In addition, the player who resigns or withdraws in such positions may face punishment by ... etc."


Don Groves    (2011-07-16 12:21:27)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament

I don't think that is necessary if the withdrawn games are adjudicated since the problem pointed out earlier will not occur. The player(s) who earlier lost or drew a game with the one who withdraws from the tournament will not be penalized by everyone else getting a full or half point unless they earned it.


Don Groves    (2011-07-16 17:52:35)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament

I thought the original point was that those who lost or drew with the dropout would be penalized when the other players got the full point, even if they were losing or only even against the dropout. But if the referee adjudicates those remaining games, the full point will only be awarded if the dropout was losing anyway. Right?


Garvin Gray    (2011-07-16 18:02:39)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament

Thibault- I think I can offer you a solution to this from the fide laws of chess, tournament rules section.

These types of situations are already covered: http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=20&view=category

11. Where not all games are played

(c) When a player withdraws or is expelled from a round-robin tournament, the effect shall be as follows:

(d) If a player has completed less than 50% of his games, his score remains in the tournament table (for rating and historical purposes), but the points scored by him or against him are not counted in the final standings. The unplayed games of the player and his opponents are indicated by (-) in the tournament table and those of his opponents by (+). If neither player is present this will be indicated by two (-).

(e) If a player has completed at least 50% of his games, his score shall remain in the tournament table and shall be counted in the final standings. The unplayed games of the player are shown as indicated as above.

(g) Articles 10(e) and (f) also apply to team events; both unplayed matches and unplayed games must be clearly indicated as such.


Gino Figlio    (2011-07-17 18:03:24)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament

There is a big difference between OTB and cc where unplayed games are rarely seen when a withdrawal occurs since all games are played simultaneously in cc. Thst's why adjudications are needed.


Wayne Lowrance    (2011-07-18 02:52:28)
More statistics for every player

You cannot believe how that stat sheet pains me. I could not help it tho. I miss yall.
Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-07-18 12:36:03)
More statistics for every player

Wayne, it that can help it is sheduled to detect global forfeits to distinguish statistics that mean something to others.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-07-18 13:04:52)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament

@Don: The rules try to make tournaments (particularly championships) & ratings coherent as much as possible (to "protect" results & ratings), in other words if a player resigns several games in a tournament without giving a valid explanation, even the games he won or drew in these tournaments may be adjudicated as losses in this aim. The only question is: should it be extended to games (in these tournaments only) finished before the first resignation...

@Garvin (& Gino): Thanks for the information! Would you know what ICCF says about it?


Wayne Lowrance    (2011-07-19 05:57:38)
More statistics for every player

Yes, Thank you so much. I try and keep up with all here. I love this site and it has been a very part of my life.

wayne


Scott Nichols    (2011-07-24 21:05:29)
No more draws (over the board)

So simple, but effective. I think it would do wonders for chess spectators and put enormous pressure on the players to perform.


Don Groves    (2011-07-19 23:00:28)
More statistics for every player

And we all hope it continues that way for a long time!


Scott Nichols    (2011-07-23 19:55:02)
More statistics for every player

This is great Thib! Nice job.


Daniel Parmet    (2011-07-26 20:06:15)
More statistics for every player

Very neat! Great work.


Don Groves    (2011-07-30 11:04:13)
Eros on his win in the 4th chess WCH

Congratulations Eros! And thanks for your insights concerning correspondence chess.

Do you see any solution to the draw problem? For example, in soccer, the scoring was changed so that a win is worth more than two draws (two points for a win vs. one point for a draw). Could something like this be done in chess? Would it encourage players to take more chances and resist drawing lines?


Don Groves    (2011-07-31 10:29:47)
Eros on his win in the 4th chess WCH

I mean the problem of most games being drawn because of ever greater improvement in both hardware and chess engine software. Making wins more valuable could entice players to not settle for draws as easily as they do now.


Gino Figlio    (2011-08-03 19:58:34)
Eros on his win in the 4th chess WCH

Eros,

It looks like we get to play again but this time it will be for a FICGS championship Final. Hopefully I understand the Semifinal tiebreak rules correctly otherwise this would be pretty embarrassing...

Best of luck,

Gino


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-08-03 20:37:12)
@Don

Well, I guess that players as White do their possible to find bloody lines in order to win, as losing (even in these lines) becomes more and more unlikely due to the recent engines. But I may be wrong, are there obvious counter-examples?

Then should Black be incitated to try harder to win instead of trying to find a quick drawish line?! ... I don't know.


Rolf Staggat    (2011-08-07 17:53:06)
No more draws (over the board)

Why no draws ?
A draw is a normal result.
It would be enough to take the point-rules from football(soccer).
0ne win = three draws.
If you only get 0.33 for a draw, you play with more risk.
Since this rule started in football, every team plays with more risk. Would be the same in chess, I think.


Scott Nichols    (2011-08-10 03:51:08)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament

#1. I vote for (b)
#2. (60 min+30sec) I would vote for.

#3. (my suggestion) NO anonymous players.


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-08-10 04:02:33)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament

Thanks Scott, I didn't really throw all a lot of ideas for time controls. I'm open to hear other ideas.

Of course No anonymous players.


Garvin Gray    (2011-08-10 04:25:32)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament

I vote for no anonymous players. Can I vote early and often on that one? :)

The time control needs to be long enough to make it a real centaur battle. Quite a few freestyles have been held where the time control has been short and it is just humans mainly putting in engine moves.

I think 60 mins plus 30 secs is fine, but would prefer 90 mins plus 30 secs.

If we did 60 plus 30, then running it over three days with 3 rounds per day would be better, in my opinion.

The biggest and number one issue is starting time.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-08-10 11:00:24)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament

Round 1 in the latest freestyle cup started at 1pm server time. Looked not so bad...

With 60 mins plus 30 secs, a few players will spend the whole night or almost but I agree this is best for freestyle.


Alvin Alcala    (2011-08-10 11:30:23)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament

In free style cup section why not make an option of a freestyle tour so anyone online can immediately arrange a tour with entry fee of say 10 e-points or even bronze. Then the format would be minimum 2 players or even number of players. Money prizes will be broken down accordingly. I loved to play advance chess a lot but it will be more exciting if you will play more people.


Gino Figlio    (2011-08-10 22:33:36)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament

If it will be a 2-day event why not play the second day +12 hours start time compared to the first day?
This way players on different time zones may not have to wake up too early or stay up too late both days.


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-08-11 00:10:16)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament

@Gino- That sounds like a decent idea. I kind of liked the thought of playing on back to back Saturdays. Maybe I'm wrong, I find it easier sometimes to give a few hours on one weekend day than to do it on a Saturday and Sunday. Of course if we agreed to Sat-Sun I could do it as well.


Garvin Gray    (2011-08-12 16:22:08)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament

I think if you are going to close entries early and post pairings for round one, then there will need to be a decent entry fee.

If entry is free and pairings are posted early, it is extremely likely that one or more people will pull out through dis-interest, when in all likelihood they were not that interested in the first place and as soon as the pairings are posted, they realise the full magnitude of having entered the competition.

While an entry fee will reduce the total number of entries, it will certainly make your life easier in actually running the competition.

Another idea is to introduce a bond system. Everyone pays a set amount up front and then those who have played all rounds get their money back. Those who do not complete the competition for any reason do not get their money back.

Especially relevant with more than one night competitions.

Thinking more about time zones, for what I favour depends on number of days and number of rounds.

If just two days, then I favour Saturday/Saturday. If more than two days, I favour Friday/Saturday/Saturday.


David Evans    (2011-08-13 15:12:03)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament

I hate to play fridays hated the last freestyle that played fridays as i work it becomes a pain.

If played on a friday i would not enter simple really good luck with this....................


Garvin Gray    (2011-08-13 18:07:21)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament

With so many competing interests and ideas, I think the best idea is for Jimmy to just set the format, time control and all other conditions way in advance and then let all players decide if they want to play.

If then quite a few players start flagging the same issue for non-participation, then that issue alone could be looked at.


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-08-13 23:38:58)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament

Oh ok if I had to swing in right now. It would be a Sat-->Sat event. 5 or 6 rounds depending on how many want to play. The time control at the moment would be 60+30sec. It seemed to work for FICGS freestyle cup. I guess the question is how many hours are we willing to go for a day.


Philip Roe    (2011-09-19 21:44:13)
Phantom ficgs

Hi Thibault,

This happens on an HP Pavilion laptop, when I connect using either IE or Firefox.

There is no apparent pattern to the messages. Just now I got a line from Wikichess, a tornament start announcement, a note from you, part of a thread on Game 58473, advice that a player has just logged on. They seem to be things that have recently appeared above the chat bar.


Gino Figlio    (2011-09-27 17:09:09)
Italia & Eros strike at ICCF team champ

When that tournament first started many people were worried about the high draw rate. The first board results show how even when an event has a draw rate >80% a player can win with a +3 result


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-09-30 22:07:12)
Feature request

Hi Don ;)

"Then we would know which games to look at next"... or not to look at next :) I'm not sure if so many players would take care of this feature (that was already discussed), or even if they would like to receive more moves to play.

I have a few other reasons not to implement this: size of names in the page, calculation time of the page...


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-09-30 23:22:17)
Next game feature

Hi Garvin. We tried this already and there was some problems: if we choose the game with the shortest amount of time remaining, if it is a game you don't want to play right now, it appears again and again... it was really annoying :/ The current method avoid this and I didn't find something else efficient enough.


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-10-05 19:44:45)
Official WBCCC freestyle cup 1 to begin

I'm ready to announce, that the first tournament for the freestyle cup will begin 10 days form today on Oct 15th. The first tournament will be 20m+30s. Since right now we have a large number of American players we will probably start in the early morning in the Americans. I figure this to be the best. So 5-7am Central standard time Or 6-8am Eastern Standard time. I would like to get in at least 3 rounds in on Saturday and see how everyone is. We may do one, but 3 is a safe bet. Then we will finish the tournament next Saturday at the same time. There will be some time between for a break probably 20 to 30 minutes. In the next post I will explain what you need to do to get the the free server and what to do once you get it. A lot of you have a user name and password already (WBCCC) but if you don't I will help you with that. One thing I will say is important is to make sure you leave open a chat window with me. In case you run into any problems. I can answer most problems, if not there will be someone there to help assist me. If I need it.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-10-11 11:30:51)
Opponents time

Hello George, the problem is double: there isn't place enough on the page, and the page would be much longer to calculate while taking account of vacation for each player. Sorry :/


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-10-11 11:37:09)
Go Komi 7.5, advantage for Black/White?

A topic on the game of Go.

Someone suggested that the current FICGS Go champion should be able to decide the color of the 1st game (the WCH final match is played in 5 games) because the komi may be an advantage for White.

I'm not favourable to this idea because IMO the komi "may be" an advantage for White or Black according to the players level, and it should be about equal for top players (9p, theorically). Anyway, I guess that the champion has quite an advantage already by playing the final match only.

Any opinion on this?


Don Groves    (2011-10-12 05:51:16)
Go Komi 7.5, advantage for Black/White?

I think we can assume the Go WCH will always be between high level players, no?


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-10-12 11:25:21)
Go Komi 7.5, advantage for Black/White?

Sure, but the komi may have a different impact on 5 dan players than on 9p ones. Actually I have no idea, maybe the top players here have an opinion on this?


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-10-12 12:28:43)
Go Komi 7.5, advantage for Black/White?

IMO the format shouldn't depend on a player's decision. And one never know what can happen, if the champion is unreachable during a while then the games could start late or a color should be chosen by default. Doesn't look great to me.


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-10-29 07:12:46)
4th FICGS freestyle cup

Well let me retract part of that. They DO want to play in a 90min type tournament. But getting to do more than 1 game a weekend was like trying to pull teeth.


Garvin Gray    (2011-10-29 15:41:40)
4th FICGS freestyle cup

Hmm I seem to be repeating myself :) Jimmy, one round per week, 90 minutes plus 30 secs.

Run it over seven or so weeks, a player can take a no explanation half point bye if they wish and then that will fill the time between WBCCC's.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-10-29 21:23:06)
4th FICGS freestyle cup

We shouldn't talk about several tournaments at the same time... quite confusing. So this is a thread about the next FICGS freestyle tournament only. Who would be interested to play this week end (december 3, 4) ? (starting with me, of course :))

Thanks :)


Wayne Lowrance    (2011-10-30 05:35:52)
4th FICGS freestyle cup

I would play


Robert Mueller    (2011-10-30 07:48:45)
4th FICGS freestyle cup

I would play, probably.


Sebastian Boehme    (2011-11-01 15:22:36)
4th FICGS freestyle cup

Sounds interesting to me, speaking as of now: I will probably be able to play.


Gino Figlio    (2011-11-01 16:50:44)
4th FICGS freestyle cup

I would like to play as well


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-11-02 15:30:56)
Vacation Question

You must have been warnt before that you take vacation days that you had only x days to play your move in the specified game.

Well, in this case the game should be lost... Feel free to send me a private message about the game.


Andres E. Leon    (2011-11-03 22:08:51)
Chess world championship #8 Question

Hello Thibault, I was playing the FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_04__000008, which recently finishes. I would like to ask you, if I still have possibility to qualify to the next stage. Thanks you very much.

http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_04__000008.html


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-11-12 23:38:39)
World Championship

Hello Des,

It has been discussed many times when the server was created. The aim here was to "find" the best player while avoiding the chancy factor (as much as possible) and by the shortest way. It was also to look like the old classical FIDE championship, that was much more spectacular than the current one.

Anyway it will always be matter of discuss :)


Garvin Gray    (2011-11-13 16:44:59)
4th FICGS freestyle cup

Entries could be closed now. It would be a nice 8 player round robin :)


Garvin Gray    (2011-11-14 10:16:07)
New Blitz Silver Match

I am now looking for a new player to have a blitz silver match with.

If you are interested, just reply to this post and then we can discuss further.


Alvin Alcala    (2011-11-15 18:34:37)
New Blitz Silver Match

Guy you will have a fun and exciting match if you play garvin. :)


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-11-28 10:38:22)
WBCCC 2 sign up and WBCCC 1 review

After an exciting WBCCC 1, Own Champion ppipper (José Sanz) wins with a finally score of 7.5 out 10. FICGS top players were in a tied for 2nd with Timothy Cookson, Sebastian Boehme, and Ruben Comes. Credit also has to go to David Evans who had ppipper as White in the last game. And went all out to beat him. In the end Jose pulled out the win with black. For those interested I highly recommend you read this article. About the champion talked about his tournament games.

http://www.chesscafe.com/chessok/chessok.htm

Now I wanted to go a head and open up the sign up for the 2nd edition of WBCCC and tell everyone about the improvements and add ons.

The first major improvement on WBCCC is that it will have a simple to use conditional move system. With our easy downloadable client we use. There is also going to be a 2nd tournament for those who prefer a little more time than own standard tournament of 30days per side. In the 2nd tournament that is going to be called Rybka Forum Grand Prix. Is going to be 30day for the first 40 moves and 30 days Sudden Death after that. So basically you get 30 more days for 40 moves on your clock. Now here is a few more things to know about the tournament. After each move, if you request it. You can have your move noticed to you by email. This is good for the busy person who doesn't check the game forums all the time. The other thing added to the tournament is that there will be a file on hand for everyone to check to see what sites everyone plays on it a head of time. This is good for guys who like to prepare for there opponent. As for other fun things offered. I finalize with chesspublishing.com that they will help for own best game per round and the winners will get there games analyzed by the top players there and will publish them on the forum. Which I can expand to here and the other forums I promote at. For some were scared of the time control, but in truth we only had 2 games time out, but this was because they left there games. Which was a disappointment, but 2 games over a whole tournament was very good! If you maybe interested, but are unsure about the time. I recommend talking to me and when can have a test game to see if you can handle it. Most know with in a week or 2 if they can do it or not. Thanks for the support of Thib and everyone that played this year and anyone that will try this next year!

Jimmy


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-11-28 10:57:39)
WBCCC 2 sign up and WBCCC 1 review

Another great piece in the article is that of Nelson Hernandez. Who probably not many of you know of. He has been part of a 2 man team that has been very success in freestyle chess. He won one of the major championships know as the PAL/CSS which was sponsored by playchess (chessbase). Anyway to those who know him. He has a vast book that he has been working on for years and is a very respectable member of the Rybka Forum.

The game insight he gave in the article. That of 2 long time members of FICGS Kevin Planet and Sebi Boehme was very well done to say the least.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-11-28 15:10:21)
New feature to block messages

Hi all,

I just added a new feature that enables players to block/ignore all future messages from any other player.

Please note that there is NO WAY to take it back. (abuses would be easy otherwise)

The way to proceed: If a player sends abusing or provocative messages (according to the rules you have to avoid to reply it, the option appears at this condition only), just click the "report message" link THEN you'll see the "ignore future messages from this player" link. Just click it and you're done.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.


Jordi Domingo    (2011-12-03 09:51:42)
Latvian gambit World Champion chess

Next year, in January, it will start the e-mail 7th. Latvian gambit World Champion chess. If you want to play it or you need more information, please send an e-mail to Alejandro Melchor.
amelchormunoz@gmail.com.
Kind regards
Jordi


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-03 19:26:21)
4th FICGS freestyle cup

Sorry, I can't... it may bring some confusion and favour a few players. Everyone (including me) will know tomorrow when games start...


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-04 14:25:51)
4th FICGS freestyle cup

I am thinking that for future freestyle cups, that the entry fee should be 20 euro and half of that is refunded if a player completes all their scheduled games.

A person who forfeits a game, or withdraws, does their whole dough and gets nothing.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-04 18:42:53)
Final standings

After round 6 we have a sole winner!

Pos. Name. Score. (Berg.)

1. Alcala 5 (14.5)
2. Dolgov 4 (13.25)
3. Gray 4 (12.5)
4. Perikov 4 (9.5)
5. Mueller 3 (7)
6. Singh 3 (6.25)
7. de Vassal 2.5 (6.75)
8. Lowrance 2.5 (6.5)
9-10. Figlio 2.5 (4.5)
9-10. Bitoon 2.5 (4.5)
11. Nichols 2.5 (2.75)
12. Eldridge 1.5 (4)

Congratulations to Alvin who played really great chess during the whole tournament...

Many thanks to everyone for having played (we'll try to have less forfeits next time), particularly to Alvin, Wayne & Garvin for their efforts due to time...


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-05 16:31:24)
Who wants a Freestyle GO tournament soon?

Hi all, this discussion to see if we would have players enough to organize a first Freestyle GO tournament...

You can see the rules in "Waiting lists" > "Go freestyle cup"

Any players interested to play such a tournament for example in january? (I'm one of them of course :))


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-05 17:28:11)
Timing

About the rules:

"All games are played in 30 minutes + 10 seconds / move. Komi is 7.5 points. The first three rounds will start at the date indicated as "deadline" at 13:00, 15:00 and 17:00 server time. The last three rounds will start at 13:00, 15:00 and 17:00 server time the next day. It is possible to enter the waiting list until the end of the tournament (please also warn the tournament director). Please do not try to create any game by yourself as all games will be created by the tournament director."

Server time is french time...


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-14 08:57:09)
5 player double round robins

I am wondering if tournaments would be easier to start if instead of needing 7 players to enter to get a tournament going, this could be reduced to 5 players and be offered as a double round robin.

This would mean that everyone would have to play 8 games instead of 6, but I think that would be ok in return for getting tournaments started more often.

This change would also mean that colours are now irrelevant, so your starting position in the field does not matter.

Entries do slow up across Christmas, as I am noticing by being the only person to enter the Standard M tournament for over a fortnight now.


Don Groves    (2011-12-14 10:33:41)
5 player double round robins

That's an interesting proposal. I'd like to see it tried for a while to see how it works out.


Don Groves    (2011-12-14 10:35:28)
5 player double round robins

The same idea should be tried in Go also. Some Go tournaments can be very slow to fill up to 7 players.


Sebastian Boehme    (2011-12-14 14:27:16)
5 player double round robins

Another thing I noticed, which may be interesting....I saw that on another chess server....
As soon as you join a waiting list with already existing players on that list, then your games with them start, regardless of how many are still needed to fill up the tourney.
Worth a try?

Cheers,

Sebi


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-14 15:39:33)
5 player double round robins

Hi Sebi, sure it's an interesting system! I've explained why I was not favourable to this here though (I did not find the discussion, quite old one). In brief less excitement (IMO), games influenced by each other result, this is just too confusing & different.

Same for double roound robins, I like this format much but it would slow down even more the other tournaments... Be patient guys, let's play bullet games :)


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-14 16:23:23)
5 player double round robins

Not a big fan of the idea of games starting at different times as more players join the tournament.

I could see that after a while and if a player is involved in a few tournaments, that it just feels like they are playing in different individual games, and new games join the list at random times.

With the way things are done at the moment, a new set of games are started when a new tournament begins, so it is obvious that the tournament you entered has started.


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-14 16:25:12)
5 player double round robins

Thib: Same for double roound robins, I like this format much but it would slow down even more the other tournaments...

Garvin: Can you please expand on this? I am not sure how it would slow down other tournaments.


Don Groves    (2011-12-14 16:42:13)
5 player double round robins

I don't understand that either. How would it slow them down?


William Taylor    (2011-12-15 10:51:25)
5 player double round robins

Presumably because if people are entering the double round robin tournaments fewer people will be entering the others (so it would slow down the start of the normal tournaments even more).


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-15 11:50:39)
5 player double round robins

Thanks William, I was not sure how Thib's comment was to be interpreted. Either the way you have, or that players will take longer to sign up to the next round robin because they have more games to play in the current tournament ie DRR 8 games, SRR 7 players 6 games each.

The concept that I had envisaged is that for the higher rated divisions, at least, they would all change over to 5 players. I am not sure if there is a particular issue in the lower rating divisions, but if the same issue exists there, then they could change as well.

I was not considering in my original concept that only one, either standard or rapid, would stay at 7 players and the other as 5 players.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-15 13:11:44)
5 player double round robins

Yes, William & Garvin answered to both points better than I did :)

Replacing e.g. single RR standard SM tourney only by a double RR would bring some confusion in the structure... But the idea is good anyway. Maybe we could create an entire category (standard, rapid, now standard double) for double RR with only a SM class (while closing the SM class single RR)... I'm not so favourable though. What do you think?


Peter W. Anderson    (2011-12-15 17:16:25)
Holiday

It seems to be within the rules for people to take lots of small holidays in quick succession. At the end of the year, this can be used as extra time on the clock - work out all your replies whilst you are on vacation, wait for your holiday to finish, play your moves, and put yourself on holiday for another day or two.... and just keep doing this over and over again and your clock will go up rather than down!

I would like to suggest a rule change for the Rapid games: every time you put yourself on vacation you lose a day on your clock for all your games. It does not completely solve the problem but it helps.

It has the downside of people who really are about to go on must make sure that they have at least a day on each clock. However, in my opinion the benefit outweighs the disadvantage.


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-15 18:10:53)
5 player double round robins

Thib, are you saying that you are considering creating a whole new third category of chess tournaments?

We currently have standard and rapid, all seven player tournaments. Are you proposing that we have a third category, which are five player double round robins?

If you are proposing a whole new third category, then I am not in favour of this idea. We are having enough issues filling the tournaments we already have, I think adding a whole new set of tournaments will just make this situation worse, where players are sprinkled around the three events, but not enough join one particular one to get any of them started.

We have enough players on this site that tournaments should be able to start. So it is not like we are completely short of players in certain categories.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-15 21:00:52)
5 player double round robins

I considered it a long time ago... not anymore, for the reasons you mention.


Don Groves    (2011-12-16 05:24:46)
5 player double round robins

We are short of players in some categories, such as the Go Dan tournaments. It might be a good place to experiment with the double round robin idea.


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-16 12:06:21)
5 player double round robins

I think it could be trialled in one of the two sections we have atm. So all divisions in either standard or rapid moves to 5 player double round robin.

Could give some useful information.

Btw, changing the SM tourneys does nothing for me at this stage, which was one part of the reason for suggesting this change. It would also have to apply to the M class tournaments too.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-16 21:53:37)
Holiday

I noticed that in case of an accident or illness, the player does/can not take days leave... :/ I did not find the perfect rule there yet...

Changing from 30 to 45 days of vacation was a significant step towards this direction.


Daniel Parmet    (2011-12-17 07:37:30)
Holiday

I agree with Lehnhoff. No change to vacation should be done! Bad vacation rules are enough reason to quit playing on corr sites. Ficgs has good vacation rules.


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-17 13:17:47)
Holiday

Thib: I noticed that in case of an accident or illness, the player does/can not take days leave... :/ I did not find the perfect rule there yet...

Garvin: I am not sure part of the above was a quote from someone else, but anyways.

I think if a person has timed out some gaems through accident/illness and was unable to put themselves on vacation, then if they send a copy of their medical certificate to you (Thib), then that should be acceptable to get games re-instated, or time re-instated if the amount of time lost was substantial and in your opinion could cause some difficulties.


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-21 03:20:56)
5 player double round robins

Oh btw, my standard group m tournament could have started if it was a 5 player drr ;) :P

instead of having to try and drum up two more opponents :)


Sebastian Boehme    (2011-12-21 04:35:27)
5 player double round robins

It's time for some christmas drum'n base , I heard ur drums ^^


Stephane Legrand    (2011-12-21 10:27:59)
5 player double round robins

Of course it is a good idea adding tournaments reduced to 5 players and offered as a double round robin!
Effectively, it would slow down even more the other tournaments... but because it is actually a better solution!


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-21 16:51:54)
5 player double round robins

DRR's are especially important in the thematic tournaments where sometimes the thematic is not a good one and one side gains a guaranteed advantage.

The current thematic of f4 e5 fxe5 f6 could be a good case in point.


Don Groves    (2011-12-22 06:57:24)
5 player double round robins

I second Stephane's comment. If all tournaments were 5 person DRRs, tournaments would begin sooner and very likely more games would played on the site. It also eliminates any perceived white/black advantage or disadvantage.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-22 18:47:03)
5 player double round robins

I agree that more regular games would be played on the site (on the white/black advantage also), but wouldn't it mean less players in the championship cycles?

It would be somewhat more difficult to control the number of total running games and IMO it's less fun also but anyway I'm ready to consider a change for the whole tournaments structure (for chess & maybe Go) if most players think it's a good idea, I'll send an email to all players about that (and other things) very soon.


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-23 00:24:35)
5 player double round robins

Thib, the proposal is only talking about the general standard/rapid and other all entry tournaments (thematic for instance).

My proposal is not about changing tournaments like the ficgs world champs to 5 player drr's as they have no issues with getting players to join.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-23 01:29:13)
5 player double round robins

Sorry I was not accurate... I heard it just like you said.


Don Groves    (2011-12-23 06:49:43)
5 player double round robins

I don't agree the change would mean fewer players in championship cycles, there would be fewer players per group but more groups.

Also, championship cycles happen only once per year so they could left as is.


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-23 17:05:47)
5 player double round robins

To try and accommodate a few concerns of some, I think there are three possible options.

1) Change both standard and rapid divisions to 5DRR.

2) Change just one of standard or rapid to 5PDRR and leave the other as 7SRR.

3) Create an entire new division with 5DRR and leave the current standard and rapid as they are.

I think option 2 would be the most useful in providing information on whether the change is successful.

Option 1 is the most committal, as it is changing everything.

Option 3 is worth consideration, but it could lead to insufficient numbers across all three divisions. It could also 'suffer' and not provide useful feedback if the time control and rating bands chosen are not suitable.

If Option 3 was considered, it would need to be something between standard and rapid, perhaps 14 days initial plus 3 days increment.


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-23 17:06:48)
5 player double round robins

Thib, Are you able to announce a starting date for 5DRR? Something before April 1st would be good ;)


Alexis Duenas    (2011-12-24 03:00:03)
money prize tournaments

by paying 30 euros entry fee a tournament should be created with 11 players and 2 prizes,ficgs could take a % and earn money


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-24 17:42:57)
money prize tournaments

Hello Alexis,

Yes, it would be very easy to create such tournaments. We had no players with Epoints enough a few years ago for this. Maybe it is time now.

Who would enter such a waiting list among these possibilities?

1. Rated 7 players single round robin tournament, no rating range, 20 epoints entry fee
2. Unrated 7 players single round robin tournament, no rating range, 20 epoints entry fee
3. Rated 5 players double round robin tournament, no rating range, 30 epoints entry fee
4. Unrated 5 players double round robin tournament, no rating range, 30 epoints entry fee

Both rated & unrated options have inconvenients IMO... Any better idea? The prize would be about 96 to 100% entry fees.

(by the way, this may partly solve the problem of the other discussion about double round robin tournaments)


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-24 17:44:25)
5 player double round robins

Maybe we have a beginning of answer in this new discussion:

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=10165

Do you think that rated or unrated 5 players double round-robin would (partly) solve the problem?


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-25 15:42:00)
Achieving playing norms

I have just started playing in tournaments on here that are able to earn norms and looking at the score for getting a norm, they seem rather high.

For getting a FEM norm, with a field of 2200+, the score is 4.5/6. Considering how many games are actually won between players over 2200, achieving a score of 4.5/6 seems very difficult indeed, unless someone forfeits all their games, or some games are somehow otherwise affected.

I am wondering, do others think that score is too high and 4/6 might be more realistic for one norm.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-26 15:14:54)
Achieving playing norms

I did not invent the process, that's just unlucky for this tourney... In another tournament with a slightly higher rating average, it will be easier...


Alvin Alcala    (2011-12-26 18:07:46)
Achieving playing norms

I wonder how Scott manage to have so much norms. His very near to his goal now of becoming a ficgs master.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-26 18:15:15)
Achieving playing norms

Now that you reached 2200 it shouldn't be long for you guys :)


Alvin Alcala    (2011-12-26 18:17:34)
Achieving playing norms

This is my goal for 2012 :)


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-27 08:52:26)
Achieving playing norms

Is there a table to see what it takes to get the titles?

Fide has tables for what it takes to qualify for different playing norms: http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=58&view=article

so I am wondering if there are similar ficgs tables.

Of most interest is at what average rating does the score move from 4.5/6 to 4/6 and so forth.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-27 18:52:14)
Achieving playing norms

It is all explained here :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#titles


Scott Nichols    (2011-12-27 19:50:26)
Achieving playing norms

As soon as Class_M__000044 finishes I should get my third FEM norm, :)) I needed 4.5 of 6 and I finished 5.0 of 6. I think it is my style Alvin, I go out on many limbs trying for the win instead of draw. I have went 6/6 in M class, but on the other hand I've went 2/6 and maybe lower. The titles are HARD to get and something to be proud of.


Alvin Alcala    (2011-12-27 19:52:09)
Achieving playing norms

Congratulations!!! I'm proud of you man. Well done! :)


Don Groves    (2011-12-28 06:45:31)
Achieving playing norms

Way to go Scott !


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-12-28 12:22:45)
Achieving playing norms

Thib how many people have ever gotten a FICGS GM norm?


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-28 14:30:49)
Achieving playing norms

3 ... and not the least : Eros Riccio, Michael Aigner & Peter Schuster !

You can find the full list of norms at :

http://www.ficgs.com/titles.html

There's a link (just fixed it) to :

http://www.ficgs.com/display_titles.php


Scott Nichols    (2011-12-28 21:21:04)
5 player double round robins

Another idea which I brought up a while back is to replace the unpopular Rapid_Silver 2-man with a Rapid_Silver tournament. There would be an entry fee, say 10 E-points, with the prize money going to the winner or the top 2. It would be unrated, only need e-points to join. No rating restrictions. Players like me and Ruben and others would jump right in. It would give lower rated a chance to play the top guns. I bet a lot of them would go for it, even if it cost them some money, it could be considered like a "lesson". Plus, I'm sure the top players would go for it also, easy money! You could make it from 5 up to 11 players.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-28 21:45:00)
5 player double round robins

We agree on the idea, but do you think that it would at least partly solve the main problem of the discussion? I can prepare that within the next days.


Scott Nichols    (2011-12-28 22:48:20)
5 player double round robins

I do think it would, at least in part solve the main problem, nothing is 100% as we are finding out on that forum tournament. I think these days, seriously, if you put 10 Chessplayers in a room, you would have 9 different opinions. Maybe we could have a test to see if any of these ideas work. We need more input... If these ideas don't work, it's no big deal. This is still the best site out there IMHO, :)


Rolf Staggat    (2011-12-29 01:50:42)
5 player double round robins

4 player double round robin:
six games as usual
absolutely fair -
black and white versus each opponent


Don Groves    (2011-12-29 08:28:27)
5 player double round robins

That would work also, Rolf.

Scott: I think it's more like ask 9 players and you will get 10 opinions ;-)


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-29 10:24:38)
5 player double round robins

I would still prefer 5 player drr's, but 4 player drr is acceptable.

All I want is this idea to start, whether it is 5P, 4P or Thib's idea of Maybe we have a beginning of answer in this new discussion:

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=10165

Do you think that rated or unrated 5 players double round-robin would (partly) solve the problem?

=======================

The only issue I have with this idea is the unrated part. All games need to be rated.

If its not rated, its not real :) and also it unrated games do not solve some of the rating band issues all of us have discussed previously.


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-29 10:30:09)
WBCCC 2012 Binding Poll:

Over at www.rybkaforum.net, World Blitz Correspondence Chess Championship begins in a couple of weeks.

There is now a poll out at http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=23854 which is to decide how many rounds will be played (10 or 12) and also when round times will be announced (start of tournament or near end of a round).

For those players who are thinking of entering, played last year or are interested and knowledgeable spectators, you can vote as per the instructions below.

The four options are:

1) 10 games, 30 days initial time plus 1 hr increment AND all scheduled round times are confirmed before the start of the tournament
2) 10 games, 30 days initial time plus 1 hr increment AND all scheduled round times are confirmed a few days before the end of a round
3) 12 games, 30 days initial time plus 1 hr increment AND all scheduled round times are confirmed before the start of the tournament
4) 12 games, 30 days initial time plus 1 hr increment AND all scheduled round times are confirmed a few days before the end of a round

As this preferential poll covers both options and will be binding, as in the final vote will be what format we will be using for WBCCC 2012, I am going to ask all voters to write in their votes.
As a write in system is be used, everyone has the option of choosing only one option if they want, or can allocate as many preferences as they want, up to 4 numbers in total.

So if a person only wants to vote for one number and does not want to allocate a preference, that is acceptable.

The reason for using write-in votes is three-fold:

1) All twenty four different options are evenly allocated
2) A voter can choose to allocate only one preference
3) It gives me the opportunity to see if all votes are genuine, rather than possibly the results being skewed by people who have no interest in playing in the tournament.

If a person does not feel comfortable posting their vote in public, but does want to record a vote, they can send me a private message, which will be counted in the total votes.

Voting will close Thursday January 5.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-29 14:48:20)
5 player double round robins

I agree on "if it's not rated, it's not real" but the fact is that many players are afraid to lose many points against maybe strong 1800 players... Actually the rules evolved about 2 years ago to avoid this, ratings are quite protected (never enough) in such cases but it looks like it is not well intergrated yet.

On the other hand, if there's an entry fee & prize, it's even more real... If we start with that idea, maybe it can be unrated. I'm still not sure...

Your opinion for a double round robin with entry fee & money prize, should it be unrated or rated?


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-29 15:59:17)
5 player double round robins

Off topic response- In my opinion if ratings are based on a decent system, then they do not need to be protected.

If someone loses a person 600 points below them and vice versa wins, they deserve the points result that those results indicate.

The issue, and I know you already know my opinion on this, is players who are put on some arbitary rating ie 1800, when their playing standard could be any number at all.

If unknown players had to earn their rating through a provisional rating system, then there would not have to be as many concerns.


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-29 16:11:44)
Different tournament format

Thibault has touched on an issue that I have thought about for a while, so time for a new thread.

Regularly it is discussed about the issues regarding the rating bands, getting to play different players and all sundry similiar issues.

In my opinion I think what this site really needs is more events run under the correspondence style format (not freestyle cup style), where players of significantly different ratings are playing against each other.

Here is what I envisage:

Qualification Stage:

All players of all ratings enter. Groups are divided up similar to Ficgs, except that no players are segregated, so the highest rated player is in Group A, second highest rated player in Group B and so forth.

Even numbers in each group, with a maximum of nine players in a group. There are no substitutes after a group begins.

There are no special groups for the highest rated players or knockout matches. (this is most important to distinguish this event from the WCH)

Final Stage(s):

The winners of each qualification group advance to the final stages, everyone else is eliminated. If there is a tie for first, then all tied players advance. If only one group is required, then this is the final.

If two groups are required, then it would be semi finals and normal round robin pairings would be used and the cycle repeats to get a final group of .... players.

To encourage the highest rated players to enter and to give everyone else a chance to win something substantial, e point entry fee would be 10 epoints.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-30 20:27:13)
Different tournament format

Well, let's see if the rated double round-robin tournament with entry fee works well, it will be a good start to discuss it.

I think this is a very good idea in theory, but it is quite hard to predict how many non-titled players (who would pay an entry fee) and how many titled players (invited or paying an entry fee as well) would play...

Maybe I can create a waiting list later and see how it goes, without the guarantee that the tournament can really start.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-01 20:12:07)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

Hi,

I've been told about a recurrent problem: is it fair to play against a stronger player who just lost 200 or 300 elo points because of many games lost on time (or whatever)?

IMO it is. Because as usual correspondence chess is not a matter of chess only. Of course such games may be harder for his opponents but there are good chances to see those games lost on time again (by experience).

Losing points is the only way to keep those games serious and protect players against this repeated again and again. So I don't think that rules should be changed, but any opinions & arguments are welcome here.


Don Groves    (2012-01-02 00:12:02)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

The rules allow a player who has entered a tournament to play in that tournament even if his/her rating drops below the minimum due to losing one or more games before the tournament begins. I agree that this is a good rule. However, if a player loses many games and drops more than 150 ELO (for example), maybe this rule should no longer apply to that player and he/her would be removed from that waiting list. This might prevent the situation described above.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-02 00:30:38)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

Ah. This is actually another problem :) I think there shouldn't be a change there, but the problem was actually e.g. if a chess player rated 2400+ loses 300 points, so he is now 2100 and enters a class A waiting list. Is it fair for the other 2100 players in that waiting list...


Don Groves    (2012-01-02 00:45:12)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

That seems fairer than letting him continue to play in SM or M. The same problem occurs when a player leaves FICGS with games running and comes back a year or so later. Is there any good solution to this?


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-02 01:30:16)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

Here it is... Any idea anyone?


Garvin Gray    (2012-01-02 02:05:43)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

I do not agree at all. I think there needs to be consequences for a person's actions, not just let off with no consequences, perhaps even get an advantage.

If there are mass time-outs, their rating should be returned to where it was (that is their correct playing standard), which means they can not enter the lower waiting list.

The idea that losing on time is part of the game only applies if the game was about 100 moves long and the game was short of time and someone used too much time on one or more moves.

But mass timing out of games is not a general part of the game at all. It is poor form and disrespectful to the site and the other opponents in the tournament and should be punished as such.

If they remain on the same rating, then they should certainly not be allowed to play in the event where they previously entered.

If a player has a legitimate reason for timing out so many games, they can take it up with the site administrator. That option always exists.


Garvin Gray    (2012-01-02 02:12:58)
Chess world championship #10

Hey Thib, you certainly do have a sense of humour lol

In my group of 9 players in class M, there is Scott Nichols, Alvin Alcala and myself. Nice to see I get some new opponents lol


Don Groves    (2012-01-02 07:16:19)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

Who said anything about letting them off with no consequences?


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-02 14:08:37)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

Statistically playing 1 game in a tournament against an underrated player is not so much while losing 200 or 300 pts means a lot... And once again, quite often underrated players because of a mass forfeit will forfeit again! There are well known examples (very strong players rated 1900-2000) here. IMO it's the only way to prevent mass time outs!

I played at IECG and I was very disappointed to see games with an advantage simply cancelled after 30 moves or so, because of a time loss or just "forfeit". That is a non-sense to me. Rated games have to be rated!

So you suggest to simply punish players by not allowing them to play tournaments anymore (during 1 year or so)!? On the other hand, if players do not lose rating points what to do if a player has recurrent problems and has to resign his games once every year. Then many ratings will be hustled.

At last what will be a legitimate reason? It is so... so complex.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-02 14:11:49)
Chess world championship #10

:o) Sorry, that's pure luck (or unluck)! :)

Anyway this is definitely the strongest FICGS chess championship until there... with 205 players (5 have to find a group yet), a record! The knockout will be very interesting to follow as well with the participation of our top seed, Michael Aigner.


Don Groves    (2012-01-03 07:29:49)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

Thib wrote: "So you suggest to simply punish players by not allowing them to play tournaments anymore (during 1 year or so)!?"

Who suggested this? Certainly not me!


Garvin Gray    (2012-01-03 15:12:44)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

I do intend to reply to this, just trying to think of a decent solution to propose :)


Scott Nichols    (2012-01-03 17:51:12)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

I think the way you have it right now is the only way to go Thib.


Philip Roe    (2012-01-04 00:02:21)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

There are players (who I could name if asked) who are capable of strong play but who start many more games than they finish. Whatever the outcome, there is little satisfaction to playing them. The problem with trying to impose any penalty is to identify them without closely policing the sytem.

A possible solution might be that players who have recently lost many short games could be restricted in the number of new entries that they can make.


Don Groves    (2012-01-06 03:12:35)
Next Check box in browser

I was referring to the "Next Check" box the browser displays on the My Games page which counts from 30 seconds down to zero.


Garvin Gray    (2012-01-08 16:55:23)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts

Looks like the player in question has been punted, or decided to leave ficgs as I can not find his name anymore and he longer appears in one of the waiting lists.


George Clement    (2012-01-09 18:46:39)
Ratings UpDates

Why not update the ratings each month?
When you lose a few rating points and drop just below the minumum for the next class a player wouldn't have to wait for 2 months to get back into the class.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-10 23:07:31)
Ratings UpDates

Correspondence chess ratings (that are taken in account when a new tournament starts) do not change after every game, but yes you can see your provisional "future rating" as George says.

It is different for Go to allow strong players to climb faster the enormous ladder (2500 points for Go at most). For Poker the difference is less obvious but the game is less serious than chess and it is quite exciting to see this rating list evolving each day :) At the end I wouldn't change anything now.


Garvin Gray    (2012-01-11 07:26:44)
5 player double round robins

how is this matter going in terms of changing one of the standard/rapids to 5PDRR?

No progress seems to have been made on changing it.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-12 01:47:31)
5 player double round robins

I didn't forget! The waiting list for the 1st DRR (rated, with entry fee & prize) will be open tomorrow ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-12 21:04:58)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize

Finally, this discussion to replace the two following discussions that ended on about the same conclusion and to have opinions on this new chess tournament : CHESS STANDARD OPEN (rated double round robin for 5 players, with entry fee 30 epoints & prize 145 epoints, no elo restriction)

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=10165
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=10127


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-16 11:40:38)
Time control for lightning games

Hi all,

I've been told that 1h + 15 sec./move (freestyle cup time control) would be better for lightning games than 20 min + 30 sec./move

As I don't want to create another advanced chess category (no good name, not useful), I'd like to know how many people among players who tried it think that such a change would be a good thing.

As for me, I'm not so favourable to such a change, my point is: 1h + 15 sec. means that you'll have to wait for your opponent 1 hour before he plays his next move! That is quite long, particularly to win no point, and you could even lose the game if your opponent comes back just before the end... That's why I prefer 20 min + 30 sec. per move, that is in average as long as the freestyle time control.

Any opinion?


Garvin Gray    (2012-01-16 14:52:58)
Time control for lightning games

The current freestyle time control is 30 mins plus 15 secs, btw.

I do not like the 20 mins + 30 secs, so do not play with that time control. I would prefer 60 mins plus 15 secs.

That being said, Thib, can you please confirm that the original suggestion was about the lightning time control and not the blitz time control.


Alvin Alcala    (2012-01-17 10:26:08)
Time control for lightning games

I would go for:

60 min + 15 sec./move because it's the most popular time control for freestylers. Plus this time control more than compensate for the lack of hardware fire power to compete.

However, the current blitz time control is far too long, if you will observed the number of people who played the blitz time control is very few for the period of two years. So I would suggest to change this time control to 60 min + 15 sec./move for blitz and change the time control for lightning 30 min + 15 sec./move.

We can run a poll to see the choice of the other members.


Garvin Gray    (2012-01-17 13:22:41)
Time control for lightning games

I think for blitz a better time control would be 40 moves in 2 hours followed by 30 mins plus 30 secs per move (basically the zonal type time control).

For lightning I would prefer 60 mins plus 15 secs. Couldnt a time out factor be put in that if a move has not been made in 30 mins then the player loses? This would cover no shows.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-17 14:46:40)
Time control for lightning games

For Blitz 40 moves in 2 hours followed by 30 mins plus 30 secs per move is not possible... For now I can only set a time, an increment and a number of moves for the increment. What about 1 hour + 30 sec/move or 1 hour + 1 minute/move, that would be much faster already.

For lightning, IMO 20 min + 30 sec/move is still best but if other players prefer 1 hour + 15 sec/move or 30 minutes + 15 sec/move, I'll do the change.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-17 18:35:26)
Time control for lightning games

The time control of the first blitz games played here was 2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves, which is quite the same than current one.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-18 17:03:41)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize

Well, I really don't mind if the entry fee is 10 or 30 euro... it could be even free, but would it work? As we had silver & gold games, I just tried to find something between (and it had to be of interest for strong players to play lower rated ones).

The path towards a paid site (as far as I know, much more Epoints are given than taken) will be very... very long :)

The reason for this tournament was mainly that you asked for such a tournament so that more games can start & more quickly, it is also a good experience before to make such drastic changes to modify a whole tournaments category. I'm still not sure it would be a good idea!


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-18 18:19:13)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize

IMO strong players will have no interest in this, but well... we can try it.


Scott Nichols    (2012-01-18 20:57:37)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize

Hmmm, I must not be as strong as I thought, :) J/k, I know what you mean. BUT, the whole idea was to get a more variety here, all the free games haven't gone away, you just added something new, which IMO was sorely needed. If you look at the stats Thib, probably last year my games here dropped off, not because I wasn't entering, but because it was hard to find a game. Plus the WBCCC had an impact, at least IMO, I don't know the stats. I still play for the home team as always will as long as you are here Thib, but I also admit, I learned a lot at that forum.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-20 16:11:36)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize

I meant 2400+ players, those who will surely lose elo points against you in this open tournament :) Epoints had to be a kind of compensation for those players (if they win btw), that was the idea. And 10 Epoints is really few for 8 standard games, meaning much efforts. Just my opinion of course...


Garvin Gray    (2012-01-20 17:45:57)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize

I do not think a few e points either way are going to make a difference to the 2400 players. What most likely matters to them is winning tournaments and titles.

So either way they were not going to enter these events.

Just to start stratching the record ;) my original idea was for these double round robins was for one of the divisions to be replaced with them, not to create a whole new division.

As it currently stands, I really do not see the point of this change as it feels like duplications of other areas of the site.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-01-21 15:26:16)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize

I partly agree with you Garvin, but if only one of them is interested in money, it will make these open tournaments quite interesting. I'm still not sure which entry fee is best but it's worth a try with 30 Epoints IMO. By the way I don't think that these tournaments will start so often due to the time control. Let's wait and see.

About changing a whole division, I'm still not so favourable to this. Actually best would be to have 4 divisions (rapid DRR, rapid SRR, standard DRR & standard SRR but we have no players enough for this) but I'm not even sure if class DRR tournaments would be a good thing.

I prefered single round-robin from the start because it was the best way to prevent cheating, it is really hard to win points even with 3 or 4 accounts.

Still thinking about it anyway. (I know, it means delayed for a few months but I don't have a better idea right now :/)


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-02 00:47:23)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize

Well, finally the most seems to want a change of the entry fee & prize. I'm not sure if it's a good idea but let's do it...

For technical reasons the entry fee & prize for the 1st tournament will change too, the 5 players just got back 20 Epoints each.


Don Groves    (2012-02-02 07:36:59)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize

Thib: This is probably a naive question, but do you think any players here have multiple accounts and are trying to win games or ELO points that way?


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-02 15:28:34)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize

Why naive? Actually I saw many many cheaters on other servers before to run FICGS, that's why I preferred single round-robin tournaments and I hope that is the reason why cheaters are rare here!

Anyway the answer is yes, a few players had several account and as far as I know they realized very quickly that cheating would take them more time than becoming GM :)


Mario Andreoni    (2012-02-07 13:53:02)
From Gambit Thematic Tournament

Thibault,

could a player start (or propose) new tournaments (especially thematic ones)? If so, how?

Sorry if I cause you to reply to these questions for the one-millionth time :-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-09 09:56:26)
annotated games

It is possible to post moves until the end of the game in Wikichess (and to comment it). But you can post a game in the forum as well (see the Help section to see how to post a board).

If the game was played at FICGS you can comment it after the game finishes.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-13 14:12:24)
annotated games

New player... maybe.


Scott Nichols    (2012-02-16 16:16:24)
Folding in Poker

We never we able to fold if we just didn't want to play out a 2-7 for instance and get on with the next hand. Then you changed it for the better. I got out of poker for a while, and now when I got back in, it was back the old way. Plus sometimes towards the end of the hand, I would rather not show what I was staying in with even if the bets were all checks, so I would rather just fold. Now that button is "whited out" again and I was wondering why?


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-16 19:06:33)
Folding in Poker

Hmm, I didn't change anything... the color doesn't matter (it just means that it is probably not the best move), the button should work. Did you really try it?

Is it the same for other players?


Don Groves    (2012-02-18 15:28:32)
Folding in Poker

We still have the problem though of not always showing all both hands in a showdown. The hold-em rules are that each hand in the final showdown is shown starting to the left of the dealer.

If no one folds, then both hands must be shown. If a player doesn't want to show his hand, he can do what Scott has suggested. But if the final bet is called, both hands should be shown.


Garvin Gray    (2012-02-18 17:00:06)
Folding in Poker

Don,

I remember making this same comment.

Just to clarify we are talking the same situation- River has been dealt, Player B calls, Player A shows their cards.

Now previously I have argued that Player B is also supposed to show their cards, but from watching quite a bit of the pro's playing poker and what they do in this situation is that if Player B sees that they are beat, they muck their hand.

So it seems that Player B is under no obligation to show their hand and instead can just concede.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-18 18:16:49)
Folding in Poker

@Don, this is the case if one player is all-in, not at every hand... Right?!


Don Groves    (2012-02-18 21:15:08)
Folding in Poker

Every hand. The guiding principle is that if a player is called, they must show their cards even if they lose the hand. The other player has paid for the right to see his hand.

As Garvin points out, this is not always followed these days, but I think it makes good sense. It I call the final bet, I think I'm entitled to see the other player(s) hand(s).


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-18 21:42:26)
Folding in Poker

Yes I agree. I mean, the player called must always show his cards (this is the case at FICGS), but the player who call must show his cards only if one player is all-in, otherwise he's free not to show it even if he has the better hand (here this is automated, so the rules are not fully fullfilled but this is so rare).


Don Groves    (2012-02-22 15:06:45)
Folding in Poker

The "whole system" should have changed when a few players were allowed to begin at ELO 1800 while the rest of us began at 1600. That was definitely not a fair situation.

What rating do new players begin at now?


Garvin Gray    (2012-02-22 16:38:55)
Folding in Poker

I wonder how different the ratings would be now if they were re-run, considering that players now have established ratings.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-22 18:49:31)
Folding in Poker

New players still start from 1400 to 1800. If ratings would restart right now I'm quite sure that the rating list would be about the same after 2 months or 3... Whatever the rules change (we'll avoid any in the future), players find their place after a few months of play.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2012-02-23 23:44:10)
Rating in Poker

Hello Thibault,

you wrote: "When you win or lose a game against a similar rating, you still win or lose about 20 or 30 points so it goes quite quickly."

This is no longer true. If both players have the same rating (> 1999), the winner wins 9 points. Even if the loser has 300 points more, the winner gets only 16 points.


Scott Nichols    (2012-02-24 03:49:19)
Folding in Poker

Sorry Thib, didn't mean to yell. That was why I had asked you if something had changed. The board moved around a lot quicker. Now it just SEEMS to never move from week to week or even month to month. I realize that when we first started the real strengths of the players were not known, maybe that is the reason. But you do admit you changed something, I would like to vote to change it back. Cheers, Scott


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-24 20:36:16)
Folding in Poker

Ok, note: it could have been discussed in the forum when I announced it... Anyway the current rules may be better at the end, ratings are not dedicated to change faster than necessary. It also avoids that anyone can reach the top just by lasting a few games.

Also look at the results of Nelson:

vs. Aleksey Payzansky (2086) : 67% (56 games, 38 wins, 18 losses)
vs. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006) : 90% (52 games, 47 wins, 5 losses)
vs. Jason Repa (2095) : 58% (39 games, 23 wins, 16 losses)
vs. Yulian Kehayov (2022) : 54% (35 games, 19 wins, 16 losses)
vs. Anderson Barradas (2021) : 72% (29 games, 21 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Scott Nichols (2119) : 64% (28 games, 18 wins, 10 losses)
vs. Lubos Fric (1924) : 68% (25 games, 17 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Stephane Legrand (2187) : 54% (22 games, 12 wins, 10 losses)
vs. Rolf Staggat (2116) : 61% (21 games, 13 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Janeen Walden (2000) : 75% (20 games, 15 wins, 5 losses)

IMO he just fully deserves his rating. The reason why noone else can reach it may be just that he's the best player for a while, what do you think?


Garvin Gray    (2012-02-25 13:57:13)
Folding in Poker

Ok, the main question to me is-

Which system is more able to predict the rules of a match before it begins?

If it was the first system, then that should return. If it is the current system, then keep it.

A more responsive system is usually better, but in the case of ficgs, this may not be good for two reasons:

1) While in otb chess/poker, there are very few mass time outs by a player, online this can occur, as is seen 'regularly' on here.
2) In otb chess, players do not have any kind of official rating until they have played a certain number of games.

This then means those early games to not affect all the other players ratings, which is not the case on here.

In terms of predictive accuracy, which is more accurate? That is the only consideration for me.

When I said that the ratings should be re-run, I did not mean we should start the ratings from scratch and begin from day one.

What I was saying is that ALL the previous results should be re-fed back into the system with the new rating formula and the ratings adjusted accordingly.

Then this would give information to compare as it would contain one set of ratings all measured by the same rating formula.


Paul Campanella    (2012-02-26 19:44:53)
New Player Ratings

I started at a 1600 rating. Personally, I find it completely UNACCEPTABLE that new players start at 1800 because it is a misrepresentation of their poker skills.

I started playing poker approximately a year ago on this site and I had to work exceptionally hard to make it into the top 20. As a past low ranked 1600 player... it was not easy to advance my elo to 1800+. It took considerable time and dicipline to hone my skills and get to the B-Level Tournaments. Playing those lower ranked players developed my skill because it taught me to expect the unexpected and learn all about odds and player styles.

Allow me to present some examples of players in relation to starting point and current rating:

A) I started out as a 1600 player... there were many people that were low ranked. As of now, the only 2 players that I recall advancing from a low rank to the top 20 are Paul Campanella (#16) and Dmitriy Panov (#17).

B) Slobodan Ilic (#6) and Trond Amile (#11) are both high rated good players but the reality is that it is much easier for people like them who entered in as 1800 elo to advance to the top compared to people who entered in at 1600 elo.

Now it seems that all new players get a "free ride" to the B-Class Tournaments and 200 elo points for doing absolutely nothing!

Starting at 1600 elo and advancing through the ranks is the true definition of skill. In order for players' ratings to accurately represent their skills, EVERYONE should start at 1600 and WORK their way up!


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-27 02:22:02)
Folding in Poker

Well, mathematically poker ratings below about 1900 mean something of a different nature (level of course but also the number of games played) than ratings over 1900 because it is much easier to win points below 2000 (see rules) and it was even easier before february 2011, so it would be much easier after the change asked by Scott. A player who starts at 1600 will need to play more games than a player who starts at 1800 to reach 2000, but not necessarily to make more efforts. In addition there are ways to manage ratings to enter certain waiting lists more quickly. Also, considering the slow inflation that exists the contrary of what you say is true in a certain measure as well, new players will have to play more games than you to reach the top, actually the whole thing is really complex.

But... anyway I'll try not to change the rules again/too many times to avoid such (logical) reactions and that's why I take time to think about this one again.

I think that this change would make the poker ratings more attractive but less realistic and accurate so...... any other opinions? :)

Also, new players DO NOT get a free ride to the B class tournaments, many still start with 1600 according to the level they pretend when registering. So the difference is not so much, actually it may help you to climb the scale faster if you can beat a 1800 player easily... Really complex as I said but anyway I think that ratings are more accurate when players can start at different levels, because more players in the different categories mean more games in each one (players will find their rating faster) and because everybody do not lie every time. Everybody will not agree with this but I have a certain experience with the chess ratings now and I'm quite certain that most changes were good ones, so probably for poker.


Jimmy Huggins    (2012-02-27 04:35:15)
Folding in Poker

The different between rated player 1-30 or so is probably very little friend, is it really worth all this talking for a few rating points? You can be a head for 4 cards and play your best and get rivered and there is almost nothing you can do. In chess mate is mate and its over.


Jimmy Huggins    (2012-02-27 05:33:45)
Folding in Poker

We should also not forget this is basically free poker, I remember playing Nelson once and was playing some good poker. We he started call me a lot of my raise with moderate at best hands and then beat me in the match. And if I remember right I heard him say the calls were made because it was free poker. So this is a whole other animal in itself. :)


Don Groves    (2012-02-27 06:11:21)
Folding in Poker

Jimmy is right that more luck enters the game of poker when it is free. Players tend to play looser than if they had to bet real money which means more pots will be won by luck.

Poker is a game of skill but it can take many games for the difference in skill to become apparent. In free poker that is magnified due to the increased luck factor.


Jimmy Huggins    (2012-02-27 06:55:10)
Folding in Poker

Hey Thib, what would be the % to have a possible freestyle event in poker? I would think you could get some people to play in this and has 2 things going for it.

1. You would probably get more numbers in this than freestyle chess (I really believe this, I don't know what the top number is for freestyle chess)

2. Should not last as long as freestyle chess. So this should be a great reason to have it. Can you manage a time in your dates for it?

What do others think?


Jimmy Huggins    (2012-02-27 07:01:43)
Folding in Poker

Not only that, but it could be a good measure of who really is the best poker player on the site. I live event is a lot more normal for me, you get a little more info form the player like how long it takes him to make his move.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-27 14:29:11)
Folding in Poker

I'm not sure if a freestyle poker tournament would tell us better than ratings who is the best player, but it would be nice to have one soon anyway! I'll try to do this.

On the money/free poker issue, that's a very complex debate, in my opinion starting to play money poker is just like starting to play another game... But professional players play money poker just like we play free poker, the value of money evolves when playing.


Don Groves    (2012-02-28 05:26:02)
Folding in Poker

I, for one, do not have the time to sit in front of my computer for several hours to finish one game. There are probably many others here who feel the same. Freestyle is fine for those can do this but I doubt it's anywhere near a majority. So to say that freestyle would find the best player is not true in my opinion.


Jimmy Huggins    (2012-02-28 06:16:59)
Folding in Poker

I played Scott in about an hour or so, I don't think its that bad. If it was the best of say just the best of 3 total, it would probably be better. Maybe its just me, I just have a hard time believing that it would take someone several days worth of time to consider the best move in poker, I bet at most its a few minutes. AND yes there are people who do it and I have seen them on everyday with not that many chess games.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-04 22:08:50)
FICGS poker ratings

Let's continue the debate that started in this discussion:

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=10306

I'm still not sure of what is best but our top ranked poker player for a while (Nelson Bernal Varela) obviously participated to the discussion his way by resigning all his poker games to show us how much time it will take to regain his points.

His rating was about 2200, now 1924 and the date is march 4th, 2012.

As we're playing single round-robin tournaments only, the rating list was not so distorted but this is not at the advantage of class B players. Of course I do not encourage this behaviour in any way!

However, following the current rules on general forfeits I think that Nelson should continue his experiment so that we can learn from all this. In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess.

This would actually justify - in my point of view (maybe Nelson's one too but I'm still not sure of what he's thinking about that) - the current poker rating system, so let's wait 1 month or 2 before to decide to make this change or not.

As a reminder, the initial proposal was: "should we change the poker rating rules so that we win or lose twice points after each game compared to now ?"


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-04 22:10:37)
Folding in Poker

To resume the initial discussion and after that the top ranked poker player resigned all his poker games to obviously show that he can regain his points quickly, I propose to continue the discussion in a new thread:

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=10353


Scott Nichols    (2012-03-04 22:48:24)
FICGS poker ratings

An interesting challenge. I held the #1 spot for a long time and in truth lost interest and let myself slip down, playing rarely and then stopping for over a year I'm pretty sure. So just recently I announced my intentions to reclaim the #1 spot and hold it before this year is over.

Then soon "after" I said this, Nelson resigned his games to start this "experiment". IMO this is how, in addition to playing good poker, he achieved being able to stay #1 for long periods of time. First, you have to play as many games as possible, over a hundred or more. This will allow you to implement the second phase. That is you get to pick and choose which games to play out immediately an which to stop playing to continue at a more opportune time. e.g. Only finish the "winning" games to get to the top. Then when you have a sufficient lead to where a loss or two won't hurt your position, THEN play out the losing ones.

Thib quote from above " In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess. " Well for him to do this, he will have to get by me, and others, this time. So consider the Gauntlet thrown down! Scott


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-04 23:01:30)
FICGS poker ratings

A problem is that it is impossible to enter new waiting lists when having more than 50 poker games running.

On the other point your strategy may work but at the end you'll probably lose many points... I prefer to lose the almost lost games before to win the almost won ones to have a stable high rating. Anyway it would take much time to sort, I prefer to play all games the same way.

That will be an instructive challenge for sure.


Scott Nichols    (2012-03-05 00:16:41)
FICGS poker ratings

:) Good one Paul. There are about 6-10 players here that have a real chance to be #1 by end of this year. I consider you one of them.


Garvin Gray    (2012-03-04 23:47:06)
FICGS poker ratings

I am more alarmed than anything that a person's selfish actions, regardless of who they are, are not only tolerated, but are encouraged by statements like this:

However, following the current rules on general forfeits I think that Nelson should continue his experiment so that we can learn from all this. In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess.

His actions now affect many players, which includes denying a place to someone in a tournament that he otherwise should not be allowed to enter ie class B tournaments where by all reports he is too good for.

How about we all do this to see how the rating system goes? I find his actions appalling and he deserves to be banned.

If this was done in chess, would the response be the same? If so and someone did it and the same response was given, I would be looking for another site to play at.

I believe people who act like this deserve to have their rating re-set and then spend quite a lot of time on the sidelines. They should forfeit all their games, but not lose any rating points.

What does this site stand for, I think that is one of the main questions? I play poker on here for something to do in the middle of my chess games, even though I am not particularly interested.
My playing of poker will stop if it is treated with such contempt.


Paul Campanella    (2012-03-05 03:29:32)
FICGS poker ratings

Thank you for the compliment, Scott!

I consider you to be one of the top players and have great respect for you: as both top poker and as a person. You're also a very worthy adversary and our matches are almost always 3-2 (on either side)! :)

Thank you, Thibault, for recognizing my point that it is possible to climb the ladder quite quickly using the current rating system.

I would like to note that it is also possible to climb the ladder without using any strategy. Throughout all of my poker matches on FICGS, I always finished my games (both the winning games and the losing games). I could have easily waited a long time (like some players obviously do on this site) to finish my losing games, but I refuse to do that out of respect for my opponents.

Although poker is a game that requires a combination of luck and skill, I believe that respect belongs here as well. Out of my overall record of 202 completed games, I have won 120 and lost 80. During each game, I was always honorable. For instance, if it is my turn and I know that I am 4 chips away from losing a match 3-0, I will refuse to delay the game and deny my opponent his victory for the next two months even though I have 60 days left on the clock.

Besides, it is my philosophy that the best thing to do when opponent outplays me is to accept the loss, learn from it, and then try to win in a rematch! :)


Paul Campanella    (2012-03-05 20:37:13)
50+ Poker Games

Personally, I think that a person should be allowed to have more than 50 poker games running at once.

I think it's unfair for people to be banned from playing in new tournaments just because they have too many old games running due to the fact that some people take forever to make a move and others purposely will delay to make any more at all in a losing game.

What does everyone else think?


Stephane Legrand    (2012-03-05 20:40:58)
50+ Poker Games

Why not resolving before the other problems that you mentioned : too many time to play a poker game ...


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2012-03-05 21:00:43)
50+ Poker Games

As fas as I remember the change was made for chess games. And there (including Go) I absolutely agree. Poker is a completely different category of games. Here no long time-consuming analyzes are needed. So why not allow more than 50 games? No one forced to play so many games.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-05 21:11:22)
50+ Poker Games

We added this rule for poker mainly because we had massive forfeits when this was possible to play more games.

But we did not find a good rule to limit the time for each game yet :/


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-05 21:21:40)
50+ Poker Games

Anyway it is also possible to play bullet games...


Paul Campanella    (2012-03-06 17:13:22)
50+ Poker Games

Keeping games running so long is a detrement to everyone!

For example, it is unfair to be denied admission to a new poker tournament just because a player has over 50 games running, when some of those games started over a year ago and people take forever to make moves or purposely delay moving in certain games due to the fear of losing rating points.

I have a fair proposal that I would like to make...

"If the poker game(s) started over one calendar year ago, then it should not count toward the 50 game limit".

Does anyone agree or disagree? Or perhaps someone has a better suggestion about the time frame? I am curious to know what people think about this.


Alvin Alcala    (2012-05-30 00:55:06)
Ficgs: Number 1 freestyle chess site??

FICGS has a better user interface for freestyle compared to other site. Its just need to sponsor more freestyle events to gain more players. Yes definitely its number 1.


Don Groves    (2012-03-07 05:51:00)
50+ Poker Games

That's a good rule but I'd rather see games over one year old adjudicated with the leader declared the winner. This applies also to Chess. It is incomprehensible to me why one game should take that long.

Another good rule would be to prohibit very slow players from entering more than a certain small number of tournaments.


George Clement    (2012-03-07 16:56:47)
50+ Poker Games

I also think that would be a good rule for chess, to adjudicate the games over 1 year old. Disagree about prohibits on the slow players though. That would lead to many problems.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2012-03-07 18:27:21)
50+ Poker Games

I like Paul's idea of special counting the number of running game. This eliminates 5 of my games.

But I hope, that the idea to estimate poker games, will not be implemented. That is not a solution of the problem.

In some of my games my opponent and I can move only once per day, because we have a different rhythm of life. My opponents are playing in the morning and I at night. So we are online rarely at the same time. Furthermore, my games often last longer than 1000 moves. Therefore, it is only natural that these games take a long time. I don't like that these games will be estimated after a year.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-07 23:02:18)
50+ Poker Games

I'm not sure yet, both seem fine to me, I prefer round numbers though. It shouldn't be possible to accumulate too many games, the idea is only that fast players can always play with other fast players... any opinion?


Scott Nichols    (2012-03-07 23:49:50)
50+ Poker Games

Freestyle poker! 9 players at one table, last one left wins the points! :)


Don Groves    (2012-03-10 05:43:05)
Replaying games

Thib: In both Chess and Go, we can replay any game move by move. This is a very nice feature. However, if I try to replay a game of Poker, all I see are bets, checks, or folds, but not cards. Is it possible to add the cards that were dealt in each hand to the XML for Poker games?


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-10 16:57:02)
Replaying games

Hi Don, actually you can also replay poker games, see e.g.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=64299

Just click the double arrows that surround << move >>

Does it work?

So you can show me your AA series :) It happens sometimes (just like any other hand, but it is more remarkable for AA) but I would be surprised that it is related to the algorithm, it's most probably statistical.


Don Groves    (2012-03-11 08:31:18)
Replaying games

(1) I don't see <<move>> anywhere on the page.

(2) I could show if the cards were kept as part of the hand record ;-) In two days (maybe 250 deals max) I saw pocket aces about 8 times (more than 4 times the expected value) and read about many others in the chat during the same period. Of course that number could be statistical -- but very rare.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-11 13:18:10)
Replaying games

(1) Near "Game 64299" ?

(2) I'm really not surprised by this number as you repeated this period maybe more than 300 times these last years.

If it happened to several players at the same time, definitely I don't see how this could be related to the algorithm (that does not take the time in account)... but still thinking about it.

Myself I had two consecutive AA (not same kind though) in a single game one or two weeks ago, I was really surprised but well, IMO it just happens.


Scott Nichols    (2013-09-08 20:37:10)
Active players list

I think a change is needed here. A player should be considered active only if he plays a game of his choosing, not just the act of signing on.


Don Groves    (2012-03-12 08:31:50)
Replaying games

(1) Near "Game 64299"

Those arrows only change from one game to another. I did find a way to review Poker games but not all cards are shown.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-12 18:05:14)
Replaying games

I mean the arrows around "move", not the ones around "Game 64299", don't you see it?

But actually you'd like to see both players cards after the game finishes, that's right? I'm not sure if most players would accept to show it but that's worth a discussion for sure!


Don Groves    (2012-03-13 16:14:25)
Replaying games

If I click on this link you gave:

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=64299

I don't see it.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-13 17:18:17)
Replaying games

That's really strange......

As for me I see something like that (with arrows replaced by < & >):

< Game 64299 > << move >> (poker_holdem)

If you don't see it, please send me a screen capture so that I can fix the problem, if you have some time of course... thanks anyway!


Don Groves    (2012-03-14 23:30:27)
Replaying games

I have <Game 64299> (poker holdem) with nothing in between. Using latest Firefox version on Windows 7.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-15 00:07:28)
Replaying games

Just checked the code, the only explanation is that you've been logged out (it seems to me that we already discussed about this problem), but why!? Eternal question.

Is it the same for other people?


Don Groves    (2012-03-15 05:18:21)
Replaying games

That's the problem! Firefox opens the file in a new tab and I guess that messes up my login. If I type 64299 in the game box and press go, it's fine.


Paul Campanella    (2012-03-15 16:37:05)
50+ Poker Games

9 players at 1 table sounds great!


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-15 19:38:52)
Replaying games

What do you mean "file"? It shouldn't open a new tab to open this page!? Well, I have the last Firefox too and I have no such problem.


Garvin Gray    (2012-03-18 10:50:34)
Slow tournament entries

WBCCC and infinitychess have had competitions starting in the last couple of months, so from previous comments on here some players have reduced their playing load to accommodate playing in those competitions.

Also the after Xmas period is usually quieter.


George Clement    (2012-03-18 16:16:34)
Slow tournament entries

I think part of the problem is the slow play on the standard tours. Why not cut the increment time from 40 days to 20 days? That would greatly increase the speed of the tour.


Scott Nichols    (2012-03-20 17:39:19)
Slow tournament entries

3 days increment! It would be more fun to watch paint dry or grass grow. Some players, and we all know there are plenty of them out there, could keep a totally lost endgame going for over a year, just out of spite.

Which brings up another subject that would help immensely to speed up games without hurting quality.Install the 6-man tablebases on here, or at least let a player claim a win, draw etc when 6-man is reached. In this age of computer chess, if you have the equipment to even sign on to ficgs, you have the ability to go to a tablebase site and see the result. Plus, even the oldest computers, (like mine, :), can find the mate in under a minute in 6-man positions. So for someone to be able to drag the game out just for spite, for me, is a reason not to sign up in the first place.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-21 11:59:35)
Go : Zen engine 4 stones away from 9p?

How do you understand this defeat of the 9p player Takemiya Masaki against Zen program at Go a few days ago?

http://www.usgo.org/news/2012/03/zen-computer-go-program-beats-takemiya-with-just-4-stones/

Computers become more & more dangerous even at Go, obviously.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-21 14:15:34)
Slow tournament entries

Yes, the main reason is that not all players use engines and certain want to end games that way (it may be instructive to play some 6 man, even 4 man endgames).

Also if this is a way to last a game, it is quite easy to last it before to reach such endgame. So it will not change things much.


Michael Rogers    (2012-03-21 21:57:53)
Slow tournament entries

A player's games on ICCF and SchemingMind can be accessed directly from the Chessbase interface. Has FICGS considered installing this feature? Also, would an "Open" tournament, allowing all ratings, help?


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-24 20:42:07)
Slow tournament entries

@Michael: there is now an open tournament but epoints are needed.

About a way to play games directly from Chessbase, this is unlikely to happen, it has been discussed before.

Finally the main problem at the moment is that we have no new players enough but... I'm working on!


Garvin Gray    (2012-03-30 08:30:05)
Thematic request- Sicilian Dragon

I would like to request a SD Yugoslav Attack thematic.

I have found that this opening is rarely played on here, especially compared to its Najdorf and Schev cousins.

The starting position would be:
r1bq1rk1/pp2ppbp/2np1np1/8/3NP3/2N1BP2/PPPQ2PP/R3KB1R w KQ

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6


Don Groves    (2012-04-03 14:16:41)
Go Dan tournaments

It seems time to make 2000 the cutoff point for Dan tournaments. Otherwise all 7 Dan level players must sign up to have the next group. This is an unlikely occurrence.


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-11 05:08:52)
poker tournaments

I was wondering, to decide placings in tournaments on here, are tie breaks used?

Would seem obvious to use the game score to split ties, as everyone is playing best of 5.


Paul Valle    (2012-04-12 11:36:49)
King's Gambit solved!

I've been absent from the chess for a while. But suddenly felt the urge to waste some time at work browsing through old chess-articles. Being a huge fan of gambit-play, I thought I’d share the following: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8047
Against the King’s Gambit accepted, apparently the only way to hold a theoretical draw is by 3.Be2 …


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-15 13:53:20)
About Pinformant

Dear chessfriends,

Please receive my apologies for a stupid bug that happened yesterday (my entire fault). Some of you may have received an invitation twice for a new social network (pinformant.com) that is dedicated to help to promote FICGS on the internet [technically Pinformant is actually a part of FICGS]. That will not happen again!

A few words on this new website: Pinformant is a kind of "social browser" where it is possible to share and discuss full web pages (soon applications and games) displayed into a single page. It quite looks like a basic social network, but the display is quite new as far as I know - It is also a way to boost shared websites traffic instead of simply "stealing" their content.

Why this new website: I needed a website able to gather more people to have the means (thanks to advertisement) to make a better promotion for FICGS. So your help & participation is warmly welcomed anyway.

Any feedback is welcome as well! Thanks in advance.


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-16 17:37:09)
About Pinformant

Ok, I signed up a couple of days ago and have looked at it a few times. Have to admit that at this stage I just do not get this.

At the moment I can see a chessbase article on the World Champs, Kramnik on his thoughts about current players and the ficgs home page.

What am I to do now to maximise how to use this new place? And how does this help get more chess players to ficgs?


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-18 17:53:19)
Slow tournament entries

To add to this, I think another reason for STE is that the first entrant shown in a 2300+ event is a player rated 2100.

Surely that can not help to attract players over 2300 or higher.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-18 18:08:24)
Slow tournament entries

That's right. It is a fact that the current rules allow (in extreme cases) that all players in a waiting list be below the low rating range.

To partly avoid that, the tickets may be used to finish to fill a waiting list only (e.g. when 4 players at least entered it already)... It's just a trick of course.

But it would be unfair IMHO to retire players who lost elo points from waiting lists, so it does not completely solve the problem.


George Clement    (2012-04-18 18:35:14)
Slow tournament entries

Only 2 entries in over a month in current standard M. Their are quite a few tours that have only 1 or 2 games to go that are right at the 1 year mark and mostly the same players holding up the finish.


Michael Rogers    (2012-04-18 20:10:17)
Slow tournament entries

I would like to see optional faster time controls as George C. suggested. At GameKnot ( no engine use ) their monthly tournaments attract over 2000 players and the time is only 2 days per move, increasing to 3 days in the final. I suspect that many players here lose interest in a game when there are several weaks between moves.


Don Groves    (2012-04-19 01:38:09)
Slow tournament entries

@ Michael: You got that right! Not only losing interest but also losing track of what your plan was after weeks of waiting for your opponent to move.

I agree with Garvin that our standard time controls are too long. Another problem is that some players have so many games running simultaneously that they can't keep up. I've noticed two different kinds of these players:

(1) Some players will ignore their new games until they've finished older ones. Thus they don't move at all in new games until they are forced to by the clock.

(2) Others will ignore their older games to play the new ones (openings are fun) and return to the older games only when their clock demands it.

In either case, this kind of behavior is what leads to games lasting 6 months to a year in some cases.


Niklas Hallqvist    (2012-04-19 11:53:19)
XFCC Play

I wish XFCC was considered, it would clearly ease the coupling between my local chess database and analysis environment and FICGS. Today I rely on copy/paste and it's really tedious, esp. when running many games.

Just my $.02


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-19 15:16:13)
Slow tournament entries

We must no forget IMHO that playing correspondence chess here has absolutely nothing to do with playing chess at Gameknot...

Playing with one's real name is really not the same as playing with a casual name, the involvement is different. The rapid time control is really hard enough IMHO when analyzing 10+ games seriously. Time controls at ICCF are longer than our standard's one as far as I remember. Times have changed though, engines as well but not everyone can play 1 move in each game a day.

FICGS will never compete with Gameknot in the number of players or games played, but the quality of chess games may be higher in average.

Let's not try to fix a problem too quickly by creating another one. The main problem right now is that no games enough are starting each month, I'm working on!

If once this problem is fixed you still think that standard time control is too long then we can debate it and envisage a change of the time control or to create a new tournaments category.


Ramil Germanes    (2012-04-20 05:19:16)
Slow tournament entries

In my almost two years of playing here in FICGS, I have observed one major factor why tournament entries are going down.

For me, it's because of the large difference of the rating brackets in a certain tournament class.

For example, in a standard class M tourney (2200-2400), if I have a rating of 2300-2399, I will not play because possibly almost all of my opponents there will be around 2200+ and the thing is it's very hard to win against these players now and I may lose rating points even if I draw with them.

But by decreasing the difference in the rating brackets, let's say 2300-2400 or even 2300-2350 for example of a certain tournament class, will encourage me to play in these tournaments because the possibility of losing rating points by drawing is minimal.

With these new bracketing, it will also give us an easier way to climb the rating ladder thus encouraging us to play more games!


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-20 15:24:51)
Slow tournament entries

Thib: I do apologise in advance if this reply is regarded as too strong, it is not meant to offend, but could be taken by yourself or someone else as too strong.

In my opinion, creating ANOTHER division is possibly the worst decision that could be made. Leaving the time control as is would be a better decision.

We have three divisions classical rating sections, plus an advanced rating list and multiple thematic, unrated, epoint and other options.

I think adding another division would just spread things out wayyy too far.

It is not like we have an over abundance of players and need to offer more options to satisfy a wide market.


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-20 15:28:37)
Slow tournament entries

Ramil:

When I first came across this site, the rating bands used to be 400 points, and then after a lot of negotiation, debates and cross topics, it was changed to 200, with the even numbers (2400, 2200, 2000) in the standard category, and (2300, 2100, 19000 in the rapid category.

While I understand your point that perhaps these should be changed to 100 point bands as this is what I think the market is trying to say, I think it is an issue of total number of players.

If we had many more players, then each category would fill quicker. Your point is certainly worth discussing and I would not be upset to see it work in practice, but we have had quite a few changes, and another change might just be a bit much for Thibault to consider at this stage.

I could be wrong though ;)


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-20 15:50:47)
XFCC Play

Damn, I am still getting that issue where i can not read ficgs links on here. Each time I click on a link, as per the above link, a new window opens and I get the please type in your username and password again message screen.

And then I am back to the home page, not the link.

I have just tried in firefox, chrome and ie.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-20 16:40:38)
XFCC Play

@Niklas : so we'll discuss it again, please be patient meanwhile, sorry for the delay :/

@Garvin : so you're forced to login again and again ?! maybe try to restart your browser... or your computer if it doesn't work. Sessions seem ok for everyone else so it must be related to your browser.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-20 16:42:44)
Slow tournament entries

Garvin, I agree of course... I said that in the case it would be possible and reasonable only... we're far from it :)

Anyway, no need to envisage such changes right now, we'll discuss it when we have players enough...


Ramil Germanes    (2012-04-21 00:49:35)
Slow tournament entries

Garvin and Thib:

The way I see it, the problem is not how many registered players here in ficgs but how many wants to play.

Look at the case of the ficgs world championship. why there so many wanted to play? the waiting list fills up quickly. because they know that there is more to gain than to lose in the championship.

Not like in a tournament that higher rated players tend to refrain in joining due to possible loss of rating points with very little to gain.

Also even if more players registered here, but if they waited very long for others to fill the waiting list then they might lose interest and might not play or even come back again. (This is also what I felt before when I first join here.) And we also see many players in the rating list without games played and not connected here for a long time. Maybe this is the reason why.

Anyway these are just my observations and not pushing Thib to change the way I see it.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-21 01:30:16)
Slow tournament entries

Well, about the WCH that's quite hard to say, maybe the last rules changes (in this way but everyone may not agree) helped to have more participants but actually I'm not sure at all. But it is clear that those WCH games take a lot of time to all players, so less registrations for other tournaments...

But you're probably right about the time to fill waiting lists... so more players would help anyway. It is true also that many registered players do not actually play, any idea to motivate them is welcome :)

Thanks Ramil for sharing your views!


Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-21 01:34:43)
Slow tournament entries

Well my reason for not playing at FICGS (despite the fact it is the best site out there!) has been that I can't play the stronger opponents. The rating restrictions have forced me to ONLY play unrated events here or seek other places to play.

However, other than ICCF which costs money there are no other places to play strong players. I just had the most horrendous chess experience of all time at LSS. So my conclusion is that I have probably reached the end of my correspondence career altogether save the ocassional unrated ficgs game if I notice a strong cue up in one of them. I certainly won't be playing my rating class ever again.

The problem IS NOT the time control. The time control here is lovely. I am curious what Thib's solution might be.


Ramil Germanes    (2012-04-21 01:42:02)
Slow tournament entries

Another thing:

Why only tournaments?

Why no option for only one or two games where you can challenge a player of your choice directly in a longer time control? (what we have now is we have no control of who our opponent is, as long as the fee is met anyone can challenge anyone, but that is not attractive to higher rated players. see it's mostly about rating points!)

Often newly registered players don't easily see how to play correspondence chess here (many asks in the chat bar how to play) because they are expecting they can play a game instantly but here you have to wait for the waiting list to be filled for the tourney to start and that may take weeks or even months. And that's kind of turn-off to them even for me before.




Ramil Germanes    (2012-04-21 01:44:52)
Slow tournament entries

In this way you can play a game to the players at your rating level and that's more exciting!


Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-21 01:48:03)
Slow tournament entries

FICGS strengths:
Free
Well Managed
Friendly
Well Programed
Easy to Navigate
User friendly
Great rules
Great vacation settings
Great Time controls
Great variants / choices

Problems:
Lack of players
Lack of ability to play stronger players.

For all the awesome things here.... the one weakness makes it hard to continue to find people to play.


Ramil Germanes    (2012-04-21 02:01:43)
Slow tournament entries

Daniel:

If we have the option to challenge a player of our choice then your second problem is solved.

Your first problem is partly due to negative reactions of players here due to not able to play stronger players but if that is met we all be satisfied and might give good overall reactions about ficgs which might help to attract more players in the long run.

The more important part is the current players here must be satisfied for the site to attract more players.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-21 02:21:24)
Slow tournament entries

"Why only tournaments?" : Because rated 2 players matches may lead to easy cheating (silver/gold ones makes it possible). I'm not sure if unrated 2 players matches would be interesting...

About Daniel's main reason for not playing anymore at FICGS, I'm working on and I'll let everyone know when it's solved!


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-21 04:07:31)
XFCC Play

I think I might have an answer to the browser issue. When I log in through the secure system it does not work, but when I log in normally, the link comes up ok.


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-21 09:27:58)
Slow tournament entries

I have proposed previously that a new tournament should be created for all players, similar to the current ficgs world champs, except that ALL players need to start from round one. No knockout series, or separate m groups.

All players of all ratings start from round one.


George Clement    (2012-04-21 16:39:58)
Slow tournament entries

That would indeed be an interesting tournament to play in.


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-21 16:42:15)
Slow tournament entries

I am a fan of the ficgs wch and I think it has many positives. One negative I am starting to notice is that since I am now above 2200, I am getting exactly the same opponents (give or take one or two) who I play in the normal tournaments.

So the groups start to blend into one and it can be difficult to remember if I am playing a wch game, or a normal game, against the same opponent.

I think it would be an interesting exercise to see if the same person can win both events.

The ficgs wch could be held twice a year, and this idea could be held in the other quarter of the year (twice a year also).

Then after some time, see which format gets the most entries and positive reviews.


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-21 16:44:52)
XFCC Play

Surely using xfcc play here would cause a few issues:

1) It is part of aquarium and so would be proprietary software from Rybka
2) As it is Rybka owned software, it would need them to set up passwords and the like for those not using aquarium.
3) Using xfcc play for wbccc has caused enough headaches for the xfcc play programmers. Not sure how keen they would be on xfcc play being used here.

That all being said, it would allow conditionals to be used here.


Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-21 16:48:24)
LSS is the worst Corr server

I previously erroneously had this as a sidebar chat.

I will post the story here.

I had 22 games running on LSS. All of a sudden a game disappeared. I checked and found the administrator had decided to resign for me in a game where I had a cleanly winning position and 43 days on my clock. I contacted the administrator politely to inquire why he had done this. He answered rudely explaining that he did not care about my problem. After his uncalled for rudeness, I explained to him I was no longer interested in playing further games on this "joke of a server" so please remove me from a tournament that was about to start. He responded with pure insults and a memberships suspension but *did not* remove me from that tournament. When the new tournament started, I explained to him again that he was supposed to have removed me. I was only interested in finishing my current games out of respect for my opponents. The administrator then went and forfeited all currently running 19 games and placed a ban on me playing there again until 2013. I told him that was disrespectful not just to me but to my opponents as well. He then deleted my account entirely (which doesn't bother me as I would have asked for this after my 19 games finished). There you have it... Ortwin Paetzold - the bat shit crazy administrator.


Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-21 16:49:34)
Slow tournament entries

I won't play in the ficgs wch because I am the top seed and this is disgusting to me. Not only does it mean I won't get strong players, it also means I will lose massive ratings points which will in the future ALSO prevent me from playing strong players. Two awful effects!


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-21 18:05:09)
Slow tournament entries

The FICGS WCH is held every 8 months, so about twice a year. I'm still not opposed at all to organize a "CUP" event but it would take many rounds as well and I'm afraid it kills regular tournaments, so we probably need more players for this.

@Daniel: your current rating is 2080, I cannot believe that it is not possible for you to win points in CLASS A... If you win one (or reach 2150) you could enter a CLASS M with 10 Epoints, seems far from impossible.


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-21 19:04:37)
Slow tournament entries

Thib: The FICGS WCH is held every 8 months, so about twice a year. I'm still not opposed at all to organize a "CUP" event but it would take many rounds as well and I'm afraid it kills regular tournaments, so we probably need more players for this.

Garvin: I understand what you are saying, but currently numbers for each of the divisions are small and taking a long time to fill, if at all.

The 'cup' could even attract a few new players, or at least drag a few inactive players out of the woodwork.

I understand your point about the number of rounds. I think this could be alleviated by having nine or eleven players per group.

One of the biggest issue, which feels like it is starting to plague the ficgs wch, is a draw rate of about 95 percent.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-21 19:35:42)
Slow tournament entries

I agree about the draw rate... unfortunately there's no solution there :-/

On the cup format, you may be right after all. I'll have to think about it again, if a CUP cycle starts 4 months after each WCH (between 2 WCH cycles), with 2 rounds of 11 or 13 players tournaments (rapid time control, only 1 qualified for next round), this would be ok for 121 to 169 players, but it is a lot of rapid games (as for me I couldn't play it) and we may have less players for the next WCH... Anyway, thinking about it, it will be worth to open another discussion.


Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-22 06:47:38)
Slow tournament entries

yes the draw rate. Realize if I enter a section as you suggest. I played 5 1900s. And I must score 5 to maintain my rating and 5.5 or 6 to gain points. This is difficult to do against anyone... Such rating bands are preposterous and only lead to a constant shedding of points as often 4 is enough to win a tournament.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-22 15:03:40)
Slow tournament entries

Sure but I don't get it, all players in next class A (or previous one) are over 2000 !?


Peter W. Anderson    (2012-04-22 15:39:16)
Slow tournament entries

Let me start by saying that I really like this place. The software is reliable, the interface is clean and people are generally polite. Thank you Thibault.

I don't buy Daniel's argument about the bandings. It is quite possible to score 5 or 5.5 in a class A, and it is quite possible to move swiftly through class A.

I am trying to move through Class M. I may or may not suceed. If I don't, I won't be complaining about not being able to play stronger players, I will blame myself for not playing better.

My only concern is what happens if I do manage to reach 2300. The rapid time control suits me (I am retired) and I would not have the patience for the slower time control. As far as I can see no-one over 2300 enters rapids. So I might end up having nobody to play apart from in WCH.

There are two solutions that I can see. One is to adopt Garvin's mixed ability group suggestion; this could be in addition to the existing banded tournaments.

The other is simply to get more members, so that there are more people willing to play in a particular category. I for one will try to do my bit to recruit some people onto here.


Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-22 17:08:16)
Slow tournament entries

It is my fault that I don't get to play stronger players? Interesting... logically impossible but I'm curious how you drew such a wrong conclusion.

Of course, whether or not you accept my argument is irrelevant because my argument is why I don't play. It is why others don't play. It is also why many don't sign up. I showed my roommate this site when he wanted to start corr chess and he saw he would be forced to play weak players for years before he'd get ONE decent game. He decided to join chess.com instead.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-22 18:49:49)
Answer from Ortwin

Well, here is the answer from Dr. Ortwin Paetzold (LSS/IECG) that he asked me to post here. I'm glad to do it of course so that we can hear from both sides and make our own opinion with:

>>>>>>>>>>

Daniel Parmet is twisting the reality a bit. I take the right to quote my full answers, however as I do not have the permission to do so, I will not post the notes from Daniel to me, unless he quoted it here himself already.

Fact 1 is that Daniel has not read the rules of LSS or forgot about them. There is a function in LSS which lets the webmaster check this esp. in case of rule questions. Therefore he might not have known about the rule, however, when registering on LSS each player is asked to study the rules and to play according to them. I am sure, the same holds for FICGS and any other server.

Fact 2 is that on 4th April Daniel Parmet has lost a game on time by violating the 30-days-rule. The server automatically stopped the game and awarded the point to the opponent, independent from the position. The server also imposed the two week suspension to start a new tournament. The 30-days-rule was installed at IECG more than 10 years ago and I had included it into LSS right from the beginning. Daniel Parmet asked politely why the admin has cancelled his game (which I had not).

Fact 3 is that in my answer about the query why the game was finished, I have answered with reference to the rules:

“Your game was forfeited, because you did not move for 30 days. This is the maximum number of days to be used per individual move, independent of the total amount of time you have left. See the Rules and Usage Section under "Violation of Time Control". This is also the reason of your two-week-suspension. “

In his response Daniel Parmet called the LSS “a joke of a site”.

Fact 4 is that I answered to this insultation:

“Well, it is not my fault that you have not read the rules during the past five years you have played here! To be honest, this is impressing!”

I do not think this is more rude than insulting me/LSS because one has made a mistake!

Fact 5 is that I did not remove him from the waiting list of the LSS Anniversary 2012 as requested, because I thought that – once Daniel thinks reasonably about the case – he might want to continue, esp. as he wanted to continue all other games. Furthermore LSS has a feature where each player can remove himself from the waitinglist of this tournament. This all happened on 5th April! I then forgot about the matter.

Fact 6 is that on 19th April the LSS Anniverary groups were created including Daniel Parmet to one of the groups. As he was no longer suspended that time I missed that he still was on the waitinglist. I would otherwise have tried to get a replacement, which I did in other cases . When he claimed not to play in the anniversary on 20th April, I decided to remove him from all tournaments he was playing. As the tournaments were in an early stage (start date 15th Feb, Parmet finished only 3/10 and 1/12 games in them), I believe it makes less impact to withdraw a player then letting him influence the outcome, esp. as e.g. he would not use a potential qualification to the LSS WC Semi-Final or the Consolation Finals. I commented that action with the following message:

‘I have withdrawn you from this "joke of a site" (your own - wrong - words. It is not my fault that you have not read the rules!)

Thanks for playing here.’

The answer was unfriendly so I decided to cancel the membership permanently.

I would like to thank Thibault for the opportunity to express my view. I do not intend to comment anyfurther in this matter, as I think the two different versions are speaking for themselves.


George Clement    (2012-04-22 19:19:23)
LSS Move Rule

" violating the 30-days-rule. The server automatically stopped the game and awarded the point to the opponent, independent from the position. The server also imposed the two week suspension to start a new tournament. The 30-days-rule was installed at IECG more than 10 years ago and I had included it into LSS right from the beginning."

I like the idea behind this rule on LSS, IMHO it would solve some of the slow entry problems by making players move faster, which is a big part of the entry problem. I think anyone can make a least 1 move in 10 days, using todays hardware/software and communications. What do you think fellow members? I have no problem with players using time off thier clock but why wait 30 days make 10 moves then wait another 30 days?


Scott Nichols    (2012-04-22 19:23:45)
LSS Move Rule

Exactly! I was going to say this same thing. Sometimes when a player decides to just quit playing, or whatever the reason, and they have 60-100 days on their clock, it takes THAT LONG to finally resolve the game. A "30-days" rule would be a big step in the right direction IMO. I think Thib has a "60-days" rule if I'm not mistaken though.


Scott Nichols    (2012-04-22 19:37:17)
LSS Move Rule

P.S. Game #57387 of mine is a great example of a frustrating game. It is a dead drawn position, but it could be played out for a long time. He can conceivably keep this going for another year getting 40 days for every 10 moves. It has been "40 DAYS" since his last move.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-22 19:41:26)
LSS move rule

I agree that such a rule would speed up many games, but it would be quite hard for many players & we may lose a a few ones, by accident or not... IMO rapid time control is fast enough (our 60 days rule does not really apply there) while standard time control suits for the others, the only problem is to have players enough to change the rating bands.


Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-22 19:43:08)
LSS is the worst Corr server

FICGS already has a rule like that in that its every 60 days here which is far more reasonable. And I have used that to great effect to beat a strong player it required 49 days of analyzing some tough lines to win. If at 30 days, I was forced to move, it would have been a draw.

Mr. Ortwin forgets to mention I didn't violate this rule. But then Ortwin has shown himself to be a very unreasonable character.


Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-22 19:59:50)
LSS is the worst Corr server

In general, I could make many points to Ortwin's diminutive response. However, his lying aside - he has admitted to his disgusting actions and given specious reasoning for it. At this point, I think its best to let the topic drop. Others know LSS is not a safe place to play now and that was my only point. It is clear there can never be any proper resolution in my case personally.

On to the topic of the 60 day rule which is the real reason for my response. I think many people are forgetting that not everyone is retired with little to do with their time but chess. Many of us work and/or go to school. And when you have a complicated position, it is very very unreasonable to expect a response in 10 days time out of someone that works 80 hour weeks. I recognize that most of my opponents these days respond within 24 hours or less no matter what the move or how complicated the position... but this is because I am playing in general a lower caliber of player that just blindly follows the computer. I have the privilege of knowing GM Tansel Turgut and he tells me he never plays more than 10 games at once and generally doesn't make a move before 25 days of thought. I would others to stop for a moment and consider that not *everyone* is like you. They have other demands on their time and other analysis methods.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-22 20:42:15)
LSS move rule

@ Scott : Definitely I don't agree with you on this point :) Finishing such a game that lasts near the end has no consequence or so few on the whole thing (including your rating that is calculated every 60 days), and theorically having a 60 days, 30 days or even 10 days move rule does not change anything to the fact that a player who wants to last a correspondence chess game can do it the same way, for the same duration... The main reason to the 60 days rule is that we are humans, with humans problems and that shouldn't (or as few as possible) interfer with our games.


Peter W. Anderson    (2012-04-22 21:27:28)
Slow tournament entries

That wasn't really my point, but as you rasie it, it is a combination of two factors that prevent you from playing stronger players outside of the WCH - the banding rules and your perfornmance. That is just fact.

My point was that it is possible to get good rating results against weaker players and it is practically possible to move up a category in months not years. Equally you should not fear playing in the WCH on the same basis. Win your group and then you will get plenty of strong opposition.

I accept that if someone is finding it hard to break through the top of one category then they will not get practice against much stronger players outside of the WCH. That is a disadvantage of the current banding rules, and might prove frustrating to some people.

However, the alternative has disadvantages. If you remove the banding you will end up playing not only stronger players but much weaker ones too.

Perhaps the best answer is to offer a mixture of both types of tournaments.


Sebastian Boehme    (2012-04-23 10:36:38)
LSS is the worst Corr server

I do definitely like this point as well and yes I am also a slow player in general, but that is not because I like slow-food, it is because I am a busy soul.
It is nice that these aspects are taken care of on so many corr chess sites.

Cheers,

Sebi


Scott Nichols    (2012-04-24 04:32:03)
Do the cards really matter?

I hope this doesn't sound to dumb, but I was thinking about this. I've played poker for about 40 years from penny ante with the family to no limit games where if you don't win, the rent don't get paid.

Some people try to calculate the odds, the number of "outs" etc. Play the game scientifically, others play by the feel of the game. I've seen and believe that when the stakes are up there, the cards don't really matter.

Imagine like in a movie, you were put in a position that you had no choice but to play a game of hold-em for your life. A lot of people dream to play in the million dollar tourney's in Vegas, but for 99% of them, the dream shatters, and it ends up being their life for a great many of them. So the question is, could you call his "all-in" knowing what happens if you lose?


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-24 13:45:31)
Do the cards really matter?

In an attempt to get this conversation out of the chat bar and to here-

Bluffing on here is so much harder because everyone is playing many games at once, so you just move through each game and quite often do not even notice which opponent it is, or even something what has been played before.

So in all probability, it is almost impossible to remember if one of your individual opponent made a move on you 10 hands ago and is trying it again.

Or whether they have the nuts and are slow playing you, hoping to check raise.

I wonder if four handed poker would work on here? Might be worth a go between some who have records for playing quickly.


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-24 15:01:32)
Ficgs World Cup

Following discussions about slow tournament entries, bracket and band rating issues and many other topics, a common item that came out of those discussions is that trying a modified version of the ficgs world championship is worth a trial.

So Ficgs World Cup sounds like a good name.

Format:

In the Ficgs world championship, there are many different qualifying stages, depending on your finishing position from the last cycle, your rating at the time of entry and the strength and total number of the other entrants.

While this format is very good for the concept envisaged when it was created, I think a ficgs world cup, with a format that will be explained below is required to cover a few gaps that are in the ficgs world championship.

The ficgs world cup will work as follows.

1) Everyone enters before a certain date, say June 1st 2012.
2) As soon as entries close, that is it. Entries are not taken after this date and there are NO replacements. The groups are meant to be of equal strength. Adding a new player can distort this.
3) Entrants are then divided into groups of roughly equal strength. Highest rated person is seed 1 in Group A, 2nd highest rated person is seed 1 in Group B. Serpentine pairings are used to allocate all players to each group.
4) How many players and how many groups is determined after the entries have closed. I would think that there will be probably 11 groups of 11 players (121 entries in total). It might be likely that we have to have three stages, depending on total number of entries.
5) 1 person from each group qualifies for the final stage. This is determined by total score, total wins and then TER. This does differ from the tie break formula of the FicgsWCH.

Pros:

1) Everyone gets a game against players of different ratings, no segregated groups or players
2) Everyone starts from stage one
3) The format is clear to understand

Cons:

1) May not be as tempting to the highest rated players (fear of loss of rating points)
2) Might take longer to finish

In my opinion, this is a format that deserves a couple of trial events to see if it is successful


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-24 16:32:49)
Do the cards really matter?

I agree with Garvin that it is harder to play well at correspondence poker... well it leaves some space to "rain man"-like guys :) It is possible to identify some repeating behaviours after a while though...

What do you mean exactly "four handed poker"?

@Scott: no-limit poker is not poker anymore... money is king and the richest will always win at the end if the stakes are too high. And the higher the stakes, the less it will take time.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-24 16:37:02)
Ficgs World Cup

Well done Garvin. I agree with all points (for once :))... maybe it can be done in 2 rounds though (would be better so that the most successful players avoid to have 2 or 3 cups running at the same time in a few years)


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-24 17:05:22)
Do the cards really matter?

What I meant by four handed poker is everyone plays with four hands ;)

I was meaning that instead of games starting from heads up with even chips, the games would have four players starting with even chips.

Scott: would you like your reply again?


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-24 17:13:09)
Ficgs World Cup

Whether two or three stages depends on how many entrants. I think there can be only a maximum of 11 players per group and also only a maximum of 11 players in the final stage.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-24 19:30:14)
Ficgs World Cup

Ah, I assumed that the rapid time control was the only solution but actually we can envisage something else... maybe to have tournaments of 13 players if it is successful.

Or maybe we can have a limited number of places!? (so that the most motivated enter it first, and it would solve the total number issue)

I'm not so favourable to the Epoints fee here, but that's probably worth to be thinked twice.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-25 00:26:09)
Ficgs World Cup

Who thinks that a limited number of places (81 = 9x9 or 121 = 11x11 or 169 = 13x13 according to how the waiting list fills) would be a good idea?

And what about a rating band to avoid forfeits by casual players? Maybe ratings above 2000... In some ways it could be a real alternative to the WCH for all players rated from 2000 to 2200, and there would be less games to play at the same time (less frightening to entry)... just a thought.


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-25 01:52:44)
Ficgs World Cup

Seen a few ideas, some that I thought would not be popular are been suggested as to give it a go. Good:)

There is a simple solution to keeping it to 2 stages. Just announce there will be 11 groups and leave the number of players in each group till when you know the final numbers.

So 220 players would be 11 groups of 20 players. That might be too much for some people, but you get the general idea.

Perhaps with 20 player groups (hypothetical of course), a slightly longer time control would be a good idea, perhaps 30 days initial plus 3 day increment ;)

Thib: I was thinking about the issue of the number of groups and I think it has to be eleven groups in the first stage. Then each of the 1st place group winners go through to final stage.

I am against any concept of rating bands, or even the mention of the concept. That is totally against the principle, design and point of this format.


Steve Lim    (2012-04-25 03:55:03)
Ficgs World Cup

Hmmm.. food for thought.. to summarize.

2 Stages of 20 games

or..

3 Stages of 11-13 games

Pros/Cons?

I too am against the concept of rating bands however we need a way to deal with casual players and dropouts. Especially if there is a no replacement policy..


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-25 04:43:19)
Ficgs World Cup

I think everyone needs to be completely clear when they mention the term rating bands:

In the context used on ficgs, it means a minimum and maximum rating that players can play in. For example in the rapid waiting lists, there is a rating band of 1900-2100. Meaning only players between 1900 and 2100 can play in that group.

If you are talking about players being suspended, then please specify that and be clear that you are talking about suspensions.

I apologise if this reads as a cranky reply, but this whole concept is being devised to not have any kind of rating bands, or special exemptions for any player.

So I bristle quickly and strongly as the suggestion of rating bands or special exemptions, to the point that I will abandon this concept if rating bands or exemptions are going to be implemented.


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-25 18:04:47)
Ficgs World Cup

To simplify the activity requirement, it can be that all players must have an established rating. No provisionals and no estimated ratings.

An issue regarding number of groups is, what if we 50 or so entries. 11 groups of 5 seems rather silly, so I think it would have to be 5 groups of 11, with 2 players qualifying for the final stage.

While having 2 players qualify is not ideal, it is better than having 11 groups of 5 players, which defeats one of the purposes of giving more games across different rating groups.


George Clement    (2012-04-25 18:41:11)
Ficgs World Cup

To simplify the activity requirement, it can be that all players must have an established rating. No provisionals and no estimated ratings.

That would be really good! As far as the groups I think it would really depend on the number of entries. It will be tough to predict ahead of time.


Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-26 01:13:45)
Ficgs World Cup

Great idea Garvin.

As far as activity goes, I think it should be either an established rating with a history of no time forfeits. It definitely should not be calculated based on RATED games. This is silly. I play many unrated games these days because its the only way to play strong players. I don't play rated here anymore because of the rating bands. So your activity requirement would exclude the very type of player you are trying to grab.


Peter W. Anderson    (2012-04-25 08:59:48)
Ficgs World Cup

Either 2 stages of 20 or 3 stages of 11-13 would work for me. 20 is my personal limit for the number of games I play at once, but for this format I would make an exception and take on the group of 20 even if I had a few games running.

Like Garvin I am against banding on this, as it is against the original objective. I guess you could put a lower limit in, but I think it should be much lower than 2000. Maybe 1800 or even 1700.

One way of dealing with casual players and minimising the likelihood of drop outs is to only open the tournament up to someone who has already completed (a much better test than started) a certain number of games on FICGS. Perhaps 30 games which equates to 5 normal tournaments, (or even higher, at the risk of me not being eligible!).


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-25 09:16:51)
Ficgs World Cup

Ahh now I think I understand some of the previous comments.

What you guys are talking about is a rating floor, not a rating band. With a rating floor of say 1999. So all players must be rated above 1999 to participate.

Not a big fan of a rating floor for this as it goes against the original objective, which is to provide more opportunities for players of different ratings to compete against each other. This does not only apply to 2000's v 2200's, but also applies further down the rating list as well.

The effect is not as pronounced, but still applies for the original objective.

I am in favour of an activity requirement. The standard in otb chess is that a player must have played nine rated games to get a rating, so the minimum activity could be ten completed games.

I am not as strong on the idea of an activity requirement as I am on no rating bands (which is very different to rating floor).


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-25 10:58:56)
Ficgs World Cup

Okay, so far I agree with Garvin on all main points I think.

- No rating floor (or rating band, of course)
- 11 groups whatever the number of players

- I think that the rapid time control is still ok as many games should be finished quite fast


Don Groves    (2012-04-26 03:00:35)
Do the cards really matter?

I agree the cards matter less with expert players.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-26 09:35:30)
Ficgs World Cup

After a while I went back and prefered no activity requirement at all (not a big deal if 3 or 4 players give up their games in a group, I'll do replacements as in the WCH). And to be more accurate, the number of groups would be at most 11.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-26 09:36:36)
Do the cards really matter?

And at one point the expert players matter less than their stacks :)


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-27 04:16:52)
Ficgs World Cup

Please, no replacements. If people can not organise themselves to add themselves to the entry list before the close of entries, they do not deserve to enter.

I think it is fairer to have one or two players not participate in a group than it is to add players after the event has started.

Please do not use replacements. This concept is meant to be the opposite in almost every way to WCH, and the main idea is to keep it as simple as possible.

Having replacements add a complication that is not required. It will also distort the balance on ratings of each group where forfeited players occur.

How do you ensure that each group where a forfeited player occurs and get a replacement? Otherwise you have filled some groups and not others.

See the hornets nest that is created by using replacements. Please do not use replacements, just let the normal standard tournament factors decide the final placings and people in the final stage.


Goran Guichsen    (2012-04-29 11:08:29)
Slow tournament entries

Wouldn't it speed up entries if you could start playing as soon as there are two entries in a group? Then you know that you could start play almost at once. Now it could take quite some time before you may start playing because you have to wait until the group is complete.

It could also support speeding up finishing the group unless the slowest player is the last to enter (in case it will be the same as now).

Does it have to be exactly the same rules for low resp high rated players? Guess that lower rated players are not so concerned about the rating (as higher rated players are) but to play. To prohibit to have too many games going could also stimulate to end lost/draw games quicker.


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-29 15:18:06)
Slow tournament entries

The concept of reducing the groups down to 5 players to get tournaments moving was discussed in detail a few months ago and gave birth to the standard open division.

So that item has been done to death. FWIW, I am in favour of changing the main list groups to 5 DRR's, but Thib is not, so it is what it is.

The idea of starting games asap and letting the group fill as it goes has also been discussed previously (like almost all ideas).


Scott Nichols    (2012-04-29 23:37:18)
Slow tournament entries

Maybe not all ideas. Have you ever thought of a "swiss system" tournament Thib? Make an open tournament with as many players as you can get. And then pair it according to the swiss system, :) 5 or 6 rounds would be plenty to achieve a champion.


Don Groves    (2012-04-30 05:23:35)
Slow tournament entries

The only idea that seems to please everyone is penalizing slow players. But not everyone agrees on what "slow" means. The current rules say it is 60 days per move. But others think it should be 30 days or even less.

My own feeling is that having too many games causes most slow play, so slow players should not able to begin new games until all their games over a certain age are finished.

Perhaps a better method would be to put an upper limit on the average number of days between moves in a game.


Goran Guichsen    (2012-04-30 09:38:32)
Slow tournament entries

As I understand it (I am new here since 3 days ago)the problem is not players using the time allowed in a game. It is more spending a lot of time deliberatley when the result is obvious.

I really think Don Groves has some very good suggestions.

Another way could also be (probably already discussed) to "Claim" the result Win/Draw when the result is obvious (eg TableBasis says draw). Perhaps some higher rated players could be assigned to be arbiters.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-30 13:25:51)
Slow tournament entries

Hi Goran and thanks for participating into the discussion, that's always useful to have more voices here :)

There are already rules that allow a player to claim a victory before the end to shorten a game. There is no perfect solution to the famous "DMD" (Dead Man Defense) but IMO this remains a minor problem here.

Don's suggestion is interesting. There is already such a rule (max 50 games running)... I don't know what better criteria, not too complex, could be used instead. I really think that things must avoid to get more complicated at the end.

Anyway once more the real problem right now is the too low number of new members, and I'm working on.


Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-30 14:20:00)
Slow tournament entries

I think the players complaining about the time they have to wait for a move are really just impatient. The reality is most have picked correspondence chess because they want extra time to think about moves. If you do not want extra time, then go play OTB or ICC. The honest answer is that while a move returned every day is the norm for best players -- is not a requirement!


Daniel Parmet    (2012-04-30 14:20:46)
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov in Chessbase news

I am actually in that photo strangely enough. I was paid to be the Tournament Director for the blitz tournament he played in.


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-30 16:32:04)
Slow tournament entries

I think most players do not mind if others are taking their time, it is the unnecessary time wastage that can be an issue.

Maybe Thib can answer this- What is the average number of games that players have going at one time across the different rating ranges?


Garvin Gray    (2012-04-30 19:16:14)
Slow tournament entries

I think it is ridiculous that any player can accumulate 74 days in total on their clock and they can still get another 40 days.

That seems like a completely unnecessary amount of time to have.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-04-30 20:32:31)
Slow tournament entries

I really have no idea if something can be improved there. One thing is sure, the average time for a game is not the same according to the rating... I guess that it would be not reasonable to set a rule for each category so...

About the standard time control, if a player has 74 days on his clock and is to add 40 more days, he'll never have more than 100 days anyway.

Maybe this limit can be changed but once more players are free to choose the rapid time control and as for me I really appreciate not to feel too much time pressure in my games and I know that many share this view. Let's not forget that the FICGS Chess WCH is (as far as I remember) much faster than e.g. IECG or ICCF Championships...


Scott Nichols    (2012-04-30 23:03:10)
Slow tournament entries

Is it that you are not familiar with swiss system pairings Thib? Garvin and Daniel are TD's and I'm sure they would help. The wbccc is a swiss. At least it would eliminate a 2300 playing an 1100. Top half plays bottom half right? And winners play winners, I just don't see why it wouldn't work.


Garvin Gray    (2012-05-02 18:46:59)
Slow tournament entries

So would I Scott, but unless it was to be played at a time control and format similar to WBCCC, it is not possible, unless it was run over 3 years :o


Scott Nichols    (2012-05-02 20:33:06)
Slow tournament entries

The WBCCC is very successful with a time control of game in 30 days with a 1 hour per move increment. We could easily play 6 games in a year.


Garvin Gray    (2012-05-03 04:23:36)
Slow tournament entries

Gino: That is because you are high rated and so play only other high rated players.

Which is good for you, but I am not sure if that is in the best interests of the site as a whole when it is one of the only formats offered.

Scott: I would like to use swiss pairings and have one game paired a time with a time control of something like 20 days plus 1 hour increment. It short, fast and with only one game, the time control should be long enough.

It will take more than 1 year, but that is not so much of a concern here.

I proposed the group and final idea to fit in with existing arrangements on here.

I would also be willing to do swiss pairings on here, like I do on WBCCC.


Daniel Parmet    (2012-05-03 04:30:30)
Slow tournament entries

That time control is impossible (20 days plus 1hour). 30 days plus one hour was barely playable! Minimum increment needs to be 12 hours to cover for sleep/work times but more like 24 hours. The WBCCC was awful directly because of its bad time control. The only reason I played the WBCCC at all was to play strong players.


Garvin Gray    (2012-05-03 04:31:45)
Slow tournament entries

Daniel, but in WBCCC you are playing 2 games at once. In my post above, it would only be 1 game at a time.


Daniel Parmet    (2012-05-03 04:38:02)
Slow tournament entries

That doesn't matter... there was an IMMENSE drop in the quality of games from 30+1 day to 30 +1h now imagine the drop from 30+1h to 20+1h. The game quality would probably not even be better than an over the board tournament at that point.

You have two major problems 1) the poor time control driving the quality of games to utter crap and 2) the increment is not even enough to cover your sleep/work zone. So you are actually losing massive amount of time that had nothing to do with your number of games but rather your daily functions of survival.

If you think about 20+1h you are effectively saying the entire game should be played in 23 days per side.


Don Groves    (2012-05-03 08:28:00)
Slow tournament entries

Here is another way to improve speed of games:

Look at Game 59984. My opponent in this game is a slow player and has the maximum of 50 games in progress. His next move is about as obvious as any move can be. He offered to trade queens and I accepted. His next move is clearly to recapture at b3. Any other move is suicide.

However, I made my last move on April 16th, a full two weeks ago and he has yet to respond even though his move is obvious!

I don't always make a move in every game every day, but at least I LOOK AT every game every day to see if any moves are obvious. If we all did this, the games would proceed at a better pace.


George Clement    (2012-05-03 17:21:48)
Slow tournament entries

Garvin, I'm for conditionals; but the slow players still wouldn't use them.

I still think that an increment of, let's say, 20days is better then the current of 40 for 10 moves. It would force the people that are gaming the system and waiting 25-30 days to move after getting the 40 days to at least make faster moves. They would still have plenty of calculation time. Now they make 10 moves in 10 days. Thus 40 days plus 20 days for 10 moves.


Peter W. Anderson    (2012-05-03 18:28:20)
Slow tournament entries

Of course there is no perfect time limit. What is too slow for one person will be too fast for some others. The current Rapid speed seems to get the balance about right - quick enough to allow a sensible length to the tournament but slow enough to allow some real thought even if you are working or have significant family commitments.

But perhaps the acid test is how many people are prepared to play at that speed. It does not seem to put people off playing in the current WCH, so whilst it will not be everyone's favourite, it does seem to have a broad enough appeal.

In terms of format, I think large groups (say 11+ people in each group) work well and I think better serve the idea of giving people a chance to play stronger players better than a Swiss, which is fine for a game or two and then flattens out.

In summary, I think Garvin's original suggestion works well.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-05-09 01:46:02)
Xiao Tong on his win in 6th FICGS Go WCH

Xiao Tong, winner of the 6th FICGS Go championship, kindly accepted to answer a few questions, here is the first part:


FICGS - Hello Xiao, congratulations once again for winning this nice match. Svante Carl von Erichsen was FICGS champion from the start of the site, after winning 5 championships. What did you think about his play & yours in these games?

Xiao Tong - Mr. Svante Carl von Erichsen is the strongest player I have met on this site. The games are so tough. In the middle of this match I thought I would lose in at least two games. At last I am lucky to have a 4-1 winning.

FICGS - Would you like to tell us a few words about you (where you live, other games you play, Go servers you play on...) so that we know you better?

Xiao Tong - I live in China but when I started to play Go on this site I was visiting France. In China when we play Go face to face, generally it takes 2 or 3 hours. But when we play on the ineternet, we always choose 30sec/move. I always play on TYGEM site, which is a China/Korea cooperated site. Before playing we need to install a client software. You can visit this address http://www.tygembaduk.com

FICGS - Unfortunately you are one of the rare chinese players at FICGS, but obviously they do very well. We all know many chinese Go champions names, could you tell us your opinion on the state of Go in China and in the world nowadays?

Xiao Tong - The past 10 years can be called Korea decade. They won more world championships than Chinese players, because before 1990 few Chinese children studied Go. But when China won several matches between China and Japan in late 1980s, more and more children started to study and play go. And then these millions of Go children grew up. Now Chinese players can get more world champions than Korea. I think besides the several world champions there are 30 young players in China who may win world championships in the future. They aged from 16-25.

FICGS - The best Go engines would now reach a level of 4 or 5 dan, is computer Go something that helps in such a correspondence Go championship according to you (and without revealing your secrets of course)? Do you think it is becoming a danger as it is for chess?

Xiao Tong - I don’t think computer Go engines can do anything. They are too weak.

FICGS - Do you watch other games played by your opponents before starting your games? Do you think that preparation is really important like it is in Correspondence chess?

Xiao Tong - I don’t take much time to analyze my opponents. But I will watch their games to get a first evaluation. World champions need to prepare before the game, because preparation can save their time in game. For me, preparation mean nothing.

FICGS - This FICGS Go championship is still young, what did you think about it? Would you change something, any rule, to improve it?

Xiao Tong - 1, Encourage players to play live games. One game can be finished in 2 hours when they play at 30sec/move. The more they play, the higher the site level will be. 2, when the world champion match is live on net, encourage player watch the games through your site. Let the watcher can bet on the live games. It will be more funny.


Many thanks to Xiao for these instructive answers, to be continued...


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-05-09 21:54:16)
Xiao Tong on his win in 6th FICGS Go WCH

I agree also... Well, I should add some words on that when new players login for the first times. But many are quickly discouraged as they do not find any opponent. But maybe we just need (much) more players.

As for me I'd like to play more live Go games, I only need more time mainly because of my correspondence tournaments :/

Any other ideas are welcome...


Paul Campanella    (2012-05-11 04:57:14)
Playing poker for e-points

Members of FICGS are able to play chess for e-points but poker challenges are only allowed in "bronze".

Why are members of FICGS not allowed to challenge other members to either "silver" or "gold" poker games?


Paul Campanella    (2012-05-11 04:59:09)
Playing poker for e-points

I personally think that playing poker for e-points should be allowed on FICGS.

It would make things more fun and might make players think twice about making foolish moves because actual money is on the line!

What does everyone else think?


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-05-11 14:06:30)
Playing poker for e-points

I personally agree with you Paul :)

The big problem is that I'd directly go to french prison :/ Unfortunately this is not authorized in France (yet - there is some hope but it will take time anyway)

So unless I move to another country this will not happen before a while...


Paul Campanella    (2012-05-11 15:44:04)
Playing poker for e-points

That is quite unfortunate... hopefully the law in France will change one day!


Peter W. Anderson    (2012-05-12 09:40:47)
Playing poker for e-points

I don't think this is a problem just because of French law. My understanding is that it is illegal to take on-line bets from US citizens regardless of which country is hosting the service. It happens but it is not legal. As e-points can be traded for money, this could be a problem.

On-line gambling is legal in the UK but sone UK companies have been charged under US laws for allowing US citizens to play on their poker sites. Most big UK on-line gambling companies block US citizens from playing at their sites.

So even if French law changes, be very careful Thibault. You would need to check the law of every country of the players.

I know a little bit about this as I have a friend who is hoping to make a lot of money (quite legally!) from on-line poker in the US (but for obvious reasons I can't say how).


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-05-12 13:35:05)
Top 20 Pro Go players

Here is a very nice series of articles/bios on current top Pro Go players by Gogameguru...

http://gogameguru.com/top-20-pro-go-2010/

Featuring Lee Sedol, Kong Jie, Park Junghwan, Choi Cheolhan, Kang Dongyun, Heo Youngho, Gu Li, Xie He, Won Seongjin, Li Zhe, Zhou Ruiyang, Tuo Jiaxi, Lee Changho, Qiu Jun, Kim Jiseok, Wang Xi, Cho Hanseung, Chen Yaoye, Park Younghun & Lee Younggu.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-05-12 13:41:03)
Playing poker for e-points

Epoints system for chess is the same than participating in an OTB chess tournament with an entry fee & prize. I guess (I hope) that this is authorized even in US.

But anyway you're right Peter, it took me much time to be sure of what it was possible to do or not. Actually FICGS could have started about a year earlier without that problem :/

Anyway there are many ways to turn around laws, e.g. if prizes are not money & so on... Maybe I could envisage something like that.


Peter W. Anderson    (2012-05-12 14:34:35)
Playing poker for e-points

Yes, of course, I was being dumb. If the e-points were for prizes as opposed to pots, then I think this would probably be legal in the US.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-05-12 16:16:06)
Playing poker for e-points

Actually the prize is either Epoints or Money. Maybe there could be Epoints only for poker but it is quite easy to convert it to money by playing chess games so I'm not even sure if it would be legal in France (and it is really hard to know).


Paul Campanella    (2012-05-12 16:48:36)
Playing poker for e-points

I am confused...

if this is the situation...

then why would playing chess for e-points be considered legal but playing poker for e-points be considered illegal?


Paul Campanella    (2012-05-12 16:57:46)
Playing poker for e-points

Is it not all considered "gambling"?


Garvin Gray    (2012-05-12 17:26:45)
Playing poker for e-points

Paul,

In general parlance, poker is regarded as a gambling game and so the idea that poker is also played in classic tournament fashion, just like every other sport, has never really caught on in legal terms.

The general version is more of the casino style with players joining in whenever they want and leaving whenever they want (or have lost their cash), rather than tournaments where everyone pays an entry fee and there is a winner at the end.

Combined with that is that chess has never been associated as a 'gambling' game or sport.

Remember also that in quite a lot of countries chess is a full recognised sport, or at least mindsport. So in those countries if playing for money in chess was illegal, then so would playing for money in all sports.

Thib- I wonder if playing for epoints in classic tournament fashion is legal, just like in irl poker tournaments?

That could be one option.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-05-12 23:26:19)
Playing poker for e-points

Actually the problem really exists in the opposite way... You'd be surprised! French departments really tried to discourage me to organize chess tournaments with money prizes, by making comparisons to gambling games! (and actually I also think that the limit is not so clear) - The problem is that there is no clear law on that issue.

I also know that the previous french government (Sarkozy's one) was to try to make it even harder to do that because of the success of some sites that offer skill money games. So I try to follow all this...


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-05-13 14:18:28)
Ficgs World Cup

... still thinking about it.

Sometimes it seems to me that such a championship would look like too much to FICGS WCH round-robin groups & could make regular tournaments entries slower (also not all interested players could play both WCH & CUP). Sometimes I'm more optimistic & see it mainly as an event more.

Any opinion after these few weeks?


Don Groves    (2012-05-13 14:37:24)
Playing poker for e-points

US gambling laws are antiquated (as they are in many areas). Gambling used to be illegal in most states but now nearly every state has gambling due to the rise of Native American casinos on reservation property. Also most states now have lotteries that were never allowed before. Times change faster than laws...


Paul Campanella    (2012-05-13 16:24:34)
Playing poker for e-points

So Thibault... what will happen as of now?


Don Groves    (2012-05-14 05:34:49)
Playing poker for e-points

I think he's already answered that question. He'd rather not go to prison.


Garvin Gray    (2012-05-14 15:43:13)
Playing poker for e-points

Don: no commitment from our Thib then. Oh come on, take one for the team hahahahahaha.


Paul Campanella    (2012-05-14 17:00:28)
Playing poker for e-points

What about playing for some other kind of prizes?


Paul Campanella    (2012-05-14 17:01:35)
Faster Refresh Time

Is it possible to change the time that it takes to refresh everything to 15 seconds instead of 30 seconds?

It would certainly make playing fast games easier!

What does everyone else think?


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-05-14 17:41:36)
Faster Refresh Time

You mean in the My games page? Well, sure I could make it even lower when there are few games (or none) displayed on the page, good idea!


Don Groves    (2012-05-14 22:46:36)
Playing poker for e-points

True, Garvin, many criminal still run their enterprises from prison ;-)


Paul Campanella    (2012-05-15 14:07:37)
Faster Refresh Time

Here is an example of why I consider the 30 second refresh time to be bad...

Example: Pretend someone is playing 10 poker games on FICGS simultaneously.

Having the refresh time take so long is quite annoying due to the fact that nothing appears during the 30 second time interval, but after the 30 seconds are over... the page gets refreshed... then all 10 moves appear at once and it is difficult to manage.

Perhaps if we shorten the time to 15 seconds, it would end up being easier for everyone who is playing multiple games at once due to the fact that they can see their opponents moves as soon as they are made. 10 seconds is obviously too short of an amount of time to consider but I can't understand why the 15 second rule would be a problem for anyone trying to chat because it does not take 15 seconds to type a few words and hit the enter key.

If people still think that 15 seconds is too fast, then how about we make it 20 seconds? That could be an ideal amount of time to consider because it is faster than 15 but slower than 30 seconds.

What does everyone think?


Scott Nichols    (2012-05-18 16:44:21)
Private chat?

Maybe this has been discussed before, I don't know. Sometimes we just want to have a small chat with a particular person. Here there are three options, chat in public for all to see, go thru a series of e-mails (yuk), or leave the site to go somewhere this is possible. e.g. Thib, come to FB, Scott come to Playchess. Is it possible to do something like this?


Garvin Gray    (2012-05-19 15:24:06)
Second match v Rybka Forum

Hello all,

I have been thinking about this for a while, but I was wondering how many ficgs players would be interested in participating in a match vs Rybka Forum.

We tried this concept once before with limited success from an organisational point of view. From a playing pov, ficgs had little success :o

I am thinking something like this for a format:

1) Time control 30 moves initial plus 1 day increment
2) All individual matches are two games
3) Players are to play in rating order. - RF now does have some kind of rating system, at least for WBCCC participants. I think more of their players have also come over to here, so have ratings here.
4) We possibly could use xfcc play, which would allow conditionals to be used, but might mean all the games are played and shown at RF. - Might be possible to have them shown here somehow 'live'.

So, time to get some interest. Who would be willing to participate?

I am going to post this over at RF as well.


Garvin Gray    (2012-05-19 15:31:54)
Advanced challenges, time out expiry

I think time has come to implement a time out expiry on advanced games challenges.

If an advanced game challenge has not been accepted by someone with 1 hour of its posting, that challenge expires and is automatically removed from the system.

The challenge would then need to be re-issued.

This would help prevent the issue of players accepting challenges many hours after it was posted and then waiting around for a time out.

It would also help to ensure that the challenger was around to accept their own challenge.


Don Groves    (2012-05-20 00:31:55)
Advanced challenges, time out expiry

This could also be fixed by not starting clocks until both players are online.


Garvin Gray    (2012-05-21 15:45:11)
Second match v Rybka Forum

Neel, Planning is only in its infancy and there are many hurdles to overcome.

So stay tuned.

Some of these hurdles include:

Interest from both sites?
Whether we use Rybka Forum's playing client?
If that will be available to all or just RF members?
What the time control will be?
Will players have to play their games on here as well as RF?
Whether conditional moves will be used?
How many players per team?
Is it possible to use the RF playing client, but have games transmitted live on both sites, so all members of both sites can follow the action as it happens?
Will chat be allowed in the games? This could be a sticking point as the two forums run very differently on this issue.
Who plays for which team?

And the list goes on.


Scott Nichols    (2012-05-21 19:06:41)
Second match v Rybka Forum

MY list is short, it would have to be played on here under strict time limit of 30 days + 1 day increment. And I would play for the home team. I think the RF players need to give this server a chance.


Don Groves    (2012-05-23 07:08:22)
Members who never played

The rating lists are full of people who joined FICGS, then left after not playing even one game. What purpose does it serve to have these people in the rating lists? The lists would be more informative if these names were dropped.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-05-25 01:39:55)
Members who never played

A long time issue... The active players rating list partially fixed it but it needs some improvement for sure. I should be able to do this in the next few days... finally!


Garvin Gray    (2012-05-27 08:36:57)
Second match v Rybka Forum

It has been confirmed that we can use xfccplay for all the games, if we wish.

Xfccplay is a playing client where players can make their moves and they are transmitted live to the Rybka Forum sub forum where these games will be shown live. Hopefully it will be possible to also show them here live.

To pursue using xfccplay further, I need to know if anyone who is considering playing would be not willing to play if the whole match is held using xfccplay, rather than making moves on here.

I certainly do want the second match to be very different to the first. To start with, that no games end with time outs.

Likely format:

Time control: 30 days initial plus 1 day increment.
Format: Each player plays two games against a single opponent
Number of players for each team: As many players as we can get for both teams
Board Order: By rating for those who have ratings on the site they are playing for. Others can be placed at captain’s discretion.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-05-28 16:32:40)
Second match v Rybka Forum

How do we avoid time outs? :/

Well, games may be played on RF (using Xfcc or not) or here, or on both sites (players choice).

Garvin, I'm afraid that games played through Xfcc cannot be shown here but that's not so important if it is viewable at RybkaForum.


Garvin Gray    (2012-05-29 11:54:54)
Ficgs: Number 1 freestyle chess site??

Title is deliberately provocative :)

Was looking to see how many other freestyle chess sites there are and came across this wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess

The trend might be changing as Advanced Chess is offered on the correspondence chess server at FICGS as the default mode of play, with special, unrated, "no engines" tournaments being the exception, rather than the rule. http://www.ficgs.com/


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-05-30 23:44:03)
Freestyle chess interfaces

Oh... didn't see this article before.

Well, I guess that a good freestyle interface should allow the use of an engine just like Playchess does. Playchess interface is not exactly a website though. But anyway there is so much that could be done yet to improve it :/


Garvin Gray    (2012-06-01 20:20:07)
Second match v Rybka Forum

I have been informed that the conditional move system of xfccplay can not be removed just for one tournament, so if we use xfccplay for at least half the games, conditionals will be in operation.

I still think we can go ahead with using xfccplay, just that the half of the games that are played using xfccplay will have conditionals, and the ones played here will not.

While it is an issue, it is not a big issue, or a showstopper.

Everyone will still be playing two games against the same opponent. One here and one with xfccplay at RF. I will give a couple of days for feedback. If there is no discussion, I will formalise details and then we will move on to official collection of entries, getting players familiar with xfccplay and then on to the games proper.


Garvin Gray    (2012-06-06 13:53:31)
Second match v Rybka Forum

Hello all,

Current discussion here: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=24942

Following discussions on RF and now what looks like a completely different format to what I was proposing and ideas I had in mind and seeing what looks like a no compromise situation from the RF side, it looks almost certain that I will not be having anything to do with organising this event, or participating for either side.

When I first came up with this idea of trying to get a second match going, one of the main ideas was to help promote both forums and playing clients to a wider audience, and especially to the better players for both sites.

Now that I see what RF seems to have in mind, or at least what they are willing to accept for playing conditions, I find them wholly unacceptable and contrary to the ideas and purposes originally intended.

The current proposed design really does have a pro RF feel about it, in that FICGS players will have to learn how to use xfccplay to play on here, plus possibly sign up an account, but RF players will not have to do the same at FICGS. I am also wondering, what happens if the high majority of players from both sites say they only want to play on their own forum. This whole competition falls over.

RF 'bosses' have been kind enough to allow xfccplay to be used for these games to make them a better product. I do not think it is unreasonable for RF players to play some of their games on FICGS.

Secondly, the current proposed design also goes competely against another original idea, which was to have the top player from RF competing against the top player from FICGS. And so on down the boards. This current design will most likely result in random board pairings and henceforth likely mis-matches, rather than having showpiece games and at the same time having the bottom players from both sides games counting as much as the top board. Potentially it could now be the top player from FICGS against the two bottom players from RF and vice versa. That is ridiculous.

So all in all, I have proposed a format originally on both sites. I do not see the current proposed format as achieving anything substantial and certainly not in the vein of the original ideas. Had I known the current structure was going to be proposed, I never would have bothered proposing this in the first place.

Unless the current structure changes, I hereby resign as overall organiser and go between for both forums and also as a participant in the second match.


Kind regards,

Garvin Gray


Garvin Gray    (2012-06-08 11:07:00)
Second match v Rybka Forum

Following on from my post above, we will now be going with the format originally posted, which is:

1) Time control 30 moves initial plus 1 day increment
2) All individual matches are two games
3) Players are to play in rating order. - RF now does have some kind of rating system, at least for WBCCC participants. I think more of their players have also come over to here, so have ratings here.
4) Xfccplay will be used for the games played at RF
5) Conditional move system will be used for the games played at RF. Games played here will be using the standard interface.

Both sides are going to have to make compromises. Ficgs players who are not already familiar with xfccplay are going to need to learn how to use it and will also need to join RF.

RF players, who are not members of here already, will need to sign up to here and learn how to use this interface.

I can not give a definite sign up by this date yet as some of the nuts and bolts are still being worked out.

Can everyone start saying if they are going to play? I hope this will be more than just the players who already play in WBCCC as I do hope it is the best players from both sites participating as well.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-06-08 18:05:51)
Second match v Rybka Forum

@ Nick : why not, I'd be glad to organize such a match with LSS but I will not propose it, many players here came from IECG/LSS.

@ Garvin : just tell me when I can announce the match in a newsletter, we'll create a new forum topic (and/or if you have a public email) for registrations.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-07-28 00:10:50)
FICGS IS BACK !!!!!!!!!

First of all, I've added 15 days to all players in running games because of the delay and the fact that many of us may have no access to internet during the summer vacation (this time is added to the 46 days, 13 hours and 20 minutes since the crash for players expected to play), this issue was discussed at Rybkaforum, of course it may be unfair to few players in certain games where their opponent had few time but I did not find a better balanced solution, sorry about that :(

Among other consequences, the current championships cycle will last 10 months instead of 8, and july correspondence chess ratings will be updated very soon.

Well, how to start... fortunately such an event is rare but possible, and following the Murphy's law, it happened (first time for me), the server's hard disk crashed and the least I can say is I've not been lucky, even if I obviously did some things wrong.

Of course I had enough data at home to rebuild all games until a few hours before the crash but I thought it was worth it to pause the server during a few days/weeks to recover more moves, and if possible ALL moves. I really hoped that it would work and at the end it did, but not completely... for unknown reasons. I had also other data to recover from the server, including some FICGS data that were not backuped correctly (my bad), because I did not think far enough 6 years ago when I coded the first FICGS scripts... That will be fixed very soon.

So, because the DDrescue process did not work -unlucky- just after the crash, my server provider (OVH in France) had to send me the hard drive and it took sooooo much time already :/

Then I tried to recover some files and the databases by myself and I learnt much on how to save a hard drive but each process was really long, it took several days again...

Finally none process completely succeeded, few sectors of the hard drive remained unreadable and unfortunately the FICGS database is divided into very numerous parts written everywhere on the disk.

At the end, I brought the disk to the very best professionals able to save it... the process was quite long again and it did not completely worked as well, for an unknown reason the current database was still not readable but they did much better than me at the end.

Finally the whole process was worth it, but I did not expect it could take so much time.... 46 days, 13 hours, 20 minutes. And that's a shame :(


Of course, I could have used a RAID 10 server, I was not favourable to this choice because it is not 100% safe as well, I don't know it enough and it's much more expensive. I'll reconsider it though.

But the other things I did wrong are clear anyway, I lacked of experience in such a situation and most important, I'll do now better backups also on another server every hour. Next time (if any), we'll lose at most 1 hour of moves but the server will be able to restart within 1 day.

One thing is sure, internet was really empty for me without FICGS during this long month and a half and I missed our tournaments too much so that happen again! Have no doubt, FICGS would not have stopped in all cases but once again I'm really sorry about that and all consequences... I can only hope that you'll enjoy your games as before.

Thanks for your understanding.

Best regards,
Thibault


Charlie Neil    (2012-07-28 10:11:05)
FICGS IS BACK !!!!!!!!!

Thibault

Thank you for all your work. I missed my "club". Even down here among the 1200+ graded players we need our chess. We strive to improve.


Daniel Parmet    (2012-06-09 05:36:02)
Second match v Rybka Forum

As far as a Rybka Forum match goes, as long as the time control is 30 days + 1 day increment then I would love to play.

As far as LSS match goes, I would only agree to play if it was on FICGS whree Thib would have control rather than the insane man that runs LSS.


Robert Mueller    (2012-07-28 11:18:35)
Rating List

Number 1 in the established rating list (Rene-Reiner Starke) has (a) never played a single game on FICGS, (b) is not currently playing any games at FICGS and (c) has not even logged on since 2010. Why is he the number 1?


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-07-28 11:34:00)
Rating List

Hello Robert, yes this has always worked like this (also to attract new players), that's why there's also an active players list.

Anyway there were other discussions on this issue and solutions envisaged, I'll come back to it soon...


Sylvain Praz    (2012-07-28 23:18:04)
FICGS IS BACK !!!!!!!!!

I'm very glad that it could get ok again, really missed to play^^

Thx very much Thibault for all the work!


Garvin Gray    (2012-07-29 03:24:12)
Second match v Rybka Forum

I think we are now finding out which players would be most likely to represent ficgs in a ficgs v Rybka match.


Nick Burrows    (2012-07-29 04:23:08)
Second match v Rybka Forum

I would like to play if needed.


Garvin Gray    (2012-07-29 10:12:48)
Reset tournament waiting lists

I think it might be a good idea to reset the tournament waiting lists, rather than keeping the ones we have now.

The reason being that with it being so long between when they entered and now that it is highly likely that a lot of the players are going to forfeit games.


Peter W. Anderson    (2012-07-30 09:42:51)
Reset tournament waiting lists

I would prefer them not to be reset. As the rating list has been updated since entering, I could no longer rejoin the the same waiting list, and nobody seems to play in the alternative.


Don Groves    (2012-08-02 06:11:16)
Rating List

My feeling is that a player should not be in any FICGS rating list until they have completed at least one game at FICGS.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-08-03 16:26:08)
Rating List

Well, a bit further a player should not start with a 2400 rating, wherever he's coming from. I think it is interesting for many to know who registered at FICGS. The "complete" correspondence chess rating list is the only one where one can see all registered players, most inactive players just disappear of the active players list after a few weeks, is it a real problem!?

Anyway I understand the point but I fear I cannot do anything before a while, whatever the final decision :/


Scott Nichols    (2012-08-10 22:53:49)
Premium site?

I usually agree with most everything, but I have to say... On the internet there are many, many free chess sites to go to, some better than others. Then there are the paid sites for people who are willing to spend a little to getting a better site and service.

This site is free to look around and very adequate for that. But some of us pay to play the premium features. The amount of down time is becoming a major issue. The first one, hard drive fried, who's hasn't, but since then, 2 more outages that I know of. For a premium site, this is disheartening.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-08-11 17:33:23)
Premium site?

Hi Garvin, it is true that during the first years a few players and an automatic checker were able to contact me anytime on my phone by email, unfortunately this was not the case anymore this last year but it should be possible again very soon, I'll let you know.


David Ward    (2012-08-21 18:19:46)
Faster Refresh Time

I would like to turn automatic refresh off so that my popup blocker is not triggered. I do not play fast games here; I play blitz on a live server.


Peter W. Anderson    (2012-08-26 14:07:57)
money prize tournaments

Any of these as long as they are rapid speed. My preferance would be for 1 or 3.

This would be an interesting development. Would we get some of the 2400+ players playing at rapid speed I wonder?


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-09-10 21:44:10)
Faster Refresh Time

Ah... sorry about that. Could you tell me what is displayed and what happens?


David Ward    (2012-09-12 17:33:33)
Faster Refresh Time

I get the following report after clicking "No refresh" on the "My games" page, but I continue to get messages that Internet Explorer blocked a popup from www.ficgs.com.

"This page will refresh itself when you have a new move to play, then you'll see a (!) at the beginning of the page title.

If you do not see the clock below, your browser could not support Frames & Javascript or it could be turned off. In this case you will have to refresh the page manually.

This option is currently off.

Possible refresh delays for this session: no refresh, 5 sec, 10 sec, 30 sec. "


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-09-19 13:39:54)
Limit number of poker games

Hi all, I'd like to have opinions about a possible change of the limit number of running poker holdem games per player from 50 to 100, for more fun. This is just poker after all :)

Personally I don't need more than 50 games but I know that certain players do, what about you?

The problem is still the impact of general forfeits and not to provoke a few ones more. I guess that certain players may go easily to 100 games then realize it is too much...

What do you think?


Daniel Parmet    (2012-09-19 13:47:54)
Limit number of poker games

I think the games go far too long. I am done playing poker here because the average poker game is LONGER than the average chess game!


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2012-09-19 17:29:38)
Limit number of poker games

Hello Thibault!

Please change the number of possible poker games to 100 (or make it unrestricted).

IMO it makes no difference if a player forfeits 50 or 100 games, even not for the ratings.

If you see a way to reduce the time control, then do it, but I think there is no way ...


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-09-19 18:30:24)
Limit number of poker games

Yes, I'm thinking (not all day long) for years now about a good solution to reduce the poker time control... obviously I did not find something satisfying :(

I know that many members play often one move per day, this is a problem.


Don Groves    (2012-09-20 03:19:26)
Limit number of poker games

When two poker opponents are in far apart time zones, one move a day is about the maximum they can play. I vote for the blinds to increases after 25 moves.

The ratings in one or two games are not going to reflect skill anyway. Playing more games (shorter games) would do as good or better job of rating players.


Don Groves    (2012-09-20 13:06:22)
Limit number of poker games

But if games were shorter, then far more than 5 single games could be played in the same time as a 5-game match is now. So you might be comparing 15 single games against one match. I feel this would be just as good for the ratings and a lot more fun for the players.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-09-20 17:20:31)
Limit number of poker games

The shorter the games are, the more important the chancy factor is, so ratings do not mean anything anymore...

But it would be more fun for certain players, I agree with this. FICGS is dedicated to be a place for ratings, it wouldn't be so coherent. As for me I see no fun at all in a pure chancy game, it's just like playing roulette forever.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-09-20 18:13:35)
Limit number of poker games

Nope, as for Go (and not as for chess) we all play bullet or correspondence poker about the same way, so one rating for all time controls.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2012-09-20 18:32:53)
Limit number of poker games

We had this discussion several times, but it never leads to a change.

My problem is, that sometimes I cannot enter a waiting list because of too many running games. I accept, that the games can last very long - that's not nice but I can live with that. But it should not stop me to get some new games with fast players. That's the reason why I asked Thibault to increase the number of poker games. Is there a problem if the number is increased to 100?


Don Groves    (2012-09-21 05:01:54)
Limit number of poker games

Thib: Granted shorter games are more chancy but that is offset by playing a lot more games. The total number of *deals* is what offsets the chancy factor.

10 games of 100 deals has the same probability effect as 2 games of 500 deals. But 10 games in the same timeframe as 2 is a lot more fun, imho.


Don Groves    (2012-09-21 05:06:44)
A radical idea?

Since not all Chess players seem to agree on the best set of "advanced" games, why not allow the players in a game to decide on their own game parameters? If Scott and Alvin want to play a 15 minute game with 5 seconds added per move, let them do that.

Only the ratings of the two players involved are affected, so it seems this idea would not interfere with ratings and could be popular.


Garvin Gray    (2012-09-22 08:40:14)
A radical idea?

How this could be done is as follows:

Player A (person sending challenge)specifies what time control they want.

This would do away with the concept of bullet, lightning and blitz as player can choose whatever time control they want.

The three terms are not required as there is no weighting for rating purposes in advanced chess based on the the time control.

Then the challenged player can accept the challenge, or propose a new time control or parameter.

The clocks would only start after the challenge has been offered and agreed to.

This would eliminate time forfeits.


Garvin Gray    (2012-09-23 08:11:54)
Limit number of poker games

I have tried reading this thread a few times, but seem to be missing a point or three, maybe even four.

1) Thib- Can you explain this a bit more in simpler fashion :)- It is possible to calculate it but in brief, for 1 game of 1000 dealts, the perf will be opp.rating +350 or opp.rating -350 .. for 10 games of 100 deals with a score of 7/3 (which is quite unbalanced already for so few hands), the perf will be about opp.rating +170 or opp.rating -170

2) When posters are referring to faster games, are they talking about reducing the time control, or having the blinds increase at a faster rate?

3) I would prefer best of 3, rather than best of 5. I am not sure if best of 5 on here really does produce more accurate ratings as I find it quite common that players will go all in early, or take risks early on, knowing even if they lose set 1, they are only behind 1-0 and there is a long way to go. Best of 3 would force players to play 'real poker' from earlier on.

This would produce more meaningful results.

The number of hands I play which involve just 1 and 2 chips pisses me off no end and deters me from playing more often.


Don Groves    (2012-09-23 12:44:57)
Limit number of poker games

My answer is to increase the blinds faster. As Thib says, this reduces the skill effect in games but I think more games played will make up for most of that. Plus there's the fun factor. As you say, those first 50 moves can be boring.

Some players here offset that by going all in often. But that also reduces the skill effect.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-09-27 23:39:12)
Eros Riccio wins 6th and 7th chess WCH

By beating Alberto Gueci in the final match of the 6th chess championship & Ostap Hladky in the candidates final of the 7th chess championship, Eros Riccio will remain FICGS chess champion for at least 16 months! After this huge performance, Eros accepted to answer a few questions:

----------------------------------

- Hello Eros and congratulations again for winning your 3rd and 4th (respectively 6th and 7th cycles) FICGS chess championships in a row, beating Alerto Gueci in the 12 games match of the final match and Ostap Hladky in the 8 games match of the candidates final so that you meet yourself in the last round that thus will not happen for the 3rd time of the championship (first time was during the first cycle because there was no champion yet). All games of the two matches were drawn, but it does not say much on the intensity of the match as we all know your strategy since your win in your first final match vs. Edward Kotlyanskiy when you explained that your preferred a draw that guarantees the victory than a possible win where a mouse slip is still possible. Obviously your strategy works very well but one can add that you had an impressive number of running games at the rapid time control, so very much pressure... How did you live these last months of correspondence chess and these two matches?

Hi Thib! And thanks once again for the congratulations. These 28 games (let's not forget also the 8 games match against Gino Figlio) probably started in the worst moment for me, just a few months after the very important European Team Championship on ICCF had started. When I told my captain that I was starting another 28 games... he was very disappointed and worried, as he had repeated a lot of times to every player of our team not to start new tournaments and to focus only on this tournament. Also for this reason I had decided not to join the new Italian Championship and other tournaments and to withdraw from the Champions League, but unfortunately I had no control on when to start my FICGS games. So... my priority was for my ICCF games, and fortunately for me all I needed to do in my FICGS Matches to win was to make draws, and that's what I tried to do in most of my games as fast as possible, and to my surprise my opponents accepted to draw many games quite quickly, not trying to fight each game "to death" like I would have done if I would have been them. This of course only created quick boring games, but I didn't see the point in putting energy in trying to win games myself.... I think my opponents should have done that!

- We all know that you and Alberto are good friends from long time, did it influence your match in the 6th WCH in any way according to you?

Well, it's a good think knowing your opponent's habits... you can send your moves as soon as you know he goes to bed :-)

- Ostap Hladky is undoubtly one of the strongest players at FICGS, was this match (7th WCH candidates final) very different from the other one?

Hladky was the strongest player I had ever played on FICGS, he is very unpredictable, he simply plays unexpected moves that engines don't suggest, but if you show them those moves, they slowly realize those are very good moves. I risked to lose more than one game vs him, even as White. Luckily I still managed to draw, and in my opinion he also accepted some draws too quickly.

- With the last evolutions of chess engines, playing better & better chess, would you say that you now spend less time on each game or not at all?

I don't spend less time on my games, I still try to use (almost) all the time on my "clock". Trying to analyze as many variations as possible with the time you are given has little to do with engines improvement, who still are far from being able to always suggesting the best move by simply letting them run for hours on a static position. You need to analyze going "forward" in the position in order to be able to find the best moves.

- By the way, it is said sometimes (again) that correspondence chess will not survive the decade, what do you think? Do you envisage to change for Go or poker like many players? :)

Wins and Losses still happen even at the highest levels at the present time. I think that many years still have to pass before having all draws in high level tournaments. When that happens... and it will probably happen sooner or later as chess in my opinion is a draw with perfect play... then probably new rules will be introduced, maybe the board will be enlarged and even new pieces with new movements might be invented.

- You now are ICCF GM with an impressive 2624 rating, how are going your other correspondence chess competitions? Do you have any goal to reach yet?

All my ICCF tournaments are going good, and very soon I will be Italian Champion once again (just waiting my last opponent to resign a lost position). I still haven't reached the first place in the italian elo rating list though. That would be a goal I would surely have pleasure in reaching, and of course I would like to win the ICCF's World Championship at least once. After that I can retire :-)

- Thank you Eros, also for this great correspondence chess lesson.

Welcome Thib! A pleasure for me.


Garvin Gray    (2012-10-06 17:21:33)
WCH Final match

After having read Eros Riccio's answers to the interview questions on his defending his title twice, I am proposing a few changes to the final match.

I wish to make it clear that this is not in any way an attack on any person. They can only play to the rules set and try to use those rules to their advantage.

My issue is with the rules themselves.

I would like to propose a new format for the final match, because I think it is ridiculous that any player can defend their title with short draws and make no real attempt to prove that they are superior than their opponent.

Of course if the challenger is happy to draw all eight or twelve games, then that is their 'fault' as well.

My proposal is the following:

After eight games, if neither player has won a game, then the match continues for another four games.

In the first eight games, if both sides have won at least one game each, then the result is a drawn match and the champion keeps their title.

In the tie breaking four games, as soon as one player wins a game, the match is over.

I think the current rules are weighted way too much in favour of the champion, which as we have seen from these two games, the champion does not even have to try to prove that he is better than the challenger, but can just draw all eight/twelve games and retain the title.

Thib, please change the rules for this upcoming cycle.


Jose Carrizo    (2012-10-07 01:43:48)
WCH Final match

Very interesting proposal Garvin,and I see the point, but I think there is a problem with: "In the tie breaking four games, as soon as one player wins a game, the match is over." A lost position may be continued to avoid the first loss.
Maybe the tiebreak games must be played in faster time controls, and so on, like tiebreaks in OTB chess.


Garvin Gray    (2012-10-07 19:13:36)
WCH Final match

>A lost position may be continued to avoid the first loss.

I had carefully considered this possibility. I will take an example from transfer/bughouse. When one player is about to be mated, they will stop playing that game, allowing their time to run out, in the hope that their partner will be able to mate the opposition before their own time runs out.

If both games in transfer reach a mate in one position, the side with less time on their clock with their turn to move loses as they will run out of time first.

How does this apply to the WCH?

Well, yes a player could stall on a game they think is lost, but then they would also be required to win another game to make up for it.

This could be a bit silly, but better than other options.

At least there is a sufficient reward for trying to win a game, which is the main objective of all this, to try and get the players to try and win as many games as possible.


>Maybe the tiebreak games must be played in faster time controls, and so on, like tiebreaks in OTB chess.

Not realistic on here. The faster the game , the more it becomes like freestyle/advanced chess and less like correspondence. Also, as is shown in otb, some players would prefer to try and win in rapids, so the solution of having rapid games could in fact increase the short draw odds because the players think, I would rather play a few rapid games, rather than a years worth of long correspondence games.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-10-07 19:16:15)
WCH Final match

I'm not sure if there can be a real debate on this issue (but we can try of course)... all opinions are in the nature, when I created FICGS I had in mind the original FIDE WCH and I'm still a huge fan of this system. Now fact is FIDE WCH does not mean anything anymore (its champions as well) after numerous bad changes and I feel FICGS chess WCH makes sense more and more.

12 games is enough to fight for a win IMO and I'm sure that there are a few players able to beat Eros in such a match (doesn't mean it would happen anytime though :)), I'm just too impatient to watch the next ones. Eros is building his name in correspondence chess in multiple places at the same time, and the fact that it happened here so quickly after he joined us makes me think that the system is good! I see nothing to change, the result of his match with Alberto was fully explained by Eros, the score has no importance at the end... and he deserves his other title in the other cycle even more by not having to play the final match... just my opinion of course, as I can understand all systems (ICCF etc.), just a question of personal taste at the end.


Garvin Gray    (2012-10-09 16:33:26)
WCH Final match

Thib: I think your analysis or love with the old style world champ format contains a flaw in relation to playing on here.

In the old style world champs, games are played one at a time. On here, all the games start at the same time.

Secondly, with the old style world champs, the matches were over 24 games, so the equivalent would be to play the final match over 24 games.

The current world champ cycle suffers from the same effect as the ficgs final match does, the match is too short, resulting in lots of draws because one loss is devastating.

If you do not want to change the rules to encourage players to try for wins, then lengthen the match to 24 games.

Otherwise you are just like quite a lot of organisers who just love the past (tradition) and are not prepared to make the players actually try to win games, rather than bore their viewers to death with short draws.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-10-09 18:52:25)
WCH Final match

Of course this correspondence chess championship is very different from FIDE WCH, but it seems to me that 12 games is still enough (24 games would be quite inhuman by the way), the score in the latest final matches was not significant on the draws issue, particularly now that we all know how Eros deals with it (in a smart way that can be compared to Kramnik's strategy in his match vs. Kasparov: draw with Berlin's defence, fight with White if no risk). IMO the champion has nothing to prove as he made it in a whole cycle and by beating the previous one, while a challenger should at least be able to win one game out of 12.

Actually the real evolution should have been towards freestyle chess, but it has no success enough to organize a whole cycle and it looks like Eros is the king as well. Also I don't like the idea to melt different time controls like FIDE does. The whole challenge is about one thing, not 3 or 4 differents kinds of games.

I love the past tradition not because it is a tradition, but because I really think it is the best system so far! If a new system proves to be better to me (there will always be a question of taste though, of course) then we would have to discuss it here.

The only way to encourage players to try for wins is to go towards the ICCF format, that has other issues that I wanted to avoid at any price. And why to do the same?


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-10-09 19:16:42)
WCH Final match

No problem, I understand your concern... well I believe that these short draws are just a problem instead of another, at least we have a clear champion! What will happen when round-robin WCH tournaments (ICCF format) will be decided by Soderborn or whatever because of several winners with 6,5 or 7 out of 12 points, as it seems to happen in some tournaments... Though there is no better way to encourage players to win than RR tournaments.


Jay Melquiades    (2012-10-11 06:39:37)
for 2013 poker tourneys

that after 50 hands in a poker match deduct 10 hours from both players
after 60 hands deduct 20 hours from both players
after 70 hands deduct 30 hours from both players
and so on

imo it will cut down on those 100 plus poker handed matches i see when i check out poker tourneys


Garvin Gray    (2012-10-13 12:49:22)
WCH Final match

Neel, I have no particular issue with draw odds. Being corro, it is not possible to organise anything that might be still decent corro, but is at a more rapid time control to get a tie break going.

My issue is that as Eros's comments have shown, he was not even slightly forced to try and win any of the games.

So I think the rules should be made more attractive to try and get players to win games (and yes put on a show too).

Another idea could be to start eight games, if the champion is ahead, the match is over and if still tied, start games 9 to 16.

If the challenger is ahead after game 8, games 9 to 16 are still played, and now the champion would have to go all out to win a game to at least draw level.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-10-15 12:50:09)
Ficgs World Cup

Hi Garvin, I still have doubts on launching what would look like another championship based on ICCF WCH format when we don't have players enough... I'm afraid we have other priorities before that :/


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-10-15 12:58:54)
for 2013 poker tourneys

The idea is to have less time to finish a poker game, particularly when we play many moves a day... But mathematically the 1 move per day problem will probably remain :/

Don is right, the longest poker game so far here is more than 3300 moves (probably more than 500 hands), it can take a while to play it.


Kamesh Nookala    (2012-10-23 07:36:10)
Eros Riccio wins 6th and 7th chess WCH

°!°
Better Retire before i start playing again :-o
I could have played till death without draw offers.

BTW, Congrats Mr. Riccio.


Jay Melquiades    (2012-10-28 01:51:02)
online place to play shogi

shogi???


Don Groves    (2012-10-28 06:03:33)
online place to play

Not here. Try Google?


Jay Melquiades    (2012-10-28 07:41:17)
online place to play

been there done that :(


Don Groves    (2012-10-28 08:36:02)
online place to play

Huh? I just googled "shogi online" and got several results.


Michael Aigner    (2012-11-06 15:34:52)
The very unofficial World Championship

Hello everybody,
the computer chess enthusiast of the CSS forum are trying to organise a match "Houdini 3 versus Rybka Cluster".

The initiative came from the maintainer of the renowned IPON rating list. His estimation for two long games is 864 ducats. There more the better. I didn't observe how much was donated already, but quite a lot, and there is big enthusiasm about it. It seems that very good hardware for the Houdini side, and a way to collect the ducats at Playchess, have already been organized.

For details, see http://forum.computerschach.de/cgi-bin/mwf/topic_show.pl?tid=5093

(I guess Google translation can help if required, with the usual quirks.)

If somebody likes the idea it would be easy to participate there too.

All the best, Michael


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-11-27 14:20:39)
How do I stop the pop-up message boxes?

Hi Nick.

Yes, I remember that very rare problem... what's your navigator? It seems to me that it happened for one player on all navigators and nothig could prevent it.

Unfortunately this box is useful so that everything works fine for all other players.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-11-27 18:16:07)
How do I stop the pop-up message boxes?

Sure, by the way it is a general advice whatever the matter...

eg. "Ouch, it's hot - Don't use IE" :)

That said and more seriously, if I remember well, it also happened once on Firefox or Chrome for 1 player and I never understood why.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-12-02 00:50:54)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

Hello all,

As I mentioned in the chat bar, there is a problem to build new groups as I usually do a few weeks after the start of the chess championship...

Players who entered the waiting list for replacements are:

AUT Rada, Hannes 2465
ISR Blinchevsky, Alexander 2206
ITA Bonoldi, Fabio 2049
DEU Wolf, Bernd 2113
ARG Reboredo, Daniel 1941
ITA Fabris, Alberto 1995
ITA Piantadosi, Angelo 1319
UKR Simashkevitch, Mykola 1987
DEU Lommler, Jan Peter 1860
BEL Pepermans, Toon 2000
USA Batal, Jean 1960
GBR Hancock, Sarah 1614
USA Johnson, Bobby 2412
GBR Burrows, Nick 1935
UKR Malish, Dmitriy 1146
COL Rey, Eduardo 1800
FRA Satonnet, Patrick 1351
GBR Soszynski, Marek 2143
POL Nig, Piotr 2028
USA Davis, Mark 1192
FRA Estieu, Frederick 1383
USA Lovelace, Randy 1504
CAN Deline, Ralph 2179
UKR Bromo, Alexis 1129
BIH Dautovic, Dzenan 1653
USA Knighton, Robert 1950


4 players rated 1500-1800 already replaced those who were to lose their games on time... As a result, we have many players rated 1900-2100 and too few with low ratings. Of course players rated 2400+ will not like to play in regular groups.

Right now I could create only one group with a similar rating average, nothing more but I would have to choose a few players only, which is not a great solution. I tried several combinations, M groups and so on.

I know that a few players would prefer not to see these new groups created and right now I see no solution good enough to create it.

If I cannot find any idea, I think there won't be new groups this time.

Any suggestion?


Robert Knighton    (2012-12-02 04:33:02)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

"Round-robin tournaments are groups of 7, 9, 11 or 13 players, there may be double round-robin tournaments in case of groups of less than 7 players". . . The first group might be pushing it a little bit with Alexander being a bit low rated compared to the other two... but the rest looks ok to me. What do you think?

3 Man Double Round Robin
AUT Rada, Hannes 2465
USA Johnson, Bobby 2412
ISR Blinchevsky, Alexander 2206

3 Man Double Round Robin
CAN Deline, Ralph 2179
GBR Soszynski, Marek 2143
DEU Wolf, Bernd 2113

11 Man Round Robin
ITA Bonoldi, Fabio 2049
POL Nig, Piotr 2028
BEL Pepermans, Toon 2000
ITA Fabris, Alberto 1995
UKR Simashkevitch, Mykola 1987
USA Batal, Jean 1960
USA Knighton, Robert 1950
ARG Reboredo, Daniel 1941
GBR Burrows, Nick 1935
DEU Lommler, Jan Peter 1860
COL Rey, Eduardo 1800

3 Man Double Round Robin
BIH Dautovic, Dzenan 1653
GBR Hancock, Sarah 1614
USA Lovelace, Randy 1504

3 Man Double Round Robin
FRA Estieu, Frederick 1383
FRA Satonnet, Patrick 1351
ITA Piantadosi, Angelo 1319

3 Man Double Round Robin
USA Davis, Mark 1192
UKR Malish, Dmitriy 1146
UKR Bromo, Alexis 1129


Wayne Lowrance    (2012-12-02 04:54:10)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

Robert, I do not think it is fair to insert Alexander with those too strong players. It is a problem. I can understands Thibault's problem now. Well what ever he decides is oki with me. but I would really oppose suggest divergent ratings in a group. In fact Rada has a problem he is by too high for even being that 3 group. I just do not know enough about these things to contribute.


Robert Knighton    (2012-12-02 05:03:13)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

You could do this but.. I don't know how good it would be. I would be willing to play outside my rating if that would help. I'm still new to FICGS so my rating isn't a very good comparison with other players here yet.

2 Man Double Round Robin
AUT Rada, Hannes 2465
USA Johnson, Bobby 2412


4 Man Double Round Robin
ISR Blinchevsky, Alexander 2206
CAN Deline, Ralph 2179
GBR Soszynski, Marek 2143
DEU Wolf, Bernd 2113


Stephane Legrand    (2012-12-02 09:12:23)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

why not:

as you always do :

2 Man Double Round Robin
AUT Rada, Hannes 2465
USA Johnson, Bobby 2412

and after
24 players in 3 groups of 8 players with 123123123...


Don Groves    (2012-12-02 11:48:49)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

OK, I understand accepting players past the deadline to replace those who have dropped out. But what is the rationale for adding new groups after the deadline?


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-12-02 12:45:42)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

Robert/Stephane, it is also mentioned in the WCH rules: "Groups are built grading all players by rating and distributing them to obtain similar elo averages."

By the way all similar groups must have the same number of players, otherwise it would be impossible to be fair when building the next round tournaments.

@Don: Yes, the deadline does not change but there are a few lines in "My messages" that explain that it is still possible to enter the waiting list (without guarantee to be included in a tournament).


Garvin Gray    (2012-12-02 12:48:21)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

I agree with Don. Whilst not liking it, I understand for norm purposes and 'fairer' qualification chances between different groups, replacements are required.

I really do hope that the replacements are of similar rating to the player who forfeited their games.

But I certainly do not agree with adding new groups or players. All these players have entered the waiting list because they entered after the deadline.

If they get a run, they have been fortunate. To those who miss out, the message should be enter on time next time to guarantee your spot.

So Thibault, I think you are complicating matters way too much. Make the replacements to counteract the forfeits and that is it.


Nick Burrows    (2012-12-02 13:09:34)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

I think people are getting a bit too uptight!

Allowing new players hardly affects anyone's chances of progressing in the tournament, yet it allows the late players who didn't have the opportunity to log in a chance to play in the most enjoyable of all tournaments on Ficgs.


Garvin Gray    (2012-12-02 13:51:13)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

Nick- Did not have the oppportunity???? The waiting list for the wch is open for a month, sometimes even more. Any player who wants to enter can do so at any stage between when the waiting list opens and when it closes. So they have 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for four or more weeks to enter.

It is not like the entry period for the waiting list is only open for a couple of days.

The only people who could claim they did not have much opportunity to enter were those who only just joined the site before the waiting list closed.

As for why some of us might be 'getting too uptight'. Those who entered by the deadline have been seeded correctly as per the rules. Which means for some they have been placed in M groups with all those players being rated over 2200.

To now see the possibility of having a weak M group, which means those who have entered by the deadline have now been substantially disadvantaged compared to those who entered late.

I really do not care at all for your 'we are getting too uptight' argument Nick.

Those who respond have every right to debate the pros and cons of what is being proposed.

If you have something to actually add to this issue in terms of finding an acceptable answer for Thibault's conundrum, or wish to try and point out why his solution is not a good one, then feel free to add something to the debate and thread.

A few of us have pointed issues with Thibault's idea and our disagreement with the whole approach. That is our right to do so.

None of us have been abusive, derogatory or demeaning of anyone else, even if we disagree with the other viewpoints.

If I am an example of getting too uptight, in your opinion, so be it, but I do not like at all when players are able to enter late and even more when they look like, or are, getting an advantage they would not have gotten if they entered before the deadline.


Garvin Gray    (2012-12-02 13:53:45)
Houdini 3.0

Thibault, I do not think you will any clear answer on this as there are so many factors, including how a person uses the engines, what interface and style they use the engine.

Also I am sure players will also tune their engine, or play around with the houdini settings to 'improve' their analysis.

The one thing I have noticed is that Houdini 3.0 is much faster at getting through the 20-29 plys, which I find very useful. Especially when using the back and forth method.


Nick Burrows    (2012-12-02 14:04:13)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

I did not have the opportunity to enter, because I did not log on for the month it was open, as did the other players who did not enter.

I have not been "abusive, derogatory or demeaning" - lighten up! I believe I have every right in a public forum to express my perspective also, and that is that it is a game, some people take it too seriously, and that all those who were allowed to enter the waiting list, simply want the thrill of enjoying the game. That is all.


Robert Knighton    (2012-12-02 14:45:47)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

My computer broke down on me about 2 1/2 months ago. I have been without a computer until a couple weeks ago.

I could not have signed up on time :/

And I'd be willing to bet most late signups were for lack of knowledge of the tournaments available, how they work, or that they exist at all. This site is not exactly new user friendly. Getting games is confusing until you understand the unique system being used here. Same goes for finding and entering tournaments.

If I cant get in then so be it; no hard feelings, but if I can get the chance to play, that would be wonderful. What I really want is the chance to play stronger opponents. I'm still stuck in the sub 2k rating bands until more of my games finish.


Alexander Blinchevsky    (2012-12-03 06:55:41)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

Wayne wrote: "I do not think it is fair to insert Alexander with those too strong players."
Actually I like to play people stronger than me, so the suggested 3-man group will be very exciting for me.
Any decision will be understandable :)


Robert Knighton    (2012-12-03 17:57:26)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

any decision on this yet?

imo Do the best you can. Get as many people in as possible. include as many as you can and the ones you cant include just have to wait for the next opportunity.

I certainly don't want to hold anyone else back just because it might not be "fair" for them to get in but not me.

"Right now I could create only one group with a similar rating average, nothing more but I would have to choose a few players only, which is not a great solution"

not great but still better than nothing at all.

I would like to hear what your thoughts are on this after hearing everyone's opinions.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-12-05 14:20:36)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

Well, at the end I think that best is to do the same than in the previous editions. If I can build only one group then be it.

A few players will be picked up randomly to have a similar rating average. At least, as Garvin says, there will be a consequence for all players who entered the waiting list after the deadline, which seems fair.

The new group(s) will be created tomorrow.


Wayne Lowrance    (2012-12-05 18:27:37)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

Robert Knighton. You dont understand me. I was saying it is unfair for the two strong player having to compete against a much weaker player. It would have cost him point 4 sure.
BTW I must say. I very much agree with Don Groves opinions he has stated. here. Chess is a very structure event. Touch & move example. Thib's rules are just wrong ! period.I have said with rules in place he has a very difficult task. I said I would support him in his decision. But if it were left up to me. I would simply state, Late and your out ! NO excuses. that is just the way it should be. Sorry if I am offending anyone, it certainly is NOT my intention
Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-12-05 19:02:36)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

Hi Wayne,

Of course this is a very coherent opinion... but there are reasons why I created these new groups since the very first championship:

There may be several players who cannot be included into tournaments when I create them (because of the number of players per tournament). To exclude nobody, I had to wait for a few players to enter it... but of course there was always too few or too many of them, with too high or too low ratings. So I decided that the prioriy was to start as many tournaments as possible to make it as competitive as possible.


Wayne Lowrance    (2012-12-05 20:07:58)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

Okey Dokey. You have examined the topic carefully and have experienced the task of grouping players. I have not. But looking out of the jail cell of my thoughts I do not agree. It just seems like it s/b possible to just have a cut off date and no exceptions.
I guess your problem is in your opinion too large a grouping or too small a grouping, keeping rating gradient to less that 100 . I would rather play in a group even if only 2 or 3 players qualified in my rating group. Thinking hard as I generate this response I begin to appreciate more of your problem. Hey what the heck do I know anyhow. ::) Wayne


Robert Knighton    (2012-12-05 21:34:02)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

Wayne Lowrance said: "Robert Knighton. You dont understand me. I was saying it is unfair for the two strong player having to compete against a much weaker player. It would have cost him point 4 sure. "

Yeah I see what you mean there. Even if I could compete at that level then those players at a higher rating would suffer for it.

Also, no offense taken. We can peacefully agree to disagree on issues and perhaps we can settle it with a game one day :)

Seems like there should be a provisional tournament that new players coming to FICGS enter into automatically to determine rating, but that is a discussion for another place.


Wayne Lowrance    (2012-12-05 22:36:06)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC

yes, I am sort of a wildcat person, so I would not expect all to agree with me and all have my respect.
I do understand problems to new comers Entering into a new rating system. Advancing is difficult. Here at this site all are playing Centaur chess. Which means in the end you have to beat the program input to the Centaur. I wish I knew of a way to help you. because of illness I resigned all my current games causing a loss of rating from 2500 to 2280 Wayne


Garvin Gray    (2012-12-08 18:04:49)
The very unofficial World Championship

Wayne, so does that mean they are not playing with equal equipment?

So Houdini has a massive computing power advantage?


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-12-12 11:43:21)
Improving visibility of draw offers

Well, it happened that a few players offered a draw by mistake/bad click and did not see it, maybe that's the only way to avoid it...


Garvin Gray    (2012-12-13 02:19:32)
Improving visibility of draw offers

I think some kind of pop up is a good idea, where the draw receiver has to confirm they are declining or accepting a draw to continue play.


Garvin Gray    (2012-12-13 16:52:12)
WBCCC 2013

This information is in regards to the World Blitz Correspondence Chess Championship for the year 2013.

It is held on Rybka Forum www.rybkaforum.net.

There is a full sub forum located on that forum that explains a lot of the rules, current list of players and specifics of information.

For a general run down, read on:

My name is Garvin Gray and I am the organiser and arbiter for this event. This event attempts to bring as many strong correspondence and freestyle players together from all the different playing sites, such as iccf, ficgs, playchess, lss and many other sites.

As the title says, this is a blitz event, meaning the time controls are short compared to normal correspondence play. This requires players to devote a greater share of their focus to these games than would normal correspondence play.

This event has been held for two years now, with the 2012 version still in progress. Feel free to browse the 2012 sub forum to see the games and how the structure works.

In the two years of this event, I feel that many new discoveries have been made and advanced freestyle chess knowledge has certainly been increased, to the benefit of all. Those who have participated in both events have gained a lot from their participation and I want to see this continue.

To allow this event to start and finish in one calendar year, we start in mid January and for 2013, it will finish in mid December. The format requires that you will play one game as white and one game as black in each round. There are 10 games in total.

Each round is paired as an individual swiss using the dutch pairing rules, but accommodations are made because each person must have one white and one black game per round.

Kibitizing is allowed and encouraged, but discussions about future positions, game analysis or anything else that could affect the result of the game is not allowed. Feel free to read the thread on game commentary.

There will also be a thread for each round that allows discussion of events during the round, general discussion about games or other general chit chat.

We do seek to provide a friendly, but competitive environment for those who want to advance their freestyle skills, or test themselves against other players from the different sites. This event will take up quite a bit of your time as the time control is fast, the play is difficult and the enjoyment factor high.

This is not meant to be a deterrent, but I feel I should make it clear that you need to be dedicated and willing to play each and every game/round.

Withdrawing or timing out mid game is not acceptable and will see you removed from the event. If you think you can not complete a particular round, it is better to contact me and have you withdrawn from that round. You are free to rejoin the event in these circumstances, but will receive zero points for those two missed games.

I hope to see more entries and good freestyling to everyone.

Cheers,

Garvin Gray
WBCCC 2013 Organiser


Garvin Gray    (2012-12-14 02:06:12)
WBCCC 2013

Thank you for your question Robert,

Entries close Wednesday January 9th and play starts Saturday January 12th.

All games are played on software called xfccplay, which is a Rybka designed program and so those who want to play in the event must have tested it and be familiar with how it is used, so I would need to know you are going to play in the next few days so we can organise test games.


Neel Basant    (2012-12-15 04:05:40)
Houdini 3.0

Not all forum members( Players)
I donot use Aquarium ..
It sometime cannot help.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-12-21 00:56:41)
Chess Server Team Tournament

Dear chessfriends,

I just received this proposition to play a "Chess Server Team Tournament" that would be played on ICCF web server:

Any opinion? Who would be interested to play such a tournament?

____________________________

Dear Thibault!

In recent years many friendly matches between different chess servers have been played. It has become a good tradition to organize such matches. A very good idea is to organize a round-robin tournament to find out the strongest team of a chess server.

We invite a team of your server to take part in the first unofficial correspondence chess championship for chess servers.

The championship is unofficial, because ICCF Officials do not head it.

The Organizer and Tournament Director is Pavlikov Andrey Nikolaevich who is experienced in organizing and directing both domestic (Russian) and international correspondence chess tournaments.

Invitations have been sent to administrators of the following chess servers:

Bestlogic – http://www.bestlogic.ru/
Chesshere – http://www.chesshere.com/
FICGS – http://www.ficgs.com/
GameKnot – http://gameknot.com/
LSS – http://www.chess-server.net/
SchemingMind – http://www.schemingmind.com/

Chess Planet – http://chessplanet.ru/pages/game-zone (to play chess on this server one must have a client program which is free to download at main page of the site)


If you have a proposal to add any chess server, it will be taken in consideration.

Regulations of the event
http://www.mocorrchess.narod.ru/wccstc/en/regen.html

Information on the event may be seen at http://www.mocorrchess.narod.ru/wccstc/wccstc.html


Best wishes, Andrey Pavlikov,

Russian Correspondence Chess Association Vice-President,

The Organizer of the event


Daniel Parmet    (2012-12-21 01:19:29)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I would gladly play for FICGS. Is this ICCF rated? How many boards in the teams?


Garvin Gray    (2012-12-21 09:51:28)
Chess Server Team Tournament

Having read the regulations :) I think there could be a few improvements.

1) The time control is wayyy too long and unnecessary. Our time control of 30 days plus 1 day increment is suitable
2) Only able to contact the tournament director through your team captain contravenes the laws of chess and also is ridiculous.

If a player has an issue with their game, they should be able to contact the td themselves. It is their game afterall.

3) Will the teams play in rating order?


Bogoljub Teverovski    (2012-12-21 16:54:43)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I'm ready to play any board for FICGS team. My ICCF ID# 862003.


Nick Burrows    (2012-12-21 18:19:55)
Chess Server Team Tournament

Hi guys, I would like to play if I qualify.

I noticed from previous conversations I had with members of other servers about a match, that longer time controls are usually preferred. Personally I would prefer quicker limits, but will happily play at any control. A slow match is better than no match!


Garvin Gray    (2012-12-22 03:31:31)
Show opponents time

Hello Thibault,

I would like to see a display change.

Currently in my games, either in pending or running games setting, the amount of time I have remaining is showing. I would like to see a column which shows how much time my opponents have remaining.

I think this would be quite useful.

Please make this change :)

Cheers,

Garvin


Wayne Lowrance    (2012-12-24 19:06:57)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I am in if FICGS wants me to play...Wayne


Don Groves    (2012-12-27 01:50:48)
A gift for your favorite Go player

http://shop.gogameguru.com/lee-changho-kaya-go-board-83/

They are in stock at only $49,500 !


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-12-27 22:31:09)
A gift for your favorite Go player

Ahhhh... quite expensive indeed :)


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


Garvin Gray    (2012-12-30 03:11:59)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I think the 30 boards could be made up of 8 players each play four games, so that would be 32 boards.

Asking for 30 separate players seems too unlikely, and rather unwieldy for a first concept try.


Bogoljub Teverovski    (2012-12-30 13:00:10)
Chess Server Team Tournament

Imho, if certain server cannot enter a team of just 30 players, it becomes clear this server has a very weak resource. Therefore FICGS should enter 30 players without hesitations.


Daniel Parmet    (2012-12-30 17:45:46)
Chess Server Team Tournament

While 30 might be a high number... let us count that 9 have already responded t othis thread (and only Thibault has declined to play)... so finding 22 more shouldn't be so hard?


Neel Basant    (2013-01-04 05:29:26)
Chess Server Team Tournament

If FICGS wants , i will play willingly..


Ostap Hladky    (2013-01-04 22:58:52)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I will play for FICGS.


Roy Shapland    (2013-01-07 13:08:35)
How to amend rating?

Thibault,
Your not listed in the 'Connected players' on the 'My messages' page. I can't find you in the name search on the 'My messages' page and I don't know you 'id' or how I would find that.
Perhaps you could send me a message that I could reply to?


Niklas Hallqvist    (2013-01-10 00:20:41)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I will play for FICGS, no strings attached. I have ICCF id 451419.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-01-10 00:21:28)
Chess Server Team Tournament

Finally, I sent an email to all players about this tournament... we'll see if we can find 30 players. Not so easy IMO.


Arkadiusz Wosch    (2013-01-10 00:28:05)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I'm interested to play


Daniel Blike    (2013-01-10 00:59:04)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I'm interested in playing!


Josef Zmolil    (2013-01-10 01:10:40)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I'm interested to play.Thanks.


Jose Moreira    (2013-01-10 01:15:57)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I'm interested to play


Om Prakash    (2013-01-10 01:33:36)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I'm interested to play...


John Worthington    (2013-01-10 02:14:04)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I am interested and would love to play. :)


Ray Downs    (2013-01-10 05:22:33)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I'm interested in playing.


Valery Nemchenko    (2013-01-10 05:22:51)
Chess Server Team Tournament

Dear Thibault!
I am willing to participate in the team event of FICGS e server. My rating ICCF-2465. Please let me know who else from our server will be played on a board which I claim? Best regards, Valery


Shih-Chu Liao    (2013-01-10 06:53:28)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I'm interested to play


Thomas Hasyn    (2013-01-10 09:51:55)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I am interested to play.


Maxim Genchev    (2013-01-10 11:21:29)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I'm interested to play


Maxim Genchev    (2013-01-10 11:42:45)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I agree to play, if the average reytig tournament chess server team tournament from ICCF will be at least 2300.


Mathaios Vardoulakis    (2013-01-10 13:18:55)
Chess Server Team Tournament

"I'm interested to play".Count me in please.

Happy new year to all!


Claudio Cabrera    (2013-01-10 13:25:59)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I want to play


Kieran Moore    (2013-01-10 13:52:21)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I have a full ICCF registration number and I would be interested in playing.


Neel Basant    (2013-01-10 14:40:30)
Chess Server Team Tournament

Confirmed( Interested) Players according to replies.


1.Daniel Parmet
2.Alvin Alcala
3.Bogoljub Teverovski
4.Nick Burrows
5.Wayne Lowrance
6.Neel Basant
7.Ostap Hladky
8.Niklas Hallqvist
9.Arkadiusz Wosch
10.Daniel Blike
11.Josef Zmolil
12.Jiri Mach
13.Jose Moreira
14.Om Prakash
15.John Worthington
16.Garvin Gray
17.Arnab Sengupta
18.Ray Downs
19.Valery Nemchenko
20.Dinesh Bhandarkar
21.Shih-Chu Liao
22.Frits Bleker
23.Thomas Hasyn
24.Sergey Demchenko
25.Maxim Genchev
26.Mathaios Vardoulakis
27.Claudio Cabrera
28.Kieran Moore
29.
30.

Wow..
What a response!!!!!
sure Within 2/3 days will be more than 100 players.
Thib will have a headache while selecting 30 players..


Dmitry Tsimbalenko    (2013-01-10 16:20:33)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I'm interested to play. Take me to the team


Rich Pinkall Pollei    (2013-01-10 17:15:52)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I can play. My ICCF member # is 515095.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-01-10 17:59:37)
Chess Server Team Tournament

William Fuller is also interested to play. (received by email)

So, I accepted the invitation!

Now we need a team captain... Any volunteers? :)


Daniel Parmet    (2013-01-10 18:11:49)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I volunteer to be team captain. But we now have 31 players wanting to play. Also I would point out that we will probably get slaughtered on the lower boards as things stand right now. I saw at least one person wanting an ICCF team average of 2300. I would point out that I think a 2000 player here is 2300 over there but as things stand our FICGS rating average is 1964 based on the top 30 players ratings. For the 9 players that do have ICCF ratings our rating average is 2235.

Here is what information I could collect on our team so far:
Name FICGS Rating ICCF ID ICCF Rating TITLE Comment
1 Ostap Hladky 2527 941012 FIM
2 Valery Nemchenko 2521 940836 2465
3 Frits Bleker 2313 220159 2395
4 Garvin Gray 2281 30503 1993
5 Alvin Alcala 2237 896046
6 Wayne Lowrance 2194 FIM
7 Maxim Genchev 2187 940752 2309 Wants ICCF average of 2300
8 Arkadiusz Wosch 2169 89923 2307
9 Neel Basant 2138 280279
10 Daniel Parmet 2098 514938 2300
11 Om Prakash 2091 280243
12 Bogoljub Teverovski 2083 862003
13 Niklas Hallqvist 2082 451419
14 Kieran Moore 2042 260252
15 William Fuller 2033 514688 2350
16 Dmitry Tsimbalenko 1959 142268
17 Sergey Demchenko 1955 142224 2077
18 Nick Burrows 1944 212164
19 Rich Pinkall Pollei 1900 515095
20 Daniel Blike 1874 515250
21 Jose Moreira 1831 Are you the IM Jose Moreira id#399007, Rating 2390?
22 Thomas Hasyn 1808 865001 1922
23 Mathaios Vardoulakis 1800
24 Dinesh Bhandarkar 1707
25 Shih-Chu Liao 1660
26 Josef Zmolil 1632
27 Ray Downs 1536
28 John Worthington 1510 515287
29 Claudio Cabrera 1462
30 Arnab Sengupta 1340 280192
31 Jiri Mach 1010


Nick Burrows    (2013-01-10 18:30:03)
Chess Server Team Tournament

yes I think some of our ratings are way under the actual level. My rating is 1934, but would be more accurate at 2300.

We should simply take our 30 highest rated players at the deadline for registaration in order to do Ficgs justice.


Neel Basant    (2013-01-10 18:56:15)
Chess Server Team Tournament

Wait..
There will be entries from better players.
as within 6 hrs we have already 31 players..
More better players will reply as FICGS has too many good players..


Stefan Haack    (2013-01-10 19:24:02)
Chess Server Team Tournament

Im interested to play on iccf server

Stefan


Daniel Parmet    (2013-01-10 20:37:23)
Chess Server Team Tournament

Thib... I know its a lot of games but it is also a very long time control! It would be great if you played. We need strong players and its your server we're coming to represent! I will volunteer to take captain duties so you don't have that work load.


Nilson Pereira    (2013-01-10 20:45:48)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I play. Count on me!


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-01-10 22:26:30)
Chess Server Team Tournament

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Dear friends,

I'm very sorry, it seems that only 8 teams can play the tournament and they just found 8..... So we cannot play it.

Maybe 2 parallel tournaments could be possible but well, it wouldn't be the same thing, I guess.

That's my bad, I didn't think this would be a speed race and I was not so confident to find so many players interested. Obviously I was wrong :/

My apologies to all. Anyway, that's a good thing to know that server team tournaments played at ICCF web server are popular in the whole correspondence chess world. We'll be there next time!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Alvin Alcala    (2013-01-11 04:49:37)
Chess Server Team Tournament

Very sad news! So many interested players from FICGS wanted to join.


Charlie Neil    (2013-01-11 19:55:38)
Chess Server Team Tournament

Thibault,

If you need a lowly 1133 FICGS graded player to play count me in , Current ICCF grade of 1700, ECF 111. I have an ICCF ID as well.

And if not I don't mind. I enjoy my FICGS games.


Mykola Simashkevitch    (2013-01-11 22:20:15)
Chess Server Team Tournament

I'm interested to play


Garvin Gray    (2013-01-12 04:32:55)
Chess Server Team Tournament

You really should read the thread guys before offering to play :(


Dmitriy Malish    (2013-01-12 16:17:34)
Progressive Chess

In progressive chess, every move is a series-move. White starts with a series of 1 move, black answers with a series of 2 moves, white answers with a series of 3 moves, etc.
White starts the game by playing one move, Black answers with two and so on, always increasing by one the length of the series. Check may only be given with the last move of a series and must be defended with the first one.
Example.
1. e4
2. e6 Bb4
Bb4 seems to be ineffective.
3. a3 axb4 Nh3
Nh3 protects f2.
4. b5 c5 d6 Kd7
At first sight Black's moves seem valid but
they leave too much room for White to operate.
5. d4 dxc5 Bg5 Bxd8 Qxd6+
White has a strong position. First, Black must move the
King, and then he needs a least three moves to eliminate
White's Queen.
6. Ke8 Nf6 Nxe4 Nxd6 Kxd8 Kc7
There were not too many possibilities left.
7. Ra6 Rxd6 Bxb5 Ba6 Na3 Nb5++
A nice mate.

What about making this game on site?


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-08-03 02:34:42)
Improving netiquette rules

Well, after a few days thinking about a complaint, I finally decided to open a topic about this public remark in game 86290 (no need to name the players again here in the forum, by the way best would probably be that they do not intervene in this discussion) :

"my engine has said ckmate in 19,but black player,maybe,prefers passing by 51 days to lose on time"

Context most probably hasn't to be known, rules have to say if it fits netiquette or not (is it insulting or not, is it subjective or not) and of course this is the question.

In other servers, this may lead to a suspension or it may not IMHO, so I'd like to gather opinions on this case, any suggestion to improve FICGS netiquette rules will be appreciated.

In my opinion, we'll have to determine if any PUBLIC remark on the use of the clock is acceptable or not and if not, what measurement to apply.


Jay Melquiades    (2013-02-23 07:02:02)
FICGS admin scam me

thibault ponders if this player also goes
after admins at icc as he does here???


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-01-16 01:07:41)
FICGS admin scam me

Hello again Horatiu,

Sorry to see that you do not accept to realize that FICGS rules have always been clear on that point (it is specified that it is required for you to read and understand it before using this site), also that this site is not a bank, which is true for all similar websites - at least in France but most probably everywhere.

So here is the continuation of our conversation in the chat room (you have to read it from bottom to top). We can continue it here if you wish, this way we'll not bother everyone with this. By the way, maybe other players who experienced the epoints thing will be able to confirm all this.

Do not worry, I will not delete this discussion, at least this will be informative for everyone (I hope).


______________________



petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] of course ,I just open a topic to see everybody who are you
(2013-01-16 01:00:12)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] I have no problem with this.
(2013-01-16 00:58:59)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] anyway, we can continue this discussion in the forum...
(2013-01-16 00:58:49)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] insults are unnecessary...
(2013-01-16 00:58:28)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] and fraud
(2013-01-16 00:58:23)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] yes i lost 4 ,is not mistake ?you are a mistake
(2013-01-16 00:53:06)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] ... a bank just by saying it
(2013-01-16 00:51:34)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] because it explains that it's not possible to be...
(2013-01-16 00:51:20)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] no gipsy,but then why you told me about L511 code?
(2013-01-16 00:49:44)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] There's no mistake, obviously...
(2013-01-16 00:49:14)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] Then you won 1 & lost 4 silver games...
(2013-01-16 00:49:09)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] I know exactly how many epoints you bought/ when and how...
(2013-01-16 00:47:47)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] What do you expect? finding FICGS rules in french laws?
(2013-01-16 00:44:05)

petrescu horatiuadrian :
[Remove this comment] you are a charlatan
(2013-01-15 23:46:58)


Horatiu Adrian Petrescu    (2013-01-16 12:04:07)
FICGS admin scam me

P.S. Have anyone heard about playE4 ? This site have no such terms like ficgs.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-01-16 12:29:30)
FICGS admin scam me

Dear Horatiu,

Unfortunately for you, I also kept all emails that you sent to me and that I sent to you... Now here are the facts:

I sent 30 emails (!) to you to kindly answer again and again what is explained in terms & conditions and Help section. I explained to you how to use a captcha, how to use the site and so on..........

First of all, you forget one important thing: It is required that you ACCEPT and UNDERSTAND terms and conditions BEFORE you register.... Obviously you didn't understand it, I cannot do anything there.

Second of all, you are of bad faith and here is a clear proof:

Among the very first emails (before the one you mention), here is the answer I sent to you:

<<<<<<<<<<

December 14, 2009 - Monday, 21:22


Hello,

It is all explained at - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html & http://www.ficgs.com/help.html , when you have Epoints, you can play Silver & Gold games, winning Epoints or money according to the results & tournaments...

Best wishes,
Thibault

<<<<<<<<<<


I guess that you kept this one too but you "forgot" to mention it...

Now, I've said enough. I was patient, but now I'll apply FICGS rules (you should read it carefully) and french laws as soon as you act again against me.


Horatiu Adrian Petrescu    (2013-01-16 13:31:54)
FICGS admin scam me

30 emails to me???? When ? Before or now???
You angry because I telling the truth ? The truth is disturbing, right?
I don't know if your site is legit or not with the condition that everybody can play for money and use soft here and not operate only with his brain ,like Garvin Gray which in several moves he defeated me twice.Greedy admin Thibault you must have an security system for those members who want play without machine ,only with their head.


Horatiu Adrian Petrescu    (2013-01-16 14:08:00)
FICGS admin scam me

Of course you didn't hear about an security sistem that it can cach the player who use a software program.You are an superficial admin.


Horatiu Adrian Petrescu    (2013-01-16 14:51:05)
FICGS admin scam me

Ok ,you told me. But you must implemet an security system for that members who want to play without machine.
And remember ,you this condition is not honest ,because I ASK MY MONEY NOT an interest or profit.


Horatiu Adrian Petrescu    (2013-01-16 14:54:11)
FICGS admin scam me

Nothing Garvin ,sleep well with your soft machine.:)))).And when you wake up and you are ready for a honest game chess without machines call me and we play on playok website.sweet dreams!


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-01-16 15:39:18)
FICGS admin scam me

That's nonsense Horatiu, since this site authorize computer chess, it is perfectly honest to play with machines, and of course I don't have to implement anything to avoid that...

About your money, you bought Epoints... You cannot ask for money just like this, you have to win silver/gold games to claim money prizes according to terms & conditions. You accepted this when registering.


Continuation of the chat:


devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] you just had to click the link...
(2013-01-16 14:18:23)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] the conditions are in the link
(2013-01-16 14:18:04)

devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] this is the right email! with correct date
(2013-01-16 14:17:39)


Horatiu Adrian Petrescu    (2013-01-16 15:56:49)
FICGS admin scam me

If we play with computer chess ,then is not a game chess anymore for us.It is a game for stupids and lazy brains,or for disabled mental people.
Every one knows Chess is a mind sport."Chess is the game that gives the highest honor human intelligence."(Voltaire) You promote here an activitie to slow down the mind not for its sharpness.

Yes I accepted ,because I was lazy and I didn't read the terms.But this does not mean your rule is corect and legit.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-01-16 17:14:06)
FICGS admin scam me

Well, obviously you do not have any idea about what computer chess is... there are thousands of fans all over the world, full forums only about that, even the very best chess players in the world like to play it (Kasparov, Anand, Polgar, Ivanchuk...)

You still do not understand that this has nothing to do with avarice. Noone here wants to see such a system to be implemented.... first of all because it cannot be 100% sure (it would be very easy to cheat anyway), then everyone would suspect everyone to cheat... FICGS is a peaceful place (without counting 2 or 3 players out of hundreds/thousands) so this is fine like it is. For information we also offer NO_ENGINES_TOURNAMENTS for those who want to play with their brain only, but it is not rated... for the same reasons.

We have no problem that a few players cannot understand it at the end, but we do not need to hear again and again that computer chess is "lazy" or "dishonest", that is just untrue and insulting.

About your 7 euros, all has been said, I've nothing to add. This is not a bank, if you want a money prize, you know what to do (starting to read the terms & conditions).


Garvin Gray    (2013-01-16 17:37:51)
FICGS admin scam me

Computer chess, in terms of players just letting their engines play against other engines (playchess for instance) can be lazy, but the centaur version we play on here is anything but lazy.

I would go as far to say that calling centaur/freestyle chess on here LAZY is the most ignorant statement ever made in these forums.

Big call, but I think I can back it up :)


Horatiu Adrian Petrescu    (2013-01-16 17:56:29)
FICGS admin scam me

I was expecting at your shit answer,how else can think a man of greed carried to absurd.You are a man without morals and scruples.I cast pearls before swine.
Anand and Kasparov no play against computer for money stupido.You infantile ?
"None here wants to see such a system to be implemented":))) Hey arrogant boy I am nobody? I am member here since 2009.And how you know everybody else no wants ,you asked them ? Stupid and inflated admin.
And how many times you will repeat like a parrot that this site is not a bank so often I will say myself IS A BANK FOR YOURSELF. Everybody can see.


Horatiu Adrian Petrescu    (2013-01-16 18:07:11)
FICGS admin scam me

Garvin,if you say your mind is not lazy ,and if you say I am ignorant ,i challenge you at a fight without using any machine.What do you say you accept ? There are many websites like playok.com where we can play without using programs not how says jerk admin that "it would be very easy to cheat anyway" How you cheat if is an implemented security system?


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-01-16 18:10:33)
FICGS admin scam me

Of course I meant players who understood what this site is....

If someone registers while thinking this site is a TV shop website, he may claim that there are no TVs enough to buy on here and say the admin that he should ask all players if they want TVs available to buy but well.... wouldn't it be quite ridiculous?

Players who are not aware that the use of chess engines is encouraged are very rare... The message "As a reminder, the use of chess engines (Rybka, Fritz, Shredder...) is allowed and encouraged in standard chess tournaments." is visible when anyone enters any rated chess tournament.

Is it really necessary to have this message blinking in big size on all pages?


Horatiu Adrian Petrescu    (2013-01-16 18:16:33)
FICGS admin scam me

Hey boy, ENGINES CHESS ARE ALLOWED WHEN YOU LEARN CHESS NOT WHEN YOU PLAY FOR MONEY.
Are you so stupid with your statements and next time I will not answer you because even God cannot fight with stupid and scam men.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-01-16 18:18:25)
FICGS admin scam me

About cheating on these websites, quite easy... just use a chess engine, copy its moves from one window/computer to another and do not play the best moves all times... playing the 2nd or 3rd best move should be enough to beat most human players...... and do not win in less than 50 moves. No program can detect it. And almost everyone would be able to do that.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-01-16 18:19:01)
FICGS admin scam me

Anyway, there were too many insults... also you started to harass other players. I'll apply FICGS terms & conditions (that you should definitely read) in consequence very soon.


Horatiu Adrian Petrescu    (2013-01-16 18:22:38)
FICGS admin scam me

Yes ,2 computers,but you didn't hear about that security system that can track every your move and can detect if you play with soft or not from another computer.That website ,playe4 using this system....stupido


Horatiu Adrian Petrescu    (2013-01-16 18:38:26)
FICGS admin scam me

Quote: "..also you started to harass other players"

Maybe you want to say I harass you,no one speak something about that.You want peaceful then behave as such,like honest admin,not like a greedy.


Dmitriy Malish    (2013-01-16 19:22:36)
Progressive Chess

Progressive chess is a chess variant in which players, rather than just making one move per turn, play progressively longer series of moves. The game starts with White making one move, then Black makes two consecutive moves, White replies with three, Black makes four and so on.
A check must be escaped from on the first move of a series--if this cannot be done, it is checkmate and the game is lost.
En passant captures of pawns are allowed if the pawn in question moved two squares in one move, but no further, at some point during the last turn, but the capture must be made on the first move of a series.
If ten consecutive turns are played with no captures and no pawn moves, then the game is declared a draw unless one of the players can force a checkmate (this is the progressive chess equivalent of the fifty-move rule in orthodox chess).
If at any stage a player has no legal moves but is not in check, the game is a draw by progressive stalemate.


Horatiu Adrian Petrescu    (2013-01-16 19:39:22)
FICGS admin scam me

@Riha,(what a name is this? gipsy name?)YOU are unrespectful and your patron admin.You kiss his bottom because he let you play here with program? Very nice.


Rolf Staggat    (2013-01-21 18:10:26)
Progressive Chess

Another new chess-variant on this site ?
In BIGCHESS one has to wait half a year or even longer for starting a new group. In my opinion, what we need are more players not more variations.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-01-23 19:30:49)
Show opponents time

Hi Garvin & George... feel free to tell me what you think of the current display.

Please report any bug if you notice ones :)


Don Groves    (2013-01-25 18:25:10)
Show opponents time

I suggest one more slight change in the My Games page: clicking on a player's name shows that player's "information" page.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-02-02 12:49:58)
Show opponents time

I'm not sure... I'd like to keep this page as light as possible :/ ... If I add a link for each player, I should add it for the account's owner too (for some coherence)... Thinking about another display.


Garvin Gray    (2013-02-26 14:48:14)
What size groups do you prefer?

I have played in groups on here that have 5, 7 and 9 players and I am interested in seeing what other players prefer for size of a tournament group?

Having played in these sized groups, I am starting to prefer the 9 player groups, where a game time out or not starting has less influence on the overall group.

What do others think?


George Clement    (2013-03-01 21:08:11)
What size groups do you prefer?

What about starting the tournament when you have 4 0r 5 entries and capping it at 7. As 5,6,7 enter they could start their games. That could help end all this waiting for enough players to enter to start the full tournament.


Garvin Gray    (2013-03-02 10:47:03)
What size groups do you prefer?

Larger groups will always take longer to fill. I would prefer larger groups, but I prefer groups to start regularly, rather than waiting three or so months for a group to start.

I think we do have a serious issue with groups not being able to start because of insufficient numbers.

I proposed the ficgs world cup to complement the ficgs world champs. Rather than attempting to tinker with the group bandings we have at the moment, perhaps it is time to consider that players are more likely to join another 'event' rather than just another group that was just like the previous one they played in.


Daniel Parmet    (2013-03-11 13:46:38)
What size groups do you prefer?

I don't think the problem here is with group size but rather the silly rating brackets we switched to some time back. It makes it virtually impossible to play strong players.


Garvin Gray    (2013-03-12 16:15:46)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

I think the main question here is: What is vacation meant to be used for?

The original premise for vacation time is that it is in place for people who go away on vacation or are sick and need some time off without having to risk timing out to do so.

This means they can still enter a tournament without having to worry about timing out or being at such a time disadvantage.

This is the purpose of vacation time.

It is not meant to be used to allow players who have chosen through their own choice of time management to avoid timing out games.

Therefore the rules should be changed to match the intention of vacation time.

Hence the proposal of a minimum of 3 days vacation and that it can not be used at all once a player gets under 3 days initial time.

Also, I would probably add that there should be a limit to how many times a player can take vacation blocks, but this might be hard for the server to calculate for each game a player is involved in.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-03-13 13:12:49)
Announcement

Hi all,

The 5th FICGS freestyle tournament will happen on april 6 & 7 (2013) - three rounds each day at 13:00, 15:00, 17:00 server time. The format will be the same (30 minutes + 15 seconds per move) than for the previous edition.

Entry fee : 10 Epoints, prize : 100% Fees + 70 Epoints
Deadline : 2013 april 6 - 12:00 server time

This time, just like other players, IM, SM & GM will have to enter the waiting list by themselves (entry fee : 10 Epoints), but they will recover their Epoints if they play all rounds.

Best regards,
Thibault


Garvin Gray    (2013-03-14 13:48:30)
FICGS__CHESS__FREESTYLE_CUP__000005

I would like to request one change. That the event either be 5 or 7 rounds, not six.

Six rounds throws up the possibility of someone receiving 4 whites 2 blacks and other players 2 whites 4 blacks.

That is rather unfair on those who get 2/4. With 5 or 7 rounds the worst that can happen is either +1 or -1 for colour balance.


Garvin Gray    (2013-03-16 11:09:33)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

I am wondering if everyone has read each of the replies before posting.

I am sure some have, but I do suspect that some have just replied without considering the consequences of their replies if they were enacted, or not.

Instead of changing the minimum days for vacation to 3, how about there is a maximum cap for the number of times a person can take vacation in any one single game?

This would prevent a player from repeatedly using vacation just to avoid timing out, which is not what vacation is designed for.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-03-19 11:25:56)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

I just received a long and detailed private message from a very strong chess player who explained how vacation have influenced some of his games and I must say it was quite a strong demonstration of the issue.

Obviously it is a problem for certain players.

I'm not really favorable to a change here as it will complicate rules and the use of the site but here are the facts:

- Vacation are just rules... vacation may mean anything. So it is ok right now.

- Is it normal to save games thanks to vacation by gaining day after day ? It is just a question of point of view but IMO the answer is no. At least it cannot be done for each game separately, which is a great thing.

So we have a contradiction here.


Finally my proposal is a change for 2 days minimum that I would install in 2 months from now.

I think it would be a fair compromise... It should reduce the effects on the games in the future and it is quite short yet.

Any opinion on this change for 2 days minimum? Acceptable or not?


Rolf Staggat    (2013-03-19 17:05:12)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

Thib, the "very strong chess player" is a MINORITY here. If he does not want to talk in this forum, his opinion is irrelevant.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2013-03-19 17:51:20)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

I can not imagine how a player can gain an advantage from the vacation time. Ok, he can analyze his games during that time, but his opponent has the same option. So the additional time cannot be the key to a win.

In my opinion the problem for some players is that it is annoying when they have to wait longer for an answer. I don't think that this should be a reason to change the vacation rules.

If the rules are changed however, this should not happen until the beginning of next year with the new vacation period.


Daniel Parmet    (2013-03-20 00:33:56)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

Also, I have to comment on Garvin's idea. I love Garvin. He does wonderful volunteer work. He is a good player. And I've been on a team with him. But that idea is atrocious, why would you eliminate vacation entirely?! I request here and now for my account to be deleted the very second vacation is deleted.


Kieran Moore    (2013-03-23 13:17:09)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

On another site vacation is divided into two blocks of 20 days.So in most games a player would only have 20 days leave. Its annoying if players use their vacation time to prevent Flag fall as Chess is about tactics and time management. Bad positions tend to cost time, so players shouldn't recover from bad positions by running their vacation days.


Garvin Gray    (2013-03-29 06:50:22)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

I am not sure about the others, but I have mentioned anything about a board position, or a result from it.

That has nothing to do with the subject, in my opinion.

The issue is solely to do with players, who generally, allow their clocks to get very low on time, then use vacation time to avoid timing out.

There is no objection whatsoever to a player using vacation time when they go on vacation, or who needs to take a few days off for whatever reason. That is not the issue.

I only proposed a work around idea to this issue of having no vacation time at all and instead adding more initial time.

I do believe there should be a limit to the number of times a person can be on vacation in a single game.


Alvin Alcala    (2013-03-30 17:04:32)
FICGS__CHESS__FREESTYLE_CUP__000005

Playing in the FICGS Freestyle Cup is a worthwhile experience. I encourage you to participate in the tour.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-04-06 21:50:39)
Thematic tournaments?

Hello Dann, thanks for the suggestion... we can play another one soon, sure. Just check the home page from time to time!


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-04-07 22:48:43)
FICGS__CHESS__FREESTYLE_CUP__000005

The tournament is over... Alvin convincingly won it, once again.

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__FREESTYLE_CUP__000005


Several things to say... first of all, I'd like to apologize again for this catastrophic first round, I just made a bunch of mistakes after a bad click :/

Second of all, I would like to thank all players, sincerely, for your patience & good vibes in this tournament! It is always nice to play & organize in this mood :) Special "big up" to Wayne & Garvin for their efforts to play very early or very late...

Finally, I'd like to thank Garvin for his constant involvement in FICGS tournaments... His help is always appreciated!

See you for the next edition (before next year, I hope)...


Garvin Gray    (2013-04-12 19:42:11)
FICGS__CHESS__FREESTYLE_CUP__000005

What I would like to see is that these are regularly held, perhaps one each quarter.

That way there is better promotion, more play and less issues, both in the running of the event and players knowledge of how this event works.

On the structure of the event, I would like to see a 20 second increment, instead of 15.

I found the 15 second increment quite often was just enough time to:

See position
Input into engine
See evals
Input move into game position
Make move on here.

An extra 5 seconds would make a lot of difference.


Attila Ba    (2013-04-20 17:40:43)
Poker rating anomaly

I have won a tournament game in poker against a player cca. a hundred points higher rated than me. His rating has dropped a few points but my rating remained unchanged. How is this possible?


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-04-21 00:44:14)
Poker rating anomaly

Hello Attila,

This is not an anomaly... this is the 10 moves rule! At least 10 moves must have been played by both players so that the winner's rating increases. This rule prevents several things, e.g. effects of early forfeits, unnatural wins and obvious cheating. This is classified as an unnatural win. Sorry about that, but this rule is necessary.


Charlie Neil    (2013-04-21 19:59:04)
!!! The Next world chess Champion !!!

Now it is Carlsen v Anand. Vishy will find it hard to prepare as as far as I can see Magnus plays just about any opening with confidence. Krammik and Gelfand are theorists while Carlsen is a player.


Wilhelm Schuett    (2013-04-23 17:31:15)
Thematic tournaments?

It doesn't have to be Gambits all the time.
For example less played like in the third move of Ruy Lopez, Old Benoni, Modern Defence, 1.d4 e6 2.c4 with 2. ... Lb4+ or 2. ... b6, 1. ... Sc6, Old Indian, Morra Gambit , Ponziani.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-05-07 13:17:57)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

As you may know, Eros Riccio won the 8th FICGS chess championship by beating Jeroen Van Assche (who remains undeafeated though, he did not lose a single chess game at FICGS yet) in the candidates final, preventing him to play Eros again in the final.

Eros kindly accepted to answer a few questions:


- Hello Eros. First of all, congratulations for winning this 8th FICGS correspondence chess championship. Once again, you did not even have to play the 12 games match to defend your title as you won the qualifying tournament. In these conditions, the challenge was really tough for Jeroen Van Assche, in despite of his prodigious chess. He had to beat you consecutively in the candidates final (8 games match), then in the final (12 games match). How did things go in this candidates final?

Eros: Hi Thibault, thanks again! I was also worried to have to play a very strong player like Van Assche, but fortunately I had again the advantage that all draws were enough to win, and so my strategy was again not to take risks in all my games. As White it was easy... and surprisingly also as Black. The only game where I had to be more careful than others was this one: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qf3 h6 8.Be3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 10.Qg3 b5 11.a3 Rb8. Here Jeroen surprised me with an interesting novelty, 12.Kb1. The two times I had played this position I was White against Gueci and Kruse, and in both games I continued with 12.Bxb5 but couldn't get more than a draw. The idea of 12.Kb1 is to sacrifice a Pawn for the initiative after 12...b4 13.axb4 Rxb4 14.Nb3 Nxe4. The White Bishops are very strong after 15.Nxe4 Rxe4 16.Bd3 Ra4 17.Bd4 and fully compensate the Pawn less. Anyway I managed to defend, and when I was finally able to trade the Queens we agreed for the Draw.

- You also won the ICCF Umansky Memorial a few weeks ago, the italian correspondence chess championship (again) as well, obviously you played numerous games last year, what do you plan for the next months? By the way, Jeroen already qualified for the candidates final of the 9th cycle, meaning that he may play you in the final match next year if you defend your title again, is there a chance that we can see a revenge?

Eros: Yes, like in the past, also last year I have played a lot of games... anyway for the future I am planning to reduce my games a lot. At the moment, except a few games in minor tournaments, I am only playing for the italian colors at the Olympiads and European Championship, for ICCF. I didn't register for the new Italian Championship this time... I prefer to wait that another individual top ICCF Tournament starts. And of course I am also waiting to meet my next challenger for the FICGS Final! Maybe it will be Van Assche again, we have to see if he beats his opponent in the semifinal (actually next candidates final).

- It looks like a few chess engines reached a certain maturity, I mean algorithms. As a consequence, the computer speed may become the major evolution factor during the next years, that is generally slower than the program's improvements (but the future may have surprises, of course). What do you expect from the computer chess world in the next few years and its impact on correspondence chess?

Eros: As I have already said in a previous interview, being chess probably a draw with perfect play, the more engines get stronger, the more draws we will see. That's quite obvious.

- You probably do not play chess over the board so often, yet you have a quite good ELO! (about 2200, while many correspondence chess masters are rated below 2000 or not rated at all) By the way, I can certify that you are a strong blitz player after we met a few years ago. Do you still play tournaments?

Eros: I am not playing otb chess for a few years, my peak was 22... and a few points, I don't remember exactly. One of the main reasons why I stopped is because later, when analyzing my games with an engine... every time I got frustrated a lot seeing all the blunders I was making.

- Do you estimate that playing OTB chess is good to improve at correspondence chess?

Eros: Yes, it's useful especially if you develop a strategical style, then also in your corr. games you can see more easily "long-term-strategy" plans, which is still the "weakest strenght" in all engines.

- Do you feel that you're still improving at correspondence chess? If yes, is it mainly a question of opening book or something else?

Eros: Improving at corr. chess... hmm... I will surprise you with my thought about this matter! I think I can evaluate my strenght according to the speed of the computer I am analyzing my games with. When I bought this computer, 3 years ago, I felt like I could beat the corr. World Champion. Now... as my computer is becoming older and older, I feel like my play is getting weaker each day it passes. So my answer is that I am still getting worse at corr. chess, not improving.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-05-08 22:05:53)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

Not so easy to find good questions... particularly for the same player after the 3rd or 4th time in a row :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-05-09 17:57:09)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

Eros just told me that he will try to answer all questions (by FICGS players) in this discussion... so if you have any idea to try to discover his secrets, please just ask! :)


Garvin Gray    (2013-05-10 04:42:58)
Thematic tournaments?

I think one idea that could be worth exploring with these thematics is to set up some kind of opening position that is topical, or could help to explore a bit more.

I think just saying lets have a french, or sicilian does not mean much as players get them in their normal games.

These thematics should have some goal more than just more games, like contributing to expanding opening theory.

Some kind of endgame thematic could be worth exploring as well.

This being said, I do fear that we could have too many options, so playing resources are spread too thin and very few can get regular corro games.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-05-10 12:26:09)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

Nice try :) Just joking... luck is part of the game, indeed... but one can't achieve what you're doing (here and in other tournaments) without something other players do not have. Well, good chess first.


Attila Ba    (2013-05-10 14:50:30)
Thematic tournaments?

Good point. Thematic tournaments would help to find out whether some radical ideas like Brooklyn defense ( 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ng8 ) can be defended against engine play.


Eros Riccio    (2013-05-10 16:09:30)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

you know, Thib, I have always wondered why corr. chess is so easy for me. As I said, human chess is a completely different story, I feel like a beginner there, blundering at almost every move. But at corr. chess, with the help of the computer, things become extremely easy. I don't know why not everyone using a computter too is not nearly unbeatable as I am. maybe they use weak engines? Slow processors? Maybe they let their engine analyze the position only for a few minutes? I came to the conclusion that it must be something like that, otherwise everyone would play at GM Level by just analyzing for a decent amount of time with houdini on a fast processor. My conclusion is that I have more success than most other players because they don't take corr. chess too seriously, they probably have some better interests and only take corr. chess as a fun hobby.


Eros Riccio    (2013-05-10 16:29:52)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

Hi Alvin:

1) It depends on the position. Deciding a move may take from a few seconds to many days. My longest thought was 64 days for a move, in a decisive game of a past Italian Championship, the move was so hard for me that I also used the 30 days leave in order not to exceed the time limits for a single move. If someone is curious, it's move 40...Rh3 of the game Baiocchi - Riccio 0-1, 57 Italian Championship, played in 2007. Back then, after all my analysis with many different engines, I found out that Hiarcs was the engine that understood better than all the others that endgame, so I sticked to it mostly and its suggestions rewarded me with a win that allowed me to become Italian Champion.

2)The top 2 engines, which I usually use (and consider about equal) in infinite analysis at the same time with 3 cores each on my 6 cores computer are houdini 3 and deeprybka 4.1. Then come all the others, hard to pick a third place, probably critter or stockfish, depending on positions (stockfish is very strong in endgames, critter in tactical positions)


Alvin Alcala    (2013-05-10 16:55:50)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

Thanks for sharing this information and the other one in RF (very old stuff). It's a very good model in every CC player's tool box.


Eros Riccio    (2013-05-11 17:32:04)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

Attila,
sometimes it happens that I play a move that is not the first suggestion of the (supposed) best engine. Anyway I usually use more than one engine for analysis and it may happen that they all suggest different best moves, so it's not always easy to say what is a best move, also because even if you analyze with one engine only it may change his best move if you give it more thinking time.
Anyway it happens very rarely that I play a move which is not in the top 3 houdini suggested moves.
As for the second question, yes, I would trust (not always of course) a good opening book, as if the book has a good score with that move it means that it contains games which led to wins. It also depends on the quality of those games, but a good quality book should contain high-level games, so why not trust it?


Eros Riccio    (2013-05-12 01:55:59)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

Ok, I have never played that time control. I think that would be a little too fast for my tastes, as I am used to take some long pauses between the moves quite often.
That's one reason why I have never joined the WBCCC Tournaments on rybka forum, as they had that kind of time control.


Garvin Gray    (2013-05-13 17:08:14)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

I was seeing if you would be interested in playing in WBCCC 2014 :)


Attila Ba    (2013-05-15 14:46:09)
PGN notation for forfeit, loss on time

Artur Wachelka, the creator of MyChess is a very talented programmer. This was the site where I first started to play online chess. He uses this notation in a universal manner: every PGN has a curly bracket comment at the end of it, including ongoing games:

34.Qb2 Nb3 35.f4 Qe7 36.e5 {in progress} *

and draws:

17.Ne2 Re8 18.Qd4 {draw accepted} 1/2-1/2

therefore they speek for themselves.


Daniel Parmet    (2013-05-15 15:09:03)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

Eros,
What is the most number of games you played at once? Is there a number of games you feel maximizes your ability (IE does not spread your concentration too thin)?


Eros Riccio    (2013-05-15 15:29:16)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

Hi Daniel,
in the past I have been playing something like 100 games at the same time. That was my maximum, and I really felt some pressure with that quantity of games, and I also felt that my overall play was reduced quite a lot. Anyway that happened when I still had a low ICCF rating, so playing many games back then was a good idea in order to raise my elo quickly. Playing so many games now that I am over 2600 wouldn't be such a good idea anymore, as with almost every draw I would lose points (not to count the losses!) because I would likely have a higher rating than most of my opponents.
Everyone has his own limit of games, but a thing seems logical for everyone: the more you play the more your quality of play is reduced. I think I can handle up to 50 games at the same time without a big loss of quality of play, and without feeling much pressure. Above that number, things would become difficult for me. Anyway it's very possible that, as at the moment I am only playing 16 games, (all for iccf) even playing (only) 30 games would give me some pressure. I am getting old :-)


Attila Ba    (2013-05-15 17:41:52)
Deep analysis - can it be improved?

The idea behind deep analysis is to store engine evaluations of chess positions in a permanent way and build an analysis tree out of them. Deep analysis is an improvement over simple engine analysis in two ways:

1) Permanent storage of analysis results makes them reusable. You don't have to analyse the same position from scratch over and over again (which is a waste of valuable CPU resources) rather you can build and improve upon your earlier results.

2) The search is configurable. You have control over which positions are examined and in what way. This gives you freedom to tailor the analyis to your own needs not having to rely on the defaults provided by your engine.

This idea is presented in a revolutionary way in the Deep Rybka Aquarium GUI. However using this framework I have encountered some problems. The lesser one and non lethal one is that draws by repetition are not handled correctly. This is for a reason: moves in the transposition table should be valued in an absolute way (regardless of the line which lead to them) in order to preserve the integrity of the tree. Since Aquarium has no means to incorporate lines, it simply ignores them

My other problem is that though the search is configurable I'm not absolutely certain about what is going on. It is not entirely clear to me exactly which nodes are selected for analysis.

These problems made me to try to come up with a deep analyis program of my own. After several failed attempts finally I have on my hand a solution which is not only capable of performing deep analysis but overcomes some of the difficulties of Interactive Deep Analyis (IDeA) provided by the Aquarium framework.

First I introduced a mechanism that can handle repetitions. In order to achieve this I attribute not one but two scores to each move and re-define the concept of root position already present in IdeA. The first score which I call 'idea' score is the same as presented in IdeA. The second is what I call 'alpha' score is calculated by minimaxing the tree from the root position taking into account repetitions.

Consider the following game:

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng1 Nf8

The value of move 2. ... Nf8 at depth 18 by Houdini 3.0 is -19 centipawns. So the idea score of this move at depth 0 should be -19. Yet 2. ... Nf8 repeats the starting position. Therefore its alpha score with respect to a root equaling the starting position should be 0 centipawn which is exactly what my program calculates for it. ( For the sake of simplicity I don't require threefold repetition, since you would never allow your opponent to repeat a position if you have better ideas. )

So when my programs lists the tree it will present both scores for every move (which in most of the cases are equal of course - therefore this is mostly an aesthetic improvement rather than being a substantial one).

The improvement which I'm most interested in is that having full control of node selection now I have freedom to shape the tree search.

In order to keeps things simple I have only three parameters characterising the search:

1) engine depth
2) move distance (centipawns)
3) search depth

Engine depth means a fixed depth at which each move is analyzed. After long experimenting I have arrived at depth 18 as a good default for Houdini 3.0.

Move distance is a tolerance up to which moves are allowed into the analyis. For each position first the best move is determined. The search for alternative moves is continued until a move is found that has a valuation less than the valuation of the best move by 'move distance' centipawns (it is this 'distance' away from being the best move). The tree is then expanded for moves within 'move distance'.

To compensate for exponential growth of analyzed nodes I use a simple technique: at each ply after ply 1 the move distance is halved. So if the move distance at ply 0 and ply 1 is 20 centipawns, it will be 10 centipawns for ply 2, 5 centipawns for ply 3 and so on. This means that at greater depth less and less moves are allowed per position. So the analysis with greater depth slowly evolves into 'autoplay' rather than 'tree search'.

The other method to reduce exponential growth is the well known beta cut provided by alphabeta search. In order that all candidate moves in the root position and all candidate responses to them get proper values, I only allow beta cuts with ply 2 and deeper.

Once an alphabeta search of certain depth is carried out, the whole tree is mimimaxed out for the root. Now the initial evaluations of the root moves may change. This may make moves which initially fall out of the 'move distance' to become viable. So the search has to be repeated for those moves as well. This has to be done at every ply level.

My iterative search at a certain depth only ends when no new nodes are added by the alphabeta search (the tree is 'settled' for this depth). Only then the program is allowed to deepen the search (this I call 'refined' search).

With engine depth of 18 and move distance of 10 centipawns an average position can be analyzed to depth 10 within a matter of hours. This means a couple of hundred (possibly a couple of thousand) positions are analyzed to depth 18. Depth 10 deep analyis means an ultimate depth of 28 if you take into account that the engine depth is 18.

Whether this method has added ELO value over simple engine search is yet to be tested.


Eros Riccio    (2013-05-15 18:09:28)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

I started playing corr. chess in 2000 and I (should, but maybe I lost a few games) have played 780 games. Most of them were draws (447). I lost 10 games as White and 13 as Black. My latest defeat as White was in 2005 against Gino Figlio, many of you know him as he plays here too, while as Black my latest defeat was in 2009 on this server against Alberto Gueci.
How I felt when I lost? I forgot! That happened too long ago ;-P


Eros Riccio    (2013-05-15 18:41:10)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

Here is the game where Gino kicked me, it was played on a server called "Chessfriend.com":

[Event "AT-2005-0-00273"]
[Site "Chessfriend.com"]
[Date "2005.08.18"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Riccio, Eros"]
[Black "Figlio, Gino"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B97"]
[WhiteElo "2480"]
[BlackElo "2154"]
[PlyCount "112"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Qb6 8. Nb3
Be7 9. Qf3 Nbd7 10. O-O-O Qc7 11. Bd3 b5 12. Rhe1 b4 13. Ne2 Bb7 14. Kb1 Nc5
15. Nxc5 dxc5 16. c4 O-O 17. g4 a5 18. Bxf6 Bxf6 19. g5 Be7 20. Qe3 a4 21. h4
Rfd8 22. h5 Rd7 23. Rd2 Qc6 24. Ng3 b3 25. a3 Bd8 26. Rdd1 Ba5 27. Rg1 Rad8 28.
Ka1 Qd6 29. Ne2 Ba6 30. e5 Qc6 31. g6 fxg6 32. hxg6 h6 33. f5 Bxc4 34. Nf4 Bxd3
35. fxe6 Rd4 36. e7 Re8 37. Nxd3 Rxe7 38. Nxc5 Rxd1+ 39. Rxd1 Qxg6 40. Qd4 Kh7
41. Nxa4 Qc2 42. Qd3+ Qxd3 43. Rxd3 Bc7 44. Rxb3 Bxe5 45. Nb6 g5 46. Nd5 Rd7
47. Ne3 h5 48. Kb1 Kg6 49. a4 h4 50. a5 Kh5 51. Kc2 h3 52. Nf1 Kh4 53. Ra3 Rf7
54. Ra1 g4 55. a6 Bd4 56. Kd3 Ba7 {White resigns.; Enddate: 12/3/2005} 0-1


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


Alvin Alcala    (2013-05-15 19:38:55)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

Classic hippo setup. You played like a real virtuoso of hippo. Very nice game :)


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2013-05-21 22:05:24)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

Garvin you have adobe flash player installed? if you do you should see a replayable board with arrows and the game notation


Jeroen Van Assche    (2013-05-21 22:16:19)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

Garvin, to the far right of the address bar, maybe a shield is displayed. Click on it and then click Load unsave script.

To Eros, congrats again. I definitely need to improve my opening play if I ever want to beat you.


Garvin Gray    (2013-05-22 16:29:35)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH

From - Jeroen Van Assche

Garvin, to the far right of the address bar, maybe a shield is displayed. Click on it and then click Load unsave script.

Bingo, now I can see the diagrams. Thank you Jeroen.


Garvin Gray    (2013-05-25 18:44:45)
Playing activity top 20 players

I just had a look at how active the top 20 players on this site are, and apart from one or two players, almost all have either zero or one game active at the moment.

What can be done to make them more active, which gives more opportunities to players lower down the rating list?

Also, with so many not being active, makes it much harder to fill the top divisions.


Robert Knighton    (2013-05-26 18:03:03)
Playing activity top 20 players

maybe they dont want regular running games to deal with when major tournaments come around?

When starting a game means a potentially multi month commitment then I can understand why top players would just save their effort for major tournaments to maximize their concentration on those games.


Mladen Jankovic    (2013-05-26 21:36:20)
Playing activity top 20 players

Speaking of big tournaments, there was no new WCH for a while now, and there used to be 2 starting per year.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-02 23:07:23)
Playing activity top 20 players

The next championships will start on july 1st, 8 months after the previous cycle as usual :) The waiting lists are now open!

Let's see if our top players are interested in this one... Anyway Garvin's question is a tough one, I still have no answer :/


Alvin Alcala    (2013-06-03 02:42:18)
Playing activity top 20 players

Will you change the WCH format to end eros domination?


Neel Basant    (2013-06-03 06:48:54)
Playing activity top 20 players

Will there be rating update before starting of the tournament ?
And i think it is not fair to advance to the next stage .[To the player with the strongest tournament entry rating]
As per FIDE tournament standing ( final Rankig)the lower rated player with the equal points wins because.


Don Groves    (2013-06-03 12:48:23)
Playing activity top 20 players

I agree with Neel. The lower rated player has done a better job to tie the higher rated player and deserves to advance. The current FICGS rules always seem to reward the higher rated players.


Garvin Gray    (2013-06-03 16:34:10)
Playing activity top 20 players

Discussion about tie break rules in the WCH should take place in another thread, or in a current thread that is already dedicated to that topic.

This thread is meant to be about the playing activity of the top 20 players, not for re-discussing old topics on the rules of the WCH.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-03 17:04:04)
Playing activity top 20 players

@ Alvin: No (cf. all discussions on this topic)

@ Neel: Yes for the rating update. About TER / next stage, this point is coherent with the whole scheme that is "the one who has most chances advances..."


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-05 00:06:55)
Wch cycles possible changes?

Hi Garvin!

Some changes have been made for the chess WCH, about 1 year and a half ago, complicating the rules but not so bad IMO.

I'm not against changes but I'm definitely for coherence... as you know, I think that there is no point changing FICGS WCH going to another round-robin one, just an example. It would kill the original scheme & previous championships value just like FIDE killed its own scheme. I gave my opinion on this when launching the very first championship. Also, I'm quite convinced that constant changes always become bad and hide another problem.

I'm still favourable to create the FICGS CUP with another scheme though! But conditions are not fulfilled... we have no new players enough, numbers are very bad these times. FICGS major problem is here... solving it and most changes proposals become useless.

Anyway, do not think that I will have the last word here for ever, that won't be the case... I only hope that the best decisions will be made for the site.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-06 10:21:21)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

Hello Robert,

The 20 blocks proposal is very near the 2 days minimum one (I was quite favourable to this change), the real problem is that it complicates the rules and obviously many players were against it.

But late is always better than nothing :)


Daniel Parmet    (2013-06-06 14:47:11)
Playing activity top 20 players

I know I don't count as one of these "higher rated players." But I have purposefully curtailed my activity here in favor of ICCF. The reason for my decision is because all the rules here are slanted against preventing a person from playing stronger players. The WCH is a perfect example; 2200's are given a free ride to the next stage while a 2150 has to play stage 1 as top seed where he will lose 35 points while WINNING the stage. So never having the opportunity to improve anymore here has forced me to find places where I can achieve that goal.


Robert Knighton    (2013-06-06 22:58:06)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

@Thibault: a 2 day minimum is bad because what if I only need 1 day this time? I must lose 2. Maybe I need 1 day only 5 seperate times and I need 40 days straight around christmas/new years.

this scenario my/Garvin's suggestion works (20 blocks split however) and yours leaves me with only 30 days for christmas/new years; just as an example.

I dont think this is complex at all.

You may take vacation up to 20 more times this year.
You have a total of 45 days of vacation you may use.

20/45
No more complex than a chess clock ;)



@Michael: I think the specific complaints were probably sent privately but I can use my imagination to come up with some possibility.

Lets say you're playing a difficult opponent in a close game in some major tournament maybe.

In order to get a time advantage your opponent goes into vacation mode immediately after you make your moves.

While in vacation mode he can still view and analyze the game without running down his clock which effectively gives him 45 extra days of clock time. This can be a significant advantage (more time = more analysis)

People can argue that it works both ways but what if the victim in this story has used his/her vacation for legitimate reasons?

Maybe the person exploiting this technique only plays a few tournaments a year to make sure he has that 45 extra days if he runs into a hard game?

As for how to solve this issue... well that is the topic of the discussion. How to prevent vacation abuse without hurting legitimate vacation needs.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-07 01:01:26)
Playing activity top 20 players

Hi Daniel,

There are other ways to play 2200 players and gain rating points: class M tournaments (if you win a class A + ticket, or if you are rated 2150+ with a ticket as well), rapid M (2100-2300) tournaments, also the standard open tournament.

Building its rating is not all about the championship.


Daniel Parmet    (2013-06-07 01:07:26)
Playing activity top 20 players

Thib, I already went from a 2100 rating to a 2372 rating (and my rating is still CLIMBING FAST) with to SIM norm events on ICCF in a mere 32 games. While I have played over 200 games on FICGS and have yet to have a SINGLE opportunity to play a strong tournament. My strength grows but my rating does not grow because this site has gone out of its way to establish rating barriers. Why should I push myself to unbelievable lengths to try to break this site's barriers when I have another site that will happily let me play players of my own strength or slightly stronger without any such herculean effort?


Daniel Parmet    (2013-06-07 01:08:56)
Playing activity top 20 players

sorry should say I have played two SIM events (1 of which I should score +5 or +6...)

And I was just using the WCH as an example of one of the rating barriers, there are plenty of rating barriers here.


Garvin Gray    (2013-06-08 04:30:30)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

I think Robert Knighton has explained one of the issues regarding this issue very well. In that a player can use the vacation time to gain a time advantage, and another player who had to take vacation legitimately ie this would normally involve taking a few days to 14 days with no game analysis.

The legit vacationer gains no advantage from having taken vacation time, except they avoided timing out, which is of benefit to everyone in the long run.

The second reason why the current situation is undesirable is that it encourages players to not get on with their games. They can run their clocks down to almost zero, knowing they can use an unlimited amount of 1 day vacations to save their games. Playing inside the allocated time controls is part of the game.
Vacation time is for a reason and is not there to be abused to allow players to avoid timing out.


Daniel Parmet    (2013-06-08 17:41:10)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

That is if one believes that is an abuse of vacation... I do not. Both players started with the same amount of vacation time and employed it for uses and different times. I think that is the whole idea behind vacation. For some people, vacation is finding a beach to lay on. For others, vacation would be freeing their normal hectic 16 hour that involves 1 hour of corr analysis and turning that day into a 17 hour corr analysis pound house.


Robert Knighton    (2013-06-08 22:37:01)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

@Daniel: The problem with your way of thinking is that it encourages me to play as few games on this site as possible so I can always be able to use my vacation time in that way.

Also if I have real vacation coming up in a few months I wont start new games because I dont have vacation time now to cover it.

end result being less games played on the site because vacation time is easy to abuse?

Even without hard rules being put in place, my opinion would be that using vacation time to get an edge in your games is poor conduct but I don't see how there is any way to completely stop the behavior. Limiting the convenience of it is about the best that could be done.


Robert Knighton    (2013-06-08 23:57:02)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

I'm not creating a problem. I'm agreeing with a point of view already expressed by others on this forum and trying to clarify that point of view as I understand it.

Also, unless we are discussing the rules of mathematics for example, then pretty much all rules that exist are someone's opinion of how things should be right?

So what I understand you to be saying is that you want to be able to use vacation time to buy more time for your games and you believe this is acceptable behavior even if it gives you an advantage over other players who use their vacation time to go on vacation. It isn't called "performance boost time" or "buy a way out of a difficult position time"; it's called vacation time.

I think the topic here was started because there are a lot of people who disagree with you and believe vacation time is not intended to be used to buy an advantage against your more challenging opponents.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-09 01:46:15)
Playing activity top 20 players

I guess there are more strong players at ICCF to build rapid tournaments with more rating ranges, sorry for not being able to do that here :/

Finally, many players got a 2400 rating while starting at 1800 or even less... so maybe than playing a few games at standard time control would have brought you faster results than playing 200 games at rapid time control.

Sorry about that in all cases.


Daniel Parmet    (2013-06-09 01:53:58)
Playing activity top 20 players

Please Thib, I do not point out these problems to complain or make you feel bad. I just want you to know where you can improve. I also want you to know you've done an amazing job here and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. If you need volunteer time/help, I will be one of the first to come forward to aid you. None of these comments are made as an attack on you, I want you to know I appreciate what you have done.

Regarding rapid/classical time controls, I did not care which I played. The fact that I ended up playing more rapid than classical has to do with the fact I always chose the HARDER option available to me in terms of opponent strength. Since you alternate the rating bands via rapid vs classical - that usually meant only one time control was available to me.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-10 00:16:11)
Playing activity top 20 players

I do understand that you choose the stronger opponents (like most strong players), that's why you could have chosen the class M tournament with the ticket opportunity... That's the point I still don't get.

Thanks for your words and your proposal... I'm always looking for ideas to spread the word about FICGS in the chess world. The more players, the more fun for everyone!


Daniel Parmet    (2013-06-10 06:20:38)
Playing activity top 20 players

Well part of the problem is I don't see where it says I have these "tickets" to move up. I knew of the rule but had no awareness if I had ever actually won one to use.

The other part of the problem is the rating bands. By alternating rating bands between time controls, all the people over 2100 want to play 2100-2300 all the people over 2000 want to play 2000-2200 all the people over 2200 want to play only 2200-2400 or norm events. So effectively instead of 200 point bands you've create ONE HUNDRED point bands. The 2100-2300 band see only those rated 2100-2200.


Robert Knighton    (2013-06-10 14:57:48)
Playing activity top 20 players

I admit that makes no sense to me either... why do we have different rating bands for different time controls?


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-10 22:25:14)
Playing activity top 20 players

If I remember well, that was a request to help players to reach the next rating band (200 points is a lot when most players who enter waiting lists are near the low limit).

Anyway, now I cannot find any argument to have the same rating ranges for rapid and standard tournaments (maybe "coherence" only).


Don Groves    (2013-06-11 06:09:20)
Playing activity top 20 players

To whom is may concern:

There is no one set of rules that will be acceptable to everyone. There are many game sites on the Internet, so pick one that comes closest to your desired set of rules and be satisfied. That is as close as you will ever get.

Either that or form your own site and discover what Thibault knows far too well - that you will get more complaints than compliments.


Daniel Parmet    (2013-06-11 06:20:32)
Playing activity top 20 players

Don
-
As stated by both Garvin and I many many times, we are not trying to "file complaints" ... we are trying to make THIS site better.


Attila Ba    (2013-06-11 10:10:18)
Playing activity top 20 players

As to 'create your own site of you are not satisfied' I'm seriously considering setting up a big chess site of my own. I like the idea of engine free chess very much but I can't get a tournament running here for half a year or so.

My site is not fully working as yet but has fragments that work (you can sign up, modify your profile, create challenges, view the board and make moves on it etc.).

Should you have any comments on the design it has a forum.

you can find it here:

baatti.com


Don Groves    (2013-06-11 12:49:47)
Playing activity top 20 players

Daniel: Better in whose opinion? You're trying to make Thibault's site fit your expectations. As I wrote above, no site will ever meet all your expectations unless it's your own site.


Michael Aigner    (2013-06-11 13:25:26)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

In my opinion there is no need to change the rules. As far as I understood some people see the normal use of vacation which is defined by the rules as abuse which in itself is a contradiction. Anybody (could) know the rules before starting a game.

I understand that it is kind of a little disadvantage when some people have to use their vacation for vacation or for emergencies while others use it for analyzing their games but that’s life.´
There are many other factors one could consider as unfair e.g. faster hardware, no family to care of, retiree, students versus people who have to work the whole day which have much more influence then this "abuse" of vacation time.

By the way, I think it is very hard to play “good” correspondence chess (in a complex position) by using just one day per move, so I am not unhappy if my opponent have to take one day of vacation to have the time to decide for a move to make.


Philip Roe    (2013-06-11 14:08:13)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

There are players, who I could name, who always run their clocks very low and use vacation a day or two at a time to avoid loss. I have absolutely no idea why they do that. They gain no advantage, and in fact frequently lose on time. In consequence they are greatly underrated. Paired against one of them, you may in fact lose (against a low-rated player) or gain an unsatisfying forfeit. This behavior is legitimate under the current rules but extremely irritating.

It is true that all rules can be abused, but it is not unreasonable to set up rules so that abuse is less likely.


Daniel Parmet    (2013-06-15 04:38:44)
Playing activity top 20 players

Typical trash response there Don.

I have *already* moved on to ICCF because it fit MY NEEDS. Did you even read this thread? This thread was something Garvin started to make players more active. I responded as player who chose to become INACTIVE to explain that decision. If this site does not change one bit, then fine by me... I have already discovered a site that fulfills my needs. On the other hand, if this site wants to IMPROVE - I want Thib to know I will come support him.


Don Groves    (2013-06-15 06:27:50)
Playing activity top 20 players

Not trash, Daniel, just simple logic. Do you deny that "better" is an opinion? Do you really think Thibault needs your help to improve his site? He did very well before you ever started playing here and I'm sure he can continue just fine without you.


Daniel Parmet    (2013-06-15 16:39:29)
Playing activity top 20 players

Well Don the good news for you is that today my last game officially finished and now I have no reason to connect to this site again! Congratulations Don!

The bad news is that even though I am gone this event in no way improves your lack of logic skills. You will have to improve these yourself.

I know quite well Thib does not *need my help.* And I outlined above my thanks for the amazing job he has done with this place. I merely said if he could use my help that it was at his disposal.


Don Groves    (2013-06-15 19:17:27)
Playing activity top 20 players

Goodbye and good luck, Daniel.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-15 23:42:26)
Playing activity top 20 players

I repeat here that I never had the intention to do "better" than ICCF or whatever... When I played at IECG before FICGS, I thought that some things could be different and fit more to a certain number of players (starting by me), so I did it.

I see absolutely no interest to make another IECG or ICCF with less players or so. Consequently, it is fully understandable that ICCF is much better for many players. That's cool! :)

I know that Daniel has a great experience in many chess fields and I always read his posts carefully (whatever my opinion), all opinions and posts in this forum always helped much and I thank you all for this...


Scott Nichols    (2013-06-18 20:44:03)
Playing activity top 20 players

I have a couple of thoughts. First is ICCF is not better for me than anywhere. The games just take too long. More to Daniels taste for sure. To help this site out, I will say it again, there needs to be at least one fast playing category. Like 10 days, with 1 day increment. This time control is very popular at other sites. Blitz CC is the wave of the future, even in OTB they don't play that slow chess anymore. Another idea is large cash prizes, :), to draw in the big guns. People are willing to pay more to get more. A couple of small things you could do Thib is offer a 2 e-point prize for most active player in a rating cycle and one for the player who improved the most in that same cycle for all 3 categories, chess, go and poker. Just some ideas...


Robert Knighton    (2013-06-19 02:22:03)
Playing activity top 20 players

I found iccf website to be mildly confusing to navigate and the inability to play games without paying money on iccf is annoying as well thus I don't play there.

The ability to play faster time controls like Scott suggested would be nice particularly if there were a 1v1 option like what we have for advanced games now.


Alvin Alcala    (2013-06-21 18:51:04)
Playing activity top 20 players

Blitz and Rapid Fide events are becoming popular fast. I agree with you Scott, Thib should grabe this opportunity I'm sure a surge of new faces will com to play in this site.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-21 19:48:27)
Playing activity top 20 players

@ Alvin: you mean Iccf events?! what are Fide rapid events if not games played in less than 1 day?

@ Robert: for 1v1 we have rapid silver tournaments, but there is a stake of 10 epoints (or it would be unrated for obvious reasons).

@ Scott: 10 days + 1 day/move does not seem very different from 30 days + 1 day/move, I doubt it can bring more players. Standard time control remain even more popular here. On large cash prizes, I agree for sure :) ...


Peter W. Anderson    (2013-06-22 18:45:26)
Playing activity top 20 players

At the risk of intertwining two separate threads....

10+1 would be very different from 30+1 if your 10+1 clocks kept running whislt you were on vacation (i.e. effectively no vacation in 10+1). This might appeal to people who like a fairly quick rate of play.

If it were done like that I would most likely play in a few 10+1 tournaments.


Scott Nichols    (2013-06-22 19:26:43)
Playing activity top 20 players

+1 to that Peter.


Garvin Gray    (2013-06-23 03:33:23)
Anyone play Semi Slav Botvinnik as black

I have had quite a few Semi Slav Botvinnik's on here. I play the SSB as black, but then when I am white I can not find anyone who plays it as black.

So I am wondering, are most cc'ers considering the SSB unsound for black?

I have a few ideas I would like to try as white, but never get the chance.

Maybe this could be a thematic, but would need to start after 10. Bxg5


Alvin Alcala    (2013-06-23 19:05:44)
Anyone play Semi Slav Botvinnik as black

What about in freestyle mode?


Robert Knighton    (2013-06-24 14:53:02)
Anyone play Semi Slav Botvinnik as black

it's too bad there is no way to play 1v1 unrated games at CC time controls on this site. I would gladly play a couple games like this on the side if there were.


Robert Knighton    (2013-06-24 14:59:21)
Playing activity top 20 players

20 days removed is a lot of time.

A tournament class which disallows vacation time would in itself be interesting.

combining the two would make for a very different tournament class.


Wilhelm Schuett    (2013-06-25 12:15:31)
Anyone play Semi Slav Botvinnik as black

http://chessage.com could be a possibility


Garvin Gray    (2013-07-01 13:35:39)
Wch cycles possible changes?

I guess no one else wants any changes.

Oh well I am proposing a small change in regards to the TER rule.

As it stands=

The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage.

In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage. If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account.

I would like to see these reversed, so it is the rating at the end of the event that decides who goes through. The logic of this is based on the theory being used. The theory is that the reason for highest rating moves forward is that it helps to ensure that the next group is as strong as possible. Well surely then that the most current information is the best guide to strength of play, so in my opinion the TER criteria should change to reflect this.

So the new rule would read:

The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In the case of equality, the player with the highest rating when the next stage begins will be qualify. Should their ratings be equal, then the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-07-02 19:29:35)
Wch cycles possible changes?

I chose the TER so that every player know what result to achieve in a tournament... with the current rating, the result of a match or tournament may change if a player uses the dead man defence. It would be quite terrible IMO :/


Robert Knighton    (2013-07-03 19:02:38)
Wch cycles possible changes?

TER is the only fair way to decide other than tie breaker matches (time consuming) or pushing forward to the next round every player with the same score.

I can see where TER could be frustrating though.

If PlayerA TER 2049 and PlayerB TER 2050 both score 5.5/6 in round 1 then this does seem fairly unjust for player A because playerB only had to fight for a draw to win the round where PlayerA must get a win.

this gives PlayerB a strong advantage over a measly 1 elo.

1 elo also says nothing meaningful about which of the two players has a better chance in the tournament.

Factors such as number of games played or percentage of loss on time would be far better indicators than a single ELO point.


Garvin Gray    (2013-07-04 14:17:57)
Wch cycles possible changes?

Robert, this would especially be the case if in the time between the start of the event and the start of the next stage that Player B was over 100 points higher than Player A, which can happen when it can take a year to start the next qualifying stage.


Garvin Gray    (2013-07-04 14:18:16)
Wch cycles possible changes?

How does a player using dmd gain any advantage?


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-07-15 14:16:39)
Interview with new FICGS Go champion

Yen-Wei Huang, winner of the 8th FICGS Go championship, kindly accepted to answer a few questions for this very interesting interview!

_______________________


- Hello Yen-Wei and congratulations for winning the FICGS Go championship! Xiao Tong was obviously a tough opponent, yet you won 5-0, what happened during this match?

Hi Thib. Thanks again for your kind invitation. Xiao is definitely one of the strongest Go players on FICGS, and I was really, really lucky to have won all five games. In fact, I was behind in three of them until Xiao made some mistakes late in the games: in game 69092, I forced a tough ko fight which jeopardized my lower group. Xiao made a mistake at P2 as he missed my T3 could force another ko. Game 69093 was very close towards the end but I think the move at C13 caused him the game. Game 69096 was even closer that I won by half a point thanks to the big 7.5 komi. The other two games were not easy either and I am glad I could have hung on to the lead. Overall I really enjoyed our match and I would love to have a rematch with Xiao in the future.

- You're from Taiwan, could you tell us a bit more about you? At what age did you learn Go? Do you have any other ranks (e.g. at other sites)?

I learned Go when I was 5 and I have always enjoyed playing all my life. I used to play on servers like KGS and Tygem and I was around 6-7 dan on these sites. Recently I don't have that much time to play so that's why turned to turn-based server like FICGS.

- What do you think about the world of Go these days? Who is the very best player in the world according to you?

I think the past two years were the "warring period" in the world of Go. I would say Lee Sedol was the best player two years ago, but he seems to have lost his dominant position recently. There are many rising stars that are winning the world champions. I am especially keeping an eye on Yuta Iyama, who I think is No. 1 in Japan and has started to threaten the dominance of Chinese and Korean players.

- What about computer Go and its future? How many years do you give to the human before losing to the machine?

As a software engineer I foresee the computer Go beats the world's No. 1 player in two decades. Crazy Stone already beat Yoshio Ishida with four handicap stones earlier this year, and I believe it wouldn't take long for computers to beat pros in two handicap stones. The real challenge will come when computers need to go from handicap games to even games since they need to advance from defensive mode to attack mode. I am really excited to see how Artificial Intelligence can surprise us with its "creative" moves when the time comes.

- Do you use engines or databases? What advice would you give to beginners (and to your future challengers :))?

I know there are many useful Go engines and databases that are being developed these days, unfortunately I don't really know much about them. I do use http://ps.waltheri.net/ if I need to look something up, and I go to http://tom.com for commented games (they're in Chinese, nonetheless). Advice to beginners: just go to any search engine and you can easily find all the free resources you want. Advice to my future challengers: just try the new variations since I know none of them :)

- What new features would you like to see at FICGS?

Firstly I'd like to thank Thib for maintaining such a wonderful site. I enjoy playing Go and Poker here and maybe I'll start playing Chess sometime (I really suck so I'm not ready to embarrass myself yet). The ability to play different games is what makes FICGS unique. As Thib mentioned earlier, we need much more players, and I think FICGS simply needs to host much more tournaments, probably some with shorter time settings. With more games and more player engagement, more people will stick around. Another feature I'd really like to see is FICGS client for cellphones/tablets. The main advantage of turn-based servers is that it allows people to play wherever for whatever period of time: a 1-min ride in the elevator, a 10-min wait at the bus stop, or a couple of hours at home. If playing on FICGS is made easier, I know I will be more addicted to it :)

- Thank you very much and good luck in the next final match...

Thanks! And please go easy on our Poker match...


Miguel Ortiz    (2013-07-15 17:00:42)
Invi. to play freestyle/centaur Chess

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013, beginning at 1800 UTC.

Bring all your knowledge and machine to play at www.infinitychess.com

See you there.


Alvin Alcala    (2013-07-15 17:51:28)
Invi. to play freestyle/centaur Chess

We can arrange a sponsored match over there. Just contack Kevin or William for details :)


Miguel Ortiz    (2013-07-15 22:10:52)
Invi. to play freestyle/centaur Chess

I will do that. I will let you know through here.


Ger Hanssen    (2013-07-17 20:48:24)
A player goes on inviting me

A player called Ortiz keeps inviting me for a game of chess, and I don't want to play any chess.
I sent him a message, but he goes on. This is really annoying. What do I do?


Don Groves    (2013-07-18 03:57:11)
A player goes on inviting me

On your "Preferences" page there is a section called "Challenges." Change its setting to "hidden" and your name will no longer appear in the list of players who can be challenged.


Robert Knighton    (2013-07-18 06:32:23)
A player goes on inviting me

Also I don't think it's intentional. I think when they join the waiting list for advanced games it automatically challenges all available players at the same time.

He is not trying to annoy you :)


Attila Ba    (2013-07-18 10:12:31)
Looking for big chess partners

Looking for big chess partners

I like very much the idea presented by this site of chess played on a bigger than normal board. Since Chess960 destroys theory but does not destroy engines (playing Chess960 for an engine is easy as pie) the only anti-engine way is to go for bigger board sizes. In this way you can measure your true correspondence chess skills independent of engines (on one hand no professional would go and write an engine for a game that is played by very few, on the other hand the number of possibilities soon grow out of hand on bigger boards making the tree search very difficult).

Out of my 18 big chess games on this site I have won 17 and lost 1 making it my most succesful type of game here. But with low player turnouts I simply can't get a tournament running (for half a year or so).

In order to have the possibility to play I have created a site solely for the purpose of playing rated big chess games on a single game basis with wide choice of timers and board sizes.

If anyone is interested please come to baatti.com and let's play big chess.


Jose Carrizo    (2013-07-19 23:13:11)
Anyone play Semi Slav Botvinnik as black

Hi Garvin, I play Semi Slav Botvinnik as black. A thematic tournament is a nice idea.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-07-25 11:13:31)
Looking for big chess partners

Yes, that's unfortunate we have no big chess players enough :/


Ilmars Cirulis    (2013-07-29 15:47:14)
Gossip about Evans gambit

Here's nice Evans game, where I played with white (at the end I made mistake and resigned):


(From http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=25194;pg=2 )


Anyone else want to share his Evans gambit CC games?


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-07-30 23:31:51)
Next WCH Stage start

Hi all, unfortunately there was no spots available for all players in the replacements list (who registered after july 1st)... Joerg now plays but Scott doesn't. Moreover, no new groups can be built this time. The good point is that we did not have many forfeits.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-07-30 23:32:50)
Gossip about Evans gambit

You're the only one to play those mad openings Ilmars :p


Mladen Jankovic    (2013-07-30 23:54:17)
Thematic tournaments?

How about
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7

It makes for some weird play.


Mladen Jankovic    (2013-07-31 19:14:38)
Thematic tournaments?

I encountered it playing here, the interesting part is that it enables the black king to go on the attack early.


I've played it in game 2032, where I withdrew my king from the center even though pressing on did not seem impossible.

https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=2032


Dann Corbit    (2013-07-31 20:22:59)
Thematic tournaments?

It takes guts to play that opening as white, because it looks like a serious disadvantage to me. Of course I like the Orangutan, which is theoretically weak for white as well. I will examine game 2032 to see how it came out


Ilmars Cirulis    (2013-08-01 17:00:15)
Gossip about Evans gambit

So about the thematic tournament: with black I am going to play 4... Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 and hope to get to this position/variation:


With white I plan to play
or check my skill/luck against other retreats of bishop from b4.


Scott Nichols    (2013-08-02 20:54:08)
Next WCH Stage start

That's fine Thib, I entered late. Please take my name off the list so I don't have to worry about it.

On another subject, but still Wch. I saw in the round robin final that Kamesh was entered. I don't think he has played a game on here in about 2 years. He made it clear to all of us that he was quitting online chess because of his 2 new kids. My point is this, the final RR just takes too long to reach. My suggestion: Have a single qualifying swiss tournament. The top eight players then can have a final RR to determine the winner. Have an entry fee, this will eliminate Most of the looky-loos and forfeits. I think quality, not quantity is more important.


Garvin Gray    (2013-08-06 17:51:39)
Next WCH Stage start

It is not a reasonable proposition to organise a swiss event with a time control of 30 days plus 1 day increment.

As the second round can not start until the last game of the first round is finished, it is almost certain that we would be playing one round per year :o


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-08-27 13:10:01)
Next WCH Stage start

I have so many other projects... particularly during the summer. But none of them is the reason why FICGS doesn't evolve or doesn't get new players enough.


Paul Campanella    (2013-09-15 13:07:22)
Poker for e-points?

Any update on whether or not poker games played for e-points will be allowed?


Paul Campanella    (2013-09-15 13:08:39)
Active players list

How about the player gets removed from the active list if they do not play a game within a period of 3 months?


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-09-16 00:54:02)
Active players list

Well, any choice would be ok I guess... "active" may mean many different things. The options you suggest would need more calculations, not so convenient.


Garvin Gray    (2013-09-20 09:23:43)
Active players list

Paul, an issue with is, how do you define playing a game? Do you mean having a game that has finished, just starting, or have made a move?

I think a person should have games in progress and be making moves to be considered active.

A person can log into a site (any site) but not actually be active. They are called lurkers.


Garvin Gray    (2013-09-20 09:25:56)
Poker for e-points?

I see this debate/topic quite often. In most countries the only way poker can be played for currency is if it is in tournament style.

Just like chess, tennis anything. As long as the prizes at the end go to the best performers.


Scott Nichols    (2013-09-20 21:16:08)
Active players list

Then there are a lot of lurkers here, :)


Scott Nichols    (2013-09-20 21:21:42)
Active players list

I see there is not a separate list for active players in advanced chess. If you are an advanced player it makes it hard to shoot for the top if the ratings are all jumbled together.


Alvin Alcala    (2013-09-21 05:16:27)
Active players list

I agree with Scott, this will motivate other players to play more.


Wayne Lowrance    (2013-09-25 07:16:13)
My tournament activity

Thib I dis like having to post this msg.

Thib I have tried very hard to continue these tournaments. Somehow I have over committed Tournaments. I am competing in away to many tournaments. I am not able mentally & physically to play active chess. it is not fair to me and my opponents.

I am very satisfied with results. I currently have no negative results. My mind no longer has memory capacity for chess at my level.
My wife Dorothy has asked me to discontinue chess
She knows what it means to me and how hard this is for me to take this course of action.
Thanks to you and especially to all of my partners.
God bless all.
Wayne


George Clement    (2013-09-25 22:16:46)
My tournament activity

Wayne it has been a privelige to know and play you. I hope you do alright if life.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-10-08 11:17:13)
My tournament activity

Health before everything (and particularly chess), Wayne!

Say hi to wise Dorothy for me and take care, anyway you'll always be one of the strongest players having played here :)

See you, wherever on the internet...

Cheers,
Thib


Scott Nichols    (2013-10-08 16:52:38)
Best Freestyle Site

This site is still IMHO the best site for Freestyle. The interface is easy to understand and everything is clear, that's important to any site.

That's why I don't understand why the traffic has dwindled so. I'm sure we could come up with something to increase the Freestyle on here.

I'll start with my idea, :) Have a monthly Freestyle OPEN tournament. The only requirent is a 2 E-point entry fee. The winner gets 90%, FICGS gets 10%. The time controls would have to be bullet, 5 min with 15 second increment. If 8 players or less, it could be a round robin. 9 players or more, even up to a hundred!, would play a swiss style. Make it unrated so anybody could join. Have it on the first Sat. of the month. It would have to start at least by 1800 server time to get all the rounds in in ONE DAY.


Alvin Alcala    (2013-10-08 19:19:44)
Best Freestyle Site

+1 Agree

Super extremely awesome site to play freestyle chess.


Garvin Gray    (2013-10-18 14:37:25)
Kasparov candidate for FIDE president

Money has nothing to do with it at all. It all has to do with the votes of the dodgy african nations. You know. The ones who have one vote, the same number of votes as federations that have thousands of fide rated players, but do not have a single fide rated player.

One vote per federation, no matter how many fide rated players or members you have. So is it all a matter of how much you can bribe or offer the african nations.


Garvin Gray    (2013-10-20 12:50:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Was attempting to find the thread on allowing players to enter the next section up by winning the lower section.

Time for a review of this practice I think now that it has been going for a year or so.

I think it has had some benefits, I certainly have benefited from it ie have helped moved me up the rating list faster than otherwise would have occurred, I have noticed a couple of large issues.

In some groups, the waiting lists are taking much longer to form when two players from a lower rating group have entered early.

For instance a 2300+ group can be showing players with ratings of 2150 or so. This is possible when two players buy their ticket after winning a lower division and then their rating drops. This situation has occurred.

From then on for that group to form, it requires another 5 2300 players to join the group. That is a long and tedious process.

I think the rules on the upgrade ticket process need to be re-written to as follows:

A player, who has won the lower division, can only use the higher division ticket, once five or more places have been filled in that group.

The purpose of this rule change should hopefully show to keep 'strong' players that if they get in quick they can get a group going full of players of the ratings they want.

The market can then choose by entering quickly and watching the rating lists.

With the current situation of difficulty getting divisions started due to the number of wch groups started at the same time, some changes are required.

I think this rule is one area that needs to be reviewed urgently.


Dmitri Mamrukov    (2013-10-22 21:16:49)
Kasparov candidate for FIDE president

Evgeny Bareev: Subjective speculations on the strange Kasparov-Karpov tandem

http://www.onefide.com/2010/05/28/kasparov-and-karpov-are-playing-another-game-this-time-a-political-one-by-igm-evgeny-bareev/


Eduardo Alex Baeza Ibanez    (2013-11-05 00:26:30)
Active players list

I try to play with a people from my country, is this possible?


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-11-06 20:03:54)
About the players

Hello Eduardo, you can play bullet/lightning games by challenging a player in the "My games" page. It is advised to contact him before challenging him...


Eduardo Alex Baeza Ibanez    (2013-11-06 20:10:44)
About the players

ok i get it, and only we can play with connected players?, and other questions is possible to play correspondence chess?, regards.


Eduardo Alex Baeza Ibanez    (2013-11-06 20:21:23)
FICGS__BIG_CHESS__TOURNAMENT__00

i need some help!!, i was confused, and don't read very well, and then i accept to invitations to play big chess, how can i cancel this? because i don't have time to play a so long game like this, sorry about that, was my mistake.

the name of this tournament is FICGS__BIG_CHESS__TOURNAMENT__00


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-11-13 23:29:26)
World chess championship Anand / Carlsen

4 games played already in the FIDE world chess championship and the situation remains completely open...

Chances are about 50/50, obviously...


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-11-13 23:31:38)
About the players

Well, you can play bullet/lightning games with connected players but you may use the waiting lists (standard tournaments) to play correspondence games.

The Help section may help as well.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-11-13 23:32:26)
Active players list

The chat is not so active but you can use it to try to find an opponent in your country.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-11-21 15:41:00)
Friend List

Hello Eduardo, which list are you talking about? From your email? To play an advanced (fast) game?


Peter W. Anderson    (2013-11-21 18:38:54)
World chess championship Anand / Carlsen

Yes, looks familiar Thib. Interesting choice indeed. Carlsen played really solidly in game 8 and then this sharp line in game 9.

By the way, I wasn't really convinced about Ra2. I know the idea - swing it over to e2 or f2 but in the lines I looked at it never got there without a lot of simplications first.


Garvin Gray    (2013-12-05 01:44:30)
WBCCC 2014 Entries Open

Entries for WBCCC 2014 are now open at www.rybkaforum.net.

For those not aware of our event, quite a few of the players here can speak about their experiences in the event, but as organiser I can say that many of the regular players have gotten a lot out of their participation, have improved their play and a lot has been learnt about freestyle correspondence chess in the three years that this event has been running.

Prize money is offered, but how much is determined by players and others willingness to sponsor.

Feel free to contact me by replying to this message, sending me a pm at rybka forum or private message here. A private message here is the least reliable.

Full tournament rules:

1) Tournament will be single round robin, meaning every person will play each other once.
2) A players seed position will be determined by their order of entry. The earlier you enter, the higher your number. The first person to enter will receive number 1. The seed position determines which number a player is in the round robin.
3) Entries open December 1 2013
4) Entries close January 6 2014
5) Play begins January 13 2014
6) Each round will be paired at the start of the event, with the pairings for the entire year published at the start.
7) Each round will have a maximum of four games, most likely two games (just like 2011, 2012 and 2013). The number of games will always be kept to a bare minimum
8) There will be a maximum of six paired rounds.
9) The minimum time control will be 30 days plus 1 hour per move. If the number of games per round needs to increase from 2 to 3 or 4, the time control will be lengthened. For instance, if we have 21 players, so needing 4 games per round to keep the number of games even and use five rounds, instead of the six rounds in 2013.
9) Pairings for future rounds are subject to change due to withdrawal of players and unforeseen circumstances.
10) If a player withdraws, or their games time out without an explanation that is accepted by the arbiter, all their games will be removed from the event. In effect they are no longer a participant in the event and no effect on the final placings.
11) There will be an official entry form that all players will be required to fill out before their entry will be accepted. This is so in case of emergency the organisers have a method of contact outside of Rybka Forum. It will include also include a person other than yourself to contact. Whilst I understand this might seem unnecessary to some, I do hope that events from 2013 (death of Salvador Signes and our inability to get in contact with the family) do show the need for better communication methods.

12) Xfccplay- Xfccplay is the official software provided for WBCCC 2014. Xfccplay is provided for the free use for participants whilst in the event. A user name and password will be provided once registered. Also download instructions will be provided by private message and these must be followed to install the program. The program is provided by chessok and is not to be passed on to anyone and is provided for the sole use of playing in WBCCC. All moves, draw offers etc in WBCCC 2014 must be played on this software.

13) New entrants will be required to play a couple of test games on xfccplay before entries close so that the arbiter is certain that all players are familiar with the software and its features. The organisers do not want to see players withdrawing after the event has begun because they find that they are unfamiliar with the software and get upset because their clock is running. Entries are open from December 1 to January 6. That is over a month to become familiar with the software. The organisers will not accept entries from players who have not tested the software.


Garvin Gray    (2013-12-15 10:33:57)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Another suggestion :) I notice you have said the rule has been re-written, but where it is displayed. To make the 'ticket' rule etc more obvious, it should be contained on the page when someone clicks on the link that takes you to entering a divisions. Say I click on class sm 19 (the current division in question), it would give the ticket rules.

So, when does the new ticket rules start?


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-12-16 18:44:40)
Entry fee for higher class tournament

Right now, it is fully displayed in the rules page only.

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#tickets

The ticket option is reminded (with a link to rules) in each email specifying that a tournament is won and on the "My messages" page. I'll probably add it to the Waiting list pages soon.

By the rules have been updated!


Garvin Gray    (2013-12-20 15:18:41)
WBCCC 2014 Entries Open

Entries are now at seventeen. More ficgs players wanted. If you know someone from another site who might be interested, please contact me.

1. Garvin GRAY GARVIN GRAY
2. Om PRAKASH MASTER OM
3. Scott NICHOLS SCOTT
4. George CLEMENT KEOKI010
5. Nikolaos SARAKENIDIS TRANDISM
6. Djordje KASABASIC ARMAGEDDON
7. Paul WATSON NATIONAL12
8. Matt O'BRIEN SCHACHMATT
9. Carlo ALTIERI ITACA2
10. Mark ELDRIDGE MARK ELDRIDGE
11. David EVANS DAVID EVANS
12. Neel BASANT NEELBASANT
13. Timothy COOKSON WEIRWINDLE
14. Ruben COMES RUBEN COMES
15. Erik VAREND DEKA
16. Jose SANZ PPIPPER
17. Michael GLATTHAAR DONKASAND


Garvin Gray    (2013-12-22 09:17:43)
Withdrawal from all standard time events

I thought I would bring this topic up to let everyone know.

After a few years here, I have decided that it is almost certain that I will no longer be entering standard time control events on this site until the time control changes.

I find that most players in that time control just waste the time provided and are able to play faster, but choose to run their time down, and then make 8 moves in 10 days, then wait another 30 days before making another 8 moves in 10 days, or similar behaviour.

Sorry Thibault, but I have better things to do in my life than have my life wasted like this.

If you want me to return to standard time control events, change the time control.

This means I will only be playing in rapid time control events, which is a much better time control.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-12-23 20:59:07)
Withdrawal from all standard time events

Well, as for me I still like very much this time control... It enables me not to accumulate too much stress (mainly because of periods -added to vacation- when I cannot play chess enough) while accumulating a few tournaments.

But I understand for sure your feeling! People do not play at the same rhythm, that's all and that's why we have rapid tournaments (that seem to be about as popular as standard tourneys).


Garvin Gray    (2013-12-24 07:24:52)
Withdrawal from all standard time events

The issue is not with the amount of time taken when players use a few days per each move, say 3 days on one move, 4 days on the next, 2 days on another and so forth, throughout the 10 moves for 40 days and so arrive at the end of the 10 moves with about 5 days to spare (playing it safe). That is how the time control is 'meant' to work.

No, my issue is with players who completely waste my time with behaviour that shows that they are able to move faster and can do so, but believe that is ok not to do so.

Most of us know exactly who they are and would have no problem naming them. If I had the option not to play them again, I would be comfortable doing so.

This is how they 'game' the time control. At the start of the game, they will make their first few moves in the first few days, leaving 35 or so days for 5 moves, then you will not see them for another 30 days, then they come back and make another 5 moves in 5 days (making the time control).

Then you do not see them again for another 30 days, except for maybe one or two moves, then they make 10 moves in less than 10 days (making the time control again).

And they keep repeating this behaviour for the whole game. Time period after time period.

In my period, this wastes 30 days per cycle of my life and I do hold Thibault partly responsible for it. He designs a time control that allows it to happen.

At least with the rapid time control, players who do this eventually end up having to make one move per day for the rest of the game, so they run the risk of running out of time. They show poor time management and get punished for it.

There is a simple way to stop this behaviour, change the time control.


Garvin Gray    (2013-12-24 11:01:28)
Withdrawal from all standard time events

Josef: I would prefer not to talk much about unrated events. In terms of priorities for players, unrated events will always be last. So they will be shuffled to the end.

So time priorities for unrated games can always be excused as they are given the least amount of time after, in rough order of importance:

WCH games
Divisions where you have a chance of a norm
Divisions where you have a chance of winning, so win a prize
Division where you can gain points.
Games where you are doing well, which is a vague criteria.
And then everything after that.

As a key supporter and one of the original creator of the standard open events, I would like to see those change to rapid time control from now on. Most of the players in those divisions rarely would need all the time that is offered.

It would also mean more cycles could move quicker.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2013-12-24 14:12:26)
FICGS poker ratings

I also have this problem with exactly one player. And I have now decided to act in the same manner against this player. If it looks as if I lose then I'm going to reply when my time is almost over.


Thibault de Vassal    (2013-12-26 21:59:43)
FICGS Facebook app in question

Hello all,

As you probably have noticed, we have less and less new players and it seems that many correspondence chess sites encounter the same problem (but chess.com, maybe gameknot... mainly).

Nowadays, it seems that everything goes with Facebook and Facebook applications (even if Facebook enforced their rules in many ways around apps), so I'm thinking about making one... somewhat against my principles. In my opinion, there may be many other reasons why chess sites lose popularity but that's another story.

So I'd like to know your opinion on Facebook applications (well, most are spammy and with one goal, gathering personal data... that's quite obvious) and why not we could share ideas to make it useful and viral as much as possible...


Peter W. Anderson    (2013-12-26 22:22:27)
FICGS World Chess Championship results

Hi Thib

What I did was go into one of the 1st round group and look at the date the first game started. Prompted by your question I have checked and I can see that this is not quite right as some games started sooner - perhaps the date on the games is when the 1st move is played rather than when the game is created.

I will go through more 1st round games and make the date more accurate and update the document tomorrow (or perhaps you have an easier way or getting the dates?)


Garvin Gray    (2013-12-27 17:23:41)
FICGS Facebook app in question

Facebook is a very good medium and does not have to be 'spammy'. People have the ability to control what other see by controlling their settings.

The group admin can also decide who is able to enter a group, either by having the group as open or closed group.

Since pinterest was a bust, and I think facebook is the way to go, this idea should certainly be advanced.

I can see possibilities where it could help not just ficgs, but other sites as well as there are going to be players on facebook who are from other sites who are not on ficgs.

So I think it has the potential to be a win all round.


Garvin Gray    (2013-12-28 02:42:08)
Ficgs World Championship 13

Been asked in the results thread, thought I would bring it across to here.

When is it going to start?

I have a secondary comment and suggestion that relates to starting time. Number 12 and the groups from 10 and 11 all started at the same time. That loaded a lot of games at the same time, which I certainly found to be a huge impost and impacted on the standard of play.

I went in one day from only having a few games, to having 10 Round Robin Final games, a second stage final plus a first stage M division all started at the same time.

All these games were started at exactly the same time. Not even a week apart from each other.

I really do wish for this upcoming cycle that the divisions do not start at the same time.

For instances, there is no reason why entries for number 13 could not be open now with the idea of starting February 1.

Then all the second stages/knockouts from previous groups could start in March, which has been commented on by Thib in the chat bar.


Garvin Gray    (2013-12-29 23:37:42)
Ficgs World Championship 13

Just because it is clear, does not mean it is best. As you quite often have said. This event is meant to be about finding the best player, hence quite a few of the rules which I do not agree with, but that is your justification.

So if that is the justification, then starting so many games at the same time can not help the standard of play and then hence can not help in getting through as many of the best players as possible.


Garvin Gray    (2013-12-31 15:46:09)
Withdrawal from all standard time events

Coasantino: As I commented earlier, the rapids are not too bad. At least a player will eventually end up with 1 day per move only and so may time out. But then we get into the situation of them 'gaming' their vacation and the discussions once again around that.

It is solely to do with the standard time control.

I think the standard time control should be:

20 moves in 40 days, followed by 10 moves in 40 days, followed by 10 moves in 40 days and then 15 days plus 1 day per move from move 41.


Joerg Moormann    (2014-01-22 15:08:06)
Bug? Mate but game not finished

Hi

I played 29.... Re3# at 18. Jan. 2014.

http://www.ficgs.com/game_77611.html

It's checkmate, but the server did not finish the game. What went wrong?


Don Groves    (2014-01-24 03:51:05)
Withdrawal from all standard time events

IMHO, the answer to this problem is to not allow any player to enter a new tournament if that player still has more than X ongoing tournaments. The determination of X remains to be resolved. It needs to be low enough to eliminate players from entering a new tournament and then not making any moves until their clock runs low. This is completely unfair to the other players!


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2014-01-24 15:33:08)
Withdrawal from all standard time events

Garvin the time control here is even faster than in ICCF (50 days for 10 moves) so the problem is not the t/c but the players abusing it, as you have stated. Why you want to penalize those who find satisfactory the system for the culprit of some rotten fruits?


Garvin Gray    (2014-02-03 02:10:36)
Standard time control abusers

Suffering again with two players abusing the time control.

Sick of this site with an administrator who will not doing anything about it when he has the ability to do so. I believe it is time to start naming and shaming these people and will start to do so in the next post after replies from others. I really do not care anymore, it is time this issue is exposed for the disgrace it is. Perhaps by exposing them, they will be gotten rid of. They hide under the cover of anonymity.

I am strongly considering resigning both games, telling Thibault what he can do with his site and leaving. I have had a F****** gutful of these actions and having months of my life wasted.


Garvin Gray    (2014-02-08 11:05:53)
Standard time control abusers

Thib, I have not replied to this because this item has been discussed before and I feel that you are not serious in stopping this issue.

There have been discussions in changing the time control, or changing the vacation rules, and other such discussions, and on each and every occasion you have said that there will be no change.

I have been left with the conclusion that you are on the side of the time control abusers and endorse their behaviour and that it is acceptable to have other players lives wasted for 30 days each 40 day period.

I have presented proposal after proposal to stamp out this scourge and you will not do anything about it.

You have the ability to do so and can act immediately.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-02-08 16:11:32)
Standard time control abusers

Changing the time control will not avoid the ways to abuse it... And we can always complexify rules (e.g. vacation) but it will always be possible to use it to gain time on difficult moves. All this reminds me the way we are governed in France, with the well known no-results...

Finally, I must say that you often had very good ideas for this site (even if many cannot be used yet because we have no players enough) but I think that your view on time controls is really subjective, probably most of us are really ok with the current rules and we can observe alternatives (iccf, wbccc, other sites).


George Clement    (2014-02-10 20:26:55)
Standard time control abusers

Thib, I for one agree with Garvin. Currently I believe the reason that no new m or sm tours have started in months is because of the time control abuse. There is no way it should take a modern computer and analyst 30 days to come up with 10 moves. They wait 30 days play 10 fast moves and are gone for 30 days again. It's one of the main reason play on this site is going down. n'est ce pas?


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-02-13 13:30:26)
Standard time control abusers

George, the main reason why no tournaments enough can start is that the number of new players slowly decreases for a while... I tried several things to solve this problem and it didn't work, now I'm trying other things but believe me, I'm doing my possible. The thing is that it takes time (particularly for Google) :/


Garvin Gray    (2014-02-15 08:59:20)
Standard time control abusers

Ok, I have long had enough of this and since Thib believes that everything is a ok, it is time to start naming the abusers and their actions. Perhaps that will force Thib to start taking action against these people, because I, for at least one player, have had a bloody gutful of this player wasting my life.

The player concerned is: Mariusz Maciej Broniek and the game in question is: https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=71232

He has repeatedly made all his moves in the last 5 days of the time control, then let his time run down to the 5 days and then made another 10 moves and rinse-repeat and will do it again.

Mariusz is clearly able to move faster, but is deciding to 'game' the time control in an attempt to either annoy the S*** out of me, or hope that I will resign.

The significance of this game is that whoever wins, wins the tourney and all the e points, totalling 48 e points. I am +10 ahead and it is time Thibault stepped in and put a stop to this behaviour.

Either Thibault applies the 'bringing the game into disrepute rule' against players like this, by firstly giving a warning and then declaring the game lost, or Thibault makes it clear he stands on the side of those who seek to abuse and 'game' the time control and does not give a stuff about the lives of the members who they continue to stuff over.


Scott Nichols    (2014-02-15 15:42:10)
Standard time control abusers

I share your sentiments Garvin. I have, and still am playing many of these guys. It seems that they want to win points by extending the game as long as possible and hope to win by the other player either quits, gives gup chess, or dies. Another problem is players who reach a dead lost position, even one move before mate and then just quit moving altogether.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-02-15 23:44:49)
Standard time control abusers

Garvin, I know why Mariusz can play this way in general (like a few other ones) and this 'may have' nothing to do with any kind of abuse. Anyway this game seems really close to finish and everyone has the right to play games until the end. One could have chosen rules that say "every game with Rybka +/-5.0 is won" or even more complex rules involving evaluation and clocks, but this is not the case here (fortunately, anyway any rule can be abused). One can't know everyone's personal life.


George Clement    (2014-02-27 20:11:20)
Standard time control abusers

Doesn't help if you want to play in a rated tournament!


Peter W. Anderson    (2014-02-28 08:36:07)
Standard time control abusers

True!

There are advantages to how the FICGS world champs are organised, but one disadvantage is that you can end up playing lots of Wch games and not really have time for normal tournaments.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-02-28 16:36:56)
Standard time control abusers

This statistic/percentage will increase with time, most probably (quite logical)... It is probably quite the same at ICCF.

Wch is always a problem with standard tournaments, that's one reason why I was not favourable (so far) to add another cycle (cup). But I think there will be more players registering soon, things are evolving in the right way with Google.


Garvin Gray    (2014-02-28 17:15:22)
Standard time control abusers

ICCF code of conduct 2: Extremely slow play in a clearly lost position is not proper behaviour in CC play, and is subject to a warning from the TD, and will result in disciplinary action if it continuous or is repeated in other games

Playing Rules- Server

3) Failure to Reply- a. The ICCF Webserver system will automatically generate an Email reminder when a player has not
made a move for 14 days and another, after 28 generated after 35 days of silence by a player.
b. When a player is sent a final reminder after 35 days of response time, he/she must either move or report to the Tournament Director and to his/her opponent, the intention to continue the game, within 5 days of that
reminder. If a player does not move or otherwise report his/her intention to continue, during the 40 days of response
time for the same move, the game may be scored as lost by the Tournament Director.

My own words- The number of days set above are based on 10 moves in 50 days, so for our site we would use a much shorter time period.

I can not answer what happens in practice on iccf as I do not play there.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-02-28 23:58:27)
Standard time control abusers

We also have here a rule for clearly lost positions but in all cases this is subjective, we should compare many judged positions. As for the Server rule, it is just similar to the 60 days move rule... Finally what ICCF TDs can do if a player makes one move every 25 days in a not "clearly lost" position until approching the time limit? Changing rules will not change anything IMO, there is no way to prevent someone to turn around clear rules to last a game.


Garvin Gray    (2014-03-01 03:29:31)
Standard time control abusers

And once again your response is to sit on your hands and do nothing. That is your clear response all the time to this major issue.

You ask for solutions, some of us attempt to offer solutions, you reject them. You ask for other sites rules, we offer them, you reject them saying they won't work. It is clear that you have no intention of doing anything about this and that you really believe that allowing my life to be wasted is acceptable, well I don't and I am sure the others who are trapped in this same situation do not.

I really do not understand how you can think it is acceptable to allow your members to have their lives wasted by players who are clearly just acting out of spite?

Your actions are really against the best interests of this site. I know as the site administrator that is a big call, but I really do feel it is the right call to make.

When you side with the abusers and not the victims, that is what happens.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-03-01 23:51:05)
Standard time control abusers

Here is a proposal... I'll post a new topic asking who is favourable to close the class A, class M & class SM tournaments, promoting regularly this new topic in the chat bar.

Then let's wait 7 days exactly. If there are more players wanting to close (temporarily, at least) these waiting lists, then it will be done.

Does it sound acceptable to you?


Garvin Gray    (2014-03-02 04:03:47)
Standard time control abusers

I see the idea of a vote as ridiculous and a waste of time. What it could lead to is people voting to keep the class A, M and SM tournaments open because they do not want to deprive the opportunity of someone to play in them, but the status quo remains that no one is joining them.

And what happens if you only get a couple of responses, which is exactly what could happen because of general site apathy?

If you want knowledge of how people feel about these matters, but do not want to publicly speak about the matter because they are afraid to offend the site administrator because they are afraid.

I have given you the absolute 'rounds of the kitchen' repeatedly and often on this issue and have not let up over a number of weeks.

It is natural on the internet that when someone is pushing that hard against the efforts of a volunteer site admin that there will be blowback and the 'pusher (me)' will cop criticism in return.

So far there has been little to none. In fact some of the regulars have been stating that there is an issue as well.

Instead of calling for votes that could just leave all of us in the same ridiculous situation, take the feedback I have provided, and also the inactivity of the groups as the votes that really count ie the marketplace has decided that they do not want those groups, and close the class SM, class M and class A groups immediately.


Josef Riha    (2014-03-02 10:21:48)
Standard time control abusers

As I said earlier in this thread, look at chesshere.com. There are no tournament classes here.

You have three possibilities to play a game in CC:

1.) Start your own game and decide the time control and elo-range of your opponent or enter a game at the game list.

2.) If you are a teammember the teamcaptain assigns an opponent to you.

3.) You can apply a Championship with different elo-classes.

In all cases the time control range is mostly between 3 or 7 days. No extra days are added after a move.

If an opponent ran out of time you can remain your opponent to do a move or finish the game immediately. After each game your elopoints are updated and you can see your success (or failure).


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-03-02 23:20:58)
Standard time control abusers

Chesshere is a very different system indeed. There is a server for any taste, I guess...

Garvin, if there was only you, George & I responding, then you'd be probably 2 to choose to close these waiting lists so I'd do it. But if you think I've installed a terror-like system here, then this is not an option anymore...

Ok, I think this decision is quite terrible but let's do this. Class SM, class M & class A are now closed.

Rapid SM 12 is now empty, rapid M 71 has one player & rapid A 158 has three, let's wait and see how it evolves during a few weeks/months.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2014-03-03 01:40:14)
Standard time control abusers

I can't believe that one player has success with his permanent and aggressive posts. What a terrible development of the server. So I can no longer recommend this website as a chess server.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-03-03 11:14:15)
Standard time control abusers

Not "any" player though, Heinz-Georg :) You know like me that Garvin has some experience and knowledge on all these topics and I respect it, even if I disagree with him sometimes or often.

In this case, I estimated that either I had to prove some things, or something good could comes out (if I'm wrong). We all know that we miss new players for about 2 years, so it sounds important to do something that can be seen even if the real game is behind the server itself...


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-03-03 11:22:35)
Class A, class M & class SM closed

Hello all,

Waiting lists for chess class A, class M & class SM tournaments are temporarily closed as an experiment, following the discussion in the thread:

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=11507


My sincere apologies to players who entered it already, but anyway you all know that class & rapid tournaments are difficult to start for 2 years now, so we're working on different ways to improve the situation.

Of course, you can send me an email if you want to remove your name from these waiting lists.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2014-03-03 18:14:56)
Standard time control abusers

Why do you think that a serious player would join FICGS if he cannot play serious correspondence games here? He hasn't done it during the last two years, so he will not do it after this restriction of tournament structure.

IMO time control 30/+1 is only suitable for correspondence cafe chess games. It's enough time for poker games, maybe even go games, but chess? That's enough in no case, if you have to work or want to play on others sides too.

I don't play normal chess on this side because the class tournaments are not attractive enough. At least I should climb the next class level if I win a tournament. With this ELO-driven classification that is not the case. And in the WCH there is not enough time to play a serious game. Furthermore, I don't like the preferential treatment (own groups) for the "better" players. I think that many players feel the same way.

By the way I think it's terrible that chess players are condemned here because they spent their time (or vacation) as they need it. According to the rules that is their right.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-03-03 23:41:34)
Standard time control abusers

At least you join Garvin on the WCH groups point (and consequently the Cup idea)...

Anyway, as there are very few new strong chess players yet, this is a quite good time to try this change. Let's see in a few weeks/months if it has first effects.


Jing Huang    (2014-03-04 00:14:15)
Standard time control abusers

I agree with this - "I don't play normal chess on this side because the class tournaments are not attractive enough. At least I should climb the next class level if I win a tournament. With this ELO-driven classification that is not the case."

I also like the cup idea :)


Garvin Gray    (2014-03-04 01:15:06)
Standard time control abusers

FWIW, seems like at least one person thinks I 'got my way'. This is incorrect, I did not 'get my way'.

I wanted Thibault to take action against standard time control abusers, which he has not done.

Btw, in one of my games I am now on move 70 and have mate 13 and I think my opponent is going to make another move and then try and sit on the position for another 35 days.

Will Thibault step in then?

The closing of the three standard class divisions was a response to this issue and the fact that they have not started for a long time and that something needed to be done.

It is only after a decision had been made one way or another that some comments have started to come. I gave, some days, between replies, for others to comment, so others had an opportunity to cast their opinion, disagree, give alternative opinion and also to add new rules if they wish.

Then as nothing was happening with the discussions and my opponents were continuing with their actions, the need become more pressing. I have never said for a second that there is anything wrong at all with a person who moves at a rate of one move every five days.

It is with players who are so arrogant they believe it is their right to waste their opponents lives when they clearly can play at a faster rate. If they can not move at a faster rate, how come they can make 9 moves in 3 days, then not move for 35 days?

A person who is legitimately time poor will make one move every few days to make the time control.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-03-05 00:23:43)
Standard time control abusers

Garvin, about that particular game you can use the rules to shorten it... the game will not last more than 30 days in this case (see 11.5).

On the ways people use their time, every player has his own reasons and I don't think he should have to say or justify it to see if it suits any "code of conduct". There must be rules and nothing more.


Don Groves    (2014-03-09 22:26:32)
Standard time control abusers

I have long ago stated my opinion that, if a player cannot make one move per week (or maybe 10 days) in each game they are playing, then that person is playing too many games. I have come up against the same problems Garvin is talking about many times and invariably players who do this are playing 30 or more games at the same time. My solution is to restrict the number of tournaments a player can enter. No player can enter a new tournament if he/she has more than two tournaments already running.


Don Groves    (2014-03-09 22:31:46)
Standard time control abusers

Perhaps the best solution is to require every player to make at least one move in every game during a 10 day period. Unless on vacation, I cannot imagine a serious player could not do this. When I play, I never wait longer than about 3 days in any game.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-03-12 13:44:36)
Standard time control abusers

Even a 10 days limit per move would not solve the DMD problem... And we had debates on the number of tournaments each player can enter, such a (big) change would not satisfy everyone (for the least, I think).


Timofey Denisov    (2014-03-15 18:15:43)
Standard time control abusers

If player not make move after 20 days (vacation days not counting in these 20), then his clock will run 2x times faster until he will make move. After he make move, clock will work as usual.


Garvin Gray    (2014-03-16 08:39:10)
Standard time control abusers

So what prevents a player doing these two measures to get around the rule:

1) Putting themselves on one day vacation as allowed on here.
2) Making one move after 19 days, and then sitting on the position again till day 35.

Game would just advance one move.


Timofey Denisov    (2014-03-16 11:41:12)
Standard time control abusers

1) not working. Because vacation days just skipping in count, so clock will gain double speed in 21th day (if player took 1-day vacation).

2) Yes... maybe do more? Maybe decline 50-move rule on 6- or even 7- pieces in "normal chess"? (because exist tablebases for these endgames, and players just do moves from database), and next is do adjudgement in 6- pieces positions? Result can be gained from chessok.com, for sample. Or if 7-pieces position you can gain result from latest version Aquarium (licensed, pirated copy can't access to tablebases).


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-04-09 13:18:35)
Alvin Alcala in Freestyle Battle 2014

It seems that Alvin still some chances to win the gigantic freestyle tournament named "Freestyle Battle" played at InfinityChess server :

http://www.infinitychess.com/Web/Page/Public/Article/DefaultArticle.aspx?id=141

He is now second, Anson Williams is first... Wish him good luck for the last 2 rounds :)


Peter W. Anderson    (2014-04-10 11:14:59)
Alvin Alcala in Freestyle Battle 2014

Yes, excellent performance by Alvin.

Anson Williams is interesting. I can't find him on any correspondence sites. I believe he is English but I cannot find any record of an English Chess Federation or FIDE rating for him. The only type of chess he seems to play is freestyle and he seems to do very well at it. He must have a lot of natural talent because there are some strong OTB and correspondence players in that tournament.

Good luck Alvin for the last round :)


Michael Sayers    (2014-04-19 17:05:02)
remove from non-started tournaments

Is it possible for a player to have himself removed from the waiting list of tournaments which have not begun if he might not be able to complete the obligations and if he doesn't make this mistake again?

(specifically

FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_B__000205,

FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_C__000210,

FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_B__000217,

FICGS__CHESS__NO_ENGINES_TOURNAMENT__000071,

and

FICGS__CHESS__UNRATED_TOURNAMENT__000037

- these are many!!!).

Much appreciated if possible :)


Michael S.


Michael Sayers    (2014-04-19 20:40:44)
Standard time control abusers

I want to offer a general apology to my opponents here re. my late start in deployment of moves by maybe 20 days in some games. Since then, I have moved promptly (within the day) of each move received.

This isn't the only venue where I play chess and I was a bit overwhelmed. Then I decided I had an obligation toward my fellow players to follow through reliably with the games.

As to players taking the maximum possible number of days to complete a game, in any system there are unreliable persons, abusers, et c., and when the rules become so numerous and strict as to prevent this then there is no remedy when a decent person needs a little flexibility - intense discomfort caused by some is replaced by slight and persistent discomfort for everybody, and probably no one wants that scenario.


Michael S.


Garvin Gray    (2014-04-21 04:18:03)
Standard time control abusers

Hello Michael,

Players starting games 'late' is not unusual. I think we have all done it through a combination of factors.

The issue that has been discussed here does not seem to be something that you are even close to doing, which is in the standard time control, wait until your clock gets down to 5 days, then make 10 moves to make the time control, then wait another 35 days and then make another 10 moves and keep repeating this behaviour.


Garvin Gray    (2014-04-21 04:23:35)
Reduction in max days available? (move)

Currently ficgs has a rule that states: 11. 4. Time rules - Any move in any game shall be played in a maximum period of 60 days, otherwise the game will be adjudicated on time.

I think that 60 days is way too long a time period as a maximum limit and would propose that this be halved to 30 days.

This means a player has to play one move in each of their games every 30 days. This does not seem anywhere near onerous to me.


Michael Sayers    (2014-04-21 09:41:12)
Standard time control abusers

Hi Garvin,

Then maybe the solution is reduced maximum time on the clock? "Rapid" could be 10 days +1 day per move, 10 days maximum time available, or there could be no set maximum time, e.g. "rapid" requires a move in 24 hours or forfeit, "standard" requires a move in 72 hours or forfeit. What will happen though is a replacement of some players who always take the maximum time available and those few persons inducing most of the annoyance here (Pareto's principle) - this will be replaced with some players doing a tremendous amount of forfeits.

I'm not sure which is preferred (I don't know which I would prefer to encounter!).



M.


Timofey Denisov    (2014-04-21 18:36:30)
Standard time control abusers

Michael Sayers, if you can play so fast every move, I can't play so fast. So if will be only these time controls, I will leave from this server. I want play in correspondence chess, not blitz chess.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-04-23 00:10:17)
Reduction in max days available? (move)

Tano-Urayoán is right, changing this limit means changing many things here, while bringing more stress to many players (that I wanted to avoid with this rule)... btw this will not solve the DMD problem.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-04-23 00:19:10)
Standard time control abusers

A problem with starting with only 10 days is players who may start a new tournament late.

Garvin, I must say I sometimes play this way myself when I have few time during a few weeks... I play easiest moves while delaying hard ones, then I concentrate on these difficult games during a short period and play several moves... Everyone may have his reasons.


David Fierry Fraillon    (2014-04-23 09:09:36)
Standard time control abusers

Hi all,
I am suffering a player abusing of time control ... he has waiting for 29 days for playing one move and then alternating one move / one day of vacation.
I read all comments on this post and i do agree with both of you (Garvin and Thibault) on main points.
Basically thibault you're wright but maybe you will reconsider your position by looking at it with new eyes :
- In the current WCH at least 6 players are using this ''technic'' : the Pech family (Stepan, Matej, Jaroslav and Jarsolav senior), Pechova and Mach
- They all coming from Czech Republic

So what i think : it is only one player (and i am sure you can check that with IP connection). That player is not interrested in winning elo and is stupid by using the same country.
It is not a person interested by chess it is only someone who want bad on FICGS : and that the point you can use for banning him.

Obviously, I am not sure of what i wrote and in theory i do not agree with writing names of the guilty ... but in that case i think you should consider that guy like a hacker and not like a chess player using a stupid technic for winning elo.


David Fierry Fraillon    (2014-04-23 09:34:42)
Standard time control abusers

Just to precise my point :

- Evoluting rules is a good thing and the fact in implies evoluting cheats is also a good thing ( :-) )
- Allowing one day vacation should be authorized vhen too many moves to play

--> If there is a proof (IP connection or date when vacation are taken in my ''6 players case'') we must consider that we are not in a possible case of correspondance chess.
I am sure it does not happen that often.


David Fierry Fraillon    (2014-04-23 13:20:16)
Standard time control abusers

okidoki ...
Reasons for ban can be fuzzy i do agree, and i think not in a ''fair play spirit''.
I should have spoken about withdrawal or something else ... whatever i am intersting in playing chess and i always intend to play my Pech's game normally.
It can even be fun to play like that : the challenge is to win by time !!! :-)

In fact i wanted to pointed out that there is maybe different ways than changing rules to avoid time abusers. It's been a long time that i did not seriously play chess, and i am not an expert in cc ... but i am thinking that the actual time rules (combined to the moves interface) are simply really good ...
As a server manager you can find out material evidence of time abusing ( even if it is not as simple as i say ) and a cheater will always find a way to cheat on new rules.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-04-27 19:13:49)
Reduction in max days available? (move)

If this is not about the DMD issue, why to increase the level of stress of all players and the number of time forfeits?! If one player from time to time has to play his move on the 39st day instead of the 59st one, he'll probably have some reasons to take the difference for his next move. There was very few (probably a few ones but I can't remember any) complaints on this point during these last... 8 years (damn, already!)


Garvin Gray    (2014-04-29 09:35:01)
Reduction in max days available? (move)

Thib, each sport, should review its rules and conducts every once in a while to see if it is operating to best of its ability for the maximum enjoyment of the membership.

When looking through the rules and thinking about some of the issues here, I noticed that we do have the 60 day maximum play rule, which seems extra-ordinarily long.

That type of time (2 months) is a throwback to the days of email or even postal play, and in my opinion, is way to long for acceptable server play.

I still believe 30 days is the right time frame, but others have proposed 40 and so I am happy to abide by the majority if it gets the time shortened.

What I am concerned about and possibly trying to achieve a little bit, is that it is not acceptable for players to allow their games just to remain in limbo for an unlimited amount of time.

If a person can not make one move in each of their games on this site in 40 days, then perhaps they should be reviewing their participation. It is not fair on their opponents who have to wait around for them and it is not good for the site as a whole which needs games finishing for accurate and reliable ratings.


Jonathan Gresham    (2014-05-06 18:00:20)
big chess pgn viewer?

Does the admin need a javascript programmer to make a big chess pgn player? I can contribute :-)


Costantino Proietti    (2014-05-07 11:07:59)
Reduction in max days available? (move)

I agree with 30 days for any move time limit.
When I played postal chess in ASIGC I was addicted waiting my opponents moves so every day I was looking for new letters. I think the stressed player is that player as kind of me that want to carry on a game without waste of time, not the player that ignores a game as the rules allow this behaviour.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-05-13 23:01:16)
Class A, class M & class SM closed

It is now about 70 days that these waiting lists are closed, time to make a point.

The situation was the following on march 2 : "Rapid SM 12 is now empty, rapid M 71 has one player & rapid A 158 has three"

Now, Rapid SM 12 has one player , rapid M 72 (one started) has two players & rapid A 161 (three started) has one.

However only one player rated above 2200 entered the Rapid M tournament that started, and another one the current waiting list. On the other hand, respectively 2, 3 & 4 players rated above 2000 entered the Rapid A tournaments.

My conclusion is that closing class SM & class M tournaments waiting lists was not really useful while it was more useful for class A. Finally, probably one or two rapid A would have started during this period if class A was not closed.

Of course the main problem remains the lack of new players.

I now re-open the class SM, M & A waiting lists. Let's see how it evolves.


Timofey Denisov    (2014-05-16 16:39:39)
big chess pgn viewer?

and I think would be good to develop PGN converter FICGS notation to Winboard notation (squares a0 - p15 with letter i, short notation a la "common" chess).

Sample:

[Event "Edited game"]
[Site "CHESSPC"]
[Date "2014.05.10"]
[Round "-"]
[White "-"]
[Black "-"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "rnb1rbnqknbr1bnr/pppppppnnppppppp/7pp7/16/16/16/16/16/16/16/16/16/16/7PP7/PPPPPPPNNPPPPPPP/RNB1RBNQKNBR1BNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[SetUp "1"]

{--------------
r n b . r b n q k n b r . b n r
p p p p p p p n n p p p p p p p
. . . . . . . p p . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . P P . . . . . . .
P P P P P P P N N P P P P P P P
R N B . R B N Q K N B R . B N R
white to play
--------------}
1. g3 d13 2. f3 Nh12 3. Njk2 m13 4. m3 Qn9 5. h3 Qxn1 6. Nn2 Qg8 7. e3 Bj8
8. f4 Bh9 9. Nj3 Nm14 10. Bk5 Nc13 11. Qo7 Nl12 12. Qxo14 n13 13. Qo4 Rpo15
14. Qg4 Qxg4 15. hxg4 Nk10 16. Nhi3 Ni9 17. Nc2 Ro7 18. d3 Nj7 19. Bl4 Rn7
20. l3 Ngi14 21. Ngh2 Bi8 22. e4 Ro15 23. Bo4 e13 24. Ni4 Be14


Jing Huang    (2014-05-25 11:44:03)
Class A, class M & class SM closed

To attract the new players, I have some suggestions:
(1) A league format might be interesting. (e.g. littlegolem)
(2) The way of displaying the tournament results matters a lot. You can try something different and see the effects:)


Garvin Gray    (2014-06-01 14:57:20)
Class A, class M & class SM closed

I agree with both of these points.

Point number 1 has been thrashed around a lot.

Point number 2 needs to be embraced. Currently the site really does feel like just one game to the next. It is very difficult to work out how each game fits in to the grand scheme of things.

As Thib has just had to point out to Neel, next stage starts Nov 1. This should all be displayed clearly as part of the wch section on the left hand side.

Perhaps what is required is a full site overhaul to change the layout so the tournament results can be displayed more clearly.


Garvin Gray    (2014-06-03 03:02:20)
100 point rating bands

I have been wondering for a long time if 100 point rating divisions would make a difference to get divisions starting faster.

I do believe that most of the divisions really do only comprise players within a 100 point rating band. It is rare to see players spread evenly between say 2199 and 2001. If a group of 2050 to 2005's join, three 2170's are not going to join.

So perhaps the number of divisions need to be increased with rating divisions of 100 be created?


Nick Burrows    (2014-06-25 17:11:51)
FICGS WCh results summary updated

Indeed, if a top player wants to draw a game he can. Therefore possession becomes 9/10 of the law. Analogous to the otb candidates - Should the final be an all play all??


Garvin Gray    (2014-07-05 04:33:02)
Call referee button, response time

This comes from the chat bar.

Currently a player has thirty days to make a move when their opponent has used the call referee button.

An opponent will usually only hit the button in situations of forced mate (DMD) and are seeking that the game be adjudicated in their favour.

I stated that the time period is too long.

Thibault responded that not all players play at the same rhythm.

This is irrelevant in my opinion. The issue is quite simple. One player in the game has hit the call referee button.

In these situations, the rules can quite easily be changed to state that after the call referee button has been hit and the other player contacted, the other player has a maximum seven days to make a move.


Garvin Gray    (2014-07-08 17:01:05)
FICGS WCh results summary updated

Timofey: That format could result in more short draws as the players see it as a way to get through the early games faster.

The better format would be to have it as 12 games, but if one player is ahead after eight games have been concluded, the match is over.

The second idea would be to play an eight game match, and then if the result is 4-4, another four games are played.

That would encourage both players in the first eight games to try and win more games as they would know that agreeing to short draws does not shorten the match length, in fact it could lengthen it.


Timofey Denisov    (2014-07-08 18:48:30)
FICGS WCh results summary updated

Timofey: That format could result in more short draws as the players see it as a way to get through the early games faster

Really? Why people in Final match will do short draws, when if result of match is draw Champion keeps his title?
This is very nonprofitable to Candidate.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-07-11 01:01:06)
FICGS WCh results summary updated

Starting games one after another will take... years! 4 more games after the first 8 ones is 8 months more.

Garvin, I'm not defending the status quo to do nothing at all (even if it's ok for me from times to times), I really think that things are better as they are, even if there are many problems mainly due to the lack of players. Well, nowadays the curb of new players is going the right way, I hope this is only a start.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-07-11 01:06:42)
Call referee button, response time

30 days was chosen because it was the initial number of vacation days (as far as I remember). What if a player takes successive days of vacation? What if a player cannot play during this short period? We had many discussions that concluded into the idea that the human (referee) factor should be reduced at minimum. This clearly goes the other way.


Peter W. Anderson    (2014-07-13 10:54:56)
FICGS WCh results summary updated

I have given the question of the format of the WCh matches a lot of thought.

There is no doubt that having the advantage of the draw is a huge advantage at correspondence chess, much more so than at normal chess, simply because the draw rate is so high amongst strong correpondence players.

However, there are disadvantages to other formats. It is true that a tournament final gives a better chance of having a new champion. But the outcome is dependent upon the results of players who are not necesarrily fighting hard for the prize (perhaps they have an early loss, perhaps other parts of their lives become too busy). You might hope that in the final this would not happen, but if you look closely at the games in the round robin finals you will see some strange results, clearly drawn games being lost etc. If it can happen in the round robin final it could happen in a championship final.

Having more games in the final is a very logical option. However, as Thib has pointed out, this will create a big workload. It would make it almost impossible for a serious challenger to enter consecutive championships without having to withdraw from later ones if they reached the final (this is already very difficult witouht more games!).

Another option would be an advanced chess play-off. I would be concerned that this would be too dependant on who had the biggest hardware with less chance for human skill.

Finally, there is the chance to decide a tied match with a toss of a coin. Not a great way of picking a champion.

This problem is not so much an issue with the format as with the game itself - chess is almost certainly drawn with sensible play and as engines get stronger it is going to become harder and harder to win games.

All in all, I think the current format is very reasonable, perhaps the best.

One final observation re Neel's comment that a top player can draw a game if he wants. Perhaps, and if this is 100% true then the draw problem is realy severe. However, I am a little more hopeful. Eros Riccio sometimes beats even very strong players playing the same openings he plays - it is not as if the openings he plays are guaranteed draws in practice. He finds ways of putting them under pressure and sometimes they make a mistake. Perhaps eventually he will do so too (we may have to wait for him to get old!). Or to put another way, chess is almost certainly drawn but it is not an easy draw even at correspondence if white plays really well!


Bogoljub Teverovski    (2014-07-25 19:29:12)
Thematic tournaments?

It's time for new thematic. Let's play Budapest Gambit


Timofey Denisov    (2014-08-15 11:17:28)
Standard time control abusers

Don Groves,
if reduce max number of games simultaneously played, ppl can start more games in OTHER advanced chess servers (LSS, ICCF, bestlogic.ru), or creating some clones (2nd, 3rd accounts).

And max games of play depends of player's hardware and free time on day :)


Don Groves    (2014-08-15 01:54:11)
Standard time control abusers

My position has not changed: the main reason for slow play is players who have too many games in progress for the amount of time they can devote to chess. The current level of allowable games is far too high, in my opinion. No one should be allowed to enroll in another tournament if they still have several uncompleted tournaments going on! How many is "several" needs to be decided, but 50, or whatever the limit now is, is way too many!


Ilmars Cirulis    (2014-08-15 17:02:41)
Friendly thematic games or discussions

Does anyone want to play Sokolsky-Orangutan opening (1.b4) with white? For any theoretical, practical or other reasons - without any prizes, just friendly game for purposes of exploration.

Also I want to explore such variation of Traxler counterattack: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7.Ke3 Qh4 8.g3 Nxg3 9.hxg3 Qd4+ 10.Kf3

Two will be enough for me now.

P.S. Sorry for disappearance some time ago with lots of unfinished games.


Nick Burrows    (2014-08-25 13:11:47)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

Here is a heads up, so you can avoid the same mistake I made.
I saw there was an available "gold" chess match against a player I thought I could beat, so I bought the required e-points and began the match. My opponent then played no moves and lost on time. I asked to cash-out my winnings. Thibault pointed out a rule in the small print that allows himself to claim the money that I had won.

I then asked for a refund of my money. Thibault refuses, because he is greedy and wants to earn 200 Euros for doing F*ck all. Now my money is trapped inside Ficgs.

*Buyer beware*


Nick Burrows    (2014-08-26 20:06:27)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

Garvin: This is the paragraph Thibault referred me to -

b) "When a player wins a tournament with an entry fee (not null) and prize, he can choose after the game(s) to keep E-Points (by default) instantly added in his FICGS account or, if he has E-Points enough in his account, a money prize. Entry fees and prizes in E-Points are published on the tournament page in "Waiting lists". If games in such a tournament have not been really played for a win, for example if a participant obviously lost quickly one or several games only to allow his opponent to get the money prize (and particularly if it happens several times), these tournaments will not be considered as win and the player showing this behaviour may lose his E-points involved in the tournament at the referee's discretion."

looking at it now, this doesn't even seem to cover my specific circumstance, as is this an instance of a player "not playing for a win"?

I always thought Thib was a nice guy, but his greed in this instance has really surprised me, and left a bad taste in my mouth.


Don Groves    (2014-08-27 13:18:01)
Standard time control abusers

This is true, Timofey. Thibault has no control over how many games are played on other servers, but he can control how many can be played on this server by known slow players. Reducing those games on this server may not eliminate the problem but it clearly could help.


Alexis Alban    (2014-08-27 14:49:01)
Standard time control abusers

I don't think that's the problem Don. For example the player Garvin is talking about only has 9 running games. However his profile says that he's doctor, so perhaps life responsibilities is causing his slow play rate.

I have well over 20 games running on this server and 5 on ICCF, and I feel like I can easily handle 20 more. There are times when I'm sitting there just waiting for my turn. I am however not a doctor, although I do work 40 hours a week.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2014-08-27 15:27:33)
Friendly thematic games or discussions

Definitely enough that I wouldn't play it with black but in thematic games for fun.
But I can't say that it's "definitely losing". Maybe I'm too old for fast, unfounded judgements. And too busy for too frequent and big analysis. :D

Sokolsky opening is just a nice opening which I would play with white too, actually.


P.S. I wrote this post during sad mood, it wasn't claim of Traxler refutation but invitation to, probably, small talk about chess.
In these 12 days the situation has radically changed and everything is okay, even very good. :)


Garvin Gray    (2014-08-28 12:39:55)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

So Nick, just to clarify what happened if this two game match:

Player A (opponent) enters Gold Waiting List

Player B (Yourself) joins Gold Waiting List sometime later.

The two games start.

Both games time out with no moves being made in either game and you never heard anything from Player A.

Is that correct?

I do have an opinion, or a couple of opinion on what I think should occur here, but it is dependant on the timeline of events. So I want to get them in the right order before stating my opinion.


Garvin Gray    (2014-08-28 12:50:46)
Standard time control abusers

Alexis Alban: I dont you have read the whole thread and the comments from other posters who have talked about the habits of other players.

There is even a term for this behaviour. It is called DMD- dead mans defense.

And it is described very well.

They sit on their games for 35 days, make no moves, then suddenly are able to make 9 moves in 5 days, then make no more moves for 35 days and then make another 9 moves in 35 days and then it is rinse and repeat, time control and time control.

Meanwhile this is being done in positions where they are in dead lost positions ie mate in 30. They idea is solely to just piss off their opponents, nothing more.

So please do not just try and make this about one player. Standard time control abusers are a cancer on this and other corro chess sites and they should be gotten rid of as fast as possible.

They spread misery and suffering everywhere they go and the only person that really suffers is the opponent, who has to wait and wait for the games to finish, whilst the site admin sits back, does nothing and is just as guilty and the person doing the action.

At the end of the day, the person in charge who sits back and does nothing when they know of poor conduct under their watch is taking place is just as guilty, if not more so, than the original offender. This is because they create the culture that says it is permissable and says to everyone else that this behaviour is tolerated and the site is not to be taken seriously.


Garvin Gray    (2014-08-30 07:46:33)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

Had some more time to think about this. Read the rules, read them again. Especially about where if a person asks for a financial payout from e points to Euro (and then converted to their currency.

They receive 75% of the stated e point amount.

So by my calculations-

David Evans paid 100 euro to enter the waiting list.
Nick Burrows paid 100 euro to enter the waiting list.

The advertised prize for winning the match is 196 e points.

So lets say that this match was played on merit and Nick won 2-0. He would receive 196 e points in his account. That is already 4 e points that FICGS is keeping for itself.

Then if Nick decided to 'cash out' those 196 e points, he would receive 75% of that- so 147 EURO.

This means that FICGS has received 200 EURO originally from these two entries, and paid out 147 EURO to Nick for his win.

Now, in the circumstance that has occurred here, the rule mentioned is more designed for multiple player tournaments to stop rating manipulation (sandbagging and the like), not for this circumstance.

Also, this rule states- For example if a participant obviously lost quickly one or several games only to allow his opponent to get the money prize (and particularly if it happens several times). This would then be saying that David Evans deliberately lost both games on purpose to attempt to give Nick the prize (even though David paid the money out of his own pocket). Why wouldn't David just give the money straight to Nick?

If FICGS really does believe that part rule I have quoted has been violated and that David has engaged in game fixing, will FICGS be taking strong against David Evans, including suspensions or banning him from this site. It would be the logical conclusion for game fixing. Since this is the rule being quote to deny a payout.

Now the only other circumstance that I can think of why FICGS has attempted to deny a payout if that FICGS believes that Nick only entered the GOLD match, believing that David would not play the two games. That is a risky strategy for Nick to take, considering David is an active player, especially for 100 euro and 2 games.

Considering that even if FICGS pays out the money on this two game match, the site still makes 53 euro from a 2 game match, and I do not see a rule that justifies not paying it out, this money should be paid out.

A further question now is- Are these fees fair? A 53 euro profit from a 2 game match?


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-08-30 22:44:50)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

I have to specify here that the rule mentioned is absolutely not about rating manipulation (by the way, there is already another rule for this), it is about money prize in 2 players matches only, maybe with 3+ players in unlikely cases! It was added when a player got a money prize after getting a few free Epoints and without playing any move... Of course, that was not acceptable (the prize was paid though, following the rules) as games recorded -especially silver/gold tournaments- should be worth to watch. So these are the reasons for this rule: To avoid empty games, to punish the player who didn't play (by taking Epoints, which is a obviously strong act in this particular case) and to redistribute Epoints to players who deserve it. Just like the rating rule, why a player should get a money prize by winning games without fighting?

I don't think that suspension or banning is necessary here (it would be really hard according to me, anyone can have good reasons for a long absence, but I'll consider this option if many players complains on this point).

To answer the last point, I don't and I cannot know if Nick entered this match believing that David would not play and I don't think that should be the point. As always, we need undisputable rules, as fair as possible, and I do think this one is a good one.

One important thing: The site does not make 53 Euro from this match, at most the site makes Epoints (on the other hand, most are offered by the site, by far). That makes a big difference!

Finally, if I understand Nick's point well, the way to understand "if a participant obviously lost quickly one or several games only to allow his opponent to get the money prize" may be ambiguous so it could be not possible to make the decision (who can know if David really wanted to play these games, wanted that Nick or anyone else get the prize?). So I probably should make it more clear to avoid such situation - even if I doubt that players realize about this rule before entering a silver tournament.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-08-30 23:00:22)
Standard time control abusers

Definitely I'm in trouble with this problem. I still don't get why rapid tournaments (and a bit of patience... e.g. the case described by David) should not be a solution enough when many other players are ok with this standard time control, including DMD in the limit of the rules. Once more, there is no known way to avoid a Dead Man Defence that will always find a way to get around the rules, so...


Garvin Gray    (2014-08-31 10:34:50)
Standard time control abusers

Players are ok with the time control, that is not in dispute, it is this behaviour and behaviours like it.

Any arbiter feels that actions during a game are against the general spirit of the game and bring the game of chess in disrepute, they can always use the fide laws of chess PREFACE:

PREFACE
The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are regulated in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding a solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors. FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view.
A necessary condition for a game to be rated by FIDE is that it shall be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.
It is recommended that competitive games not rated by FIDE be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.
Member federations may ask FIDE to give a ruling on matters relating to the Laws of Chess.

And:

Article 11: The conduct of the players

11.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

Whilst this is rather broad and rather vague, surely DMD type actions fall under this heading.


Garvin Gray    (2014-08-31 10:37:06)
Standard time control abusers

As for the idea of the rapid time control- I love the rapid time control, it is just that for my rating, and those around my rating range, very few tournaments start at all.

So to get our fix, we have to look to the standard time control events, and then we run into these issues.

I maintain that you stopped the trail of closing the standard time control divisions wayyyy too early.

Nothing at the top is really starting at this point in time, even though players on this site are active, or trying to be.


Garvin Gray    (2014-08-31 10:53:40)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

From what I have read here from your response Thibault- I see no grounds AT ALL to not pay the prize.

The rating rule is there for the best interest of the site, because ratings are meant to be the way we all judge what standard of play we are and what divisions we can enter.

So comparing a rating argument with this argument is drawing a rather long bow indeed.

Just like the rating rule, why a player should get a money prize by winning games without fighting?

Already answered about ratings. About winning games without fighting (or playing), Nick entered under the conditions believing the match would take place.

If he entered the match believing it to not take place and David did play, then Nick has taken a risk that has backfired.

The point is that it is not Nick's fault the match did not take place. From my reading of the rules, there is nothing clear that says you can not pay out the prize.

Remember, you are making an absolute ruling here that applies FOREVER. This means that in effect you have taken 100 epoints at least out of Nick's account, his original stake, for just entering a match.

I would ask as site admin. Why would ANY player on this site want to support paid matches after this event and circumstances?

When the site admin can in effect, I was not happy with your match conditions that it was played under, I don't really have anything to point towards, but I did keep your cash anyways.

I for one will not be supporting any matches or tournaments from now on whilst this practice remains in place. I do not want to enter a match, have it not take place and then the site admin say, tough luck, not your fault the match did not take place, but I am keeping your cash.

The more I look at this and type, I am finding it hard to not say that Nick Burrows has been robbed of his cash. These events are real.


Nick Burrows    (2014-08-31 14:40:39)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

If the conditions that FICGS operates under were explicit, why would any player ever buy e-points?
Pay 100 euros for a match that you may get to play after a long wait of many months. If you get an opponent, but he doesn't play moves; Ficgs keeps his 100 Euros. At no time can the e-points you bought be converted to cash unless you enter the above process, and win, when Ficgs will take 25% of your winnings.

Like a bad joke isn't it!

Perhaps a better business model would be one that gave attractive and fair conditions to the players; so that rather than stripping bare every victim you trick into the system, you have take less money from each player but with many, many more participants?


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-08-31 16:36:03)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

Once again Nick, you didn't buy a particular match, you bought Epoints without any certitude to play this match (that could have started without you, then you'd have asked a refund, I guess)...

And saying FICGS keeps Euros on this case is not exact, FICGS keeps Epoints just like those that are distributed in free tournaments prizes.

You seem not to realize that FICGS is not a casino and cannot be one. When you participate at a tournament over the board and cannot play the opponent you wanted to play, there is most probably no refund. If there is no other participant showing, there could be a refund (because no other match would be possible) but I doubt that you get the whole prize, nevertheless the tournament would probably keep some fees. That's quite the same spirit with this rule.

Finally, I think that players may want to buy Epoints to really play games and casually win and get a money prize. As explained in the rules, the 25% rake should be balanced with the results after a certain number of games. Things can go very fast with bullet or lightning games. If you really want to get a money prize, it can take a few hours after you find an opponent... Didn't you think about it?

About business models, believe me: FICGS is not a good one in France. I did not make it and I don't run it for money. By the way, as far as I know, even poker sites have difficulties under french laws.


Nick Burrows    (2014-08-31 18:11:33)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

I bought E-points believing they would be instantly purchased, and I could instantly start the match. There was no warning it would take several hours - so I did buy them for the specific match.

It may not be "exact" or "technically correct" to say that Ficgs (you) keeps Euros; but it is "essentially" true, although you "technically" cannot admit that you are actually running a casino under a different name due to French law.
These games are NOT modeled on any o.t.b chess tournament in existence, but they ARE modeled EXACTLY on a heads-up poker match. Which are run by CASINO companies and who ALWAYS pay the winner (me) and pay your money back, when you request it.

No I did not consider playing bullet for money, as that is a pure hardware contest.


Bogoljub Teverovski    (2014-11-30 22:05:00)
Thematic tournaments?

Yes, let's play reversed Budapest since January 2015


Dominique Geffroy    (2014-09-03 22:09:00)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

I will jump in, even though I have no affiliation with either party, and do not even know FICGS that well, having played only a handful of games here. But my background is finance, and I have decent training on fight against financial crime. What Thibault is trying to say, if I understand correctly, is that his business is running under some legal constraints, and in particular, I guess he has to prove to the regulator that in no way may his operation be used as a money laundering scheme by organized crime.

This is why the business would never be allowed to turn epoints into cash, except when there has been a real *unpredictable event*, i.e. a real game, a real tournament, which triggered such cash payment.

The reason behind this is that as soon as you have a failproof, 100% safe way of turning money into goods and back into money, there is room for money laundering activities on the back of such practice. The money becomes clean, because it acquires an identified source: FICGS in this instance. Even with a 25% cut, that is something very interesting for organised crime: cleaning the money has a price. By imposing that un *unpredictable event* happens, this opportunity taken away from would be abusers.

I understand your frustration, but once again, as an outsider with no stake whatsoever in this, I am pretty sure that if Thibault were allowed to do differently in this instance, he would.


Nick Burrows    (2014-09-08 23:17:04)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

Accepting a challenge just took 60 days with no moves. I will probably have to wait 3 months; just to wait for a player I can't beat accept the challenge.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-09-10 16:38:26)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

You could also look for a player by using the chat bar and start the match if you estimate that he's not too strong (or sleepy) for you...


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-10-02 23:01:55)
Eros Riccio makes a record at ICCF

GM Eros Riccio has now played 408 rated games at ICCF, since 2001. This is the highest number for the top 25 (at least) and this is a huge performance due to his rating and numerous games at other servers (including 212 games at FICGS). Just amazing!

https://www.iccf.com/RatingList.aspx


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-10-27 20:44:31)
Tournaments rating ranges

Hello all,

As you may know, certain top tournaments are really too long to start... After a long wait, I finally decided to test this new rule:

12. Tournament rules

(...) Please note that the referee may change the rating ranges if a tournament takes too much time to start (such cases are quite rare).

As an example, for the tournament chess class SM, I just changed the low rating limit to 2300 only to find the 7th player. The rating limit will return to 2400 after that. This is not a good thing according to me but it may be the "less worst"... To be continued.

Feel free to tell what you think about this.


Garvin Gray    (2014-10-28 23:52:30)
Tournaments rating ranges

The top class sm rating division should be abandoned. There are not enough players to fill it. It only started due to two ticketed players and dropping the rating limit.


Garvin Gray    (2014-10-31 16:00:59)
July 1 2014 Fide laws of chess

There have been quite a few changes. But considering our continual disagreements over many issues and the fact that apart from this event, I have walked away from this site, it is not my job to now go ahead and do your work for you.

I am not your research assistant. I offered you my advice many times over the years and in almost all occasions you flatly rejected them, or took so long to come around to them, that I have taken the decision to walk away from this site.

The new fide laws of chess have been on display since July 1 and have been confirmed in stages since then. I am not going to be your research assistant and now sit down and prepare a full document on what has changed and how it should be incorporated into this event- ESPECIALLY- when I know from your past form- that you will flat reject most, if not all, of my recommendations.

So I am not going to waste my time being your research assistant.

I have my own event to prepare for in 2015 and prepare the rules for in that event, which I am working through.

I can give you a word of warning though. If you think that the default time is the only major change, you are very wrong.


Garvin Gray    (2014-11-01 22:51:23)
July 1 2014 Fide laws of chess

There was no context other than a very simple request. With the new rules now in operation, I was asking where do we find a copy or further information on what changes have taken place for this event that flow on from the changes to the laws.

The areas I was mainly concerned with are in relation to:

5 consecutive repetition of moves and 75 moves without a pawn move or capture. The arbiter can now step and force the draw, there does not need to be a player claim.

So will the server be updated to match this? There are quite a few other changes as well where current server practices do not match the new rules.

But as I said, it is your responsibility to make sure that the competition complies with the new rules if you advertise that your tournament follows the fide laws of chess where possible.

The reason for my stance is a very simple one. Over the years, on almost every single occassion, when I have made suggestions or recommendations to you, you have gone in the opposite direction in pretty much 100 percent of cases. Or even when you have claimed to 'agree' with my recommendation, you have then given the trial period such a short time to make it practically worthless.

The last saga in relation with Nick Burrows said to me that, except for the wch, I will no longer be playing on this site.

I can tell you directly, your handling of that issue lost you a long time member.

On the format of the wch, if I actually thought this format was fair and even gave me a shot of winning it, rather than being so heavily biased in favour of Eros Riccio winning it every time, to the point of being fixed, then I would use that as sole motivation to win it.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-11-02 14:19:06)
July 1 2014 Fide laws of chess

About repetition and number of moves without a pawn move or capture, FICGS rules already specify that it does not apply here so there is no change to make.

The rest of your message explains the context I was talking about. But we don't have to agree on anything: As I explained when FICGS started and many times after that, I wanted to make it (particularly the championship cycle) different from what already exists (and closer to previous FIDE cycle). Obviously, you prefer the other way, that's not a big deal, and there is ICCF or LSS. I would have been ok to make a cup cycle if we had players enough but that's definitely not the case. What to add? There are many reasons why FICGS has quite few members (real names to start...) but there are well known advantages to this. Otherwise there are chess.com, gameknot, so many sites full of players. Finally, complaining players are probably the most important ones here because they constantly bring ideas. There was many many improvements in the first years and it did not go against the coherence of the site. Your cup cycle idea does not even go against the coherence of the original idea of the site, only the context is wrong here. Changing the WCH cycle for a ICCF-like one would be the worst thing to do in this point of view. But that's only a point of view.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-11-04 19:44:07)
July 1 2014 Fide laws of chess

I said "closer", not identical :) 24 games would have been way too much for players at this level, IMHO...


Jing Huang    (2014-11-08 12:14:21)
Registered for Go WCH 12 but excluded

I have registered for the GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000012

(http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=entry_tournament&tournament=ficgs_go_wch)

However, in the started tournament (http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WCH_TOURNAMENT__000012),

there are only 9 players despite that 12 players have registered.

Sasa Radojcic, Angelo Piantadosi and I are somehow excluded. Does anyone know the reason?


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-11-08 21:05:19)
Registered for Go WCH 12

Hello Jing,

The reason is you entered the waiting list after that the tournament started (deadline was november 1st)... You may have played it in case of a replacement but it seems there will be no spot this time, sorry about that.


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-11-08 21:07:10)
How is the WCH challenger decided?

In this (rare) case, the "TER" (tournament entry rating) decides... Mikhail was the highest ranked player. It's all explained in the tournament rules - see waiting list page.


Jing Huang    (2014-11-09 01:54:41)
Registered for Go WCH 12 but excluded

I see & thanks for the explanation.

By the way is there a specific reason why only 9 players are allowed in the rule? I mean, although it might be due to there are not as many go players as chess players on this server, this rule seems to further prevent more potential Go players from playing here ...


Thibault de Vassal    (2014-11-09 18:17:28)
Registered for Go WCH 12 but excluded

Regular tournaments are in a way part of the championship, increasing rating allows players to qualify for this tournament. The other reason is that 8 games is not too heavy, and generally the 9th player has a much lower rating. If there were only 3 or 4 ranks between top seed and last seed, then the process would need to be reworked, I guess.


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-01-09 20:46:20)
Eros Riccio on his win in 9th chess WCH

Eros Riccio kindly accepted to answer a few questions after his win in the 9th FICGS correspondence chess championship. Once again, his answers are worth to read... including probably a few surprises and valuable informations for most of us!

_____________________________


- Hello again Eros. Congratulations for this new win! So you played Jeroen for the second time in a row, this time in the 12 games format. There were 12 draws but it does not mean a lot. How did things go?

--> Hi Thibault! Nice to answer your questions again :-) I managed to resist again Van Assche's assaults, this time he was well-determined to win, as he made me really suffer in a couple of games. The first game was a semislav, me as Black. He played a rare variation (starting with 14.Be2 followed by 15.Qd3) that was new to me. At first the engines were giving 0.00 evaluations, but after the move 22.Qg3 they started to realize that Black's position was difficult, and they kept increasing their evaluation in White's favor move after move. That was quite a scary thing to see, and I really thought that I could have lost the game. I had to use all the thinking time (leave included) to be able to resist. This new variation impressed me so much that I decided to use it as White myself as a surprise weapon, and in fact it allowed my engine on autoplay on my old I7 980x to win a lot of games as White and a 500 dollars prize getting first place in a strong tournament on Infinity Chess. The second game was a Spanish, me as White. After his 7...0-0 I decided to avoid the Marshall (that would have probably happened if I had played 8.c3) trying the AntiMarshall variation 8.d4. I am now convinced that this variation gives nothing good to White, but I didn't know that yet when I played it! Already after the rare strong move 11...c5! things were starting to get difficult for me. He simply continued with c4 and d5, getting space advantage with his Pawns on the Queenside, while I could find no attack at all on the Kingside. Again I had to be very careful to escape with a draw.

- What can you tell about your other results this year, particularly at ICCF where you're now ranked #9 with an outstanding rating of 2639 ?

--> My ICCF elo in the past few years has raised. Slowly, but it has raised. I had no defeats and a couple of wins in the Olympiads and European team tournaments started in 2012. I am satisfied of that, as winning nowadays in top correspondence tournaments is very difficult. Important is to remain undefeated.

- Last year, you said that you felt like your play was getting weaker each day because your machine was getting older, did you finally upgrade it? But maybe this is a secret...

--> No. As I wrote earlier, I haven't updated my machine. Fortunately cpu's general speed has kept increasing not as quickly as in the past, so my I7 980x can still compete.

- Did your vision of computer chess evolve after these last 18 months? What do you expect for the next years? Do you plan to become a chess cyborg? ^^

--> Fortunately for our hobby, computer chess isn't rushing towards the "all draws" situation that I talked about a couple of years ago. That's because, fortunately, increasing cpu's power and engine's strenght is getting more and more difficult. Yes, some main lines already lead to all draws often, but chess gives so many openings options that to avoid that, you can simply play subvariations. When played a lot, also subvariations will become main variations. Then again, when the draws rate gets too high, you just pick another less played opening. It will take many years to cover every opening to a high draws rate.

- Your next challenger is Peter W. Anderson, who made a convincingly path through the round-robin cycle before to defeat SM Igor Dolgov 5-3 in the 10th candidates final (by the way he's also playing the 11th candidates final). It seems that you never played him before. How do you feel this match? Do you have any words for your opponent before that the games start?

--> I am happy to play a new player! We have just started our match, again, all my first moves as White were 1.e4. What to say... it's up to him to avoid main lines as Black (he already did it answering with 1...g6 in three games) if he wants to try to win with the black pieces. But the real challenge for him of course will be to try to win with the White pieces. It will be interesting to see if he can find holes in my Black repertoire like Van Assche was able to do. Let's wait and see!


Garvin Gray    (2015-01-10 17:24:43)
Class GM 3 and Rapid SM 12 entry rules

Currently I believe there are two players who have been allowed to enter two divisions who under the current rules are actually ineligible and their entries should be withdrawn.

The current rules state:

Tickets for a higher class tournament : However, when you win a rated tournament (only after that you receive an email specifying it or when the tournaments list shows your name as winner or co-winner of the tournament) or if your rating is at most 50 points below the low rating limit of the next class tournament's waiting list, it is now possible to buy a ticket for the next class tournament's waiting list (for example if you win a chess class A tournament, you may ask for a ticket for the next class M tournament) for 10 Epoints if the following conditions are filled : 1) No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise. 2) The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the tournament's waiting list. 3) At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list. 4) Five players at least must have entered the tournament's waiting list already so that you can buy a ticket for this tournament. 5) The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 1 year after the end of the won tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament]. 6) As the price for any ticket is 10 Epoints, the player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.

The key regulation- and I recall this because I had it included for a specific reason- is: 4) Five players at least must have entered the tournament's waiting list already so that you can buy a ticket for this tournament.

The reason for this regulation is that the division is meant for the players of those ratings and it is clear that having to players with ratings significantly lower than the minimum rating will reduce the chances of them entering.

So those using tickets are entered last, in positions 6 and 7, only after it becomes clear that the division can not be filled without them.

So under the published regulations, both players should be removed and put in their correct divisions.


Alexis Alban    (2015-01-27 00:37:48)
Eros Riccio on his win in 9th chess WCH

Thanks for answering these questions Eros, it was a very interesting read. I hope someday I will be able to play for the FICGS Championship. For now I hope you two enjoy your match.


Scott Nichols    (2015-03-09 09:29:18)
FICGS freestyle chess superstars

Wow, great article! Congrats to our players! I would have bet big on these superstars winning it all. I actually had a chance to play, but personal issues have kept me in la-la land the last few months. But it's going to be great fun going thru the pgn file slowly, :) Great job guys!


Charlie Neil    (2015-04-01 18:48:59)
Thematic tournaments?

Yes, good idea. The Noteboom was played at the last Super GM tourney.


Bogoljub Teverovski    (2015-04-14 14:28:18)
Thematic tournaments?

Triangle setup is fine because it offers a very wide range of options to play, but this circumstance means that it is not good for thematic tournament. A series of Slav thematics might be reasonable: (a) Winawer gambit 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e5, (b) Slav gambit 3...e6 4.e4, (c) Noteboom 4.Nf3 dxc4, etc.


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-04-15 14:17:15)
FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000010

Hello Andrew.

Well, just like Eros Riccio in a few chess championships, Yen-Wei Huang won both preliminary tournament and previous final match, so he didn't have to defend his title (he should have played against himself).


Wilhelm Schuett    (2015-04-18 01:12:14)
Thematic tournaments?

But I would play 4.e3


Wilhelm Schuett    (2015-04-18 01:16:57)
Thematic tournaments?

I always play 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 or perhaps 3.e3. After 2. ... e6 I play 3.Nc3!


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-05-03 01:25:37)
Chess tournaments rating ranges

Hello all,

As you probably noticed, we slowly have more and more difficulties to fill some tournaments waiting lists (mainly chess SM ones).

No change seem to solve this, actually all major chess websites seem to have less and less activity. Anyway I made a minor change (step backward) with the chess waiting lists rating ranges: brackets are now 400 points again. Looks more logical to me according to circumstances and players behaviour.

Let's wait and see. To be continued.


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-05-15 00:02:50)
Alcala wins 1st Centaur Weekend Tourney

Our freestyle chess champion Alvin Alcala just did it again at InfinityChess server by convincingly winning the last freestyle tournament that took place on May 8th, 2015. Frank Karl Werner finished 2nd, half a point from Alvin.

All details are reported by GM Arno Nickel... One notable thing is that all players used either Stockfish 6 or Komodo 9, most probably the strongest chess engines these days.

Congrats once again Alvin, your results are definitely not the fruit of chance :)

http://infinitychess.com/Web/Page/Public/Article/DefaultArticle.aspx?id=215


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-05-17 15:33:35)
untuk orang indonesia gabung di sini

Hello Firhan,

Thanks. Yes, strangely we have many registered players from Indonesia, but almost all of them are inactive.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2015-05-19 16:37:59)
Thematic Suggestion: Traxler

Yes, time flows fast. Damn. :)

Sometimes still analyzing it. I wouldn't want to play Traxler against myself. Black usually has to find draw (they can hope) in some boring endgame.


Clodomiro Ortiz    (2015-06-07 23:37:01)
2nd centaur weekend tourney

clodomiro ortiz just got first place playing as miguello at infinity, jointly with player kraken


Peter W. Anderson    (2015-06-14 17:52:04)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I recently played in an Infinity Chess freestyle event and was impressed by one of their tiebreak rules. If scores were tied a player got a bonus if he had stalemated an opponent.

I would like to suggest this is adopted in the matches (not tournaments) in the FICGS world championship and that is it the first tiebreak rule applied, i.e before ratings and whether wins or only draws have been played. I would also suggest it is adopted for the title matches too. Perhaps it could be introduced from the 15th cycle onwards or even in existing cycles (11 to 14) where a match has not begun.

This seems a very fair tiebreak rule to me, which would normally reflect who overall played better (came closer to winning) in a drawn match, especially where all games are drawn.

The only disadvantage I can see to this rule is that it would prolong games as some that would currently be agreed drawn would in future be played through to stalemate.

On the other hand it would get us thinking hard about which drawn endgames lead to stalemate and which don't and that in itself is quite interesting.


Pablo Schmid    (2015-07-02 20:32:45)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I am against that rule. Giving a bonus for stalemate is almost like playing for stalemating your opponent, which is not the aim of the game and this would change the game deeply.


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-07-05 14:11:09)
A couple of questions

Hello Nathan,

1) On the waiting list page, these rules are combined to the playing rules that you can find here:

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#general

2) Yes, I'm late for the other tournaments 'cause my internet provider decided it :) I'll make my possible if it works well today. Sorry about that.


Jan Ohlin    (2015-07-06 04:59:02)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

And stalemating gamepoints definitely will favour stupid engine playing and not human thinking with endgame skill


Jan Ohlin    (2015-07-06 09:34:18)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=78874
Stalemate points as favour for black´s good opening play or white´s strong middle and endgame play?


Jan Ohlin    (2015-07-06 10:17:40)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

As Peter Anderson write: "It reflect who overall played better (came closer to winning) in a drawn match..."


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-07-06 13:48:10)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

It seems to me that it's still a point of debate: According to me, stalemating an opponent (or having King + Bishop vs. King) reflects who played better ONLY IF rules say it before the game.

In some cases, it actually reflects a better play, but in some others, it only shows that the stalemated player (or naked king) found a clever way to draw the game by giving the opponent the illusion of an advantage. Isn't it quite subjective after all?


Jan Ohlin    (2015-07-07 12:35:58)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Maybe the games become more interesting if instead give small extra score for win with black!? Encourage black to play for a better score, just as UEFA do in football.


Jan Ohlin    (2015-07-08 06:49:01)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

A new game, no. Correspondence chess will become more like it was for some decades ago when top players dared to play Kingsindian and Benko gambit.


Jose Carrizo    (2015-07-08 17:17:22)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

If a player want to win with Black today, he can play Kingsindian and the Benko Gambit without new rules.


Peter W. Anderson    (2015-07-09 09:35:12)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I have avoided commenting further on this idea because I wanted to see what other people had to say. But now I will reply to the points made.
“Giving a bonus for stalemate is almost like playing for stalemating your opponent, which is not the aim of the game and this would change the game deeply.”
As I said I am against a points bonus, but am in favour of using stalemates for tie breaks. The real question is would someone start a game aiming for stalemate as opposed to start the game trying to win? I am not sure how you would do that – either way you have to try to build up an advantage and if it gets big enough it will lead to mate and if it is not quite big enough it might lead to stalemate. Anyone who gets the choice between a win and stalemate will presumably always take the win.
The one way I think this will really affect the game is by discouraging some very deeply analysed defences that are known to drawn or close to drawn but will almost certainly lead to stalemate. Personally I think this is a good thing, but I accept that the opposite view could be taken :)

“I think you overlooking a little that a good defense leading to stalemate means showing great skill. It´s not all about luck.”
Reaching stalemate as the defending side can be very simple (e.g. king and pawn vs king) or can indeed show great skill. It is almost never down to luck. In the case where great skill is shown that skill earns you half a point instead of no points. Nonetheless, the very fact that you needed great skill to save the game shows how close you came to losing, so I see no reason not to use this as a tiebreak rule.

“And stalemating gamepoints definitely will favour stupid engine playing and not human thinking with endgame skill”.
Like Pablo, I think quite the opposite is true. In fact one of my motivations for suggesting the change was to increase the human element in the game.

“According to me, stalemating an opponent (or having King + Bishop vs. King) reflects who played better ONLY IF rules say it before the game. In some cases, it actually reflects a better play, but in some others, it only shows that the stalemated player (or naked king) found a clever way to draw the game by giving the opponent the illusion of an advantage. Isn't it quite subjective after all?”
I have some sympathy for this viewpoint. If we could play perfect chess and at the start of the game someone decided to take the draw by allowing themselves to be stalemated then that would be a very good example supporting that view. However, I think the reality is different. In most cases when someone gets stalemated (or would be stalemated if the game was played through to its conclusion) it is because they have got a worse position and have little choice if they want to save the game.
If the defending side could achieve a draw by stalemate or by other means, then under today’s rules they could choose either way. Under my proposed rules they might be wise to choose the other method, unless of course they were confident of achieving more wins in the match.

“Maybe the games become more interesting if instead give small extra score for win with black!? Encourage black to play for a better score, just as UEFA do in football.”
This might be helpful for tournaments but I don’t think it helps at all for match play. In reality, if you can win just one game in a match you will most likely win the match. Therefore you don’t need a bonus to play for a win with black in a match situation.
However, I think this point indirectly touches on an issue with match play and how hard people try to win, and I do think the stalemate tiebreak rules would help a little with this.
The problem as it stands is that the higher rated player (or the champion in the case of the tile match) knows that if all games are drawn he will win the match. The higher rated player (or champion) can therefore take a low risk approach to the match, with both black and white (actually I think the low risk approach with white is just as much a problem).
If the higher rated player (or champion) was not certain that all draws would win them the match then they would probably try harder to win. This would give a better chance of decisive games in matches.
One way of a achieving this would be through a toss of a coin if the match is tied with all draws. Personally I would not find this satisfactory.
Whilst the likelihood of stalemate is quite low, it will nonetheless be there, so this rule might encourage the higher rated player or champion to try harder for a win.
I will speak from personal experience on this matter. In most of my recent matches I have been the higher rated player. I still play some relatively risky defences as black (e.g. the modern against 1.e4) and I always try to win with white. However, I have to be honest, if I am the higher rated player, I do not always play the very sharpest lines as white and I do not often play some of my riskier defences to 1.d4. If the stalemate tiebreak rule was in place, I would be taking more chances with both white and black.
So whilst I accept that it is not perfect, I still think the stalemate tie-break rule is a good idea. However, as nobody else has spoken out in favour of it I accept that it is very unlikely to be implemented and I won’t write any more on this matter unless someone asks me a direct question. It is time to concentrate on my matches under the existing rules! :)


Alvin Alcala    (2015-07-10 14:46:26)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Hi everyone. GM Arno wants to post in this thread as he has trouble logging in.
Introducing a 3/4-1/4 score for stalemate does not mean changing the whole game. Lasker and Réti, the fathers of this idea, knew quite well what they did, when they said, it's only a minor change (btw following the ancient chess, when mates were rare and a stalemated player had to pay half of his stake).
Some people on ChessBase argued and feared that the game might become bloodless as players would fear to sacrify material. But that's a wrong assessment.
Here is a "normal" classical GM game with a Morra Gambit, that could have happened the same way under the new rule:
E.Berg - S. Rocha (POR 2013)
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 a6 7.0–0 Nf6 8.Bf4 Bg4 9.h3 Bxf3 10.Qxf3 e6 11.Rfd1 Qc7 12.Rac1 Be7 13.Bb3 Rc8 14.Nd5 exd5 15.exd5 Ne5 16.Qe3 Qd7 17.Rxc8+ Qxc8 18.Bxe5 0–0 19.Bf4 Qd7 20.Rc1 Bd8 21.Qd4 Re8 22.Qb4 Be7 23.Ba4 b5 24.Bb3 Rc8 25.Rxc8+ Qxc8 26.a4 Qc5 27.Qe1 Kf8 28.Be3 Qc7 29.axb5 axb5 30.Qb4 Qb7 31.g4 h6 32.Qd4 Nd7 33.Qe4 Bf6 34.Qb4 Qa6 35.Bc2 Ne5 36.Kg2 Nc4 37.Bc1 g5 38.Bd3 Qa1 39.Bxc4 bxc4 40.Qxc4 Bxb2 41.Be3 Bf6 42.Qc8+ Kg7 43.Qf5 Qc3 44.Qe4 Qb2 45.Qf5 Qc3 46.Qe4 Qb2 47.h4 gxh4 48.Qf4 Qe5 49.Qxh6+ Kg8 50.Kg1 h3 51.Qxh3 ½–½
Follow the comments in the MegaBase.
White sacrifies a pawn at move 3. He regains it at move 18 by a typical piece sacrifice. Later White, who is pressing a lot, while Black defends quite well, could have won a pawn by 38.b3 (instead of 38.Bd3?): e.g. 38...Qa1 39.Bxg5 hxg5 40.bxc4 bxc4 41.Qxc4.
Berg argues he might have had practical winning chances. Either 1-0 or 1/2. So what is the big difference, if we would say: either 1-0, 3/4 or 1/2? It's just making the game more exciting, more fair and a bit less drawish, what is badly needed for correspondence chess. The basic wrong assessment is that it might be significantly easier to achieve a stalemate advantage. But it isn't (and that's why only a small percentage of games will end like that). Last but not least, players who achieve a clear endgame advantage deserve a 3/4 point instead of 1/2. K+P, K+B, K+N vs. K should be a difference to K vs. K." Thanks again, Arno


Scott Nichols    (2015-07-10 20:56:39)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

IMO the only true tiebreak is a playoff with the time controls shortening after each 2 games until one side wins. I know this is not possible with most tournaments. Certainly someone who "tied" for first, but lost the prize on tiebreaks is not going to tell people they finished second. Lots of sports have playoffs, golf, football etc. Because for the romantic, a tie is like nothing, it's not a true win.


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


Jan Ohlin    (2015-07-11 07:14:05)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

We all agree about that the drawing problem occur when top players playing matches against one another they avoids taking risks, and overall that the likelihood of stalemate is quite low in chess?
Then maybe we should play more risky openings and as well more closed positions also. I see we don´t do that now.


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-07-12 01:04:29)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I'm afraid Jan is right... and Eros says it himself, he takes no risk! So it's not only a question of a drawish game in the context of chess engines, but also of a drawish behaviour. Unless starting playing Go, we'll probably have to change many important rules in chess to make it really exciting again.


Pablo Schmid    (2015-07-12 02:09:18)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Here is most examples of my ficgs practice (corr and Advanced chess). This represent a low percentage of my games. These games are food for thought from my own assisted experience against that rule that I call "+1 decisive advantage chess". I believe you could already burn a lot of chapters in ending's book. Most of my games show balanced games until the end, sometime, the "punished guy" could have played another drawing defense, sometimes not, unfairly to me. The game would be more safe, with less sacrifices of piece vs 2 or 3 pawns and things like that because of fearing an ending with king vs king + piece or king vs king + pawn even if the sacrifice was sound and well played. Game 22895 and 84758 I would probably have been punished by the rule in the ending of game 22895 (and my opponent in the other game), and that type of ending in general (piece + pawn up vs piece when the king cannot block the pawn). Game 37122 Shame on me, my advantage in that ending was not sufficient to force my opponent to sacrifice his bishop for my last pawn. This is why I only deserve 0,5!
Game 37920 That king of pawns vs piece + pawn would become lost for the player without the piece, what a way of punish some balanced sacrifices for pawns!
Game 54907 and 20704 That kind of opposite bishop ending would be "lost" for the guy pawnless even if the transition into an inferior but drawn ending was the intention of the "inferior guy".
Game 74870 The ending is perfectly balanced but my opponent couldn't finish the game the way he did because of the rule.
Game 74875 I would have been half-losing in the pawn ending after a nice defense in an interesting unbalanced material line.
Game 74880 the ending knight + h pawn would have been "half losing" for me even if we can't say that I was clearly worse overall.
Game 76734 and 76764 Technichally this game is not directly concerned by the rule but it is very close. I was on the verge of defeat but I have managed to defend stubornely. If he have played well to get a winning position and then the win disapear because of bad play but still finish with a draw, he would get a bonus because he played better overall? The way I managed to defend would not be rewarded?
Game 77809 In this game the whole deep opening line would probably be "half losing" for Black in the ending because of the new rule.
Game 80954 Suddenly it seems that I would have been punished for my defense in the final position.
Game 85106 I did not play specially badly but... I would have been punished for my way of finishing the game!


Bogoljub Teverovski    (2015-08-03 09:43:29)
Thematic Suggestion: Traxler

Let's play Traxler thematic since September


Scott Nichols    (2015-08-04 18:39:05)
Improving netiquette rules

People who abuse etiquette rules, for example one that bugs me is when a player who is going to lose, just lets his clock run out. This NEEDS to be punished in public or private. Such as a one month suspension for EACH occurance

And IMO suspensions should be handed out here. But do it in stages, like one month, then 3 months and then permanent. It's up to Thib to decide if an infraction has occured.


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-08-05 14:49:46)
Improving netiquette rules

But how do you know if this player has no good reasons for not playing in this particular case? Obviously, there may be something like 20% chance, maybe more, anyway there is a chance... or (at a much lower level / without computer assistance) he may even not know that he's definitely losing... I saw such cases happening and I'm 99% sure that actually there were good reasons in half of these cases at least.

And after how many days one could say there is a netiquette abuse? This is a really tough path IMO.

Scott, what do you think about this public remark? Is this also a netiquette abuse according to you?


Scott Nichols    (2015-08-05 17:11:02)
Improving netiquette rules

Yes the remark in public was wrong also. There is not much to do if a player lets his clock run out instead of resigning. Just wouldn't play them anymore unless you get paired in a tour.

I've seen games where the player resigns and then finds out later he could have won. But this is common I'm sure.

As for the suspension IMO Thib has the right to do as he sees fit, he is always fair, and even if I disagree sometimes I find out later he was right, :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-08-06 01:38:48)
Improving netiquette rules

Thank you Scott! Goes right in the heart.

Just trying to find the "best" way, this is really hard in some cases (e.g. such case), that's why help and discussion are always welcome ^^

About this case, I think I'm still following my line (also strongly suggested by Gino during the first months of FICGS) that human decision should be reduced to the minimum. It is obvious that it demands strong rules and patience to all players (particularly during a possible Dead Man Defence)... Here, it is important to check if the "insulting" aspect is subjective enough or not, I must say I don't feel qualified to say it. I had to make a decision by myself, but I'd prefer being able to read it in the rules next time.


Jan Ohlin    (2015-09-21 12:11:39)
The draw problem, part two

If both players believe in the engines evaluation it´s a draw. So stop doing that! Here are som help make use of your head instead.
http://www38.zippyshare.com/v/fcv8wP6U/file.html


Garvin Gray    (2015-09-26 11:36:01)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I see this topic is being discussed again, or was. I notice that Eros has not actually won a game against an opponent since match 4.

This means, unless results are missing, that he has not beaten successive opponents the matches since. All this shows is that he is the equal of the players he is put up against and it is the champion retains the title that allows him to stay where he is.

This then results in the nature of play we see, which is defensive.

I proposed back quite a whilst ago that the format should be changed for the final match to 8 games, and then if the result is 4-4, the remaining 4 games are played.

Disclaimer- I come from a position that I believe that Eros should be made to show that he is the best player on this site.

He has drawn too many matches with all drawn games for this to continue and I do not believe this is a healthy situation for the site and it needs to change.


Garvin Gray    (2015-09-27 12:55:00)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I will carry this point on a bit. Thibault defense for the current system is that it maintains the old classical system of the world championship.

But even fide has recognised that the draw odds to the champion gave too much advantage, and that is in over the board play, never mind in engine chess.

The defending champion already receives two advantages- the right to be in the final match, and if that match is lost, then is in the next qualifying match.

And then the champion in the championship match also receives draw odds.

When you see it written like this, do you now see how much of an advantage the defending champion actually does receive?

And this all goes back to when the site was first set up.

It is not like Eros had to play through from the first stage against all the beginners and fight his way and defeat the previous defending champion to win the title.


Garvin Gray    (2015-09-30 23:29:09)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Btw, to respond to Scott Nichols. I would have no issue at all if the champion had won each match 6.5-5.5. He defeated each opponent on merit and proved under the format used that he was the better player.


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-09-30 23:46:19)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

And I'll say it once more :) FIDE made a choice that may have given more chances to everyone, I agree with that, but it seems to me that the chess world championship lost its aura & legend, just like world champions (IMHO). Also, results are a direct consequence of rules, it does not mean that Eros does not deserve his place (IMO), he certainly would have played differently in a round robin. Finally, FIDE WCH is round robin, ICCF WCH is round robin, why everything should be round robin?


Garvin Gray    (2015-10-01 09:07:08)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Keeping the discussion solely to this issue of World Championship Tie break rule and draw odds, I have already made one proposal, which is that the final match be split into two parts. The first eight games be started, and then if tied, then the remaining four games are played.

A defensive strategy in the first eight games is not so well rewarded, because the champion has the knowledge that if the first eight games are drawn, then they have to play another four games.

Yes, after 12 games, I am still stating that the champion retains the title if the match is tied 6-6, unless someone can propose how to break the tie with more games, but at least this way, the two players have more to gain by trying to win a game, especially the champion and concluding the match in the first eight games.


Scott Nichols    (2015-10-01 14:55:14)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

It's pretty simple IMO. Make each year unique, no seeding. Everybody has to play from the start, prelims, semi's and finally a RR final. One thing I would add is a under 2000 and over 2000 ch's.


Alvin Alcala    (2015-10-02 18:37:50)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

In case of a tie let them play a tie-breaker game with accelerated time control.


Garvin Gray    (2015-10-09 16:57:51)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Thib: I have not replied to this topic since my last comment for two reasons. 1) Nothing new to add 2) I had seen Scott's comment and was rather upset by it as I saw the danger in it. This discussion, in my opinion, is about one topic only.

We have discussed the ficgs world cup and other formats before, and can again, but this discussion is for one item only, so I did not want to contribute in any way to derailing the discussion. So I decided to refrain from comment as I had nothing to add.

To respond to your comments Thib- timing of the championship cycles will always be an issue, no matter the format. Regardless if you use 12 straight games, my format, or Alvin's. Or any other version.

We already have different groups starting at different times, and the final starting at different times to the other groups. This is just how things happen. It is possible that the final could be over in 8 games and in a shorter time period and time gained.

I think this format is worth trying for at least one cycle. That is also what happens with the otb world championship. There are format changes from time to time. Some are successful, some are not. Matches used to be 24 games in length. Now they are 12 games. One was played as an 8 player double round robin.

Things change as the environment changes.


Jan Ohlin    (2015-10-14 07:08:13)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

If playing a lot more games it is like forcing mistakes instead of good games?! Social life will become ruined... Whom will bother about become a "world champ"? Not me who also have small kids to take care of.
And the opposite, if instead play fewer games it will force the challenger to play even more risky openings. The games will become more exciting to watch.


Garvin Gray    (2015-10-14 15:17:26)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Jan: Eros has clearly stated that he has used the advantage of draw odds by playing defensively and by playing for draws, knowing he only needs to draw all the games to retain the title.

So he knows he does not need to win the match to retain the title and has used the rules to their full effect. Of course this is his right and well done to him, but it is also the organisers and rule makers duty to change the rules when the circumstances are no longer in the interest of the event as a whole.

If all 12 games in each match had been blood and guts affairs, and a few games had been won, but the eventual score was 6-6, then this whole conversation would probably not be happening.

But when only ONE, I REPEAT ONE, game has been won in the last eight matches, and Eros has managed to retain the title each title, it is clear that the rules need to change.

I have made two clear proposals. As illustrated above, it is not a case in the previous matches that all the games were hard fought, so your argument that adding four extra games would be onerous in the final match.

Yes, it could produce an effect of more drawn games from short draws, but then if this the case, then all players should be warned the organisers will be forced to seriously consider introducing no draw agreements before move 30 without the agreement of the arbiter.

Again, this is what occurs when the players make it clear they are determined not to win their games.


Jan Ohlin    (2015-10-14 17:12:18)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Garvin: I´m maybe the crazy one who wants to play less or equal (!) games as now and think it then will be acceptable for the challenger to play openings as Benko gambit, closed Spanish etc. I see that we have not been sufficiently clever at exploiting engines weaknesses.


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-10-15 01:04:01)
Number of tournament won

A first update done on the tournaments statistics page (bottom)... before something better. Example:

http://www.ficgs.com/players/nichols_scott/tournaments.html


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?


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-10-19 22:52:25)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Scott, you could really play 32 games more at this speed? Are you such a machine? :) That's inhuman, IMO.


Clodomiro Ortiz    (2015-10-21 09:47:50)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I agree with the ten days+one day per move format,but if considered too rapid i suggest a 20 days+one day per move time control..as you know, several players tend to extent games almost endlessly when fall into unfavorable positions,,


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-10-23 22:10:19)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Could someone copy-paste Garvin's original idea for the cup tournament? I'm not sure which thread deals with it (even if I think I remember the main scheme)...

By the way, I agree with your points Garvin, finally question is what tournament do we want? ... Surely we'll have many different answers. Multi-rounds tournaments bring many problems (first is IMO that next rounds start-date still surprise many players), that's what I thought one round could be interesting. Also, it looks like a big challenge with a fast result. But I agree that many top players would think twice before to enter it, but wouldn't they do the same in a multi-round similar event? To be continued.


Garvin Gray    (2015-10-23 13:11:56)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I think this whole discussion has missed the original point of why I made the original proposal for the ficgs world cup.

It was to give players who were in the 2100 to 2200 and below more opportunities against players rated 2300 and above, whilst still also giving the top players something to play for ie the tournament win.

So the original concept was that there was no knockout groups, or starting final match, but instead that all players started from round one, and then everyone had to qualify for round two from there, with only the winners to advance at each stage.

The format above could have even taken over from the waiting lists we currently have, which struggle to be filled, as they give more purpose.

Instead, what is being proposed now, is just one big round robin. As someone who has just organised a round robin event, I can assure you, soon after the games have started, the players will soon forget which games are for the world cup, and which are their World championship games, and which are their Rapid SM, or Rapid M games.

Next, the strength of the field. For this event to work with the monster round robin, it really does need most of the top players competing. How can this be ensured to make it a worthwhile event?

Related to this- the time control. Very few serious correspondence chess players are going to sign up to a time control of 10 days initial time when they potentially have 31 games.

Remember, this is meant to be one of FICGS main events on the calendar. That is at least how I view it.

The time control should be 30 days plus 3 days per move if the format is single round robin with 32 or so players.

I still believe the original proposal of mine is the one that should be adopted, not the single round robin that is being discussed now.

I will not be playing in the single round robin.


Sebastian Boehme    (2015-10-24 00:57:15)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

What about to make it easier for most players, split the big round tournament into an A and a B group as preliminaries of say 16 players.

And so oh then the final groups the best 8 of each winner group go to the Final and the last 8 players of each group go to the B final?

This in my opinion could ease a lot for players and still would be challenging.


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-10-27 23:03:32)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Hi Garvin... Surely not!

Well, just read your cup idea again, here are my thoughts:

- In my opinion, in both ways, top players will probably ignore such a tournament. So, the challenge point may be most important.

- In my opinion, the 33 players round robin is even more simple (and avoiding complicate cases depending on the number of entries), more different from FICGS WCH, faster (no choice to make about playing 2 cycles at once) and with more chances of clear victory, but does it really bring something in both cases? Quite subjective at the end.


Alvin Alcala    (2015-10-29 16:55:49)
5th Centaur Weekend Tourney (CWT)

Announcement
5th Centaur Weekend Tourney (CWT) November 6-8 at Infinity Chess Server
Grand Prix Series (8 tours)
Swiss System.
7 Rounds.
Time control: 45m + 15s.
Play modes: centaur + engine only.
Rated tour for centaur vs. centaur games.
Privately sponsored tour, but open to all.
Schedule:
1st game Friday 6th November, 21:00 server time
2nd game Friday 6th November, 23:30 server time
3rd game Saturday 7th November, 17:30 server time
4th game Saturday 7th November, 20:00 server time
5th game Saturday 7th November, 22:30 server time
6th game Sunday 8th November, 17:30 server time
7th game Sunday 8th November, 20:00 server time
Registration requires full and correct name in your profile.
Registration is free of start fee, if you play just for fun.
If you play for a money prize ($400, $200, $100) you have to pay a start fee.
For details see: http://infinitychess.freeforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=243
Registration closes on Thursday 5th November, 23:55 server time.
For reports on previous CWT see our website: http://infinitychess.com
NEXT TOUR DATES
CWT 6: December 4th - December 6th, 2015
CWT 7: January 8th - January 11th, 2016
CWT 8: February 5th - February 7th, 2016
GRAND PRIX PRIZES (sponsored by Jojo & friends)
(GP Points = 4 best tournament results of each player, who paid a start fee for those tours)
1st Prize 600 USD
2nd Prize 300 USD
3rd Prize 200 USD
4th Prize 100 USD

The best 8 centaurs according to the final Grand Prix table will be nominated for the next official Freestyle event by InfinityChess in 2016/2017.


Garvin Gray    (2015-11-10 01:50:55)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I really do believe the first question that needs to be asked is. What is the purpose of this event?

Then after that question has been asked and the answer gotten, then the format is rather automatic.

I believe the purpose of the event should be to have all players start from round one in different round robin groups, and then the winners of these groups progress to the next stage (This could even be the final of 11 players if there is eleven groups).

So in all it could be just two stages.


Scott Nichols    (2015-11-10 14:37:41)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

This is all just re-hashing the Wch event. All that needs to be done is 1. Have a tie-break playoff. Each round of (2) games having a shorter time control until a win is reached. 2. There should be no returning champion privileges. Everyone will have to start from the beginning with the final 8 players qualified for a double RR to determine champion.


Herbert Kruse    (2015-11-15 19:53:42)
repetition wrong in ficgs

wikipedia

the threefold repetition rule (also known as repetition of position) states that a player can claim a draw if the same position occurs three times, or will occur after their next move, with the same player to move.


Sergey Zemlyanov    (2015-11-16 22:09:27)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Hi all. I try to express my opinion.
The main idea of mass round-robin tournament is good but
I think that the strong players might reject it.
As it seems, I see 2 different ways here:
1st. To have a strong tournament with top players.
2nd. To have a mass tournament just for fun.

In order to organize the 1st tournament you should do the next things:
1. To set up money prizes for winners (more prizes -> more top players might be interested in).
2. To send out invitations for players by email and etc.
3. The time control should not be too fast here if you want a qualitative games
and good tournament.
4. About splitting into the groups.
4.1 Semifinal stage.
I offer to play several qualifying semifinal rounds with 2-3 chessplayers coming into the Final stage.
For example, we have 50 players. So we can create 5 Semifinal groups with 10 players in each with 3 coming out places for the Final.
The time control here I offer 10+2/21 with vacation.
4.2 The Final stage.
I offer 15 players for the Final stage and 14 games for everyone,
or, another variant is 7-8 finalists and 14-16 games with color change for everyone.

About the 2nd tournament my opinion is:
1. To set up money prizes depending on entry fees, for each player.
2. To play mass round robin tournament with 1 game against each player
with faster time control, 10+1/21 for example.

In 1st variant you need to find a contributor to organize the tournament.
But it should be interesting. The 2nd variant with entry fees is interesting too, I think.

AMICI SUMUS,
Sergey Zemlyanov.


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-11-17 02:34:49)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Why not a deadline... with a few more opinions, I think it will be possible (if it goes in one direction more than another)!

Anyway, we see that new opinions bring more and more questions and differences :)

On Sergey's points: First of all, I must say that if I could have brought bigger prizes for tournaments, there wouldn't have been such discussions, the whole thing (WCH particularly) would probably work better... but this is not the case, unfortunately :/

As I already said, multi-rounds tournaments are not compatible with longer time controls, and that's a pity. That's why I proposed a 1 round big tourney with a longer time control, but many players seem to be used to the rapid (or even faster) one. Finally, the schedule you propose looks like Garvin's one.


Ian Zimmerman    (2015-11-18 16:59:23)
Feature request

Something still missing on this site, is the ability to sort games by time of last move. This is very useful for players who keeps their own records of games offline, as almost all experienced correspondence players do. All of the following sites have the feature: ICCF, SchemingMind, ChessWorld.

Alternatively, if you want to be innovative, here is something that would do the same job even more efficiently: have an extra flag (call it ACK) stored with each game, and allow filtering by ACK. Display ACK next to each game as a checkbox. Set ACK automatically in one and exactly one situation: when the *opponent* moves.

This way, when I turn on the filter, I can see at a glance all the games where my opponent *just* moved, and I clear ACK by clicking on the checkbox as I update my offline database for each game.


Stephane Legrand    (2015-11-26 18:48:38)
repetition wrong in ficgs

Wrong draw in Game 82598. Last position white to play... ??


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-12-02 02:48:10)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Finally... after a way too long thought on this FICGS cup idea and FICGS wch format, I think that Garvin's idea for this new tournament should be tried.

1) Eros just won the latest WCH with all games drawn again, but not all games in the knockout tournament are draws (e.g. latest candidates final). I think that we must keep this original format because it doesn't exist elsewhere and because it is a real challenge (and it must be possible to beat Eros in 1 game... one day :)) ! Of course, the other reason is that I didn't find any other acceptable way in case of equality.

2) I still think that there are problems in both my cup idea and Garvin's idea in the current context, but this cup will be different enough from the WCH, so the two formats should probably coexist so that each player can choose (or play both).


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-12-03 01:55:06)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I forgot to add: One of the reasons I finally chose your format is that most players chose it (I also received a few private comments on the discussion).

Anyway, let's try it. To be continued very soon.


Scott Nichols    (2015-12-07 17:34:23)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

The entry fee changes everything for the better IMO. That cuts out the non-serious players. The time controls to me make a difference simply because of advanced age. (will I die before this is finished?) Of course for me, none of it matters since I already retired from CC. Zero games going, yay. What did it for the me was the constant arguing for longer time controls. In the old days of snail mail, that had a point, but not now.


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-12-08 00:14:54)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

What do you think about the entry fee idea, Garvin? Scott, do you have any prediction on the number of players according to the entry fee?


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    (2015-12-16 21:09:20)
TER rating calculation

Not all games were drawn in this match (yes, it happens :)), so rules apply this way:

"Knockout tournament winner will play round-robin cycle winner in a 8 games candidates final match (stage 4). In case of equality (4-4), the knockout tournament winner is qualified for stage 5 if all games are draw, the round-robin cycle winner if not all games are draw." Arkadiusz is the round-robin cycle winner.


Bogoljub Teverovski    (2016-01-04 22:44:52)
Thematic tournaments?

Any offers for new thematic?
I'd play 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 e5


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-01-05 17:51:06)
Thematic tournaments?

I'll try to change the next thematic soon... if players do not register too quickly for another king's gambit :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-01-05 17:58:28)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Well, my feeling is that the number of players may be more varying in percentage with an entry fee (we still miss players)... on the other hand, it may more probably look like my idea of a 1-round-big-round-robin... Now I say why not after all. But would it be satisfying for the most? That is the question.


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-01-07 19:33:20)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Garvin, we agree on that but I would be surprised if the entry fee would not divide the number of players by a factor of about 2, maybe 3 ... if we have about 70 players in the case without an entry fee, you can imagine the problem with: we would be sometimes able to launch a 1-round tournament (2 RR rounds for from 25 to 32 players would be strange IMO), sometimes not. If we choose no entry fee, the problem is solved, otherwise we must figure out several cases.


Dann Corbit    (2016-01-07 22:20:18)
Thematic tournaments?

May as well advance one full move to get variety. Everyone will respond:
3. .. Nf6
followed by:
4. Bb2

That is quite an interesting opening and much more rarely played than the standard
1. b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 e3 d5


Garvin Gray    (2016-01-08 00:55:45)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

For the stages concept:Without an entry fee, it will be critically important to go from advertising start, to entry close to competition start and games playing at a fast rate. They can not be allowed to sit around and gather dust.

The longer the time period between when players sign up and when they actually have to play, the more chance that some will not actually end up playing. Hence the discussion of a commitment factor (entry fee).

I have no issues with a no entry fee event, just that if we go with a no entry fee event, it needs to go from ENTRY OPENING DATE to start in a quick period of time to reduce the number of non players.


Garvin Gray    (2016-01-12 06:13:47)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I just want to see the tournament get underway.

I do agree though with larger groups, as in groups with nine or eleven players in each. This then reduces the effect of non players on the end result.


Alexis Alban    (2016-01-17 15:37:10)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

I disagree with the idea that a champion should have to start over from the beginning each year and have to work his way up to retain the title every year.

I however think that it is wrong for a champion to only need to play one match to defend his title. I think the 2015 champion should have to play in the 2016 quarterfinals and work his way up from there.

If that seems unfair then just make the champion play in the semifinals.


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-01-17 23:29:35)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

By the way Alexis, starting from the knockout quarter final is actually starting from the beginning (stage 1 for highest rated players). Anyway starting from the semi final or knockout final has nothing to see with "defending" title as it is now, it's just a completely different scheme.


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-01-18 02:47:01)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Garvin, a few more questions (do not worry, this tournament will exist & it will start this year!), according to your rules, how would you plan stage 1 & stage 2 if we have let's say 73 players for the first edition, and 103 for the second one? I mean the number of players in each tournament for the 2 stages.

Then, well... maybe this FICGS cup should have started at the very beginning of FICGS. I just didn't think that it would be useful and I'm still not sure but anyway, as a new FICGS WCH starts every 8 months, shouldn't it start 4 months after each WCH cycle? The waiting list for the next WCH will be open in a few days already. Shouldn't we take a few more time and do it best?


Garvin Gray    (2016-01-18 09:53:00)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I take you mean if in Ficgs World Cup 1 (FWC1) we got 73 players, then in Ficgs World Cup 2 we got 103 players?

Is that correct?

If that is correct, then in FWC1, using a number of 73 players, it would be 4 groups of 10, 3 groups of 11.

For the second stage (finals)= I know this might be a bit controversial, but I think the TER rule should be dropped and those who tie for first should progress. Since we have seven groups, that should mean at the most eleven players in the final.

This will have the by-product in the round robin games of everyone knowing that if they can finish outright first, they knockout everyone from their group immediately.

In FWC2- With 103 players, same format, just more groups.


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-01-19 00:25:30)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Yes, correct. Thanks for this answer!

Isn't it a problem that in a few groups, half players take White one time more than Black? ... and some to have one game/opponent less than in other groups? (by the way, a bit harder to code/launch the games)

These points (equity) were always of first importance to me in all tournaments and I don't remember having seen this elsewhere (but I can be wrong, I'm not used to ICCF tournaments, for example). What do you think? Why is it such a problem for you to wait a few more days to "complete" a waiting list? Please note that I'm not really opposed to this idea, I just want to be sure that not all players disagree with this.


Garvin Gray    (2016-01-19 02:55:13)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

As long as the group sizes are large ie 9 or more players, then I do not think it is a great concern if some of the groups have even numbers.

As we experience in any of the groups, be it world champs, standard games, rapids etc, there is always someone who does not play, so even if every group was 8 groups of 9 players, one group would become distorted and would really be an 8 player group with the inevitable consequence of some players receiving 4W/3B and others 3W/4B.

If the group size is large, 10 to 11 players per group, then the difference between 5W/4B and 4W/5B is not that great, compared to a group of 6 players, where the split is 3W/2B.

With large group sizes in the first stage, this could mean only a few groups (say six groups of 11 or so players), then the second stage could be held as a double round robin which solves all the problems.

This rule is already included in the current FICGS World champs for when groups are six players or less, but is rarely used.


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-01-19 20:24:05)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Okay, that makes sense to me. Well, I'm going to write the rules page for this cup tournament, I'll post it here very soon.

One more question, what would be the limit under which there should be only one round (e.g. less than 33 players -> 32 games per player) according to you?


Ilmars Cirulis    (2016-01-20 20:35:12)
(Random idea)

More like a program that plays given endgame perfectly for any board size.

Chess Programming wiki had something about it;.


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-01-20 22:22:59)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules

Answering Stéphane Legrand's question:


If the 8 games are draw: the highest TER advances in the cases of knockout quarter, semi & final. In the candidates final, it is the player from the knockout tournament who advances.


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-01-21 02:34:59)
Emails from FICGS

Okay, here it is:

2 players do not receive emails from FICGS for about 1 week... these 2 players have the same email provider, so obviously and for any reason (?) this provider banned emails either from ficgs.com or (more probably, as it happened already before) from the whole OVH system, which is maybe half the french internet...

I can see only two solutions for these players:

- You may contact your email provider and ask to solve this problem...

- You may use another email provider at least to receive emails from FICGS.


Very sorry, but I can't do anything here.


Garvin Gray    (2016-01-26 23:35:08)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

In otb tournaments, norms are completely valid regardless of colour balance. So that is no issue.

As I have said before, the tournament can start with 11 players, then someone does not start and that makes it a 10 person round robin, but the norms still count, even though colour balance technically for the actual games played was uneven.


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-01-27 00:38:13)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Ok, I agree with that.

Here is a first try for FICGS cup rules:

"FICGS world cup championship is a multi stages tournament. All players who entered the waiting list are involved in single round-robin tournaments (2 stages or more will probably be necessary). All games during the whole cycle are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. As a reminder, the use of chess engines (Stockfish, Houdini, Rybka...) is allowed and encouraged in cup tournaments. Norms are possible according to FICGS general rules.

Round-robin tournaments are groups of 5 to 33 players (most probably 7 to 13). The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In case of equality, the player with most wins (and if necessary the player with the lowest tournament entry rating, then the lowest current rating) among the best scores, is declared winner and qualified for the next stage if any. Groups are built grading all players by rating and distributing them to obtain similar elo averages. There will be no replacements in these tournaments.

In the case of a withdrawal, the games won't be rated if a player warns the referee before the tournament starts and at most 15 days after a new stage started but the first one."


Anything to add?


Garvin Gray    (2016-01-27 03:38:32)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I think I have a different view on a couple of points, based in part in relation to the feedback I read to comments about TER.

Also, it comes from how I view the structure of the first stage, which is only a few groups and large numbers in each group ie 6 groups of 11 players, rather than 11 groups of 6 players.
========================================

FICGS world cup championship is a two stages tournament. All players who entered the waiting list are involved in single round-robin tournaments.

All games during the whole cycle are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. As a reminder, the use of chess engines (Stockfish, Houdini, Rybka...) is allowed and encouraged in cup tournaments.
Norms are possible according to FICGS general rules.

Round-robin tournaments are groups of 5 to 33 players (most probably 7 to 13). The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. If there is a tie for first place in a group, each player advances to the second stage.
Groups are built grading all players by rating and distributing them to obtain similar elo averages. There will be no replacements in these tournaments.

=======================================

Effects- with only a small number of groups, and ties for first progressing, it is possible the second stage final could have 7,8,9 or 13 players. That will be determined.

But what I see is the main factor is that with large groups and ties going through, is all the players know they have to make a decent score to advance from the start. A good TER will not get the job done.

Also, if the scores at the top of a group are close, there is more incentive for players to attempt to get a score from their games as being the only one to advance knocks out everyone else, without any complaints about TER rules.

An entry limit will need to be put on when the final stage is double round robin. If there are six qualifiers to the final stage, then it should be DRR. 7 players in the final would make 12 games. Is that too much?


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-01-27 22:47:28)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Well, I'm not even sure if I agree on all points but I see no objection at a first sight, so why not (I'm just surprised with this tie rule). Do other players have an opinion on Garvin's points?


Ilmars Cirulis    (2016-01-28 09:42:20)
AI beats a professional Go player

http://venturebeat.com/2016/01/27/googles-ai-beats-a-professional-go-player-an-industry-first/


Roger Llull    (2016-01-28 10:11:23)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I would not like to see groups of fewer than 8 players to remove luck as a factor and to make ties less likely. I would not like to see groups of more than 12 players so they are not overloaded.
Also the tournament should always end in 2 stages so people know it won't be too long, and in case of a tie the winner should be the player with the most wins in the whole tournament.
And one more thing, please implement rules to reduce the number of non players and careless time losses. Like a minimum Elo, a minimum of finished games, and require 2 to 5 E-Points to enter.

Some of this would be valid for the WCH too. For example, stage 2 with only 5 players is ridiculous, because luck can play too big of a role.


Garvin Gray    (2016-01-28 23:12:19)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Hello Roger and thanks for your reply,

I would not like to see groups of fewer than 8 players to remove luck as a factor and to make ties less likely.

Garvin- Yes, this is something, at least from my point of view, is what I am trying to avoid. It also reduces the impact of any withdrawals in a group.

I would not like to see groups of more than 12 players so they are not overloaded.

Garvin- Unfortunately, Small number of groups, two stages, and if a large number of entries means something needs to give. So it could be the size of the groups. But hopefully they can be kept to a maximum of 11.

Also the tournament should always end in 2 stages so people know it won't be too long, and in case of a tie the winner should be the player with the most wins in the whole tournament.

Garvin- In my suggested version- I covered the two stage part. I take it your second comment refers to what happens if two or more players end up on the same score in the second stage?

Roger- And one more thing, please implement rules to reduce the number of non players and careless time losses. Like a minimum Elo, a minimum of finished games, and require 2 to 5 E-Points to enter.

Garvin- Quite a few of the withdrawals have come from top players in the past. The most important aspect to reduce the non players is to go from announcement, to closing date of entries, to start a quick and orderly process with no delays.

So after the rules have finally been worked out, have quite a period of time of publicity, then two weeks enter and then Thibault has to close entries straight away, get the draw done and games going.

The longer the lag period between announcement, entries opening, entries closing and games starting, the more chance of players 'going walkabout'.

Roger- Some of this would be valid for the WCH too. For example, stage 2 with only 5 players is ridiculous, because luck can play too big of a role.

Garvin- In the current WCH rules, it is already covered that Double round robin can be used if there are 5 players. I have complained previously to Thibault when he has not implemented this rule when put in a five player group.

In my reworded version for this competition, I asked, at what point should the second stage final for minimum qualifiers move from a double round robin to single round robin?
6 players, 7 players? It does seem like 6 players is the correct number. If only six players qualify from the first stage, then the second stage is DRR. If seven or more qualify, then it will be single round robin. Practically, this would most likely mean there were 6 groups, and each player won their group outright. Or 5 groups. And 4 groups were one outright, with the other group having 2 players finishing tied for first and both advancing to the second stage.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2016-01-29 12:03:26)
AI beats a professional Go player

And http://www.nature.com/news/go-players-react-to-computer-defeat-1.19255


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-02-03 19:19:05)
AI beats a professional Go player

Yes, well... Obviously Fan Hui is not as strong as Lee Sedol but a first match between the champ. and this almost-AI would be interesting to watch :)


Scott Nichols    (2016-02-06 18:36:40)
New quotes?

"Where are you going, mon ami?

"Why, ro the Cafe de la Regence to watch Voltaire and Rousseau play at chess."

"Pooh! Mere scribblers!"

"True, but today they play Phildor."

(Chess Chronicles)


Ilmars Cirulis    (2016-02-06 20:24:10)
New quotes?

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.


Garvin Gray    (2016-02-09 03:24:17)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

And then you will just have more complaints about the faster time control and the title being decided by speed of the computer, superior engine.

Also there will be issues of trying to find an acceptable time for all participants. How do you find an acceptable time if players live in USA, Europe, Middle East, Asia, and Oceania region.

If the games are all held at the same time for an accelerated time control, similar to the freestyle concept, then that is dramatically different to the original format.

Rapid playoffs are not ideal in OTB chess, but at least they are played at the same time of day as the original games, and some of the players are not forced to play at 3am, where others get to play at 3pm.

Also, all this requires extra organisation on Thibault's part, unless he writes into the original rules about when the finals will be, but still the playoffs will be still be unfair for the stated reasons.

A different idea could be to have a third round involving those who tied from the second stage. So if three players tied, they would play each other four times.

1 v 2
2 v 3
3 v 1

2 v 1
3 v 2
1 v 3

1 v 2
2 v 3
3 v 1

2 v 1
3 v 2
1 v 3


Garvin Gray    (2016-02-09 03:26:24)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

But really overall, I do have to protest, all these discussions I think are having a detrimental effect on the overall tournament.

Most players just want the tournament to begin. Seeing all these extremely small detailed discussions being talked through I know from personal experience irl just drives players away.

The longer they go on for, the more you lose players. This is why I keep saying, get on with it and get the tournament GOING.


Garvin Gray    (2016-02-12 01:26:27)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Ahh thank you. Some definite answers about progress. And dates :) This now allows players the opportunity to prepare. Time to get the word out.

This now can set a bit of a FICGS calendar :)


Dann Corbit    (2016-02-12 06:19:46)
Thematic tournaments?

Anand plays O'kelly Sicilian:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1315128


Ilmars Cirulis    (2016-02-12 12:21:10)
Thematic tournaments?

Traxler Counterattack was mentioned because I remembered about our (me and Thibault) thematic silver games long time ago.

I don't want to play Traxler CA with Black, probably.


Scott Nichols    (2016-02-26 23:26:02)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

If the match wasn't played and he wants a refund, he should get a refund. Sometimes the tournaments take a long time to start so there should be a "withdraw" button to all events. Sometimes a person's situation changes and he can't play, so he should be able to withdraw instead of being paired and not be able to play any moves. This is bad for both players.


Gregory Kohut    (2016-03-03 21:35:13)
Chess960

I would like to play in a chess960 championship.


Garvin Gray    (2016-03-04 10:09:34)
Chess960

I am surprised we do not have a chess960 format of some sort considering engines can play it.


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-03-06 23:30:33)
Stockfish 7, Komodo 9.2 or 9.3

Really? I thought Rybka was completely outplayed by her rivals now ^^


Mladen Jankovic    (2016-03-09 14:35:13)
AI beats a professional Go player

And that first match has happened. AI won.


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-03-09 22:03:56)
AI beats a professional Go player

https://deepmind.com/alpha-go.html

To be continued.


Mladen Jankovic    (2016-03-10 00:44:08)
AI beats a professional Go player

Comentary on the first game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZugVil2v4w


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-03-10 22:52:04)
Chess960

Only a few rated games (taking quite a lot thinking time) was a choice from the start and I believe that to multiply it would only share the number of players involved.


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-03-13 02:21:04)
AI beats a professional Go player

... and the match is already over (3-0). Looks like the machine definitely overplays humans at Go as well.


Mladen Jankovic    (2016-03-13 15:39:15)
Professional Go player beats AI

It's 3-1 now.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2016-03-16 12:33:36)
AI beats a professional Go player

Final result is 4-1.


Scott Nichols    (2016-03-28 00:20:00)
3 catches on the "river"

I'm not new to poker. Against one player, he had one card to catch on the river 3 times to win. Let's see 44 x 44 x44 = 85,184 to 3 chances. This poker program has a LOT to be desired.


Garvin Gray    (2016-04-01 01:14:32)
Get rid of the new 'advert' button

There has been a new button appear just below the game board, offering suggestions like- would you like to play GM Riccio? Take Back?

I want this removed, or the option to be able to remove it. It is a distraction to the game board, and also the idea that now take backs are allowed is not on.

Get rid of it.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2016-04-01 15:36:32)
Get rid of the new 'advert' button

I want to play with GM Riccio. (Of course, I would lose... :D)


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-05-11 19:48:54)
Test

This is a test as it seems there are still problems with accents for the players names.

Ceci est un test : é#"'(-èà@ù


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-05-11 19:53:28)
Server crash (april 2016)

Hi all, welcome back :)

First of all, my apologies for this new server crash, about 4 years after the previous one...

The Raid 1 technology has its advantages, the 2 hard drives are almost-exact copies from each other, but it also has its difficulties [e.g. the "almost" part] and I just had to learn much about it to try to restore the server as I encountered not 1, not 2 but 3 hardware failures at the same time, added to a 4th hardware failure at home on the FICGS development PC, and of course added my "famous" incredibly bad internet connection. Murphy's law ^^ ... So, both hard drives and a SATA cable have been replaced on the server. Finally, the system had to be reinstalled and I had to upgrade it, which caused many difficulties these last few days. At the end, it was not possible to restore the very last FICGS database, so we lost a few minutes or hours of moves (fortunately it happened early in the morning). But nothing essential was lost at the end.

I'm still not 100% sure (if it's ever possible) that everything will work fine with this upgraded version of PHP & MySQL, obviously there are some problems with accents for players names (will be fixed soon) but let's go for a try. I probably made mistakes during the whole process that finally took 20 days but the good thing is that I should be able to better prevent such failures in the future. Thanks again for your patience!

As I said in the login/messages page, an email has been sent to warn everyone. If you tried to register or to change your password during the last two weeks, it was not taken in account so you'll have to do it again. 20 days (it was not possible to move during this time) have been added to all players expected to move, and 7 more days have been added to all clocks (including players not expected to move, to avoid any surprise in case of real vacation or something).

One more thing: It may be not possible to connect through SSL with https:// anymore in the future, I still don't know how to configure it on this system.


Let's play! :)


Best wishes,
Thibault


David Fierry Fraillon    (2016-05-11 21:35:58)
Bugs after the server crash

New games times look strange to me :
I guess Thib has put a time increment to avoid the time lost during the server crash.
What i find strange (on my games only of course) :
- a player who it was not the turn to play also get the time increment
- on the tournament FICGS_CLASSE_A_000166 :
the increment seems to be 6-7 days more than it should be
A player who was on vacation get a 7+19 days increment. I think the solution in that case is to increase the number of vacation days instead.

I will check my other tournament and i'll be back


David Fierry Fraillon    (2016-05-11 21:46:12)
Bugs after the server crash

Tournament FICGS_CLASSE_A_000170
- i 'm also finding that strange 7 days increment ina ally my games, for both player

The good news :
-that over day increment seems to be a constant
-no moves lost
-As you said the more than 100 days bug does not exist after playing one move

i played one move : it looks to be a good move :-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-05-25 21:37:17)
FICGS restarts (2016 May 25)

Hi everyone, nice to see you again, I missed our games :)

First of all, my apologies for this too long delay... I went through hell to try to fix these first major issues (emails & database compatibility) that were the consequence of the forced system update that followed the server crash of last month.

Unfortunately, internet protocols & languages are constantly evolving and FICGS is late on these changes. Added to the fact that databases, databases tables, database interface, database calls, PHP language, PHP files, content display, browsers (and I probably forgot ones) communicate with variable charsets, the result is that it is impossible to make FICGS (which uses both UTF-8 and ISO-8859-1 according to the content) compatible with this system change in one shot...

Consequently, it will take a long time to make it right... Feel free to report any bug in the "Bugs after the server crash" discussion in this forum.

Thanks in advance! Have good games ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-05-25 22:04:14)
Issues with emails after server restart

It is possible that a few players did not receive the email about the announcement of the server restart, and maybe cannot receive any email from FICGS anymore after that the server restarted. That's why I added a few days more to clocks.

A possible issue in this case is that FICGS ip was blacklisted by your email provider because of the period when the server was sending emails not authentified. It seems to work fine with Gmail, Yahoo... but it may be the case with Microsoft emails and a few smaller providers.

In this case, please send an email to info (at) ficgs (dot) com , I'll see how to fix this.


Sebastian Boehme    (2016-05-26 01:01:09)
Bugs after the server crash

Maybe just a beauty bug, but in the My Games section where I can see the player names the so called special signs such as Umlaut ä,ö,ü or the accent aigu etc. are displayed as question marks.
I guess it's just a unicode thing to fix that, but I'll report it anyways I thought.


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-05-28 00:16:29)
Bugs after the server crash

No, everyone got 7 extra days and players expected to move got 4 more days... so this is possible if you played your move yesterday.


Aniruddha Duttagupta    (2016-07-01 20:48:35)
Rating calculation gain/loss

I'm playing in FICGS Server since last 18 months, but still unsure about the process of rating calculation after finish of a game.My query is that after a game finishes,while calculation of gain/loss of rating of the players which rating figure of the players are taken into account? Their rating figure as at the start of the game or present rating at the time of finish of the game? Can anyone kindly enlighten me?


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-07-03 02:06:18)
Chess World CHAMPIONSHIP

The rules specify that (in other words) "all games draw means retaining title". You may consider it as a win... or not. But in all cases, Eros did what was necessary to take then retain the title according to the rules.

Btw, it happened in 1987 with Kasparov vs. Karpov.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_1987

"In modern times there will be no winner if there is no gain": That's a choice... but many people were deceived to see blitz games or so to decide championships initially played at classical time controls. As for me, I would feel the same if a correspondence chess champ was decided by a few advanced chess games.

Finally, I completely understand your point of view, but is this an absolute truth?


Jan Ohlin    (2016-08-09 11:52:23)
Chess World CHAMPIONSHIP

In WCH Quarter Final 000016 there will be more wins because this time we play more closed openings. It´s the best chance in advanced chess to win I think.
I will never forget last game Kasparov - Karpov 1987...


Jan Ohlin    (2016-08-13 07:50:52)
Chess World CHAMPIONSHIP

So far, yes! ;-) I look at all games and also follow Anderson - Strömberg, a match very interesting from an advanced chess view. The strongest computer win against best player, when will that scenario begin to happen...?


George Jempty    (2016-09-02 10:21:48)
Player of the Year

I've been thinking it would be interesting to have nominations for a "Player of the Year" that FICGS members could then vote on. Qualifications could be listed in a manner similar to the following:

1) 15 wins, 13 draws and 0 losses since Oct 2015
2) Rating increase of nearly 250 points (1904-2152) during same time period
3) As 1904 player finished tied for second with score of 4/6 in tournament where average rating was 2041
4) Won a standard B tournament with score of 5.5/6 and a performance rating of 2332
5) Guaranteed tie for first place in a standard A tournament (currently tied for first and is playing in the one remaining game in the tourney against someone one point behind)
6) Currently leading stage 1 group of 2016 World Championship with score of 5/5
7) Finished tied for first in Rapid M tournament for which it was necessary to buy a ticket because TER of 2077 being below normal minimum of 2100

Yes I'm bragging on myself more than a little bit, but still I think that the listed qualifications are pretty objective


Ilmars Cirulis    (2016-09-04 22:53:44)
Player of the Year

Just be underrated, that works. :P


George Jempty    (2016-09-07 13:58:50)
Player of the Year

Yeah well I'm 2014 USCF which is how I started on FICGS a few years ago but I lost several games on time when I lost interest in chess in general. But regardless if the above is about me or not, it represents a good way to write up the qualifications I think


Ilmars Cirulis    (2016-09-08 14:43:20)
Player of the Year

Which of your games in this year you would choose as the best?


Jan Ohlin    (2016-09-08 20:16:14)
Player of the Year

Anyhow, it could be a good idea to have a topic in the forum where it is allowed to brag about one's own excellence. Maybe also a way to make the "best game" more worth reading, it´s so very boring now.


George Jempty    (2016-09-09 17:56:01)
Player of the Year

The game I am the most proud of the past 12 months is http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=89124 a draw against Ortiz in the first tournament mentioned above. I got a poor position with a poor opening and around move 30 was down around 0.6 to 0.7.

I took all 45 days of my vacation before December 31st and devoted almost all my analysis to this one game, with a new 8-core, 32 GB RAM machine, as well as buying Komodo 9.3 (I'm now up to 10.1). Ortiz did not play so accurately and by move 45 the engine evaluated me as completely even in a few lines but they were complicated and I was much lower on time than my opponent.

However I found a forcing line of about a dozen moves that the engine thought was inferior, but I knew was a dead drawn ending: R+2P vs. R+3P all on the same side of the board, with me also having a sufficiently active rook. So I went for this simpler solution which also let me gain time on the clock as I'd analyzed everything out beforehand. Finally after about a dozen moves in the ending Ortiz offered the draw.


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-09-12 17:40:02)
Player of the Year

Yeah, good idea to find such objective criterias. I hope it will be possible to code a few ones.


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-09-12 17:41:43)
Missing chat

It just regularly happens, for some reasons a few players (not necessarily the same ones) delete comments... Well, it's always possible to repost from time to time.


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-09-12 18:36:27)
AlphaGo games commented

Interesting Go games to learn from...

https://deepmind.com/research/alphago/alphago-games-english/

Games played by AlphaGo (either versus itself or versus Lee Sedol)


Peter Brodie    (2016-09-13 01:31:42)
Missing chat

I can understand players deleting their own chat comments but how do they gain access to other player's chat comments and also delete them? It doesn't seem fair if they can do this..Other people should not be able to delete your own comments..what you decide to do with them is your business, no one elses..Also, why should I have to re-post an inoffensive chat message just because some cretin takes a dislike to it? Whers's the justice? This ability to delete other's chat should be gotten rid of...


George Jempty    (2016-09-13 14:41:12)
Missing chat

I once accidentally deleted a comment the first time ever I clicked on the triangle -- I did not realize the purpose was to delete. Rather I thought it would "expand" a chat topic. This was probably close to a year ago. In the meantime yes I primarily delete my own comments. However recently Duenas decided to post comments about an ongoing game of his with Cirulis, which to me just seems inappropriate for chat as there is a message box for each move of a game, as well as private messages. Those comments bumped a bunch of other comments possibly relevant to the whole FICGS community off the front page, so I deleted them.

I'm sorry if you Mr. Brodie if you think this makes me a cretin, but I'm just trying to keep the chat relevant to *everybody* on FICGS, not just two players, and in any case I think you rather over-state your case: "illegal hacking", references to "justice", etc. -- it's just a chat board. In any case what you are suggesting is a "policy" issue, but I think there is a "technical" issue too. And that is, once you click on the triangle you get a popup box with one button (an "alert") instead of two buttons (a "confirm"). A confirm would allow you to undo the delete, for instance if you accidentally clicked the triangle. Thib if you are reading this I am a web developer with nearly 20 years experience and could quite easily implement this, as I know you have a lot of other priorities.


Peter Brodie    (2016-09-13 17:51:28)
Missing chat

You should only be able to delete your own chat..it shouldn't effect others..if you are posting offensive material and won't delete the site moderator(s) should be able to delete..it's s site glitch that should be fixed..otherwise it makes chat meaningless.I only come here to play not yack so it's a small thing but my sense of justice and fair play came into effect..


Peter Brodie    (2016-09-17 01:34:00)
Missing chat

Thanks Thibault..I'm coming to the ccnclusion that your way was right, after all..Players do need to be able to delete any abusive chat as soon as it appears, whether themselves if they are abused directly and are there to see it at that moment or others deleting in their place simply because abuse of any kind is not tolerated..This procedure does lead to some simply deciding what is relevant and useful chat and what isn't and thereby often messing up a chat thread..so arbitrary deletions should be frowned on and anyone who keeps deleting any chat at their whim should, perhaps, be barred from chat for, say, a month, until they learn some manners and proper chat etiquette..also, anyone who engages in mass deleting because they like causing chaos should get two warnings, then be barred for good if they persist..They shoud also be named..anyone who engages in abusive chat should get also two warnings, then they will be barred from chat forever..How's this for a settlement of tbe situation?


Peter Brodie    (2016-09-19 22:38:00)
Missing chat

I figured some time ago you were one of those pathetic internet princesses who likes starting meaningless arguments for their own sake as it gives you a hard-on..I'd suggest you get a life but I suppose that isn't possible..As for abuse, you gave as good as you got you little shit so don't start accusing and playing the little hurt dove..how sad..How obvious....lol...


Scott Nichols    (2016-11-07 18:36:23)
Poker Poll

The problem with this system is that if someone KNOWS when they call a bet, they will win that game. Some players then BANK that game for later when they need some quick rating points. The same goes for a loss, WAIT till you can easily afford to lose a few points without to much damage. THEN call, :/


Scott Nichols    (2016-11-07 21:57:16)
Poker Poll

My idea was just a heads up match between 2 players who both feel they are the best:) No ratings, no money, everything just stays the same. The reason I offer this is because I'm 99% mathematically sure with this rating system, reaching 2400 would be next to impossible with everyone so much lower rated.

On the other hand, all I have to do is win a dozen or so games quickly and there it is. I feel it is an unfair advantage to me.


Scott Nichols    (2016-11-11 14:01:20)
Do the cards matter?

Dear Yeturu Aahlad, I have thought long about your inquiry. This is the best scenario I can come up with.

You are at a 9 player real money game. You know all the players. You all have decided to see who is the best.

You have been playing for many, many hours. All that is left is you and Him. Lets call him Eros. Last hand.

You are dealt pocket Black Aces. Eros acts first and checks. You feel you can just take the ante's now and move on, but you decide to slow play them and just call. The flop is 3clubs, 6hearts and Qhearts. Again Eros checks and you decide to bet a little again and he calls.

Now through all the hours of playing, you have gotten to know each other well. He is the type who talks and laughs, makes fun of people, belittles them and acts in a generally arrogant manner. (We all know the type). The KEY is to study all of this and, this is maybe the most important, study his microexpressions. Some people call them tells. But most all pros know how not to give away tells. But I have learned that microexpressions are involuntary. Let's get back to the hand.

The "turn" is a Jspades. He decides to bet, a good bet and of course you call. (slow playing). Now comes the moment of truth, "the river". It is an Ace of hearts. You are thrilled, and your face gives the microexpression for a tenth of a second. You now have 3 Aces, but there is 3 hearts on the board.

All of the sudden, Eros goes all in and walks away from the table. In my experience, the odds of him having 2 hearts in the hole is 23/1. HERE is the point if the cards matter. You can beat anything except a Heart flush. And the odds of him having that are 23/1. This is a real money, no limit game. If you call and lose, you lose 90% of all you hold near and dear.

WHAT DO YOU DO?


Scott Nichols    (2016-11-11 21:07:34)
Do the cards matter?

The way I came up with the cards don't matter theory was watching a World Series of Poker heads up match between two of the players who came up the hard way and fought their way to the highest echelon of poker pro's.

They got dealt a hand, I don't remember the cards except they were shit cards that anybody would just throw in.

The host commenting on the match was a multi-time world champion. <br
To everyone's surprise, the first player bet big on his lousy cards. Of course, I and I am sure, everybody else thought player 2 would just throw in his lousy hand and go on to the next one. But noooo, he took his time, a long time, and re-raised. This went on and I can't even remember who actually won the hand, but the host said, "when you get to this level, the cards don't matter." That enlightened me in a profound way i had never thought of before.


Scott Nichols    (2016-11-11 21:13:06)
Do the cards matter?

Not to be-labor the point, when I suggested a match, without points or money or even spectators. Mano a mano. Play in a dark, dingy dungeon with two players. No one needs to know who won except the 2 players involved.


Garvin Gray    (2016-11-30 02:01:25)
Future penalties for games lost on time

I know this topic comes up for discussion from time to time, but seeing the results from Rapid A 192, I think a more thorough discussion needs to take place about what should be done about players who lose multiple games on time.

I know on ICCF, they have very strict rules in this matter, and I believe that FICGS should follow the same procedure.

Players should be made aware before entering a tournament that they are expected to complete all their games, not just time out some of their games without consequence.

If players do not want to continue their games and feel that it is ok to let their games time out, then FICGS should take the position that their services are no longer required on this site for a stated period.

The ICCF rules should be followed in this matter.


Garvin Gray    (2016-11-30 08:33:54)
Future penalties for games lost on time

Herbert Kruse- Policies and procedures can be changed at any point in time as situations change, or as events occur.

Where in my post did I say that I was changing the rules after the beginning the game. In fact, I think you would find that the game had ended. That was the point.

The rule I was bringing up is what to do in the future for players who lose games on time. ICCF is generally seen as the standard practice for most rules and procedures, and their policies on this matter is very clear.

So if their policy was to be adopted here, it would start from (insert date), which would hopefully be January 1st 2017.


Herbert Kruse    (2016-11-30 11:11:02)
Future penalties for games lost on time

if you ban every player who loses on time, there will be less and less players here, but i want ficgs to have a big number of members


Garvin Gray    (2016-11-30 11:16:28)
Future penalties for games lost on time

Since I have referred to the ICCF policies on the matters of players losing on time, I should directly quote their policy:

It is under section 5 of Code of Conduct:

Types of disciplinary action available are as follows:
(i) Formal Written Warning – for breaches in behaviour incompatible with ICCF statutes, principles, or rules. Continuing or repeated misbehaviour will result in (ii) being implemented
(ii) Disciplinary Action with Penalty/Sanctions – for serious or recurring breaches in behaviour
incompatible with ICCF statutes, principles, and/or rules. Immediate penalties/sanctions should be imposed, the degree of which should be related to the severity of the misdemeanour.
The following scale of penalties/sanctions should be used:
(a) A serious behavioural issue, e.g. silent/unacceptable withdrawal from a tournament, unacceptable, or abusive behaviour to players/officials/ICCF as a first offence – ban from all international CC tournaments and activities for a period of 2 years, from the date of decision.
(b) A repeated serious behavioural issue, e.g., repeated silent/ unacceptable withdrawal from a tournament, repeated abusive behaviour to players/officials/ICCF – ban from all international CC tournaments and activities for a period of 5 years, from the date of the latest decision.
(c) Outrageous behaviour or further repeated behavioural issue, e.g., theft, belligerent action towards ICCF or any of its officials, assault, etc. – ban from all international CC tournaments and activities for life duration. Appeal for remission of sentence is available after 10 years.
(d) Extremely slow play in a clearly lost position is not proper behaviour in CC play, and is subject to a warning from the TD, and will result in disciplinary action if it continues or is repeated in other games.
When dealing with disciplinary matters and considering penalties/sanctions, care should be taken to ensure consistency and those penalties are commensurate with the “crime†committed.
In all cases of disciplinary action, an individual has a basic right to express his/her case, with reasoning, before a decision is taken by an official/tournament director or tournament office, etc.


Herbert Kruse    (2016-11-30 11:41:59)
Future penalties for games lost on time

thats just crazy

chess rules are rules, u can use it as u want

ICCF is old fashion and therefore has not the best players


Ilmars Cirulis    (2016-11-30 11:48:21)
Future penalties for games lost on time

For defence of Duttagupta:

He has finished all five games in the tournament and lost only two on the time.

I have played 20 games with him and everything was okay (despite him losing 10 games), also.

So I have all reasons to believe that he has some IRL problems.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2016-11-30 11:52:07)
Future penalties for games lost on time

I am against any penalties for losing on time or slow play, too.


Garvin Gray    (2016-11-30 14:04:30)
Future penalties for games lost on time

Ilmars, did you actually bother to read the ICCF sections I quoted? Or did you just say, I am against any penalties as a blanket statement and stuff the rest?

If you had read the ICCF rules, in all cases of disciplinary action, an individual has a basic right to express his/her case, with reasoning, before a decision is taken by an official/tournament director or tournament office, etc.

So any player in 'question' would be given the opportunity to answer why they lost their games on time and it would be up to the Tournament Committee, or Thibault alone to decide on what action to take.

And I do not believe it is appropriate to discuss individual players when discussing this rule. If we start mentioning individual players, then the potential for a lot of hurt feelings, defamation and arguments can ensue.

People will just start going through everyone's records who might be a 'suspect'. That serves no purpose except to upset everyone.

The topic is a simple one. At least it is to me.

Peter Anderson defined the issue well.


Herbert Kruse    (2016-11-30 15:53:22)
Future penalties for games lost on time

11. 5. Adjudications

In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious.

If time control is superior to 1 day and if a player doesn't want to resign (or accept draw) and obviously last the game, his opponent may report to referee a first time. If the player takes 30 days more to finish the game, his opponent may call referee another time, then the game will be adjudicated. An analysis submitted by a player should contain sufficient information so that no doubt is possible. This may include a sequence of moves, but in some circumstances it may be sufficient to claim a win or a draw on the basis of material or positional advantage. Final decision belongs to referee.


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-12-03 21:15:23)
Future penalties for games lost on time

According to the rule in such cases, there must be an adjudication 30 days at most after the first call to the referee. I must say that it is very rare that I have to act after this period (actually, when a player calls the referee, his opponent usually resigns a few hours/days after that, which is a good sign that this system works well IMO).


David Fierry Fraillon    (2016-12-04 07:24:53)
Future penalties for games lost on time

Ok it can be very long then ...
I am not happy with banishment solution ... i guess the idea is to have a lot of players ... and more.
IF you look at some rating evolution you will see that some player just stop corresponding chess and are back few months later and sometimes more ...
I will do it myself as soon as i will finish my games because i have to prepare myself to normal chess ...
So i think it is normal for many reason to leave corresponding chess for a few months and be back ... i think also that it is normal to resign if you can ... but as Thibault wrote you can find many reason to not be able to do it .... By the way : Thibault, can you solve the trick of creating a new account when a player is banished ? I have only two solution in mind : reducing the maximal time allowed to one move to 30 (i do not like it because i use it sometimes when i am on the X9th move ... :-) ) and reducing time for adjudication ...


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-12-04 19:32:26)
Future penalties for games lost on time

I think I solved it as much as possible :) Anyway, as far as I know, players who registered again under a fake name generally stopped to play even faster (due to a lower rating and lack of motivation, I guess) There's a kind of natural selection due to the fact that we play with our real name.


David Fierry Fraillon    (2016-12-04 21:11:08)
Future penalties for games lost on time

i do agree ...

megalomany of chess players .... :-)


Scott Nichols    (2016-12-20 15:54:52)
Poker Poll

ANY skills I may have acquired during the all night poker or chess fests I played at during my youth, I would gladly give back in an instant to have that time back to spend with my family who are now gone. Sure I would like to make it to #1 here like anybody else, but I regard it for what it is--a harmless pastime.


Garvin Gray    (2017-01-05 01:10:02)
Future penalties for games lost on time

Returning to this issue:

Ficgs already has a policy on this issue from its rules. It is covered in 11.6:

Any player who forfeits (by resignation or silent withdrawal) his games in an equal or winning position, without giving an explanation to referee in a rated chess tournament could lose his other games in the tournament, get a limited access to the server and couldn't enter waiting lists anymore during a period of 2 months, at the referee's discretion.


Scott Nichols    (2017-01-06 01:11:10)
Future penalties for games lost on time

In a fairly short game #93472 it looks like black just gave the game to white. Usually this would go unnoticed. But, the white player and I have a gentelmanly bet on the outcome. he got four free points. I think they should be taken away and the black player should suffer a penalty for collusion.


Scott Nichols    (2017-01-07 15:20:42)
Defeating Draw Death

Maybe some new ideas can be shared here. Here is one, 2 players play a 2 game or even more game match where Black gives up the f7 Pawn. Or a set of the first 6 moves very wild in nature and then each player will have to play the same first six moves. They alternate colors of course, :)


Ilmars Cirulis    (2017-01-09 13:35:17)
Defeating Draw Death

Just play Big Chess. :)


Jan Ohlin    (2017-01-11 12:15:29)
Defeating Draw Death

Instead of changing chess game i prefer to change style people playing at, lets call it the Riccio syndrom, being too careful. We need more carrots to fight about.


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-01-11 15:28:01)
Adjudications & 7 pieces tablebases

Hi all,

Just a reminder about reasons why some games may be not adjudicated even when the result is announced thanks to 7 pieces (or 6 pieces, 5 pieces...) tablebases:

- FICGS chess rules are slightly different from FIDE rules (no 50 moves rule), so an announced draw may not be a draw here.
- According to the rules, any player (who may not use engines or tablebases) has the right to see the game going until a "quite" clear position.

But any player who estimates that the result of the game is known can call the referee to shorten the game.

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#adjudications


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-01-11 15:38:14)
Defeating Draw Death

The wild 6 first moves idea should be possible with thematic tournaments... Maybe the f7 pawn is possible this way as well. Why not... Scott's 2nd idea reminds me the silver thematic chess (now Traxler).

Jan, I did not miss your ideas in the chat on wins / draws... It may be very interesting and funny to try but it changes really everything, the game is not the same according to me, and the code should be rewritten in good part. And well, isn't it a question of taste before everything? As for me, I'm quite sure I would play it like atomic chess, then would come back to the original game.


Jan Ohlin    (2017-01-11 17:05:09)
Defeating Draw Death

I think it´s reasonable with extra elo points for a win. I take high risks playing some opening variations. And I do play chess with a World Champ in every match. Stockfish with some kind of human alias... :-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-01-18 03:32:56)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

Finally, here is a new interview with FICGS correspondence chess champion GM Eros Riccio, who gives us his (surprising?) impressions on his latest win in the championship, his current match and correspondence chess nowadays... A good matter to think about!

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000012

____________

- Hi again Eros... Once more, congratulations for winning this final match in the 12th FICGS correspondence chess championship. This time, it seems that things went quite differently than in your previous matches (you scored 9 out of 12, which is a huge performance at this level), could you tell us what happened in these games?

--> Hi, yes, finally we have seen some wins after a very long series of draws. I was surprised too, I didn't risk to lose any game and I could even win one as Black... What to say, my opponent was simply not as challenging as the previous ones.

- It's a long time since you won the previous match, would you like to tell us about your other results this year, particularly at ICCF where you now rank #9 with an outstanding 2643 rating?

--> My latest final on FICGS were my only games of 2016. On ICCF I have taken some rest, the too high draw rate didn't incentive me to start new tournaments, also because drawing all games with a high rating means losing points.

- In the next final match (13th cycle), you play Peter W. Anderson for the 3rd time... so you probably know each other's opening book quite well. What do you expect for in this match?

--> Anderson is a very tough opponent, it's not a coincidence that he reached the final for the third time. I tried to win at least one game as White, but he's incredibly hard to beat. I experimented with almost anything possible against his modern defence, but I could never find a single weakness in his repertoire. I will see what to invent this time against his terrific 1...g6.

- As you probably know, another Go champion (Lee Sedol) lost a 5-games match to AlphaGo this year, while chess engines (now Stockfish 8, Houdini 5 Komodo 10...) slowly but surely continue to improve... Still waiting for the quantum computers. How do you feel things should go in the next years? Did your way of playing advanced chess or correspondence chess change these last years?

--> I have said a lot already about the very high draw rate of the recent years... I am surprised that some changes haven't been done already, like switching to chess 960, even modifying some chess rules, or at least giving 1,5 points for one win. Otherwise a lot of players will lose interest in seeing a series of all draws in the tournaments they play. I am one of those players who lost interest in correspondence chess, and even in blitz chess, engine vs engine, as we can see the extremely high draw rate situation there too.

- Finally, what can we wish for you for the next year? :)

--> Wish me to lose the match with Anderson :-) even I got bored of seeing myself there over and over in the final! That will bring some new air and that way I can take some total rest in corr. chess.

- Many thanks for your time, have a great match!

--> Welcome, and thanks.


Roger Llull    (2017-01-18 04:33:20)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

I have an idea. Make it more of an spectator sport like engine vs engine is, by letting people offer Epoints to the winners of thematic tournaments in the openings they choose. Let others interested in the same opening add to those Epoints and discuss changes in time controls, starting position and Elo limit. Those studying openings can this way effectively pay for great line analysis, and if this is done well and takes traction, it could even be a source of income for the best players.


Jan Ohlin    (2017-01-18 09:34:24)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

Reward a game win in one or more way so people risk more in the opening. DO NOT change the way how to play chess.


Jan Ohlin    (2017-01-18 20:28:39)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

Is there a need to distinguish between black and white? When you win a game in CC it depends first and foremost on blunders, weak play or finally you playing a position where the computer takes long time to come up with something sensible, for example in closed variation in spanish (C97, 12. d5) and therefore best player will win. Ok, winning as black requires a lot of energy for study theory, but ...?


Jan Ohlin    (2017-01-19 05:12:15)
Defeating Draw Death

And people will play even more safely as white...


Pablo Schmid    (2017-01-19 13:16:24)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

Maybe a thematic match with some risky opening in the same match for elite players?


Ilmars Cirulis    (2017-01-19 16:32:34)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

It would be fun, if the "draw death" would transform into "decisive advantage death". :P

1-0 and 1-0 when two players play from both sides in the same variation wouldn't be different from 1/2-1/2 and 1/2-1/2.


George Jempty    (2017-01-19 20:19:53)
Defeating Draw Death

I don't understand the reasoning. If White is only going to score 0.4 for a draw, it behooves him to play more riskily for the win and a full point.


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-01-19 21:33:23)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

Hmm... I didn't think about a FULL THEMATIC CHAMPIONSHIP before, that's an interesting idea from Pablo IMO (that would invite us to play -still classical chess- romantic style chess).

And last but not least, it would be possible here (while solutions with fractions of points are much more complicated to code & organize).


Pablo Schmid    (2017-01-19 22:22:11)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

Not necessarily, as I said the thematic would be the final test to test that the best corr player is the most complete one, but the qualification would still be by free chess where you need to be at least 2300 level in this site.


Pablo Schmid    (2017-01-19 22:32:57)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

How to choose the opening, maybe random in a pre select list, or the whole small selected list, or the choice of the players like 4 choices each. For example I could ask 'I want this subline of the king's gambit" and I should not ask a too risky one because the idea is to try to win the Black(or even White) side while surviving when the color is reversed.


Jan Ohlin    (2017-01-20 09:55:19)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

Obviously, every game need to be rated. It must also be possible to keep a high rating even if you play matches against the World Champ Mr. Stockfish disguised with a lowrated aliases. Playing many games should be rewarded, not punished.


Pablo Schmid    (2017-01-20 18:05:27)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

Why would a thematic disfavour Black? That's not logical, it just depends of the thematic! If we take the King's gambit accepred as example, Black is not worse and may be the opposite! Even if you lose as Black because of the thematuc, you have chance to win the game where you have White against it... At least the idea would be interesting to play very interesting lines and games that fear does not allow in normal time and to contribue to chess theory in wild opening.


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


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-01-20 22:22:36)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

Herbert is probably right...

But well, as we'll have a CUP championship soon, all games could be played on King's gambit for example (or another thematic - see the other thread)


Roger Llull    (2017-01-21 06:23:47)
Thematic with lowest chances of draw

This Russian line:
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nxe4 4.Nc3 Nxc3 5.dxc3 f6 6.Nh4 g6 7.f4 Qe7 8.f5 c6
It's incredibly sharp. I'd tell my experience with it, and what makes it so unique, but I don't wanna give hints on how to play it, in case it's selected. Suffice it to say that engines do get it wrong.


Jan Ohlin    (2017-01-21 06:57:44)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

This is a rescue operation to save the players of CC from becoming bored. Sweep away your funeral feeling, still we can have a lot of fun.


Garvin Gray    (2017-01-22 10:00:16)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Absolutely bloody not. There has already been a long discussion and a lot of work put into getting a somewhat agreed format.

Thibault, this is exactly what I expected you to do with this ficgs world cup, try and renege on the agreement at the last minute and attempt to change the format.

And with this concept of some kind of thematic championship, no one is going to agree on which opening to play.

We have an agreed format for the ficgs world cup and all you have to do is open the entry list for it, which starts February 1st for play beginning March 1st.

You renege from this and I will almost certainly walk from this site.


Roger Llull    (2017-01-22 12:55:21)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I'd prefer to have something different created from the ground up with mainly top players in mind, where the draw problem really is. But top players' time is precious, that's why I proposed bigger prices sponsored by people who are interested in specific openings.

This cup seems especially favorable for intermediate players, and the chance to score a few draws against higher rated ones may actually be a good thing that would be lost with complicated openings.


Jan Ohlin    (2017-01-22 15:07:19)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

FICGS WM will be matches where half of the games is different thematic, every player choice two, and the Cup will be really many games with short time, awoiding draws that way? Is this the discussion!?


Herbert Kruse    (2017-01-22 19:57:43)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess

my last idea:

lets play many more games against each opp and there cannot be the same position from move 3 on


Stanislas Gounant    (2022-11-23 20:17:39)
I did not win a game since 3 years

The problem with the starting positions in FICGS thematic tournaments, one of the player can open the position and it will be draw. Some years ago, someone show me a youtube video about a game played on TCEC between leela chess zero and Stockfish.
https://tcec-chess.com/#div=sf&game=61&season=15
The engines start to play at move 7, white had more space and black can't open the position


Garvin Gray    (2017-01-23 17:12:46)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

If the WCH format changes, and becomes something like this, or incorporates elements of the current FICGS World Cup two stage format, then of course a different concept for the world cup 'could/should' be considered.

That being said, if the Ficgs WCH format changed to something similar to the current ficgs world cup, especially if it involved a final stage being a round robin of some number of players, then it would start to look like the format that is used at ICCF.


Garvin Gray    (2017-01-25 01:02:13)
Adjudications & 7 pieces tablebases

Thibault. On this forum, we have agreed that a player can claim for a position to be adjudicated as a win/draw when the 6 piece position is displayed on the board.

The reason for this is that the all 6 piece positions have been solved and can be freely confirmed by anyone, such as using shredderchess.com

ICCF has now moved quite a while ago to allowing 6 piece claims as well.

7 piece claims are still not allowed as all positions have not been solved, and the positions that have, are not freely available to the general public (from my understanding).


Garvin Gray    (2017-01-25 09:18:35)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I have read the formatted rules. The only difference between what is in this thread and what is in the entry conditions is how ties for first will be broken.

If you read back through this thread, I said:

Garvin- For the second stage (finals)= I know this might be a bit controversial, but I think the TER rule should be dropped and those who tie for first should progress. Since we have seven groups (this was based on this discussion at the time- Garvin insert 25/1/17), that should mean at the most eleven players in the final.

This will have the by-product in the round robin games of everyone knowing that if they can finish outright first, they knockout everyone from their group immediately.

--------------------

And we continued discussing the rules and it was agreed to remove the TER and other 'tie' rules have those who finish equal first all progress.

So that rule needs to be changed.

As quite a few of the entrants will not have seen this thread, or any of the other discussions, perhaps a slight explanation for round one of how this event is different to the FICGS world champs would be helpful to 'sell' the event.

As in. For the FICGS World Chess Cup, The Highest Rated Player will be seed 1 and placed in Group A, Second Highest Rated Player will be seed 2 and placed in Group B and so forth for seed 3, seed 4 etc till all players have been allocated to their respective groups.

All players start from the first round and there is no knockout stage.


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-01-25 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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-01-25 15:58:25)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Oh ok. As soon as it is different from WCH rules, we can try this... and it's even simpler. Let's hope that the "3 or 4 players tie with the same score in a group" case will not happen too often though, otherwise we may have a final stage with two dozens of players :) Possibles look like huge and cycles may not look like each other.

The cup rules page is updated.


Garvin Gray    (2017-01-26 02:30:15)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Before I first proposed abolishing the first place tie break rules, I went through a lot of the stage 1 WCH groups and checked how many ties there had been for first, and especially looked for multiple ties.

There were very few indeed.

The odds of three or four players finishing on the same score, when the group size is likely to be 9 or 11 players and the ratings of the players will be from 2300 to 1200 is extremely low.

Hence why I proposed the removal of the rule in the first place.

The rules are accurate now.

As to when to open the waiting list- I have also commented in this thread that having the waiting list open for too long will increase the number of forfeits when play begins.


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-03-01 20:48:56)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

96 players... luckily, 12 groups of 8, that's the first time we create groups with an even number of players.


Alvin Alcala    (2017-04-02 14:23:20)
Ultimate Challenge Tour 2017, USD 20k

If you finish the tour fair and square then your eligible to get $100 as fair play prize.


Peter W. Anderson    (2017-04-19 08:46:20)
Thematic with lowest chances of draw

One possibility would be to take a selection of openings from the last TCEC final. These were deliberately unbalanced to reduce the drawing chances. They were a superb set of openings. To make it fair people would have to play both sides of an opening.

I could also provide you with some hard to hold positions from the modern defence (I won't be playing, so there will no unfair advantage).

Re the previous suggestions:
- benoni with early Bf4 is a good choice
- czech benoni is definitely overscored by engines but will be a tough hold nonethless; I would watch these games with interest
- Hennig Schara is great fun and I have never lost with it on FICGS, but it really is awful if white plays the best line (but I am not going to say what that is!).
- KID would depend on which line was chosen; some lines have been analysed almost to death, others have plenty of scope left.

One other possibility - a Breyer Lopez. Quite a tough hold IMO and therefore a good choice if everyone plays both sides.


Peter W. Anderson    (2017-04-19 13:42:06)
WCh and other ramblings

Congratulations to Eros for retaining his FICGS world title again. A casual glance at our 36 games might give the impression that I did not put him under much pressure apart from in game 95512. Actually it is more a case of him making it look easy. He generally plays extremely accurately in the opening and avoids deeply hidden pitfalls in the middle game – I always get the feeling that I am playing someone who understands the game well rather than someone purely reliant on engines.

I have decided to give up playing normal correspondence chess. Engines have simply become too strong and the amount of human input into my games has decreased over time. Human input remains (games 95516, 95512, 93727/87343 being good examples), but there is far too much hard work with engines these days for my liking. I am sure a GM would add a lot more value but I am a mere mortal! I will probably play some big chess instead. I tried this a couple of times and really enjoyed it. I just hope nobody writes an engine for it.

With regards to the format of the world championship, we need to recognise that with engines getting stronger the draw odds is a bigger and bigger advantage for the champion. Despite that I personally think the current format is fine. I generated a significant advantage in 2 games – in addition to game 95512, I believe game 87337 offered real chances if I had not forgotten to play 25.Nb4 as intended (I could barely look at a chess board for a month after screwing that game up, but that is another story). If people keep trying they may eventually beat Eros. The bigger issue to my mind is Eros’s own statement of boredom with defending the championship. So time for a change when the current cycles are finished?


Peter W. Anderson    (2017-04-19 16:03:14)
WCh and other ramblings

To my mind big hardware only helps a little bit at FICGS speeds. Yes if you space bar everything then it might make a lot of difference but if you are prepared to work hard analysing variations properly then I think much less so - working hard is far more important than having a big computer.

For me it is more a question of how often whilst analysing those variations I can see a mis-evaluation or come up with an idea that the engines miss. It still happens but less often now than 5 years ago.

But I take your point about poker. And at faster chess speeds big comps are essential. The ideal configuration for the Infinity chess tour? - a strong human player who is experienced at advanced chess and 6 (or more) big comps running :)


Daniel Parmet    (2017-07-01 07:48:12)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I know this thread is old but I feel Garvin made an amazing point that got lost:

"It was to give players who were in the 2100 to 2200 and below more opportunities against players rated 2300 and above, whilst still also giving the top players something to play for ie the tournament win."

I haven't played actively since 2010 for exactly this reason. I did play over 470 games though but found that I was permanently locked into this rating band despite being far beyond the skill level of this rating band solely because I was never allowed to play stronger players. So I moved on to ICCF where I easily was able to compete against 2370+ players all the time.


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-07-01 22:35:35)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Well, one fact is that we do not have players rated over 2300+ enough anymore... I don't know how important is this "band" effect as I know players who went through but I guess it would be worth to make statistics.


Garvin Gray    (2017-07-02 04:33:16)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I have wondered for a long while whether:

1) The 2300 rated players or higher who started on this site, were not really 2300 in comparison to quite a few 2200 or so players
2) That deflation in the rating system at the top end has occurred in the system over time


Sergey Zemlyanov    (2017-07-03 22:02:59)
My new match with GM Eros Riccio

Hi all! I just transfer 100 euros to the site in hope to play with GM Eros Riccio in Standart Tournament with 100 e-points as entry fee. I know him as one of the strongest corrchess players of the world, but I'll try to survive in two games. And I'm not going to purposely shut out the game.


Daniel Parmet    (2017-07-05 03:43:11)
Ratings

To start with you have 1852 rated IMs that are 2352 on ICCF. The ratings here often don't make any sense at all. And for me, 2135 drawing such a player is a huge hit to my rating here while on ICCF I may lose a fraction of a rating point for such a draw.


Daniel Parmet    (2017-07-05 21:00:10)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

It doesn't help that there are so many massively underrated players. I haven't played here in 4 years. My rating here is 2135 while I am 2379 on ICCF.

I will imminently draw an 1852 rated player here which seems like a big upset and my rating will take a big hit. But on ICCF this IM player is 2352. I would lose about 1 rating point. So here I out rate him by 283 points while on ICCF I outrate him by 27 points.


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-07-08 19:02:00)
My new match with GM Eros Riccio

One draw already... That's really fast! I couldn't play this way :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-07-08 19:26:50)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Rules asked by players do not converge all the time, that's the least to say. Many prefer that games lost on time be punished by massive losses of elo points to prevent games lost on time, while many prefer that ratings stay coherent, whatever the losses (mainly on time)... And of course, games played at FICGS are not as important as games played at ICCF for most strong players. Conclusion is easy. But maybe there should be a change in the rating calculation to create some inflation... This could be worth a discussion.


Daniel Parmet    (2017-07-10 00:28:19)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Well, I think there needs to be something less in the sense of rating inflation but perhaps floors added for players with high ratings for ICCF. There is no way you can tell me an IM 2350+ player should be allowed to have a sub 2100 rating here. In general, I am not a fan of the concept of flooring... but in this case there are many such underrated players that bring down the entire rating average here.


Garvin Gray    (2017-07-13 17:09:00)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

A better question to ask is: How did that player get that rating so low?


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-08-06 17:36:46)
When chess is just beauty

I just lost my chess master.

François Melison was a great friend to me, and a very special chess player as all who played him over the board know.

Actually he was the only one I never saw playing to win, even during a rated tournament (his performances were always 200 or 300 points below his level, often losing on time in winning positions - even when having the time to win, even against fide masters).

It seems to me that his deep motivation was to understand, to touch the beauty and nature of the game... that changed my vision of chess but not only, most probably, even if I was never close to approach his talent and vision of the board. He played correspondence chess when real mail was used, when it was a very special thing compared to this strange time dominated by computers. He was able to play blindfold of course, and some simultaneous games are great memories for a few of his chess friends.

He just played for the beauty of chess, or maybe he played for the beauty only.

He was 54 only. I'll miss him.

Condolences from all his friends at ESIGETEL go to his family.


Herbert Kruse    (2017-09-01 20:14:42)
Kasparovs comeback in chess

i didnt see any good theoretical choices from him, in my opinion he is far away from the state of the art theory

but he is a good fighter, if he can be more concentrated or physical strengh were better he could win, because the positions were chaotic and he is a still very good tactical player :)


Herbert Kruse    (2017-09-07 11:47:10)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

the problem is, that computer helps any player and so its slowly doing down

so in consequence not playing holds your rating high

but there should be a strong motivation for playing


Garvin Gray    (2017-09-24 15:45:27)
WCh and other ramblings

I think it will be a case of Eros will keep defending the title until he is defeated.

This is not an uncommon situation in a lot of sports where a champion has a long unbeaten streak. Whilst they have some desire to move on to other things, voluntarily ending a many year streak by non participation can feel like all those years wasted.

Therefore, quite often what happens is that the next champion either supersedes the reigning champion because the new champion because they advanced the playing standard, or because the current champion rested on their laurels whilst the competition advanced.


Garvin Gray    (2017-10-01 06:36:44)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Quick observation from beginning of final round. Players are not stuffing around and taking forever with their opening moves.

Knowing they have 16 games to play and a time control of 30 days plus 1 day per move, players seem to be getting through the opening phase quickly, to get as much extra time on their clock in all their games as possible.


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-10-01 13:40:40)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Herbert: Yes it was, now it should be less the case (about ratings). Let's see in a few months.

Garvin: About CUP final, yes looks like reasonable to play the opening as fast as possible (just like in WCH)... 16 games is really tough to manage in the middle game, that's why I was more favourable to a longer time control for this cycle, but obviously many players are faster than me :)


Sergey Zemlyanov    (2017-10-09 00:29:29)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

Dear admin! I just played the second pair of games with GM Riccio, Eros.
All the 4 games ended with a draw result. So, my entry fee was 100 euros for this match. That’s a great money for me!
When I bought e-points for euro I didn’t know about how can I refund my money in future.
I have read the forum thread by Nick Burrows, so I have a question to you:
Could you refund my money to my credit card (by Paypal, for example)?
Or are there any troubles with this?


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-10-09 02:21:20)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

Hello Sergey,

First of all, my congratulations for this score in such a tough match. I understand your concern, but FICGS cannot be a bank and/or a casino, there's no refund or "epoint conversion/cashout"... FICGS organizes chess games with entry fee & money prizes, but players have to win a tournament/match to justify and get a money prize.

My suggestion is to find an advanced chess opponent so that the games do not last days/weeks/months. Surely a few ones would play you!


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-10-09 21:29:57)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

Well, I understand and I'm very sorry about that... if it can avoid such problems, be sure that I'll copy this part of the terms in the page "My account" where it is specified:

"Before to buy any ticket for tournaments with entry fee and money prizes, please read the terms and conditions, and more particularly entry fees, money prizes and money transfer sections."

And as you may guess, FICGS is much much more a pleasure to run for me than a money thing... Actually, the money prize part represent about nothing here and has always been a problem more than a solution at the end.

Your proposal is very generous anyway, otherwise many Epoints are free prizes so it may help to add ones, but you may also play other nice games and why not get this money prize at the end.


Sergey Zemlyanov    (2017-10-09 21:55:57)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

Hi, Thibault
A few words about the match with Riccio Eros. It seemed to me that Eros played too reliably, with a reserve of durability! However, now top-ranking OTB chess grandmasters, like Karjakin or Caruana, often play reliably too. The drawish tendencies are now visible in correspondence chess, unfortunately. To win Eros was very difficult, because of his debut choice and a power of the game, of course. Top grandmasters ICCF usually lose when they risk playing, for example, the Old Indian defense for Black.
Okay, then I donate e-points to the site and the question will be closed.
Sorry for my bad English. I do not have enough communication with foreigners.


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-10-09 22:14:10)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *

Well, if Eros did not take so many risks, he probably found good reasons to do this :) After all, your real playing level was and is obviously still over 2400.


Wilhelm Schuett    (2021-04-02 14:23:39)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?

But i see no chance for white


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-11-25 21:05:20)
The older rating lists

At last, all correspondence chess rating lists (from the server start, march 2006) are available by clicking "Rating lists" and following "The older rating lists"... 1 year of ratings by page.

As it was asked by a few players for a long time, only players who were REALLY active (who finished at least one game at most 1 year before or 1 year after the period) are listed in.

Many informations and good memories :) The worst part is that I can see clearly the reality: About 50% players left in about 4 or 5 years. The peak was about 900 players, there are now only 261 active correspondence chess players. Time to find new ideas, definitely.


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-12-07 16:44:05)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

It looks like there's no more month without news from Google Deepmind... This time again, this is quite stunning!

AlphaZero would have been able to beat (crush) the most recent version of Stockfish, that is also the world champion program and of course the free engine well known by correspondence chess players.

But most important is that actually AlphaZero would have outperformed Stockfish after only 4 hours of training (if I understood well), while it took 8 hours to outperform AlphaGo Lee and only 120 minutes to outperform Elmo at Shogi! However it seems much much harder for the neural program to improve at chess after this stunningly fast auto-learning.

100 games played (25 wins & 25 draws with white! 3 wins with black... no loss, either with white or black, which is an incredible performance)

All details available (must read) here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01815.pdf

http://www.sciencealert.com/it-took-4-hours-google-s-ai-world-s-best-chess-player-deepmind-alphazero

A few games played by AlphaZero against Stockfish are included in the arxiv article.




Ilmars Cirulis    (2017-12-08 10:00:57)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

No, just do some collective, distributed training of the neural network (multiple machines doing self-play, one doing update sof the network), with public weights of the resulting neural network and open-source "Stockfish-Zero" for running it.

The Leela author is doing something similar with Leela-Zero project, for example.


Arturas Drozdovas    (2017-12-08 21:16:36)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

Just look how alphazero plays, strategic moves that lead to a win. Its impossible for houdini, komodo or stockfish to find these moves with any of the hardware.


Arturas Drozdovas    (2017-12-08 21:19:34)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

Probably not a single correspondence player would find a win as black in a game posted above :)


Ilmars Cirulis    (2017-12-08 21:23:22)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

There will be some more matches, I hope. I expect that at least some criticism about settings and machine of chess engine will be heard.

Also more serious paper about AlphaZero (chess/shogi/go) will be publised.

And then Deepmind are going to leave chess in the past, in the same way as it did with go. At the best, it will be used for testing some of next research ideas, and we will get few more games to look at.

And then it will make a superhuman Starcraft player, then maybe some AI that can do math research like the humans do (I would like to live so far :D), then maybe computer will learn languages properly... :)

Chess is just random checkpoint for Deepmind. We will have to make our own AlphaZero to play with, anyway. :)


Garvin Gray    (2017-12-09 09:09:47)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

Just to be clear, or a clarification for those who need it. I never stated that anyone from AlphaZero cheated, or did anything of the kind.

All I stated was that because Stockfish is an open source program, they had the opportunity to study how the program works and tune AlphaZero to take advantage of that.

Any opponent should take advantage of any small advantage they can gain.

I also made clear mention of the processing speed differences. This presented AlphaZero a clear advantage. The issue of same hardware being used is not a new topic. It is brought up in almost every tournament when chess engine tournaments are being played. That for a fair and level competition, the engines need to compete on similar strong hardware.

Reading some of the other replies and thinking further about my first post, I wonder how AlphaZero would go if a four engine event was held, with one game per day between Houdini, Komodo, Stockfish and AlphaZero with equal hardware being used?

Little opportunity then to tune AlphaZero to one specific engine and it would be more a test of the overall strength of the engine in long time control play.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2017-12-10 00:51:56)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

For 6000$ one can buy necessary hardware for running AlphaZero. :)
(In reddit comments there were recomendation of Titan-V: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/titan/titan-v/
Buy two and you supposedly have about the same big machine as AlphaZero used for playing match games.)

If I had the money, I would buy. Probably wouldn't use for chess, anyway, but that's option for true chess lovers (who already have fully trained AlphaZero somehow :D).


Garvin Gray    (2017-12-14 11:47:49)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

Even more I read about this result, the more I am inclined to put this result in the 'nice story' but the devil is in the detail.

The time control was 1 minute per move, no tablebases and limited hardware for Stockfish.

This is a major limiting factor for any of the major programs and not how they are designed to work.

Also reading the chessbase article, as I suspected, AlphaZero was able to play many, many games against the Stockfish program, but Stockfish had no such opportunity against AlphaZero.

And so with each game, AlphaZero and the programmers had the opportunity to learn about Stockfish's strengths and weaknesses. Stockfish had no such opportunity.

The only way to see if AlphaZero and its MonteCarlo system is any good is for it to enter the next Computer World Championship and play under equal equipment against all the best chess programs.

Same time control, same processing power , opening books tailored for each engine and tablebases available for each engine.

That is the only way to find out how good the next version of AlphaZero really is.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2017-12-14 12:09:18)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

Conspiracy theories and not understanding of Deepmind motivation.

They tested if the concept works. It was success. They are satisfied and start working on other interesting/useful stuff, as they mostly don't care about chess.

The only training of AlphaZero happened when it played against itself. Stockfish was just an opponent to play against - to check how strong has AlphaZero became.

AlphaZero too had no opening book or endgame tablebases, so that's not relevant. Etc. etc., basically too much conspiracy theories and too much caring about which is the most strongest engine (at least in comparison to Deepmind, as they are totally chill about it, imho :D). :)


Ilmars Cirulis    (2017-12-14 12:12:53)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

Sure, give each engine both CPUs and GPUs. :D

Also, look at suffering of Baduk/Go community and try to evaluate - what's the probability that Deepmind will release the trained Neural Network of chess playing AlphaZero. :) It's about zero.

They don't care about TCEC, they are in machine learning business, not chess business.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2017-12-14 12:20:51)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish

The best we can hope is:
1) release of other 90 games against Stockfish
2) some self-play games of AlphaZero, when it's fully trained
3) *maybe* some additional games against more powerful Stockfish or some other engine

The best thing in all cases all - possibility to see more AlphaZero games. More very interesting, strategic games.
I can run Stockfish on my computer and only wait 20-50 times longer to get highest quality games of it (sorry, slow computer :D), but I can't do that with AlphaZero, until chess community hasn't made their own version.


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-12-16 02:15:04)
DeepZen reached 9 dan (Go)

Everyone is talking about AlphaGo / AlphaZero but I just realized that another Go program reached 9 dan in 2017 : Zen or Deep Zen

It won a computer tournament and beat number 1 japanese player Iyama Yuta 9d, that seems quite significant.

http://senseis.xmp.net/?ZenGoProgram

A way to compare the success of the program by Google Deepmind.


Garvin Gray    (2017-12-22 10:06:03)
Monte Carlo Analysis

Time to start a thread on this topic, since it has gained some 'fame' with AlphaZero's win.

I have been looking at it and experimenting with it using Fritz 16 gui, but so far it seems to be only using Fritz 16 as the main engine, even though I am choosing four engines.

I have tried different depth (keeping them odd as recommended) and also both middle and broad search options.

So I am a bit lost as to the value of Monte Carlo Analysis for correspondence play. Is someone able to assist on whether it will show analysis or games from other engines, or how the breakdown works?


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-12-22 23:28:18)
Monte Carlo Analysis

Oh wow, it looks like I have no more idea of what Fritz Gui looks like nowadays... Is there a "Monte Carlo" engine or is it a Fritz option? Or is it the old option allowing engines to play each other in tournaments on various openings & positions?

Actually, I don't see the interest of a 'pure' Monte Carlo method in chess as it just looks like a non-optimized search. But it seems to me that it's a long time that engines use algorithms that look like it when it may be useful (particularly in calm positions & endgames). So, it's just a "plus" if you have some processing time to do it (like AlphaZero, having a much more powerful hardware), otherwise...

Right now, I must say I still have no accurate idea of how AlphaZero plays chess.


Garvin Gray    (2017-12-23 00:53:39)
Monte Carlo Analysis

In the Fritz 16 gui, you choose Monte Carlo Analysis from the header options, just like you would if you were choosing infinite analysis or deep position analysis and the many other types of game styles.

Your main engine must be Fritz 16, which seems to be a pain. This is one of my questions about this analysis style. Will explain more below.

Then after choosing Monte Carlo Analysis, Fritz gui will change over to MCA and a new screen will appear with options:

Search depth: default is 5. The first is the search depth, with a default of "5". This controls how far ahead (in half-moves, or "plies") the engine will look before making a move. For example, if you leave this at "5", the engine will look 2.5 moves ahead before making a move. Remember, the engine is going to be playing a lot of games against itself and storing the moves in the form of a tree, so the search depth is important. You must realize, however, that there's something of a tradeoff here; the higher you set the search depth, the more time the engine will need to make each move -- so you're trading time for depth. On the other hand, setting a lower search depth means that many more games will be played in a given amount of time, but that the moves themselves are likely to be more superficial.



Keep in mind, too, that you should use only odd numbers for the search depth, because chess engines tend to develop a tactical "blind spot" when made to analyze at even ply depths. Rule of thumb: odd numbers good, even numbers bad.

The second setting is the "width" of the tree. This is similar in some ways to the "Branching factor" in Deep Position Analysis and is another "space for time" tradeoff. If you create a "Narrow" tree, you won't see many alternative moves displayed in your game tree but the overall process of playing games and generating the tree will be faster. "Broad" trees show more alternatives but take longer to generate (it requires more processor time and thus slows down the chess engine).

-------------------------------------

So in all from my reading- what I can seem to deduce is- MCA plays many games against itself starting from the set position. The longer you leave the analysis, the more 'reliable' the results.

The question, or issue I am having at the moment for testing is, in the Fritz gui, I am having to use Fritz 16 as the main engine but am not seeing the analysis change to any other engines, so am wondering how long before it does, or will it only analysis the position in Fritz 16?

Considering at the start when you were loading your setting, you were given the option of four engines, this seems confusing to me.

So I thought I would ask if someone else had more experience with MCA and how it works?

Also, what about Deep position analysis? We could start a thread about that one too.


Thibault de Vassal    (2017-12-29 23:07:05)
FICGS Android APP beta version

Finally... finally, FICGS Android applications are here:

http://www.ficgs.com/chess-online_gbr.html

Basically, the 4 versions are quite the same: only the name & icon change.

I tested it in many ways and it looks like it works fine and display seems ok, so feel free to try it, any feedback would be much appreciated!

I will publish it in APP stores soon, let's hope it will help to attract many new players (most probably Go players & chess players without engines IMO) and bring back a few ones :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-01 22:22:35)
FICGS Android APP beta version

I still have to find a way to do it properly, but I started to look at it ;)

By the way, many thanks to the few players who tried it already!


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-06 20:48:58)
FICGS Android APP beta version

All FICGS apps are now in the Google Play Store... if you have an Android phone, just click Play Store, then search FICGS and install the app with your favourite icon, you're done.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-09 00:10:13)
FICGS Android APP beta version

The apps are now a bit different from each other:

- The Go app allows to easily replay the best games played at FICGS when there's no game to play (or when logged as guest)

- The other apps allow to play against a chess program (not too bad) when there's no game to play (or when logged as guest)

Hope it brings some more fun... To be continued.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-10 22:29:48)
1st King Supertournament

Dear chessfriends, FICGS Android apps are now bringing a really different playing experience!

All 4 apps are now dedicated to either chess, Go or Poker Holdem (or all games) with specific features that make it easier and compliant with laws in more countries, that's why it is now useful to install them all and use it according to your taste at the moment.

Of course, it is more dedicated to "chess for fun", that's why it's a good time to start the very 1st FICGS chess King Supertournament:

- No engines or databases allowed
- Unrated thematic tournament: King's gambit
- Marathon tournament : unlimited number of players / games
- Flash deadline: The tournament will start on January 17th, 2018

Will you dare to enter this much fun and challenging waiting list? :)


Finally, these apps are very good news for FICGS as new players are coming again... It was really time, particularly after the last server crash! Now I'll make my possible to make FICGS great again, or even greater :)


Christoph Schroeder    (2018-01-11 00:29:15)
1st King Supertournament

A King's gambit thematic would be great, but as a no engine version? No.

It is fun to search for truth in ancient openings like the King's Gambit, but that obviously requires the use of books, databases and engines.

Moreover, experience on other servers shows that in the so-called "no-engine tournaments" the majority of the players use engines, anyway.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-11 03:13:36)
1st King Supertournament

Hi Christoph,

I agree that engines may be there anyway (I added a permanent warning in the "move_express" page), and also that King's Gambit needs to be analyzed again and again :)

There are several reasons for this choice for this particular tournament...

1. The tournament's format: The number of games may be huge and practically impossible to manage with databases & engines analysis. At least, it could be dissuasive! By the way, there are regularly King's gambit thematic in the Special Chess Tournaments category.

2. The "applications friendly" idea: Unlike most other tournaments, this one will be particulary playable just for fun from anywhere with a phone.

And before everything, this is just an experiment...

Let's try something new :)


Zack Stephen    (2018-01-13 12:34:41)
1st King Supertournament

I tend to agree with christoph. The reason to play on this site is because the use of engines is allowed.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-13 18:31:04)
1st King Supertournament

And I agree with that too... but obviously, FICGS also needs to open itself more to no-engines players, hopefully to attract more centaur players (complex equation, Google related). Anyway, that's just one tournament category, things will not change for the WCH that will start in March.


Garvin Gray    (2018-01-14 02:43:50)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Projections for the winning score are now being made. I thought I would bring these discussions to the thread.

Be careful about not actually discussing the games as so not to influence those games.

It seems like 9.5 or 10 out of 16 will be the winning score.

For any player to get a FEM norm, they had to score 12/16.

Now looking at this field and how the scores have panned out, does 75% seems rather unrealistic?

9.5/16 has already been recorded by Ortiz, so use a golfing analogy. Ortiz is in the clubhouse with 9.5 and everyone else is still on course playing out their last holes.

Anything less than 9.5 is no good.

Quite a few players still have so many games still going that making predictions is a rather forlorn exercise at this stage.


Clodomiro Ortiz    (2018-01-14 03:08:02)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

My observations are just based on a rapid view of the remaining games..i agree that a few players still have to many pending games to make an accurate prediction,so the last word has not been said yet...


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-16 16:43:40)
Conditional chess moves (again)

Hi all,

Before everything, let's make it clear: Absolute priority (for years actually, but particularly since the launch of the Android apps) right now is to increase the popularity of the server, that slowly went down for more than 5 years. Now it's going better for the first time since, but I'm still working on and have much to do there.

Well, let's say this would be the right thing to do after all (which is another debate, with questions like what if a player does not want his opponent to use this option that by the way he cannot or does not want to use himself because it goes too fast and/or gains time on clock - case that I saw at another server).

Don't misunderstand me: I already used conditional moves at other servers and I liked it too, but I did not find it essential. Also, we all know that all opinions are in nature. And as a reminder, one goal of this server was to offer the simpliest & lightest (HTML or HTML & few javascript) interface.

Kim, one question to think about the work to do in your step 1:

How do you imagine the communication between a Javascript interface & php server? Well, I know how to implement Ajax (which I chose not to use at FICGS), this is not the point here. But it is not enough that moves are verified by javascript - that is a big work if you do it from zero - , it must be validated by the server itself, then confirmed or not to the player, meaning casually one more step. Means more php jobs from the server (which is not a big deal) so new codes that would be compatible between that Javascript UI (that must fit to site's design) & FICGS (that is not obvious if you know the small possible differences in terms of PGN format), a new field in database, the way to handle it after few conditional moves & so on.

Once more, it is feasible, of course. But there are obvious difficulties: it is not possible to add such code without being completely in FICGS codes, that are not object-oriented.

Anyway, if the number of active players grows again, I'm quite sure we'll have a good occasion to discuss it (with some more pressure ^^).


Kym Farnik    (2018-01-17 00:34:08)
Conditional chess moves (again)

Hi
First thanks for making your position clear.

Yes, JS talking Ajax to a PHP handler.
I have implemented this type of thing in the past.

Even if the main FICGS code is totally procedural, it is not uncommon to build a new feature using an OO module, and in time either run old and new code in parallel. Or... migrate all the code to a new OO framework over time.

The play move and add conditionals interface would need to be made JS and redesigned. The back end would I expect have a game/move/conditional validator function.
There are plenty of JS chess interfaces that could be used as design input.

I recognize this is a major project for a one man team. I'd say 4-6 weeks of full time effort, possibly longer if we have to design a OO framework for the back end. Hence my offer to help as I'm semi-retired and have time.

A good isolated dev and test environment is mandatory. This is not just a simple site hack.

I hope this helps!


Garvin Gray    (2018-01-17 03:45:40)
Conditional chess moves (again)

Problems to identify and solutions:

As a starting point for the games:

Conditional moves would be restricted to the classical chess style. We have to start somewhere and this is the tried and tested format and most well known. So there are already sites out there using conditional moves in classical chess.

As for draw offers. If a player wants to offer a draw, the linear conditional move line stops at that move. They have to input their move and the draw offer by ticking the box.

Then the move passes to player B with the draw offer and they have to accept or decline the draw offer and play their move.

And then play resumes as normal with linear conditional moves.

This is how linear conditional moves worked when I ran the WBCCC events.

I am not sure what you mean by messages?


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-17 04:41:22)
Conditional chess moves (again)

Yes, of course, way to go... I only mean: to keep coherence may be not easy and it adds some work at the end.

By messages I mean that it can be frustrating to play several moves without seeing any reply.


Garvin Gray    (2018-01-17 12:57:54)
Conditional chess moves (again)

Kym: Point 2- regarding whether to allow more than one line of conditional moves.

I think it is important to introduce a concept now called project scope. What this means is setting the outer limits of the project and also what are the main aims, or purpose of the project.

Anything that is outside of these aims, is outside of the project scope and is rejected.

As was stated by yourself in the first post:

I've used a site in the past with conditional moves. VERY handy!
Especially for forced moves or obvious moves.

For those against the idea - you don't have to use the feature :)

It would speed up games for those that want to use it.

And then Herbert Kruse said- I like that idea.

So that gives a very good idea of what the project scope is, or the reason for allowing conditional moves- to allow players to make forced moves or obvious moves through conditional moves.

An issue that already occurs in correspondence chess is players either resigning by mistake, move slips, or other mistakes.

Introducing conditional moves will increase the possibility of this occurring. This is why the number of conditional moves must be kept to a minimum, hence why I believe the requirement for linear conditional moves.

This also makes it much easier to deal with draw offers.


Herbert Kruse    (2018-01-18 16:41:35)
Spice up chess? More members

players who lose on time wouldnt play faster tournaments
my main theme in ficgs is waiting - more for poker, but for chess games too


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-18 18:07:57)
Spice up chess? More members

Anyway, if the apps finally attract new players enough, then I'll be glad to open new tournaments categories... This would be the solution to many things.


Garvin Gray    (2018-01-22 01:06:01)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments

The penalties have to be similar to players who are caught using engines at otb tournaments.

Loss of all games in the tournament ie they are kicked out of the tournament and then further sanctions are applied.

But working out how the person used engine assistance is the key question?

Most would say, oh the player choose the top or second ranked engine move almost all of the time. But most decent players would do that anyways.

So that is not a good enough standard. And so that then needs a new test.

It is personally one of the reasons why I did not speak in favour of the event.


Garvin Gray    (2018-01-22 01:08:34)
Conditional chess moves (again)

The rules of the site already permit players to claim 6 man tablebase positions, when they appear on the board, as either a win or draw, even if the position is above 50 moves.

That rule is standard across all webserver sites.

Also, even though a position might say mate in 75 and the claim is granted, this does not mean it is outside of the 50 move rule as there maybe a capture or pawn move between the initial position and mate.


Herbert Kruse    (2018-01-22 09:12:32)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments

where is the point in playing with an engine in no engine tournaments, there is nothing to win


Kym Farnik    (2018-01-24 09:33:59)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments

Most of that Article above is taken from the writings of C (Cecil) J S Purdy, the first Correspondence Chess World Champion [1950-1953] (a fellow Australian).

His games http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=31309

More information...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Purdy


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-26 03:23:17)
FICGS Android APP beta version

Yes, of course that's just an option according to the way one want to play games. Nothing is required here :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-01-26 15:14:40)
3D board in login page

As you may have noticed, I've added a 3D board (just for fun) to replay the latest games in the login page. Any feedback welcome, either if you like it or if you prefer it to be replaced.

If your browser displays any error for the 2D replay in public games pages or in this 3D replay, thanks for specifying which one you use.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-02-13 20:07:32)
New FICGS app: beta test

After hundreds of bug fixes & improvements, it looks like a v1.0 now, compatible with most devices... Will be on the Play Store soon.

Any feedback welcome :)


Garvin Gray    (2018-02-22 11:22:43)
Norm qualification criteria, incorrect?

In looking at the current group/event that I am playing in, which is Rapid SM 15, according to the current way FICGS sets the scores for norms, to get a FIM norm for that event, FEM is at 4 and FIM as at 4.5 for all players.

It has occurred to me that this is different to how fide works out norm opportunities in round robin and swiss events.

In those events, each players average rating of their opponents is worked out and then that is plugged into the system and then that expected score is used to work out what score they need to get a FEM or FIM norm or higher.

To explain further as that might be unclear.

In the group I am talking about, PoulErik Jorgensen has an equal chance of getting an FEM or FIM norm than someone who is rated lower than him, even though that other player is playing a field who is stronger.

So using the FIDE way and the percentages for FEM and FIM norm, I play and average rating field of 2337.8, round up to 2338. This means that in a category 4 event, I need to score 56 percent, or 3.5 for an FEM and 67 percent or 4 points, not 4.5 for a FIM norm.

Now also doing some further calculating, Alex Wosch is able to score a FSM norm as his average rating of opponents is 2,329 and would then need to score 4.5. Under the current arrangement, he is deprived of this opportunity.

Therefore, I could give a rundown of all players, but I am of the conclusion that the current method of calculating Norm qualifications is inadequate and needs to be refined.

My thoughts were triggered to this from the FICGS world cup when any player to reach a FEM norm needed to score 12/16, which was clearly an outlandish score given the field.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-02-25 22:44:25)
Norm qualification criteria, incorrect?

Hi Garvin! FIDE ? I'm not really surprised... As for ICCF, I don't know much the way it calculates norms but FICGS algorithm looks like the way IECG did it. Anyway I understand your point and that makes sense, of course. I guess that this rule was designed to be not too complex to display and understandable as well. I'm not sure yet about what to conclude on this, but anyway that's true, there is something to dig.


Garvin Gray    (2018-02-26 02:50:10)
Norm qualification criteria, incorrect?

ICCF is the FIDE way. As all events are round robin, each player is told the score they need to achieve to get a Norm before the event begins.

Almost any item can be easily understandable if kept simple, but does this mean it is the best system if it does not produce the most accurate results for player performances?

For Comparison with ICCF: Here you have the point total for all players to get a norm in norm tournaments.

At ICCF: In the Points table, they have columns which show what score each player needs to reach to get that particular norm.

So that information is included in the cross table.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-02-27 20:01:33)
Norm qualification criteria, incorrect?

Thank you very much for information! (I must have forgotten... It's about 20 years I didn't play in a FIDE tournament ^^)

I'll have to think about this but I'm not sure it would be easy to keep coherence here. In all cases, you're right, that's the best theorical way.


Garvin Gray    (2018-03-03 05:44:33)
World Championship Groups

I know this is not the first time this question has been asked, but thought this could be explained again as I am a bit confused.

I have looked at the layout for the stages of the World Championship Groups and the path that each group takes, but I am a bit confused about how being put into a stronger pool of players ie Group SM is an advantage.

It seems to be that the players in Group SM or M are still starting from stage 1.

So, the players who finish at the bottom of this group can be bundled out of the event, whereas someone who was in Group 1 starts at the same level and plays against players 2000 or so.

I am confused as to what advantage there is to being put into Group SM is?


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-03-03 20:37:38)
World Championship Groups

Maybe not an advantage according to the point of view, but certainly "different". An occasion to reach stage 3 directly or to to play stage 2 as seed 1 in any group (kind of stage 1 and a half if you like fractals :)). An occasion to play more interesting games (and more chances to gain elo points). It is quite complex to balance all differences IMO. Anyway, there is not much interest for 2200+ players to checkmate 1300-1700 players, particularly when playing without engines I guess.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-03-14 23:12:38)
A few questions to Nelson Bernal Varela

Nelson Bernal Varela is an early FICGS correspondence chess player, now rated 2277 but also rated 2359 at ICCF (Correspondence Chess Master - CCM).

Last but not least, and as all poker holdem players here probably noticed, he is also our ranked #1 for years, who just reached an outstanding poker rating of 2382, while number two is now rated "only" 2212. A good occasion to ask him a few questions, that he kindly accepted to answer.

-----------------------

- Hello Nelson! You are the 2nd most active player at FICGS for years now. Everyone here probably noticed your incredible results in poker tournaments. "Correspondence poker holdem" was probably a strange idea as it is very unusual and very different from "Internet poker". What's your opinion on this and on the presence of a card game (played without money) at FICGS?


NBV: There are more important things than money and one of those is HONOR; It is honorable to be a chess master, international master, grandmaster, world chess champion at ICCF and at FICGS and to be number one in the ranking. It is honorable to be a FICGS world champion at Go and to be first in the ranking, it is honorable to be poker world champion at FICGS poker and in my case, it is an honor to be number one at poker here at FICGS during the last years, understanding that our general level of play has improved remarkably. None of these activities produces money, but to achieve any of the mentioned titles, it is necessary to have extraordinary abilities.

When I was about 18 years old, I had the opportunity to meet a person with immense material wealth, we spent whole evenings playing chess and then I told him my perceptions about each movement of the game. He thanked me for my chess explanations and paid me with good money. That wealthy man in his turn told me about life and recommended that I should always be proud of the gifts I had, since he knew, with all the money he had and being able to hire the best grandmasters in the world, that it could hardly come at the level of chess master. That person told me that the intellect can be turned into money whenever you want.

Now, by playing poker without money at FICGS, I understood that it was my extraordinary and wonderful opportunity to study-learn-perfect and test my poker theories without costing me a single dollar. In FICGS there is no money, but thanks to the knowledge I gained playing poker in FICGS, today I can go after the money in online poker rooms and probably in OTB poker tournaments. I am studying the possibility of becoming a professional poker player.


- The understanding of your opponent's behaviour is usually quite important at Poker. Do you manage to establish some profiles while playing so many simultaneous hands & games? Did you build any method?


NBV: Today I am sure that the most important thing to raise, and keep raising my level in poker, has been to build a psychological profile of mine, to get to know Nelson Bernal Varela in depth and above all to understand me, accept me, love me and be work every day eliminating my technical errors, strategic, psychological that make me play badly. I am aware that in poker I can play perfectly and still lose, what I can not forgive me is playing badly, which is why I work hard correcting my wrong decisions.

Of course, there is a space in my brain where I have built a psychological profile of each contender, that profile I have been able to elaborate with all the information that is provided to me in each hand we play. The way each of us plays, gives reliable information about our personality.

About my method I can write the following: A few years ago, I created a table in excel, where I had all the games with each contender, I identified them with the FICGS numeration and each movement in each hand (preflop, flop, turn, river ) it I was writing and studying; I started to add technical-psychological variables that seemed important to me, resulting in 20 variables that I had to qualify in each movement. With the passage of time and my effort, I no longer needed the excel table and I did not use it again (it was exhausting and time consuming) because I was assimilating things faster and with greater depth. Today I can say that I evaluate these 20 variables in a natural way, as if I was breathing and that when I am at a poker table, online or real, after a few minutes I get the psychological profile of the table and each of my opponents. In the pocket of my shirt I keep a small paper with the list of variables, periodically reread it and I wonder if I should modify, remove or add something.


- You won 1007 poker games, and lost only 380, with a ratio usually going from 57% to 80% according to your best opponents. Undoubtly you know the mathematics hidden behind poker but that may not explain everything. How did you learn to play?


NBV: Mathematics is an ingredient in poker, in the same way that my psychological aspects and of my opponents (I recommend reading-studying about four times the book “The Poker mindset†of Ian Taylor and Matthew Hilger), it is vital to understand the Law of Large Numbers. Next I make a list of topics that I consider important to raise the level of poker; compete with EV+ cards, you have to know the small ball theory of Negreanu (but not apply it, hahaha) you have to always look at the texture of the board, you have to evaluate your reality and your future, also that of your opponents (act and power), the position to talk is important, the stack, the personality of the table, know who has the panic button on. All these and other variables must be evaluated in the few seconds they have to make a move and the only important thing is to make the right decision according to the circumstances. There is a good list of poker books to read... it is mandatory to have read about 15 poker books.


- As for me, I may be wrong but I can't imagine that you reached such a rating without special techniques & maybe by optimizing it in some ways... Of course, "rating management" is not a problem, and it is only one thing with a limited impact, but maybe you have some other secrets? What about this "+1" technique that I noticed in many of our games, if this is not a secret? :)


NBV: In these years I have used different techniques that I had to read, study, learn, repeat, modify, invent and sometimes eliminate. Poker is a sport that seems easy, with time one manages to understand that it has an amazing complexity, today I consider poker to be as complex as chess and I study them in a "similar" way. As an example, I have tried to create "openings in poker"; based only on probabilities I invented something that I called mirror theory and another "opening" that I called opposite outs. I am fascinated by mathematics and from the mathematical perspective they are perfect "theories-openings", but I have lost tournaments and a lot of money for applying such theories in mistaken emotional moments. In poker it is important to never lose sight of the Law of Large Numbers and be aware that this LAW likes to make fun of each one of us... I am working on giving an emotional nuance to my theories "mirror" and "opposite outs". There are moments when perfect mathematics becomes an unforgivable psychological error...

For the last few months I have modified my way of playing and my results have improved; Today it must be much more difficult to win a game me, thanks to small and imperceptible adjustments that of course only I know, because I have followed my mistakes-successes-evolution in the game over several years.


- Isn't it too frustrating for you to play heads up only (here at least) ? Of course it is a way to improve this important technical case but we know that many complexities come with 3 to 8 players on the table, which is the most common case in professional poker tournaments.


NBV: Currently I spend little time every day playing heads-up in FICGS, thanks to the fact that I have the profile of each contender. The 4-5 hours that I study poker daily, include practice in micro limits in cash tables of 6 players and tournaments in tables of 8-9 players. I think I'm covering the whole range of possibilities, experiencing game situations between 1 and 8 contenders.


- What do you think about computer analysis in poker? Do you think it could make a difference here just like the way we play advanced chess?


NBV: I think the algorithms are ready to be written in machine language and the question is where are those algorithms? Well, in the brains of the best players in the world and in their games compiled in huge databases. But programming language can be accelerated with artificial intelligence brains, making A.I. studying databases of the best professionals, playing with itself millions of games and building an invincible TACTIC-STRATEGIC SYSTEM, similar to chess software and GO... I think preflop and flop play would be very similar between humans and artificial intelligence, but on the turn and on the river artificial intelligence would take considerable advantage, but in the short time the level of human poker would rise because artificial intelligence would teach us to play poker, this event that would diminish the profits of the professionals. It will always be said in favor of poker that because it is an incomplete game of information, to make computer algorithms are quite complicated, but despite that, I am sure that artificial intelligence will far surpass the best human poker player. It is possible that an artificial intelligence that plays a perfect poker already exists, but unlike GO and chess, poker does produce a lot of money. Due to the money factor, in today's world, it is very difficult that there is a Prometheus willing to steal fire from the gods and give it to mankind...


- How would you describe your relation to games in general?


NBV: I can summarize it in one of the first chess books I had the fortune to read, by the great Danish master Bent Larsen, "I play to win"


- When did you start to play chess & poker? Do you play other games?


NBV: My first contact with chess was at the age of nine, it was love at first sight and until death separates us; I must confess that for some years we have been separated, due to my stupidity and my erroneous decisions. I have always been self-taught in any subject, my method is to buy about 10 to 15 books of the subject that interests me and I read them thoroughly, sometimes 3 or 4 times; already with that information in my head and thanks to the constant practice, I build MY SYSTEM (Nimzowitch) according to my personality, my dreams, my desires, my anguish, my fears... I was youth champion of Bogotá, for 4 years , my OTB level was strong, but I had to abandon chess because I had to work and survive; Being an athlete in Colombia is an absolutely difficult thing, but being a chess player is extremely complicated since there is no support or respect from society and you can not live by chess, because it does not produce money.

I met poker in 2009 in FICGS, at that time I was in a terrible emotional situation, trying to get away from a relationship with a woman that I should never approach and where I wasted valuable time and energy. In that context, looking for my thoughts to be occupied, I ended up playing the FICGS C-24 poker tournament and tied the first place with three more players; I kept playing, without understanding what was happening with the cards and obviously, losing, until in 2010 I won the FICGS D-21 tournament with perfect score, 6 out of 6. I had already bought-read my first beginner book: Poker for Dummies of Harroch and Krieger, but my poker was coarse, wild, street, intuitive, amateur, without dedication or study. In the background of this paragraph, the affection and gratitude that I have for FICGS is condensed, a place where I have been able to build-practice-study-test MY SYSTEM in poker.

I play Backgammon, I do not care that it may sound pretentious-petulant, but I have a very strong level and I have not read my first book yet. Hahaha. Any year I register as a participant in the world championship and I will cause disgust to more than one professional. Hahaha. Unlike chess and poker, backgammon does not cause me stress, on the contrary, I feel a lot of joy and pleasure when I play backgammon. I feel something similar with math, reading and music. It's true and I'm proud, I've always been a NERD.


- We all know how difficult it is to reach a number 1 rank but it is even more difficult to keep it during a long time. What is your motivation? Do you have more goals to achieve (chess & other games included) ?


NBV: My motivation in any activity I undertake in my life is to do it with absolute passion (passion is everything you would do to get a breath of air, in the second before dying by drowning or suffocation).

I have several goals to accomplish before December 2021; In the ICCF correspondence chess I must reach the 2400 elo and get the titles of International Master, SIM and Grand Master, also perform outstanding performances in world championships. In FICGS Chess I must complete my Master and International Master titles and overcome the 2450 elo, also snatch the title from our eternal champion Eros Riccio. You're warned Eros, hahaha. On the LSS site where I also play, www.chess-server.net I want to be a world champion.

In POKER I find myself playing micro limits bets in several online sites; in June 2018 I hope I have built some bankroll. In July of 2018 I must be evaluating my poker to know if my immediate goal is to become a professional poker player, that would completely change my chess goals and I would have to dedicate myself to OTB poker. At the moment I study and practice poker every day, about 4-5 hours a day. At this moment my poker is full of errors that I am eliminating one by one. MY SYSTEM needs to win and raise money in the micro limits, so that it can succeed in professional poker.
In chess OTB I should become a great master, but that topic should be left as a goal for after 2021. I could achieve the record of being the oldest human in getting the title of Grand Master OTB. Hahaha.

In backgammon I would like to play some important tournaments in USA and Europe and maybe to be OTB world champion, but at the moment I do not have clarity on how to do it. I must mature that idea.
I hope they invent immortality before I die and that I have enough money to buy it, because time is what I need to realize all these and other dreams...


- Finally, playing so many games on several websites (obviously with serious ambitions in each game & place) may look quite inhuman and exhausting, does your body or brain say "stop" sometimes? Do you train by melting sports and brain games just like Kasparov did in the past?


NBV: It's true, it takes willpower and a lot of resistance to sustain the pace that I carry. To take care of my body, I am doing daily exercise for 60 to 90 minutes, including routines of strength, elasticity, speed and endurance. I also practice table tennis to preserve the agility of my body. I'm also divorced and I do not have a girlfriend... Hahaha


- By curiosity, do you consider playing Go in the future, even after... 2021? (which would surely be an enormous charge more, but the game is really interesting)


I have a kind of commitment with the best Colombian GO player, exchange of classes, he makes me a competitive player of GO and I turn him into a competitive player of backgammon. But the truth is that I do not have time... it could be after 2021...


- Do you confirm that you are not (entirely or partly) AlphaZero or any kind of A.I. (yet) ? :-)


NBV: Hahaha, of course I would like to be a real centaur, human with machine power, I do not care what physical form I should adopt. I offer myself publicly as a guinea pig in projects of technological singularity. Hahaha


- Many thanks for your detailed and instructive (impressive as well) answers! My best wishes of luck in all your games and future tournaments.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-03-15 02:25:51)
A few questions to Nelson Bernal Varela

Note that I did not ask true technical questions about poker... by the way a friend of mine just suggested that it could be interesting to know what limits such a player is used to, his winrate in bb/100 or ptbb if he plays cash games, also if he studied gto applied to chess...

So many possible questions and so few time :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-03-15 19:22:45)
A few questions to Nelson Bernal Varela

Of course it is possible but I don't think it would be efficient enough (but I understand the idea to reduce the total time) while creating other problems. I hope more players will try bullet games in the future.


Herbert Kruse    (2018-03-18 08:19:31)
replaced player

who was replaced in FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_SM__000015


Garvin Gray    (2018-03-18 15:00:09)
replaced player

Skorna, Ullrich I believe


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-03-18 20:44:16)
replaced player

Yes, exactly.


Steven DuCharme    (2018-03-29 21:47:52)
Daily Chess World Champ.

I have sent my request via PM. This is self organized. One entrant per site. One total entrant thus far. No prize other than mention across my sites and forums. Original intent was top player of each site would battle for internet supremacy but I'll take whoever I can get :)


Garvin Gray    (2018-04-01 13:54:10)
Options in game return

In the last few days, I have seen a return of different options, For instance- Would you like to play GM Riccio etc. We agreed to get rid of this feature long ago as not only was it annoying, it included a question saying take back. So it asked, would you like a take back?

Why has this feature returned?


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-03-31 02:06:03)
Vallejo Pons leaves European Chess Ch.

Quite incredibly sad story for GM Francisco Vallejo Pons after having played poker for money under an old & strange spanish law...

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2018/03/chess-francisco-vallejo-pons-poker-tax-dispute-30327.htm

http://www.chess.com/news/view/hunted-by-spanish-tax-authority-vallejo-leaves-european-championship

http://www.change.org/p/spanish-tax-authority-my-aim-is-to-seek-as-many-signatures-as-possible-to-help-out-a-sportsman-in-distress


Steven DuCharme    (2018-03-31 05:29:59)
Daily Chess World Champ.

Games might be played at chessforums.org under CORRESPONDENCE GAMES


William Taylor    (2018-04-01 19:36:39)
Poll: renaming the Queen as Dragon

Black and White is at least the other way round in Go. Perhaps you should switch chess to Black moving first, and Go to White moving first, for the benefit of those of us who don't play both games.
The problem with cats, of course, is that we would be leaving out dogs.


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 22:56:16)
Poll: renaming the Queen as Dragon

Agreed. Only question now is what we do with chess games in progress - let them play out, or somehow convert them to the new game partway through?


William Taylor    (2018-04-01 23:06:04)
Poll: renaming the Queen as Dragon

On a related note, I have just moved to Paris, and had my first Domino's pizza here today, only to discover that it did not come with the traditional garlic & herb dip. I hope this is just another Frenchman playing an April Fool's joke on me, and that the dip will be back tomorrow, but who knows?


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-04-07 03:09:02)
Harold Moye, man of arts... and chess

I'm very sad to announce here that we just lost a chess friend, Harold Moye, who played chess with us while he was involved in a much more difficult battle. My condolences to his family.

Here is the first part of the obituary:

"Harold Anthony Moye, age 62, died on March 4, 2018, wife Linda (Polhemus) Moye at his side. They were devoted to each other for 17 years since vowing their love on a mountain in Wyoming. For 13 of those years, Harold endured bone marrow cancer (Multiple Myeloma) with grace, unusual resilience, and quiet courage.

He loved poetry, languages, art, music, history, philosophy, astronomy, cinema, flying airplanes (actually and with flight simulator) and coffee. Some of his favorites were Shelley, Blake, Rilke, Shakespeare, Norse sagas, VanGogh, Mahler, Bach, Beethoven, and Sumatran and Guatemalan beans. Harold said that Blake taught him the most about art; Shelley was his brother; VanGogh his first cousin; and coffee a major food group (along with pizza and cookies). Above all, he valued imagination, compassion, and generosity of spirit in others. He played Shogi and Chess with friends all over the world online and in person, reaching the distinction of Chess Master when he coordinated tournaments in Wyoming. (...)"

http://www.ficgs.com/moye_harold.htm


Aniruddha Duttagupta    (2018-04-07 07:43:58)
unable to play my move!

In game 102995 I can't play my move as Black.Any move played by me is shown as INVALID MOVE by the server!What to do???


Aniruddha Duttagupta    (2018-04-07 12:07:17)
unable to play my move!

Now I have observed that there are mismatch in the moves played in the game and recorded in the server.Will Mr Thibault kindly look into the matter urgently so that I can move in the game??


Ilmars Cirulis    (2018-04-07 16:40:39)
unable to play my move!

<< Incorrect move : 7. ...Ng1, from player black. >>


Aniruddha Duttagupta    (2018-04-07 17:15:38)
unable to play my move!

But the game actually continued 7...0-0 8.Nge2 Rb8 9.bxc5 dxc5 10.0-0 b6 11.f4 the server allowed all these moves but now not permitting Black playing his 11th move.What is the solution?


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-04-07 20:01:26)
unable to play my move!

Hello Aniruddha, well that's the first time I see that strange bug. I don't understand yet how it happened but you probably entered it (meaning Ng4 I guess) in the text field rather than clicking the pieces.

I'll investigate to avoid this in the future. Meanwhile & unfortunately, according to the rules, this game must be declared as a win for your opponent. Very sorry about that.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2018-04-07 20:27:44)
unable to play my move!

A bit wtf about rules. :O


Ilmars Cirulis    (2018-04-07 20:29:08)
unable to play my move!

Maybe refunding rating points?

Like "you lost to software bug, so there's your compensation".


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-04-07 20:51:10)
unable to play my move!

That could seem to be a fair solution at a first sight, but of course that would create ways to "save" lost games (and/or complexify rules quite a lot).

This kind of cases is well specified in the rules, it is also up to the players to check their moves to avoid such situations (that could be much more complicate according to the situation).


Aniruddha Duttagupta    (2018-04-07 20:53:38)
unable to play my move!

Dear Mr Thibault,
First time this thing happened to me.I will be careful but kindly see non occurance of this type of software bug further.I lost some rating points unnecesarily in a game which was equal.Definitely it hurts!


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-04-07 21:01:35)
unable to play my move!

I understand but the way I coded the moves verification more than a decade ago, it is unlikely that all cases can be fixed :/ Fortunately, problems are rare now, but I recommend to click the pieces rather than using the text field to avoid it.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2018-04-07 21:47:11)
unable to play my move!

<< That could seem to be a fair solution at a first sight, but of course that would create ways to "save" lost games (and/or complexify rules quite a lot). >>

Even better, you get testers for free. :P


Paul Campanella    (2018-04-09 02:31:01)
Real Poker Game

This might seem like a farfetched/crazy thought, but what if were to actually have a real Texas Holdem Game sometime this summer with the top 10 players on the list physically meeting in person at an agreed upon location?

In order to promote the site, the winners could also donate a portion of the winnings to an agreed upon charity/word organization that helps people?

Does anyone have any thoughts about this?


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-04-09 03:55:44)
Real Poker Game

Hmm hmm, that's an interesting idea to dig! But there are many instant questions, starting with legality :) FICGS cannot organize any poker tournament with money prize, real or not. But there may be other ways.

And such a meeting wouldn't be easy for sure as we're quite far from each other (not speaking about me, out of the top 10 :))

About promotion, I just don't know if FICGS is kind of a "real" poker site but one thing is sure, it was time to come back to fundamentals (chess). Now that things are going better, I'll focus this way for the moment to attract more and more players, then the next goal will be to increase prizes (a lot).


Aniruddha Duttagupta    (2018-04-09 16:36:15)
unable to play my move!

Dear Mr Thibault, I am sure I played 7...0-0 as the game showed.Ng4 was my intended move after White played 11.f4.But my move was not permitted by the server.I am sure I used the text field.But now I click the pieces as I play my moves on my mobile.I wonder if my 7th move was wrong how the game continued upto 11th move of White!


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-04-09 17:30:02)
unable to play my move!

So, for your 7th move you typed "0-0" or "7...0-0" ? (with zero-zero, not O-O) Sorry, I have to be absolutely sure to be able to reproduce exactly what happened.

Thank you again.


Aniruddha Duttagupta    (2018-04-09 19:47:59)
unable to play my move!

I feel I had written e8-g8 for the move.
I had never typed 0-0 for kingside castling.


John Hadden    (2018-04-12 09:54:00)
Design

Hi... don't want to be annoying to the developers - in general the new style is more inviting than the old - but it is still pretty busy. I had to search for quite a while to even find what was going on. Still not quite sure if it is possible to have a game outside of a tournament - or how the tournaments work. Fair play for making tournaments with prizes... but Im not likely to pay to join if I don't know what's going on...

PS... I had to press post twice there...


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-04-12 22:24:54)
Design

Hello John,

You are right, many things are not easy for new players, particularly not used to the "correspondence chess style".

Tournaments are the main thing here by far for the moment... maybe this will evolve with some time but it is still difficult to find opponents for advanced chess games for a few years (but from time to time).

Just to know, did you read the Help section? I'll try to add some things there... to start.

Many thanks for the feedback!


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-04-14 01:14:32)
unable to play my move!

Finally, after some investigation & tests I was able to reproduce the situation & find what most probably happened...

I think that the move you entered was e1-g1 (instead of e8-g8), this is the only one that was able to produce Ng1.

The bug is now fixed, it will not happen again but unfortunately, the rules prevail in this situation as the move was illegal.

My apologies anyway for this unexpected bug.

My best wishes,
Thibault


William Taylor    (2018-04-15 14:07:42)
Big chess castling

Thibault,

Have you ever considered allowing players to castle twice in big chess, giving a mechanism to allow similar castled positions to normal chess? For example, from the starting position the king could castle once to kingside, ending up on l1 with the rook on m1, and then again, ending up on p1, with the rook on o1. He could also go the other way, finishing on c1 after castling twice.


John Hadden    (2018-04-16 08:22:51)
Design

I would say if you make it easier to arrange Games then they would be more likely to happen. "I'd you book the bands they will come" bill and Ted ii

Eg. Right now I am unable to play any go games because I don't have the right rating. There is only one tournament open but because there are few players I won't ever play. If instead you make it easier for non tournament games then more players would be available for the tournaments.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-04-18 02:01:58)
Design

I understand but it all depends on the number of players connected and ready to play at a given time. Right now, it is not possible to make bullet games popular, we would need probably 10 times more players.

Anyway this Go category just re-opened (it was the Kyu category a few week ago) so this is not really the 14th Go tournament for this rating range. So it shouldn't take too long (a few days though) to start.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-05-01 22:25:17)
Ratings inflation period

May 2018 ratings : the first effects are quite visible. A few players, who finished many games, actually more games than I expected, made a very good operation (not a problem as points always spread with time). I updated the formula to make it more coherent next time : 10 points per game, now power 0.8, will be added to the bonus.


William Taylor    (2018-05-01 23:52:16)
1st King Supertournament

One of the reasons I didn't enter this tournament is that it's not clear how to guarantee compliance with the 'no databases' requirement. What happens if I need to prepare for an OTB game against a King's Gambit player? Obviously I will consult my database and theoretical works, and cannot help but have my ongoing 'King Supertournament' games in my mind.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-05-02 00:03:56)
1st King Supertournament

I think we all realize that this is not a "usual" FICGS tournament (also that this is just for fun)... and that most correspondence/advanced chess players will not enter it. But I think that FICGS needs such events from time to time, that can attract more "regular" chess players (at least by its announcements). At the end, it seems it makes the job :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-05-11 01:54:44)
New domain names for FICGS apps

Quite good news for FICGS !

As you may know, .app domains are available for a few days... I was not able to take the very best domain names (chess.app & ajedrez.app), but very good ones anyway. I hope more players will come from Google to the following:

playchess.app (english)
jugarajedrez.app (spanish)

xadrez.app (portuguese)
echecs.app (french)


These ones should be online with the Chess Trainer app within a few days... By the way I also bought:

pokerholdem.app
playgogames.app

It is really hard to find good keywords in english for the Go game... Maybe baduk.app & weiqi.app would have been better but not so sure.


William Taylor    (2018-05-13 22:11:04)
New domain names for FICGS apps

You may be able to sell playchess.app on to ChessBase for a decent amount.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-05-15 23:07:40)
Leela Chess Zero

Yes, a project to follow for sure. As for me I only play Go with Leela (against Leela I mean) for a few weeks, I feel it is really instructive even if I lose every game :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-05-29 02:37:09)
Komodo 12 with AlphaZero techniques

Hi all! As you may know, Chessbase chess engine Komodo 12 is now promoted as having a Monte Carlo version, looking like AlphaZero algorithms... It would play a more human-like style. But does it really make a difference on a "normal" computer? It would be about 30 elo points stronger than Komodo 11 (quite a good improvement anyway)

Any tests or thoughts?


Peter W. Anderson    (2018-06-02 09:21:07)
Komodo 12 with AlphaZero techniques

My gut feeling is that Monte Carlo is most applicable to the opening, but I am not sure that is better than alpha-beta even there.

By the way, in my judgement Leela is already very strong in the opening. If I was still playing correspondence I would be using Leela to help prepare openings.


William Taylor    (2018-06-06 23:18:06)
Order games load in

Thanks - that partially works, but not being able to separate chess and big chess is still annoying (for me). I understand adding another icon for big chess might be confusing for some though (people who don't play big chess).


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-06-09 19:39:18)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

This 1st chess cup just ended, time to comment :)

First of all, congratulations to Herbert Kruse for this nice win! The opposition was strong and the final result not so easy to guess until a few weeks ago, obviously...

Second of all, to end the cheating suspicion topic, I can only say this: correspondence chess is not soccer, round-robin tournaments are not knockouts, when participating in such a championship on the internet, we have to accept the risk that a few players may (for any rare and obscure reason here IMO) intentionally lose to another one. BUT there is definitely no way to be sure about that, no way to adjudicate games 100% fairly on such suspicions, whatever happening in any game. Of course, it would always be very easy to cheat discreetly enough. And once again, I designed the FICGS WCH to avoid as much as possible what happened during this tournament, it is players choice to accept this and to choose the tournaments they will play in the future. Now let's see what the second edition will propose :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-06-19 00:34:08)
Chess Trainer app on Facebook

Hi all,

About one month that the Chess Trainer app is available on Facebook... surprisingly (I didn't expect much from this way), it is now used by about 130 players a day (357 at most) and about 60 new players per day. Quite not bad for a non-viral app after all, to be continued.

Do not hesitate to rate the apps, also on Facebook, it may help :)


Steven DuCharme    (2018-06-25 19:53:46)
I Own Chess

Decree #1 - All players will count to ten or more before each move. Thank you


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-06-30 20:22:16)
Interview with 15th chess WCH finalist

For once, as Eros & I couldn't find much more to say after all his consecutive wins, I asked Ramil Germanes these few questions around his match & correspondence chess (with what may look like a quite surprising conclusion).

_______________________


- Hello Ramil, many thanks for answering those few questions! This is a first time with the WCH finalist, as the winner (Eros again) agreeded this could be an interesting experiment for a change, so we'll probably have a quite different point of view this time! You just finished your games to score 6-6 (12 draws), Eros retaining the title again. I guess this was the first time you played such a correspondence chess match, what are your impressions on this knockout format?

Yes this is the first time I've played a world championship match although I played before in earlier editions of this world championship but not reaching the challenger level. My impression? Its great playing for the world championship but I know its nearly impossible to beat the world champion.


- Let's rewind a few months backward, would you make other choices, in openings or anything?

I don't know. Tbh, I'm not very good on chess theory and not very updated as well. So I'm just playing basic moves hoping for opportunities to come up.


- So, is Eros beatable in this final match according to you? (please give us some hope) ^^

With how quickly you can search information and the strength of chess engines nowadays, its almost impossible to beat him unless you have access to alpha zero (haha). Though maybe Herbert Kruse can pull it off.


- What can you tell us about yourself and your relation to chess & correspondence chess?

I'm just an ordinary guy from the Philipines who happens to love playing chess. But my love of computers is what brought me to correspondence chess and to ficgs.


- Do you play other games, e.g. Go, Shogi, cards games?

No I don't know how to play those games.


- Could you tell us how these 12 games went from your own point of view?

For me, the games went through their normal course. Both of us didn't made any major mistakes so all games were drawn. That's just how it went. Though there were new moves on some the games it doesn't really changes result of the older games played before.


- Would you share a few tips to play good correspondence chess in 2018, or at least to beat the best chess engines? :)

Sorry but i dont know. I will be the new world champion by now if i know, hehehe.


- You told me that your computer configuration was basically a quad-core i5 3570 / 4gb on Fritz GUI (about 10,500 kn/s) / Windows 10, and we know that many of us (Eros included) still use such configs or even dual-core, would an octa-core have brought a significant advantage to you to win this match according to you?

Oh I don't know they still have those configurations. But I've already encountered opponents in Infinity Chess with 18-22 cores configs. Anyways, an octa-core or faster cpu would definitely be going to speed up my analysis and will let me analyze more lines and variations which may improves my overall play.

Honestly, I don't have that much time these days for correspondence chess. In my match against Eros, I had only about 1 hour of analysis time before work and about another 1 hour after work. Since I already have a family and 2 kids, they have to be my priority first. And I think somebody also can relate to this. So a faster cpu would be very helpful in the match and maybe will give a better chance than a slower cpu.


- As far as I know, you love to build computers, did you use or think about using several ones at the same time for analysis?

No. I only used one computer in my match against Eros. I have 2 other computers but both are slower.


- How much time you've been playing correspondence chess & how do you feel the way the game changed over the years?

I've been playing correspondence chess since 2010 and I have observed that its easier to win games in the past when chess engines were still weaker. Because you notice some players depend only on engine moves and engines still commit mistakes and you can exploit those mistakes if you "investigate" further.

Unlike now, engines are very strong that even players who rely solely on engines moves will be very hard to beat. It lessens the gap of players that know how to "use" the engines and the ones who do not.


- Finally, what makes you love correspondence chess in 2018?

I will always love chess and correspondence chess but what makes it exciting now is the rise of the new kind of engines.

Engines like Leela chess zero that has a different approach in playing chess. Maybe more of these kind of chess engines will be seen in the future. Because of its use of monte carlo analysis and neural networks, we are starting to see moves that we have never seen before. Very aggressive attacks and moves defying opening principles can now be seen. Correspondence chess is getting exciting again!


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-07-27 01:50:24)
On (almost) global forfeits in WCH

Hi all,

I'd like to gather opinions on several cases that may happen or have happened in WCH tournaments.

1) Let's say that one player lost on time 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 games out of 7 (for any reason) in a WCH tournament, after having won one or several games.

2) Let's say that one player resigned 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 games out of 7 (for any reason) in a WCH tournament, after having won one or several games.

3) Let's say that one player lost on time or resigned 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 games out of 7 (for any reason)in a WCH tournament, after having won one or several games.

Obviously, there may be possible unfair situations for one or several players, but it is not so easy to find a fair global solution for all cases. Should those wins (by the player who lost on time and/or resigned several games) not be taken in account? Any suggestions for a simple/clear rule?

I must say that I'm not so favourable to add such a rule at a first sight, but let's see how this discussion may lead.

Many thanks in advance.


Herbert Kruse    (2018-07-28 23:54:21)
On (almost) global forfeits in WCH

If the resignation of an association from the game round during the current game year, his previously played games are not to be evaluated if the resignation takes place before the last four championship games of this team in the game year


Gabriele D Agostino    (2018-07-29 15:11:21)
On (almost) global forfeits in WCH

In my opinion if a player lost on time more than 50% of their games in a round robin tournament, all game against him are considered as a win for the opponent.


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?


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-08-14 20:04:00)
poker reflection time

Another recurrent topic, which is quite logical as some games are very very long... One hand consist in a variable number of "moves", that may cause strange things with clocks, but I agree that the time control should be different, I just did not find a fine one yet. Actually, playing poker by correspondence is a very unusual thing.


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.


Christoph Schroeder    (2018-08-20 16:46:39)
poker reflection time

At the moment, there is a choice only between correspondence poker (5 years game length) and blitz (5 min + 15 sec) - and nothing in between.

The first is much too slow, and the second much too fast (noone wants to play it apparently, I spent many days in the waiting list without playing a single game).

I would appreciate if an intermediate speed, for example 15 min + 30 sec, could be introduced.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-08-21 00:15:26)
poker reflection time

First of all, games that last 5 years are quite rare, fortunately :) And believe me, any intermediate time control playable in less than one day would be a nightmare for the players, it is way too long, it could last 12 hours or more! (the dead man defence could find its place)

Also, the reason why the most do not play bullet/blitz games here is mainly that this is a correspondence chess website first, and most players always have a few moves to play... On the contrary, the FICGS chess trainer app is quite successful on Facebook because most users of this app do not play at FICGS.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-08-21 22:22:42)
poker reflection time

Unfortunately, the choice of "best of three" would have consequences on ratings (less accurate, more variable), as you can guess.

The 1 day / hand option could be confusing and may be dangerous at it would bring strange effects as one could lose a game on time when having 2 or 3 days on clock because of a few moves played at night. This would not affect fast players, but many players are quite slow for various reasons.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-09-07 16:57:06)
Netiquette reinforcement

Hi all,

Following a few problems of provocation and repeated draw offers, I propose to reinforce and specify the netiquette to help players finding the right things to do according to the situation...

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#general


Particularly this paragraph:

"It is possible to leave public comments for your games and to send private messages to other members. No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Also, no player will make draw offers repeatedly, particularly serveral times in a row. Doing so may lead to instantly lose the game, and/or being immediately and permanently banned.

If a player receives such a message, he may use the "report" link and accepts to use the "block" link that appears then (when playing a move) rather than replying to it. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and may lead to get a limited access to the server during a few weeks, at the moderator's discretion. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private.

To maintain a friendly community, any cheating complaint should be addressed to the referee and should not be made publicly in games comments or in the forum, otherwise with the same consequences. Please note that no time will be added to any clock in any case, the game will continue in all cases, in example arguing to wait for the referee's decision will not be accepted. Finally, you agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit.

Publication of a private message without the authors expressed permission is strictly forbidden."


A big difference (I hope) is in the small add "Doing so may lead to instantly lose the game (...)". Better or worst? Any opinions or ideas?


Garvin Gray    (2018-09-08 02:29:41)
Netiquette reinforcement

I have a couple of revisions to the rules that I would like to see. Some of these do come from otb practices, but they also apply here.

In otb, when a player wants to make a claim to the arbiter, or wants to make a complaint to the arbiter about their opponent (for any reason), they stop the clock and call for the arbiter (or find the arbiter themselves in a large hall).

Then the arbiter will rule on the claim, make any decisions about the game, adjust the times on the clocks if necessary, and then start the clocks again.

So for FICGS, I think there should be a change here. When a player presses call referee, the clocks should be stopped/frozen. Currently, the clocks keep running.

This is wrong. The player has called for the arbiter, but the clocks keep running.

If the arbiter (Thibault in this case) rules that the player had no grounds to call the referee, then he can apply a time penalty and take time off the clocks of the person who stopped the clocks.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-09-08 04:05:12)
Netiquette reinforcement

Many thanks for sharing your views Garvin.

Well, this is very relevant OTB, I agree. I'm not sure of what happens if a player abuses of complaints (e.g. to gain some time), which is probably unlikely in all cases, but anyway I imagine that a correspondence chess game could continue before to decide any problem related to provocative messages or repeated draw offers at least. And, of course, it makes it much more simple (at a first sight).

Maybe let's give it a try unless you think about clear examples where it couldn't work already, then I'll make such a change if it doesn't prove to be efficient.


Garvin Gray    (2018-09-08 04:28:48)
Netiquette reinforcement

If a player clicks on call referee to make a complaint and that stops the clock and you determine that the claim is pointless, or worse, that you believe the player has 'stopped the clocks' to try and gain an advantage, then you are free to determine what penalty is applied from the range of penalties that are available to you:

1) Warning,
2) Increasing the remaining time of the opponent,
3) Reducing the remaining time of the offending player,
4) Increasing the points scored in the game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game,
5) Reducing the points scored in the game by the offending person,
6) Declaring the game to be lost by the offending player (the arbiter shall also decide the opponent’s score),
7) Exclusion from one or more rounds,
8) Expulsion from the competition.


Garvin Gray    (2018-09-09 02:43:30)
Netiquette reinforcement

4, 5 and 6 need to be read together.

4 and 5 are where the arbiter declared the game lost for the player who breached the rules. The arbiter then needs to decide what score to award the opponent.

So 4 is to increase the points scored in the game to the maximum available for that game. This usually is 1 point.

5 is reducing the offenders score to zero.

What these two provisions also cover is where an offence is found out later in the tournament. So for here on ficgs, the arbiter found out that late in a tournament that one player had been abusing opponents regularly.

4 and 5 allows you to adjusts the scores of those completed games.

6 declares lost the game by the offending player. But the reason for the provision of 'deciding the opponents score' is that a position on the board might arise where the non-offender might not be able to construct a checkmate position with the material they have (lets say just a bare king). Then the score would be (0 - 0.5). The offender scores zero and the non offender, who can not win the game because they can not checkmate their opponent, receives 0.5

7 and 8 should be 'self explanatory'.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-09-24 00:15:43)
Some questions to H. Kruse, WCH finalist

After that the last FICGS chess WCH final match finished, the choice was made again to ask a few questions to Eros Riccio's challenger: Herbert Kruse, for the 2nd time. He kindly accepted to answer it so let's learn a bit more on our top-ranked correspondence chess player.

______________________________


Hello Herbert, you're not really a player to introduce as you're very active here and at several chess websites for years, with outstanding ratings in each one (as far as I know), you're the 1st FICGS CUP winner & several times FICGS WCH challenger, each time facing "the wall" Eros Riccio, what could you tell us about yourself particularly as a chess & correspondence chess player?

- i began late with 16 to play my first tournament game, but with 18 i already was kicked out of a night club in company with tony miles ;) (dresscode) had vlastimil hort as trainer for a short time and played in teams with gutman, michalchisin, klovans, gipslis and some other GMs. corr chess i began, because i love to find the truth and because of freestyle, where i began to build very strong computers


What kind of computers do you build? Is it all dedicated to chess?

- i have several dual xeon e5 computers with 64gb ddr3 and 16 to 20 real cores and they all play chess ;)


Once again, GM Eros Riccio managed to draw the 12 games of the match. What are your feelings on these games? How did you estimate your chances to destabilize your opponent in the openings and to create complications enough with White (or Black)?

- this time my feelings were neutral. 1% chances to win, but i hoped he would lose his concentration if i began more games with him (we played 6 other games at the same time)


Doesn't "1% chances to win (the match)" mean about 0.17% to win only one game with White, even when losing one with Black? Isn't it a bit pessimistic after all, or is it the new so called Riccio-effect? :)

- if the strongest players face each other there is no win possible, except some has a mouse slep or forgot something during human interfacing


When did you start playing correspondence chess and what changed since that time? What attracted you most in the game?

- 2004 and evaluation of the position is the key point of improvement since then. attractive was to be better than actual world class players :)


Could you tell us anything on the way you work chess and play your correspondence games? Any tip or secret? (nothing to lose to ask :))

- with black i play for fastest way to 0.00 and with white i try every promising way to make a game for a longer time complicated


Do you use several ones at the same time when analyzing a game? (still grabbing some tips)

- i only use the newest stockfish versions of brainfish and corchess because the other engines are not so good. because i have many games i decide which one gets the most cores and time and let them run in infinity mode until i am happy that can be after 1 week or more sometimes.


You're not far to rank 2nd as a poker player at FICGS, you obviously started to take on Big Chess as well. What other games do you play? Did you consider to play Go already?

- i played go against the german champion and lost so i quit :)) played backgammon money game and internet (in fibs with kit woolsey i played over 100 matches) in bridge i was best bidder in germany 1994 to 1995, but dont play much nowadays


Do you have specific goals to achieve as a player?

- 2 goals, since a long time: be ficgs world champion and win one german bridge championship


How do you imagine correspondence chess evolution within a decade? What kind of engines/computers do you expect to use and what will look like centaur chess according to you? (in other words, what part will remain to the human player in the decision?)

- i think the engines today are already unbeatable, so in 20 years the would still not lose and chess is dead since about 4 years


What did you think about Google Deepmind's Alpha Zero performance vs. Stockfish?

- it was a joke because they let a bad version of stockfish play. i would not have lost one game against az0 and maybe won 2 til 5 out of 100


Conditions of this AlphaZero vs. Stockfish match were very specific (opening books, unbalanced hardware...) What weaknesses did you detect in AlphaZero play?

- it was the lack of precision, what would let it lose against stockfish in its tuned newest version but i look from a view of a player who is used to play with deep 60 :)


It seems that computers did not completely take on Bridge yet, what do you expect within a decade?

- i have not seen bridge programms, but the game is so easy that it must be already mastered by computers


Graham Kerr    (2018-09-25 03:58:57)
Some questions to H. Kruse, WCH finalist

Thank you to Herbert for taking the time to answer these questions...
I have played correspondence since the 90s, by snail mail at first then online. I had always resisted engine-assisted correspondence but a post by Herbert in another forum was what prompted me to give it a try ;-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-09-30 03:16:01)
How to pass in the game?

Yes, prisoners are not counted, only area. Games are not adjudicated automatically but you can use the scorer to help (just click "$" below the goban then click dead groups and submit), then one player will have to resign.


Rotom Monotua    (2018-10-08 23:33:28)
No engine tournaments, no, no

At the moment I am playing the King Supertournament which is great fun - but I have to say it seems there are a handful of players who arent playing by the rules - therefore I am a little disappointed....

To me it looks like no engine tournaments are not really possible.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-10-20 03:06:28)
No engine tournaments, no, no

I understand but in my opinion we have to accept this... This kind of tournament is a question of fun (to make mistakes as well) and honor (not to win but to play it by the rules!), no need to shame anyone publicly or to bring a climate of suspicion as everyone can make an opinion by watching/analyzing the games. But yes, it is possible/probable that a few players use engines even there... why, this is quite a mystery but it is always possible to cheat in this kind of tournaments.

As there's no prize or rating points to win, best is to ignore it IMO.


Christoph Schroeder    (2018-10-22 18:18:29)
Resigning in poker

Resigning in poker is absolutely uncommon. I cannot imagine any situation in which resigning a match or a round would be a reasonable option. Even if a player is trailing 0-2, he still has chances to win the match. So why would anybody consider to resign?

Moreover, the "resign" button is irritating, because it is unclear if resigning means resigning the current round or the current match.

Therefore, I propose to remove the "resign"-button completely.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2018-10-22 19:32:28)
Resigning in poker

Of course, the opposing player can change this into antipoker game and do everything to lose himself instead... :D

I don't have understanding how that would work (strategies etc.), but I expect totally un-poker-like mess.


William Taylor    (2018-10-27 12:03:10)
World Championship Tie-breaks

For many years, the reigning classical world chess champion had draw odds. The chess world eventually realised this was both unfair to the challenger and uninteresting for the spectators, and introduced a rapid and blitz playoff match for use in the event that the players remained tied after the classical portion of the match. There have always been, and will continue to be grumbles about this system (mostly that the classical WC should be decided by classical games), but overall it is popular (as I imagine can be seen from online viewing figures from the Carlsen-Karjakin match, for example) and, to my mind at least, fairer than the alternative. I propose something similar for the FICGS WC match: an advanced chess tie-break match. Granted, there is the same objection as for the classical WC match - advanced chess is not the same as correspondence chess. However, the combatants will already have had ample opportunity (12 games) to decide matters in that format. An advanced chess tie-break would provide much more sporting interest, as the current system is becoming a bit predictable (this is not in any way a dig at the incumbent, Eros Riccio, who is just doing what he has to do, and doing it very well). I think the match would also be great for promoting FICGS - you could stream it live on Twitch, for example, perhaps with commentary. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2018-10-28 22:56:53)
World Championship Tie-breaks

Just force them to play tie-breaker(s) in the game which hasn't draw (as possible result) - for example, poker or go/baduk.


William Taylor    (2018-10-30 12:05:46)
New Chess Record...

Remarkable, but still some way short of Tiviakov's record. (Ding has of course been playing much stronger players than Tiv.)


Zack Stephen    (2018-10-30 13:14:19)
World Championship Tie-breaks

agree with William, eros can draw these matches with his eyes closed at this point, he can easily be champion for the foreseeable future unless a format change is made.

Some other ideas for consideration: Force specific opening thematics in the final (ie each has to play black/white of a kings gambit, or other speculative openings

Don't provide the +1 day for each move. Make the games a set amount of time say 45 days for 60 moves

Make each side play BIG, random, or other variants as tie breaker until a winner is determined


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-10-31 03:04:21)
World Championship Tie-breaks

Well, the 1 day per move rule has several reasons to remain (including avoiding more forfeits/losses on time), and coherence is really important IMO. I do not agree that Eros cannot be beaten (I couldn't do it by myself though ^^), I trust Murphy's law :) I see several reasons to all these consecutive victories, Eros explained many by himself, and I don't think it's enough to change the format, by the way we now have the CUP format for all players who prefer other parameters (thanks Garvin!).

As for Twitch & other good ideas like this, truth is that there should have been many Freestyle tournaments these last years but I couldn't organize it anymore and still can't at the moment :/ But most important is that despite of computers supremacy in correspondence chess, now Go & poker holdem, I'm convinced that the best years of FICGS are to come, and it will bring more competition, new champions & good things. Let's wait & see!


Paul Larwinski    (2018-11-14 21:44:07)
World Championship Tie-breaks

no , there should be nothing changed , the ficgs.com chess Champion must be beaten to by new champion.

when you look at last match , they have played mostly same openings, not even taking openings chances is it


Paul Larwinski    (2018-11-17 00:09:46)
World Championship Tie-breaks

there are different ways

possible to play 6 different own openings whith white and with black

longer time control would be better for thinking


Paul Larwinski    (2018-11-17 19:28:43)
Carlsen Caruana wch match

i meant the exciting chess games between Kasparov and Karpov in wch matches, they have both played other openings and mostly main famous lines.

everyone can see Kasparov-Karpov games in chess database

first game of Carlsen - Caruana wch match was exciting too , winning chances


Joshua Hansen    (2018-11-12 15:25:14)
poker reflection time

I play poker and video slots a lot here (https://mr.bet/), but recently decided to start playing chess. Is it harder to adjust?


Garvin Gray    (2018-11-18 03:12:48)
World Championship Groups

I see in the chat box there is a comment about adding players for a new group in the WCH.

This should not be allowed and is a bad idea. The original groups were worked out based on ratings available at the close of entry.

And also now this new group will be a rating scattered group, rather than being similar to the others.

Players have protested before about adding players and new groups well after the entry deadline has passed. I have frankly had a gutful of having to protest about it.

It is one of main things that is turning me off this site. Having to keep protesting against items on this site when others have said similar viewpoints to mine, but the site owner keeps trying to sneak in his ideas via the backdoor.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-11-18 23:42:18)
World Championship Groups

Hi Garvin! Yes, I remember it was an important point in our discussion about the CUP cycle (where the rule is 100% strict on this point)... Of course, I always built additional WCH groups if the distribution was very similar. Quite the same about replacements, groups were changed if the elo average was about the same. Just an opportunity for late players to get in and to complete groups if there were 2 or 3 forfeits... It cannot be completely bad, don't you think?


Garvin Gray    (2018-11-19 02:36:26)
World Championship Groups

Ok, please clarify- your comment in the chat box is: A few more players for an additional chess WCH group?

The key word to me is 'additional' chess Wch group.

In your latest reply, you say accepting a few later runners to add as replacements into existing groups to substitute for those who have not started their games or forfeited out.

I have no real objection to the later, but I have a strong objection to creating a completely new group from those who did not enter on time and that new group could potentially not be as strong and evenly distributed for ratings from the original WCH groups.


Paul Larwinski    (2018-11-19 16:39:10)
World Championship Tie-breaks

herbert! i hope we play soon here a chess match together , maybe your strong computers will help you :)


Paul Larwinski    (2018-11-19 19:55:28)
World Championship Tie-breaks

herbert you are losing too, dont you see it ??

this one game was only one warm up against you , and you forgot to say here that we have played 2 draws already.

you talk always like a criminal


Paul Larwinski    (2018-11-19 20:14:17)
World Championship Tie-breaks

you too and your behaviur

herbert we can discuss in our chess games

Thibault can you delete these crapy coments here again, some unfriendly chess players here


Paul Larwinski    (2018-11-19 21:04:26)
World Championship Tie-breaks

http://www.ficgs.com/player_5438.html

kruse lost 12 games somehow

no matter this


Herbert Kruse    (2018-11-25 20:11:43)
cannot enter this tournament

i play 150 games in the last 5 month and finished


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-11-25 21:46:19)
cannot enter this tournament

ok, let's do this... now one last player needed to start the tournament.


Christoph Schroeder    (2018-12-25 17:00:44)
poker: not enough chips to pay BB

When a player has not enough chips left to pay his blinds for the next hand, the round should be lost for him.

But this is not the case. Example (just happened in one of my games):

My opponent has only 1 chip left. In the next hand, he ist the Big Blind which requires him to pay 2 chips. But instead of counting the round as lost for him, he gets a "discount" on his BB and has to pay only 1 chip, and the game goes on - but in a very strange way since my opponent has zero chips left, and there is no raising possible for neither side.

I cannot imagine that this behaviour of the poker software is intentional. Or is it?


Yeturu Aahlad    (2018-12-26 19:36:58)
poker: not enough chips to pay BB

https://www.cardplayer.com/rules-of-poker/tournaments
If a player lacks sufficient chips for a blind or a forced bet, the player is entitled to get action on whatever amount of money remains. A player who posts a short blind and wins does not need to make up the blind.


Yeturu Aahlad    (2018-12-26 21:22:21)
poker: not enough chips to pay BB

IMO, the only room for controversy is the choice of the word "entitled". Interpreted literally, it means that Thibault's suggestion can be an option made available to the player, but can't be enforced. If that option were available, I would take it except when I have already lost two rounds. Of course, I always have the option of resigning - which I have never done at Poker.


George Jempty    (2019-01-19 22:33:44)
Thematic tournaments?

I propose Bishop's Gambit. If you play 1.e4 e5 as Black you probably need to know it. And if you play the same as White, it could be a good surprise weapon.


Garvin Gray    (2019-01-24 08:15:24)
WCh groups...

The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage.

In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage.

If tournament entry ratings (TER) are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account.


Rolf Staggat    (2019-01-24 12:50:17)
James Romig

If this is "our" James Romig, then he might be too busy to play chess. He is "on tour", starting January 24th in Cincinatti.
He is on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/james.romig
Homepage:
http://www.jamesromig.com/
Ask him and find out!


Thibault de Vassal    (2019-01-24 18:58:12)
James Romig

Hi all,

Well, it seems to me that a website administrator shouldn't intervene in players private life / ask for or discuss players private life if it does not come from players or players families (as it happens regularly, most often for bad news).

Of course general forfeits happen quite/too often, sometimes there are expressed concerns from other players, sometimes unexpressed concerns or nothing at all, whatever... so IMO the website administrator/referee shouldn't have to act according to such criteria.

Finally, it seems to me that we have to wait for news (but of course friends can contact each other).

As Garvin said, sometimes players make some choices (e.g. if not taking vacation days for any reason is considered as a choice) and there may be unfortunate consequences for themselves & for their opponents. That's what can happen on chess websites... more than in real tournaments, of course.


Thibault de Vassal    (2019-02-09 21:58:14)
Advice for correspondence chess players

An advice for correspondence chess players from ICCF world champion... what do you think?

https://chessimprover.com/correspondence-chess-advice-from-iccf-world-champion/


Herbert Kruse    (2019-02-10 12:05:48)
Advice for correspondence chess players

i agree with the "next best" function as very important, but databases are not nessecary today


Garvin Gray    (2019-02-12 03:31:52)
Advice for correspondence chess players

I may already know it by another name and some quite internet researching could not provide a definition.

What is 'next best' function?


Garvin Gray    (2019-02-12 03:34:38)
James Romig

I have looked through the internet and done quite a bit of google searching for James Romig and I can not find any evidence that a James Romig that would fit a description of a person who would be likely to be playing correspondence chess from USA in 2018/2019 has died recently.

The closest I was able to get was an obituary notice from 2015 for a person much older than anyone we are referencing now.


Garvin Gray    (2019-02-12 03:37:36)
James Romig

Unfortunately, I have experience in this area of attempting to find out what had had happened to a regular correspondence chess player who suddenly stopped playing mid event.

After a lot of internet searching and looking up country records, I was able to find some family information and contacted them in Spain.

They wrote back about two weeks later to confirm that the player in question had passed away about two months previously at aged 36.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2019-02-13 14:15:25)
Advice for correspondence chess players

Some variation of MultiPV, it seems. The second best move.


Kym Farnik    (2019-02-16 03:15:40)
Advice for correspondence chess players

Looking at more than the 'best' move can find a better (strategic) move.

I.e. better end game chances etc.


Fred de la Foret    (2019-02-22 18:27:31)
Best Opening Move?

In your opinion, which is best for chess engine players, 1. d4 or 1. e4 . CCGM Hans Berliner argued that 1. d4 was the better.


Daniel Parmet    (2019-02-23 04:50:29)
Advice for correspondence chess players

I still don't understand next best function.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2019-02-23 09:35:35)
Advice for correspondence chess players

"The engine ignores the best move found so far and uses its full power to search for an alternative (the next best move)."


Thibault de Vassal    (2019-02-23 19:38:05)
Advice for correspondence chess players

Quite strange that it is an optional "function" as it is probably more efficient in general, by the way that's what certain good engines do (more or less) by default already.


Fred de la Foret    (2019-02-23 20:12:55)
Best Opening Move?

The English ( 1. c4 ) is considered less popular as best opening move to 1. Nf3, though the English is played by many OTB Masters.


Fred de la Foret    (2019-03-02 17:40:51)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?

Is the King's Gambit a bad opening to play for correspondence chess engine players ? It seems to be only a futile opening in failure against strong chess engines.


Abdulsamad Sujas    (2019-03-02 17:54:14)
AlphaZero 2.0

What you posted is not Alpha zero. It is Leela zero, which is same as alpha zero in terms of using neural networks.
It learns by playing itself

Google Leela zero to get info. It is free engine, and need some software knowledge to install. There are YouTube videos and some sites. Find by yourself
. I was using it in my system but problem it is losing on time. Don't know why. But it is now rated no.2 in cc engine matches. Just neck to neck with stockfish.


Thibault de Vassal    (2019-03-02 19:34:23)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?

I can't say if it is "bad", but in my opinion it is quite hard to play against experienced players. So yes, I agree on this one. But it remains a great opening to try OTB or without engines!


Steven DuCharme    (2019-03-14 19:00:15)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?

Use it when nothing's on the line


Fred de la Foret    (2019-03-15 17:24:35)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?

I play correspondence chess with a strong chess engine to WIN, loathe drawn games and study the games that I lose to learn to play better.


Thibault de Vassal    (2019-03-16 21:22:26)
World Championship Groups

@ Marcio : In a quarter final, the player with the highest Tournament Entry Rating is qualified for next stage.

@ Graham : My apologies, I didn't see your post before. It depends on the group... In most cases, the player with the highest Tournament Entry Rating is qualified for next stage.


Thibault de Vassal    (2019-03-18 22:59:01)
Leela Chess Zero & neural networks

Month after month, it looks like Leela Chess Zero is taking on computer chess... what do you think? Actually neural networks engines could even solve the future CPU problem (i9 and Threadripper seem much stronger than the first versions of i7 but what next... technology seems to reach some limits) by using GPU in an efficient way instead.

Does anyone use it to analyze correspondence chess games already?

In my opinion, most top centaur players will use Leela or another neural network chess engine (more or less based on ideas that made the success of AlphaZero) within 1 year...

Actually, I'm more and more concerned with the spectacular way & speed A.I. now improves, I just spent some time to understand it better and I wouldn't be surprised if our societies are really shaked in many ways (and more and more) within the next few years.


William Taylor    (2019-03-24 21:23:31)
Leela Chess Zero & neural networks

Early on it looked like it was never going to approach AlphaZero levels, but it went toe-to-toe with Stockfish in the last TCEC and must presumably be better than it in some kinds of position. I don't play much correspondence chess these days but will probably try using it for OTB preparation soon.

You're certainly right that AI is having and will have massive societal impacts - hopefully largely positive ones, but that will require smart legislation, responsible research and an informed general public.


Thibault de Vassal    (2019-04-14 14:55:30)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?

I always give a chance to players to make it. Now it's adjudicated.


Thibault de Vassal    (2019-07-29 23:51:20)
Android App not working

It seems that 2 players just encountered the same problem again today (while no update was made since that time). Any others?


Thibault de Vassal    (2019-08-21 00:40:19)
Where is my finished go game?

Hi,

If you do not have any running game, you should be able to reach it by clicking "My tournaments", then "Display all tournaments"

https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournaments&nofilter=1


Steven DuCharme    (2019-08-22 09:43:00)
CHESSHERE.COM

A player has bought that site :)


Marcio B. Oliveira    (2019-09-24 21:12:56)
World Championship Groups

What happens if all games in a WCH Semi Final group are drawn?
And if both players win a game?


Thibault de Vassal    (2019-09-24 21:33:24)
World Championship Groups

This is specified in the WCH rules (2nd paragraph):

"The knockout tournament is played into 8 games matches. The special rule (avoiding short draws) is that in case of equality (4-4), the winner is the player with the strongest tournament entry rating if all games are draw, the player with the lowest tournament entry rating if not all games are draw. The winner is qualified for the next stage."

I hope it is clear enough, maybe I should rewrite it.


Steven DuCharme    (2019-10-19 00:54:46)
CHESSHERE.COM

that site is promoting play for money on its facebook page


Thibault de Vassal    (2019-11-09 00:57:30)
Fat Fritz vs. Stockfish

Few months ago, Chessbase announced "Fat Fritz", then few days ago it was alive with a finished 100 games match against Stockfish 8 and another one with the engine playing Stockfish 10. It won both matches by a quite good score... but just like the event AlphaZero-Stockfish, conditions may be discussed.

Any thoughts on the event and Fat Fritz qualities & strength?

https://en.chessbase.com/post/fat-fritz-defeats-stockfish-match
https://en.chessbase.com/post/fat-fritz-defeats-stockfish-match-2
https://en.chessbase.com/post/fat-fritz-what-on-earth-is-that


Steven DuCharme    (2019-11-17 17:28:43)
CC Server World Championship Tournament

I have contacted the top player from about 40 sites with the hope they will battle for global supremacy. A forum topic with the title name is at chesstempo.com where games will be played. Optional money play is available at chesshere.com...Herbert Kruse has accepted my invite but has not signed in at chesstempo yet. He is the first and hopefully not the last to respond.


Thibault de Vassal    (2019-11-28 12:08:42)
Lee Sedol quits Go because of A.I.

Finally, is it time for Go players to play "advanced Go"? Would it make sense like it used to be at chess?

Meanwhile, Go champion Lee Sedol resigns (it seems for several reasons actually, now ranked #54 at GoRatings.org - by the way the full rating list is worth to watch until rank 800)

So, we human will not probably beat what will replace AlphaZero in the future, but as in chess we could learn a lot from it, if not build great centaur teams.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50573071


Thibault de Vassal    (2019-12-05 21:32:38)
IECG chess-server.net

Does anyone know how things are going at (IECG) chess-server.net ?

For those who don't know, this correspondence chess server was born at about the same time as FICGS (for about the same reasons) as an evolution for IECG where I used to play correspondence chess by email until 2006, so it's kind of "big brother" by history and "little brother" by chronology... and quite different on many points AFAIK.

As far as I know many of the IECG players continued to play there, after that many joined us here (FICGS started maybe few weeks before). As for me of course I concentrated to play at FICGS all these years so I'm not really aware about Ortwin's server. Now I can see that its traffic recently went badly down (like many chess servers actually and even very impressive ones)... that's the reason for this post: any news about it?


Garvin Gray    (2020-01-23 08:16:30)
Vacation suggestion

I would like to propose a change to the settings for vacation.

Currently, when you set your vacation time, it will start from the exact moment you set the vacation.

I think a better way would be to allow players to set vacation, with the starting date in the future.

For instance. A player knows they are going on a two week vacation in two days.

Under the current settings, they either have to 'eat' the two extra days, or wait until the very last moment to set their vacation.

It is a bit of a mystery to me why players can not set their vacation to start in the future?


Christoph Schroeder    (2020-01-28 23:00:27)
Waiting lists

Enabling to remove oneself from a waiting list should be given a higher priority.
Recently, I "played" a go tournament where all 6 opponents were non-starters. The high percentage of non-starters (not only in go but also in poker and chess) could AND SHOULD drastically be reduced by creating a possibility to step down before the tornament starts.


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-01-30 20:54:25)
Waiting lists

Yes, indeed... that followed a registering option I had to create to increase the number of (real) active players. It worked but that's the bad side effect. I don't think it should open the possibility to retire from waiting lists but I have to find a way to reduce forfeits.


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-02-07 19:06:41)
Go ratings, rule update

Players can auto-estimate their rating from 0 to 1100 (10 kyu). By default it is 0 (if not specified) or 100 (20 kyu).


Garvin Gray    (2020-02-15 13:57:31)
Game decided by tablebase

This topic is referring to game 119111. Over 24 hours ago, I pressed the call referee button and claimed a draw for a six man tablebase position.

I have also referred to this game in the chat section.

Whilst I have plenty of time on my clock, this whole process and lack of action, which in my opinion should not take much effort, is really making me nervous that nothing is going to be done and I should waste my time playing out the position.

All I want is the position declared drawn as per the rules.

It should not be this difficult.

What would occur if I only had two days or so on my clock? Would I have to use vacation time to prevent my clock reaching zero.


Charles Bovary    (2020-02-19 14:03:23)
Avoiding Hedgehog with white

Why should I? I like to play against!


Charles Bovary    (2020-02-19 14:14:48)
IECG chess-server.net

Playing here and there. I must confess this email-stuff bothers me, but its ok by now.Playing the IECG championhip actually the rest is too clumsy:-)


Ilmars Cirulis    (2020-02-19 14:22:19)
Avoiding Hedgehog with white

It's solid enough to be annoying. :D I dislike playing against it. It's personal/subjective, of course.


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-02-20 18:45:53)
Rated Chess960 matches on the serveur

There are other ways than Facebook to play chess 960... on Android or on your browser, e.g.

https://ficgs.com/scripts/chess_board/chess.php?frc=960


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-02-20 18:55:28)
Game decided by tablebase

...as per the rules indeed, here rule 11.5 specifies "If time control is superior to 1 day and if a player doesn't want to resign (or accept draw) and obviously last the game, his opponent may report to referee a first time. If the player takes 30 days more to finish the game, his opponent may call referee another time, then the game will be adjudicated."

I understand that this rule may be annoying but it brought some peace since it has been added: either it gives some time to end the game or it helps to make the referee's decision easier (and more acceptable by both players).


Christoph Schroeder    (2020-02-21 14:28:01)
Game decided by tablebase

Nowadays, all players are supposed to have access to 7 men tablebases. Therefore I propose to extend the rules to 7 men positions - IMHO the ICCF rules (referred to by Charles) make perfect sense.

That means: When a 7 men position is reached and the opponent refuses to resign resp. to accept a draw, the arbiter can be called and adjudicate the game immediately.


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-02-21 23:05:43)
Game decided by tablebase

Access is always possible, but it is not so easy for all players, particularly when playing on mobile phones. FICGS shouldn't be a place for centaur players (usually meaning playing on a computer) only IMO, correspondence chess is played for fun as well. ICCF rules are great in its specific way, but FICGS can be different.

I'm not so sure that those cases would be so rare, many (most?) players don't even know FICGS specific rules :)


Garvin Gray    (2020-03-04 05:29:14)
Wch groups, less than 7 players

I have asked Thibault a long time ago about this topic, but it has occurred again.

The rules for the WCH is that if a group has less than 7 players, it may be played as a double round robin.

I think this rule should be changed to: If any groups have less than 7 players, then each of those groups will be a double round robin.

I propose this for discussion, and hopefully agreement as I think it is not helpful for the event to hold groups of 5 and only have 4 games for each player.

If one player times out a game in that group, then that result counts for 25% percent of their opponents total score, whilst the rest of the opponents have to battle against that opponent for the full point.

So, I believe with groups less than 7, double round robin should be used. This will make the winner more meaningful and also reduce the impact of any time outs.


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-03-07 22:53:49)
Wch groups, less than 7 players

Well, I can't remember it has been discussed before, but I agree anyway... Unless other players think & argue that it is not a good idea, rules will be updated.

Thanks Garvin!


Zbigniew Szczepanski    (2020-04-10 08:03:33)
Wch groups, less than 7 players

In the "Tournaments" tab under "CHESS RAPID TOURNAMENTS" I miss "FICGS_CHESS_RAPID_GM".


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-04-17 18:21:31)
Wch groups, less than 7 players

Finally, fixed... thank you Zbigniew!


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-05-05 17:54:22)
AlphaGo, the movie (Deepmind)

For all Go lovers, the film about the victories of AlphaGo over professional players, european champion Fan Hui 2 dan then Lee Sedol 9p and Ke Jie 9p.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXuK6gekU1Y

Of course, AlphaGo was the start of the "AI" adventures in the Go game when it played Fan Hui... AlphaZero was even much stronger not long after that.


Tim Harding    (2020-05-22 23:08:37)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?

The King Supertournament is supposed to be strictly no engines. What are you doing to prevent cheating?


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-05-22 23:26:59)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?

Hello Tim,

From FICGS start, I always had the same politics for "no engines" tournaments:

- It is possible to punish obvious cheating, but it will not be possible to prevent intelligent cheating... There's always a way to round the system.

- There are no prizes or "titles" in these tournaments, only the dishonor that other players think that one can play with engines.


Knowing that, I think that honest players can play for fun anyway, I tried it and enjoyed to lose :)

As a conclusion and to make it clearer, no action is taken in any case of using an engine in no engines tournaments. Allowing obvious cheating will help players to make their opinion on their opponents.


Wilhelm Schuett    (2020-05-24 14:04:07)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?

I fear that for white playing the Kings Gambit the Kings Gambit itself could be the problem. Our King Supertournament is a place to analyse a chance for white.


Exal Garcia Carrillo    (2020-05-28 09:37:48)
Cancel joining a tournament?

Hi, I'm currently in the waiting list for two chess tournaments there is a way I can cancel this? (the tournaments are still waiting for more players)


Roberto Battaglia    (2020-06-04 09:55:29)
chess archives in pgn

A few days ago, in the chat, I put some questions regarding the existence or not of archives of chess games and their organization. The chat doesn't allow many words so I take advantage of the forum for explaining the matter.
For example on the ICCF website I find for each player a file with all his chess games, I also find archives of all the games played year by year. This allows me to create excellent databases, using for example SCID.
I also would like to add the games played on FICS but, perhaps for my limit, I was able to find only one way to access the pgn. that is: I type the name of a player in the search box and press go. If, for example, I write Fric (Fric Lubos is a friend of mine who attends both ICCF and FICGS) I find all his PNGs but there are mixed games of poker and chess and this creates a problem because I have to separate them by looking at them one by one.
I hope I was clear. Obviously it is possible that I have not seen some functions of the site that allow to access to archives where could be stored games divided by year, by player and by type of game. I thank all those who want to answer me and wish everyone good and winning games.
Roberto


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-06-04 13:04:11)
chess archives in pgn

Hello Roberto,

Thanks for detailing your question here.

Yes, the "Go" function below the menu is very general and does not help much for what you would like to do.

The "Search games" option in the menu (below "Waiting lists" and "Tournaments") brings more specific ways:

Years ago, I considered that the complete PGN database was enough to build easily specific databases (player or any criteria, combinations of it, etc.) by using a database software.

Then I added a few search options, per player & per game (chess or Go), per opening, per rating (black or white) and per material for endgames... Of course, this will not replace a serious database like Chessbase.

I hope I was clear too... Does this help?


Steven DuCharme    (2020-06-05 02:51:26)
ATTENTION USA PLAYERS

Please join/renew the United States Chess Federation asap...tyvm


Miroslav Gazi    (2020-06-09 12:13:50)
chess archives in pgn

Hello Roberto,
I could provide you e.g. PGN file games for Lubos Fric (or any other ICCF or FICGS player) as FRIC_595Games from our database


on

https://windchess.com/

if you are interested.

Best regards
Miro
https://chesswind.eu/
https://windchess.com/


A. T. S. Broekhuizen    (2020-07-02 19:58:50)
Chess WCH #22 (march 1st, 2020)

Dear Thibault,
Today I got an automatically generated email saying that I had won the first round of this years WCH (in group 3). However there is another player with the same score and a higher TER. So can I just ignore this email?


Herbert Kruse    (2020-07-25 20:11:24)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=123135.html
I played a2-a2q, but the Queen is not on the Board


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-09-02 21:54:05)
Thematic tournaments?

Already two players in the waiting list for the current one... but I'll change it next time.


Wilhelm Schuett    (2020-09-05 16:32:24)
Thematic tournaments?

i can wait and will play another English Rubinstein.


Garvin Gray    (2020-09-18 07:05:09)
Stockfish 12, neural network

I do not put much faith in CEGT rating lists. What those rating lists measure is engine play v engine play.

Whilst that can be interesting to see if any 'newcomers' or updates are worthy of consideration, for our purposes of correspondence chess analysis, engine v engine play has some major limitations.


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-10-30 22:37:02)
THE QUEENS GAMBIT...

I may have seen about a hundred posts by chess players on social networks these days... I hope it is that good! :)


Daniel Parmet    (2020-12-03 19:09:01)
What happened to all the players?

What happened to all the players? I see we used to have dozens of GMs and SIMs not to mention just a huge quantity of players here in years past. How do we get them back? It has become so hard to play on ICCF. Online chess is seeing this huge surge and even now more FIDE IMs and GMs seem to be trying correspondence for lack of other places to play. Why hasn't FICGS enjoyed some of this uptick as well as DMD, rating deflation and lack of events hurt ICCF.


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-12-03 23:55:16)
What happened to all the players?

Hi Daniel, I'm not sure that correspondence chess servers will benefit much from that show (The Queen's Gambit) compared to chess.com & maybe chess over the board. You say that more FIDE IMs and GMs seem to be trying correspondence chess? Or online chess?


Daniel Parmet    (2020-12-04 01:39:36)
What happened to all the players?

Thibault,

You maybe misunderstand me or perhaps I am not being clear by conflating so many issues at once.

1) 1st issue, I did not mention Queens Gambit at all as this show has done very little for chess. The numbers were already skyrocketing on lichess, chess.com and other places due to lockdowns, lack of socialization and spending more times indoors. If anything, it is the SHOW that piggy backed on THIS trend in order to achieve its own popularity (not the other way around).

2) I mean to refer to the fact that many more players used to play here that no longer do which were very strong SIMs and GMs in 09-12 but they're gone now. Why?

3) The growth. Yes, I currently have two otb IMs I am playing against their first games on ICCF and I have already played against 3 GMs whose first games it was on ICCF. Look at the recently started USA/A It has 3 otb GMs that have no corr games. Or how about GM Sam Sevian? https://www.iccf.com/event?id=80817 GM Elshan Moriadiabadi https://www.iccf.com/player?id=517491 And on and on I could go.

4) Separate entirely is how hard it has become to find players of your own level to play, maintain one's rating and the DMD issues which caused LSS to announce their own special DMD rules.


Garvin Gray    (2020-12-06 13:57:56)
Repeated draw offers

I have noted over quite a period of time where players complain that their opponents keep offering draw after draw after draw.

At this point in time, the only avenue to try and get this stopped is to press 'call referee' and complain to Thibault.

ICCF has a different solution to this matter and I believe it should be incorporated here:

If a player offers a draw in a single game, and that draw offer is declined by the opponent, the server will incapacitate the player's ability to make a second draw offer until at least 10 more moves have been made, with one exception.

If the opponent offers a draw during a player's 10-move count (that is, within 10 moves subsequent to the player's having made a draw offer), then the player's 10-move count is terminated at that time such that the player can again offer a draw with any move. This "10-move" rule does not include claims of a draw related to 3-position repetition, 7-piece tablebase claims, 50-move rule claims, or adjudication-related claims.


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-12-08 15:33:13)
What happened to all the players?

Thanks for the enlightments!

1) Interesting idea, I did not think it this way but that sounds credible.

2) Too many possible reasons IMHO, first could be the lower rate benefits/investment, added to the constantly growing place of chess engines (particularly since the Rybka era) in the game and the way our lives changed all over the years (real life, social networks, Netflix & so on).

3) That's quite surprising to me but well, at least chess found a way :)

4) I did not hear about that rule yet, what's the idea?


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-12-11 20:57:43)
Repeated draw offers

Well, I took some time to think (again) about this problem. Not an obvious one.

Of course, the best option seem to be to let players to tell the server (and their opponent, or not) what they want to read / receive [draw offers], whenever they want. All other solutions seem to be a part of this solution.

By the way, players could tell the server (and their opponent, or not) what they want to read / receive [private messages], whenever they want.

I must say that all choices [any change, or no change at all] seem not satisfying to me for now... It is a real and complex ethical question to me.


Garvin Gray    (2020-12-12 05:04:25)
Repeated draw offers

I do not see any ethical questions here.

The issue is rather simple. Are repeated draw offers a nuisance? The clear answer would be yes to this.

And so, what is a solution?

Currently, if a player is being annoyed/distracted by the repeated draw offers, they have to click 'call referee' and then formally complain about the draw offers.

Most people are not aware of this option, or do not complain. This does not mean that they are off put by it, but instead either just put up with it, which then advantages the draw offerer, or they walk away from the site and play elsewhere.

The solution I have offered allows the draw offer, but stops repeated draw offers.

I would say in all the games that have been played on this site, that out of all those games, the percentage of games that have ended in a draw after a player has offered two or more draws in a row to be so small as to not be measurable.

As a side note - As this is an ICCF rule, this means that the majority of ICCF National Federations voted to implement this rule.

Clearly, those NF's thought the issue was serious enough to implement this rule years ago, with refinements along the way to the current rule quoted here.

Since the rule has been in place and not overturned, I think the fact that many National Federations and players want this rule should be a clear clue that the issue is serious and counter measures should be put in place, as suggested with my rule offer.


Dariusz Fraczek    (2020-12-12 16:57:21)
Cannot make a move

After selecting a game I am on move, blank page is displayed (only menu bar) - no board, no game data. Games where my opponents are on move are displayed correctly and I can change game id and go to a game I am on move, but it is in read only mode. Checked on different browsers (Chrome and Opera) and different PCs. Some hours ago there was no problem.


Daniel Parmet    (2020-12-12 18:01:32)
What happened to all the players?

Here I quote LSS rule:
"Dear Chessfriends,

in the past there have been many complaints about games where one player started moving slowly esp in a lost position, partially using the 30-day-per-individual-move rule to its extreme. To my opinion, this is not a good attitude of sportsmanship.

I have therefore developed a measure against this. Depending on the position, the used time of reflection and the ratings of both players, the server can detect such games with a high probability. Actually, the delay of games is already part of the LSS Rules, but was not in effect so far.

Effective 1st October, 2020, such games will now be stopped by the server and the delaying player will be suspended for 3 weeks to start new tournaments. Further penalties might be introduced, if required.

The algorithm will not be revealed to avoid misuse and it might be due to change without notice.

Best wishes
Ortwin Pätzold"


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2020-12-12 18:39:05)
What happened to all the players?

And this is the reason why I will not start any tournaments at LSS after finishing my last game. It should not be the server's job to estimate and finish a game.


Daniel Parmet    (2020-12-12 22:17:24)
What happened to all the players?

Interesting to see someone actually is in opposition to such a rule!

I am completely the opposite. It makes me want to only play on LSS and give up on ICCF. ICCF has such a huge DMD problem now; it is totally out of control.


Rotom Monotua    (2020-12-13 08:54:24)
What happened to all the players?

I am with Heinz- Georg when he says it's not the servers job to end a game.
Opponents who are delaying might be annoying but on the other hand have every right to use there time.


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-12-13 11:59:19)
What happened to all the players?

That is a tough choice from Ortwin, obviously... I agree with him on the idea that any rule can/will be enforced, but I'm not sure I can agree with this "unknown" rule, indeed. But it may work.

Thanks to Daniel for the quote and to all for the comments on this difficult issue. That's matter to think about.


Daniel Parmet    (2020-12-13 18:13:22)
What happened to all the players?

Well the thing is that the rule is not specific so we don't know how it will be applied but it is hard to come up with a scenario where it isn't the logical course of action. We have people that play R+3 vs R +3 for years or Opposite color bishop endgames that are obviously draw. This has to stop.


Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2020-12-13 18:44:07)
What happened to all the players?

In LSS, the server only terminates games if a player does not respond for a longer time and the engine used by the server evaluates the position of this player as lost. Furthermore, the ELO numbers of the two players are important. However, Ortwin does not publish the exact algorithm. He only published some examples in advance.
By the way, obvious draw positions are not finished.


Stephane Legrand    (2020-12-22 21:05:43)
Repeated draw offers

I find draw offers annoying when a player offers draw at every move...
I would keep that player's name! I don't play tournament with this player anymore...


Ewald Gossmann    (2020-12-23 12:59:51)
FAIR PLAY

Please, have a look on game 123915. Is something like that FAIR PLAY?


Rotom Monotua    (2020-12-23 13:29:25)
FAIR PLAY

It´s not but do not worry it´s checkmate in four ;-)


Thibault de Vassal    (2020-12-24 00:45:57)
FAIR PLAY

Well, if your opponent does not use engines (and thinks you're not using engines as well) there is some hope yet after a certain move :)


Ewald Gossmann    (2021-01-04 14:27:01)
K+B vs. K

I think all chessplayers know that this position is a draw. But in the game 125428 my oponent continues making move after move. I have already offered a draw, but no reaction.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2021-03-19 19:26:41)
Berlin Defense

Why do people keep playing Ruy Lopez if there's Berlin Defense that's drawish more than enough?

I still haven't lost a game in Berlin Defense as black.


Herbert Kruse    (2021-03-28 15:10:13)
Poker Rating

This rule has good reasons to be maintained, whatever the game played : at least 10 moves must have been played so that it be rated...


Best regards,
Thibault

and i:

so if my opp goes all in and i have 2 aces i have to fold to get a rating win?

how can this be my fault?


Herbert Kruse    (2021-03-28 15:42:14)
Poker Rating

i looked into the rules and didnt found any part, where at least 10 moves had to be played

and this rule would only make sence for chess and not poker


Garvin Gray    (2021-04-02 06:08:44)
Berlin Defense

Before giving my thoughts on why white is still playing the Ruy Lopez given the drawing odds of the Berlin in correspondence chess, how many games and out of how many has black won with the Berlin?


Wilhelm Schuett    (2021-04-02 13:46:48)
Berlin Defense

i don't know. White could also play 4. Nc3 or 4. Qe2


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.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-02 22:48:22)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?

Without chess engines, there is always a chance, right? :)


Tim Harding    (2021-04-02 23:02:25)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?

But you said yourself you are not stopping anyone cheating, so I won't be entering another of these events I think. (Also because 90% of my games with Black I win very easily against weak opponents.) It's possible for White to avoid defeat in the KG if he chooses the safest lines but Black has a wide choice of playable defences. In some of these if White wants to have a real chance to win then he also increases the prospect of losing. I had some failed experiments in these tournaments.


Christoph Schroeder    (2021-04-03 12:51:26)
Poker Rating

I really don't get the point of disallowing the rating of short games. It is like saying: "If a football team scores a goal within the first 5 minutes, the game result is cancelled (how dare they score so quickly?)."

In chess: What is the justification for handling a blundering of a piece at move nine (game not rated) differently from blundering a piece at move 11 (game rated)?

In poker, Herberts example shows the whole absurdity of the rule. If you are playing a maniac, such games can happen. What is the reason for not rating these games?


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-06 01:15:09)
Poker Rating

In my opinion it would be more like saying: "If a football team shows probable non-sportsmanship by playing without any effort...", in many competitions the result is impacted by such behaviour, in some cases the game is adjudicated.

Why move 10 ? Only because we need a clear rule. It is a choice and just like most rules, once we know it, we have to accept it to continue the game (and casually adapt our way to play). Anyway this rule was very efficient as for rapid forfeits, it is really useful.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-06 01:19:10)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?

Yes, of course I understand that... that's another topic though.

Wilhelm, what did you mean exactly by "But i see no chance for white"?


Wilhelm Schuett    (2021-04-06 07:26:38)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?

there are too many good answers for black. White is fighting not to lose.


Christoph Schroeder    (2021-04-06 08:53:31)
Poker Rating

In OTB chess I once lost a tournament game in 10 moves, blundering a winning combination by my opponent. Was my resignation at move 10 non-sportsmanlike?

The reason for losing quickly is most probably a lack of skill or an oversight by one player. Both things happen every day and are part of the game. No reason not to rate the game.

The consequence of this rule is outright ridiculous: a player who has the chance to mate his opponent before move 10, would have to refrain from mating and intentially play weaker moves, hoping that his opponent will resign only after move 10. I think noone really wants to see games like that.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-07 01:18:50)
Poker Rating

No, it wasn't non-sportsmanlike for sure, good example... but should this game really be rated? (rated for the winner I mean, you lost some points in this case)

The other problem is that players trying to manipulate ratings could do the same and reality is that they do not (or very rarely) when there are 10 moves at least to play, so this rule is efficient to prevent this. And as we all know, no rule is perfect for everyone.

You are right, lasting a won game to move 10 would be strange but it is a choice and a price to pay... the main thing is that it should be rare.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-08 00:27:08)
Poker Rating

Well, let's try to gather more opinions here... if players want such a change, it is possible.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2021-04-11 17:55:56)
Poker Rating

Dunno, but it makes a bit more sense for chess (not sure if enough, and mostly I don't care as all my games are more than 10 moves anyway).

Poker has this option to go all-in which is legit move and sometimes can cause legit games that are less than 10 moves short. (If a player is crazy enough.)


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-12 12:14:19)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended

Well, any solution is fine to me, but I'm not sure it would be ok for all players, particularly those who may try to manage many games in various WCH cycles... but maybe it is time to decide and to make a new rule.


Yeturu Aahlad    (2021-04-12 19:10:42)
Poker Rating

At big chess, it is fairly common for one side - typically Black - to be down a pawn early in the game. I have had at least one opponent immediately resign. At Go, a player may blunder in a corner and immediately resign.

On the other hand, I have won many games on time and in many of those cases, the opponent didn't make any moves at all.

Perhaps a subjective challenge deserves a subjective response - I am seeing sound arguments on both sides. Suggestion - if a game concludes under 10 moves, and the winner thinks she has a genuine grievance, she can appeal for the ELO grant and a referee will adjudicate. Herbert's case is very strong. If the losing side didn't make any moves, adjudication need not be allowed, or may be automatically denied. Too many frivolous appeals from a player can lead to disciplinary action including a loss of this privilege. (I don't expect that to happen in this community)


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-13 01:04:44)
Poker Rating

This rule was added when, more than 10 years ago, players asked for a non-subjective system, as automatic as possible (more algorithm, less human referees)... it looks like the debate is still open :)


Garvin Gray    (2021-04-13 09:25:24)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended

In terms of games management, I do not think there is any 'perfect' solution.

The only way a player could have any way of being able to predict when the next stage would start is if a full pdf calendar was published, which is not the case for this site.

With what we have to work with so far, the best way a player can predict game load is to monitor the remaining games in the cycle in progress and estimate when they are going to end.

And then a rule could be implemented that states something like: Once all games from the previous stage have been completed, the next stage will begin as of the 1st of the next month.

Which would mean that for Wch 22 Stage 2, the Round Robin group would start 1/5/2021.

And then once the last two games from the Semi Final knockouts are completed, the knockout final starts on the 1st day of the next month.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-15 14:39:10)
Poker Rating

Any player who forfeits without a good reason should lose some points IMO (maybe more or maybe less than a regular lost game, but here it is equal at the moment)... but should a player who wins such a game be rewarded when he played 0, 1 or 5 moves? I don't think so. If it was the case, it would be much easier to manipulate ratings.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-15 14:48:06)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended

There is no full calendar indeed but that is a mistake... for now, there is a line "Schedule" in My messages that displays when the next WCH & CUP will start, but I could add the same for next rounds if we decide that all next rounds should start with new cycles. A start at 1st of the next month may be not so easy to manage according to the cases.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-16 14:35:19)
Poker Rating

To graduate a %-rated according to the number of moves played would not be a bad idea... why not.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-16 14:44:46)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended

That is true as well... but fact is that a round may (usually) last 5,6,7,8,9 or 10 months.

It is not easy to make it easier for players anyway.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-26 23:50:30)
Poker Rating

Don, I can't say...

Herbert, yes I always do something different ^^ you may be right but at least one player asked for that fold-after-check option in this forum (AFAIR) and well, why not.


Misha Allport    (2021-04-27 20:18:08)
Players ratings

When are players' ratings adjusted? After each game? After each tournament?


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-28 00:56:13)
Players ratings

Hello Misha,

"My messages" page specifies : Dear chessfriends, the correspondence chess ratings and FICGS chess database have been updated on March 02, 2021 (next update around May 01, 2021).

Advanced chess ratings, big chess ratings, Go ratings & poker ratings are updated after each game.


Garvin Gray    (2021-05-04 12:14:16)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended

I decided to leave this discussion for a while for two reasons. 1) I genuinely believed that whatever would be agreed to in this discussions would be unwound at a later date and

2) That my involvement in the discussions was not a helpful factor for others to become involved in the discussions

I will now explain what issues made me go public with my frustrations with this site and with the site owner in particular.

Over a long period of time, I had a to beg, plead and convince that the FICGS World Cup was an event that would be supported, despite Thibault's regular protests to the contrary.

Once the event and the format was finally decided to 'give it a go', the numbers was huge for this site and the general format had two primary goals:

1) No preferential treatment for high rated players. Everyone started from round one and the groups for round one would be divided up to make sure that each group would be of roughly equal strength

2) In previous discussions with the WCH, I had regularly protested that when there were groups of 5, that these groups should be double round robin, ensuring that all players got eight games and that colour allocation for the top two seeds would not play a role in the final results.

Then the latest groupings for the World Cup were released and everything that had been previously agreed had been violated:

1) Groups of 5 were used and all groups were only single round robin (breaking of a previous agreement)
2) The entire purpose of the World Cup was to have large first round groups and a small number of groups, ensuring that only about 9 or so players made it through to the final round. As it stands now, about 19 players will make it to the final round. The entire format has been advertised as a two round event. Therefore, there can not be a third stage. This is a clear condition of entry and it can not be violated. (breaking of another previous agreement).

I can go on and on, but I think this is sufficient as to highlight why I come to the conclusion that the site owner has no issue at all with breaking previous agreements.

I busted my ass for a number of years to convince everyone that the World Cup was a good event worth supporting. And when it was first run, it was well supported.

To now see it so corrupted makes me just think, why bother. Another deal broken. Time to move on from this site.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-05-07 01:34:51)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended

I understand your frustration Garvin, thanks for explaining your views once again and I'll try to answer each point (even if you do not answer anymore):

a) You were right on the Cup format Garvin, obviously. Probably on (many) other ideas... I just can't say.

b) I always thought & said that stable rules were important in many ways (that I explained), which is frustrating, I understand that.

c) As far as I remember, I added the possibility of double round-robin for 5-players groups after that discussion but indeed it was (probably) never used. Maybe the rule should be changed to "always double-robin for 5-players groups", that would be easy to do. A fact is that it is difficult to gather more than 3 or 4 opinions in this forum these times :/ By the way, if anyone can find this discussion where I agreeded something else than a possibility, then (my bad) I'll change it immediately.

d) I do think that a multi-stages tournament should have a pre-determined number of stages... (players should know what kind of engagement it represents) Maybe I just missed that point and a rule specifying that stage 1 groups will be built so that x to y players (no less, no more) will play round 2 could be added. Why not.


Herbert Kruse    (2021-05-08 17:51:32)
Poker Rating

because these are real cheating, the other one (all in) is just playing high risc


Garvin Gray    (2021-05-10 11:44:13)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended

Groups with less than 7 players: https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=13002

FICGS__CHESS__CUP_CHAMPIONSHIP__000004

FICGS chess cup championship is a 2 stages round-robin tournament.

My wording: The two stage tournament is the basic design of the event and is hard wired into the event. The whole event was designed to be a two stage event, with large groups in the first stage, to ensure that the first round groups are competitive and also that no players received byes through to a second round based on rating.

I had to plead for years for this format and garner support from other players before you would agree to even run it as a trial in it's first year. And then in its first year, it received over 100 entries, a lot of top players entered and was a complete success.

So, I believe I have every right to be pissed off at you directly that it really does seem like you are attempting to unwind the format of this event.

The format is clearly described in the published rules, so for the site owner to so flagrantly ignore them can only be described as one of two actions:

1) Negligent
2) Deliberant


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-05-17 23:24:20)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended

Garvin, that thread (13002) was about FICGS Wch, not FICGS Cup... I added the possibility only of double round robin in Wch because I was not sure it was necessary in every stages (obviously it finds more sense in a round robin final than in stage 1), but anyway I could make it more accurate.

But indeed I just saw it was specified in FICGS Cup rules: "There will be double round-robin tournaments in case of groups of less than 7 players." ... fact is I can't remember when it was added but I guess I could have forgotten to apply it. Usually I read the rules again & again while making pairings, so I may have been negligent here. My apologies to all participants...

Thanks Garvin for pointing it out.

I'll come back on changes soon, it is a pity not to be able to gather more opinions so I'll have to make a move anyway.


Steven DuCharme    (2021-05-29 03:27:20)
ATTENTION USA PLAYERS

USA inmate D38967 awaits your move via jpay.com ...ENJOY


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-06-13 16:21:10)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?

Hello Herbert. Don't worry, I saw your messages but I always give players a chance to resign in this case. It will be ended soon anyway.


Herbert Kruse    (2021-06-13 23:03:42)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?

FIDE Laws of Chess:

5.1 The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent's king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was legal.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-06-15 15:36:44)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?

The checkmated player should resign to end the game (and to see it deleted from his list, that is more convenient anyway)

All FIDE chess rules apply at FICGS when there is no FICGS rule. Many rules here are different from FIDE (starting from 50 moves rule)... that is even more true about Big Chess.


Herbert Kruse    (2021-06-16 18:53:22)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?

b) When a player wins a tournament with an entry fee (not null) and prize, he can choose after the game(s) to keep E-Points (by default) instantly added in his FICGS account or, if he has E-Points enough in his account, a money prize. Entry fees and prizes in E-Points are published on the tournament page in "Waiting lists". If games in such a tournament have not been really played for a win, for example if a participant obviously lost quickly one or several games, these tournaments will not be considered as wins and the player showing this behaviour will lose his E-points involved in the tournament, that will be taken from the winner's account if necessary.

If you ask for a money prize, the tournament prize in E-Points will be taken from your account, then you'll be paid 70 % of the total entry fees in Euros, divided according to the number of winners in the tournament, ie. if you win your game(s) in a Gold 2-players tournament : 70 % of 200 = 140 Euros. This ratio may evolve anytime. (!!!)

is the last you are waiting for?
its 11 days since the first checkmate and my opponnet did not resign


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-06-19 11:19:01)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?

Yes, checkmate is the goal (in some way) of the game, but it doesn't say it automatically ends the game. Of course I can specify it.

Finally your opponent did resign... new players do not always get immediately how the site works.

And yes, the ratio may evolve, it happened once only since FICGS started.


Garvin Gray    (2021-07-03 18:06:08)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

What is the situation for Groups of less than 7 players for this event?


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-07-04 00:50:58)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

"Round-robin tournaments are groups of 5, 7, 9, 11 or 13 players, there may be double round-robin tournaments in case of groups of less than 7 players."


Garvin Gray    (2021-07-04 03:40:06)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

So despite all the debates and assurances, nothing has changed for this rule. You are not changing from 'may be' to 'will be'.

As in - "Round-robin tournaments are groups of 5, 7, 9, 11 or 13 players, there will be double round-robin tournaments in case of groups of less than 7 players."


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-07-04 13:31:17)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

In the other discussion I specified: "Garvin, that thread (13002) was about FICGS Wch, not FICGS Cup... I added the possibility only of double round robin in Wch because I was not sure it was necessary in every stages (obviously it finds more sense in a round robin final than in stage 1), but anyway I could make it more accurate."

So, in all ways, it sounds like I didn't specify that all 5 players groups in WCH should be double round robin.


Garvin Gray    (2021-07-05 08:37:02)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

I added the possibility only of double round robin in Wch because I was not sure it was necessary in every stages (obviously it finds more sense in a round robin final than in stage 1), but anyway I could make it more accurate."

So, in all ways, it sounds like I didn't specify that all 5 players groups in WCH should be double round robin.

Garvin - Are you now specifying that ALL 5 player groups will now be double round robins?

As for the first part, I think actually a DRR (double round robin) in stage 1 is just as important, if not more so.

Here is why.

Players are seeded from 1 to the last player across the groups, going back and forth across the groups to seed the second seeds, third seeds and so forth.

This then can produce large differences in ratings between the players in some groups, and in others, very small differences between the top two seeds.

And it is for this fact, and then that players 3, 4 and 5 are then going to be very far rated below seeds 1 and 2, that a double round robin is necessary.

Otherwise, the number 1 seed gains a rather large advantage by being white against the number two seed.

A double round robin in all groups that are 5 player avoids all these issues. It is only 8 games total.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-07-08 18:10:09)
Big Chess theory?

IMHO the queen is more worthy than 2 rooks... at least for human players ^^


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-07-09 01:59:50)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

Of course you make a point there, but it also questions 7 players groups (after all, rating difference between seed 1 & seed 2 is not much lower in average, and 12 games is still feasible in regular groups).

When groups should be double RR or not? Well, I agree that simple RR is not the most fair way, but as I explained about a decade ago, the idea of this championship was not to be the most fair, it was to multiply occurences without loading a too large number of games (and keeping rules as simple as possible, which was not a great success there by the way ^^).

Anyway, I won't say you're wrong, I think it was just a choice like another one.

But we can give it a try (maybe it will be a way to get some impressions & comments), so we'll have 5 players double RR tomorrow if it has to happen.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-07-11 12:58:27)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

Sure, result decides first, but when it cannot, then ratings have a role to play, finally there must be a clear algorithm to decide in all cases.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-07-11 17:49:37)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

Here we are, for the first time in the FICGS chess championship, we have 5 players double round robin groups (regular groups, not M / SM groups)... Of course, players are invited to share their impressions on this matter.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-07-18 12:19:46)
3 times repetition not recognized ??

There is, but still buggy sometimes... it should detect the next occurrence anyway. Strange to see players declining such draw offers.


Christoph Schroeder    (2021-07-18 12:55:47)
3 times repetition not recognized ??

As we have seen in another thread, some players need a tutorial for the ending KB vs K.

Apparently, others have never heard of the threefold repetition rule.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-02-27 13:47:40)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

This topic to discuss what should be done about ukrainian players clocks... Probably they do have other matter to think than to take vacation on FICGS while their country is under attack.

Garvin told me that ICCF decided to stop their clocks. What do you think?


Paul Brand Lyard    (2021-07-18 21:09:29)
Chess engines levels from 1985 to 2020

Lc0 27.0 is a very nice engine to play,with Shredder, and the SF12 nuue is great.


Paul Brand Lyard    (2021-07-18 21:19:39)
Chess engines levels from 1985 to 2020

Lc0 27.0 is a very nice engine to play,with Shredder, and the SF12 nuue is great.
So,the new "21 one moves#" played on 2020, on engine SF11 nuue
by
" The Sandra Lyard13061975 Inventor Annapurna'chess,and chess player", Stockfish11.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-07-20 15:18:36)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

By the way, chess WCH rules have been updated: all 5 players groups will be double round robin from now.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-08-15 13:00:22)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

I still don't know but we cannot start with 13 players... we'll have to wait some more.


Garvin Gray    (2021-09-11 11:56:08)
VENEZUELA HAS BEEN DISMISSED FROM ICCF

Juri - Quite a few of your questions contain quite a lot of accusations, or at least a tone of accusations, or that those who took actions in dismissing Venezuela has some kind of hidden motives.


The decision to dismiss Venezuela was made by the National Delegates of each Federation of ICCF, after considering all the evidence before them.

This included unpaid prize money, where entry fees were charged, over at least two years, unpaid affiliated fees to the ICCF (same time period) and the National Delegate of Venezuela was offered many opportunities to pay back the money.

The National Delegate ran the tournaments, handled the money through paypal and in the end was in debt to the ICCF and the players of their tournament to the tune of roughly 7 to 10 thousand euros.

So, yes, ICCF has provided plenty of evidence that the 'organiser' took off with the entry fees of the players and did not pay out the advertised prize monies.

Multiple attempts were made by the ICCF Executive Board to reach a satisfactory compromise with the National Delegate, but in the end the National Delegate cut off all communications and went completely silent to everyone.

All Federations pay an affiliation fee to be part of ICCF. This amount is levied in part based on the number of members a Federation has, and also that countries economic position (GDP).

After reading all this, what other option was there for the other National Delegates to vote for?

In another proposal, which you have not referenced, the ICCF Executive board has promised that the prize money that was not paid out by the Venezuelan National Delegate would be covered by the ICCF, which will cost roughly 10,000 euro and will be paid out to the players.

So, to answer your questions after all this information:

1) No. This issue and your question are not related at all. It is not even certain if the Venezuelan National Delegate lived in Venezuela.

2) Yes, plenty of evidence was provided. Players had also reported that they had not received their prize money. I can report this as fact as I got burnt as a player in one of their events. So I know first hand that this occurred.

3) This has nothing to do with 'sports'.

This is a common misunderstanding about how ICCF works. ICCF is an association of Federations ie ICCF only recognises Federations. Therefore, officially ICCF can only take action formally against Federations and only works with the National Delegate from that Federation.

How the Federation conducts their business 'behind the scenes' is up to them and is none of the business of ICCF. It would be highly improper for ICCF to have a say in how any individual Federation ran their Federation.

What now occurs is that the remaining Venezuelan players are treated as isolated players. They can not represent Venezuela in team events, by they are free to play in any individual events.

Some of these players might be picked up by other Federations, if another Federation wants them.

4) Money transfers - As I already alluded to, it is not clear if the Venezuelan ND was even in Venezuela, but anyways, he had no trouble receive the entry fees, so money transfers by paypal were no issue.

If there was an issue, then they should not have run prize money tournaments

5) No political motives - This was a straight up case of whether the Venezuelan ND had taken off with the entry fees of the players and failed to pay out the prize money from many tournaments, as well as the Federation failing to pay their affiliation fees, as well as being in debt for other fees as well.

These are basic responsibilities for all Federations. Even if you want to lay all the blame of the Venezuelan ND, a case can be made as to ask what happened to any oversight from anyone else?

Or was the Venezuelan ND just a rogue operator?

This experience has left a sour taste in everyone's mouth and remedy steps have been taken to try and avoid this occurring again.

See other proposals.

Garvin Gray
Australia ICCF National Delegate


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-09-20 02:16:26)
Chess Cup final #4

The 4th FICGS chess cup just started with 28 players... that is much more than the previous ones, and too many players most probably, but it should not happen again as 5 players groups will be double round robin from now (decreasing chances to see 4 or 5 players obtaining the same score).

Good luck everyone!


Garvin Gray    (2021-09-20 02:29:39)
Chess Cup final #4

As I already mentioned. To avoid this in the future, all that is required is that the initial groups need to be larger.

12 groups of 9 players etc avoids this issue entirely.


Garvin Gray    (2021-09-24 19:07:03)
Chess Cup final #4

So, in review of what occurred from the preliminary stage, where there 15 groups of 5 players, making 75 players in total?

Is that correct?


Juri Eintalu    (2021-10-06 18:54:56)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess

Now, as a new user on FICGS, I have a new problem. I do not know how to block another user whose aggressive comments I really do not want to read or respond to.

The system of accepting a draw can be tested, of course, if 2 staff members of FICGS play 4 unrated games with each other, proposing a draw on the 4. move. First, whether checking the "Accept" box is sufficient; Second, whether my claim is true that it is possible to check the "Accept", make a move and send it - to achieve acceptance of a draw.

Possibly, there are some time-out problems with the promised pop-up window.

I really do not respond ever again to GG-s empty etc comments.


Herbert Kruse    (2021-10-19 09:53:24)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

the next world championship can not be played because two players in the Round Robin 20 are playing on forever a completely draw Position


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-10-21 00:29:15)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess

A first explanation to your problem with draw offers is that you use the "slow moves" process... not many players still use it. I think that this bug is not appearing in the "fast moves" process.


Juri Eintalu    (2021-11-27 02:49:44)
Unvaccinated correspondence chessplayers

I have read that in Latvia, unvaccinated deputies of the parliament are banned from voting and giving speeches — even from far, digitally. Estonian newspapers wrote about this.
I have also read that in some parts of Australia, the unvaccinated deputies of some local offices cannot vote even from far. I do not know what to believe.
However, online voting cannot spread the virus.
Therefore, a question arises concerning correspondence chess. Imagine that someone demands that unvaccinated chess players be banned from playing online chess because online chess cannot infect anyone with the virus.
I do not understand what the logic of all of this is.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-11-29 02:01:04)
Unvaccinated correspondence chessplayers

It seems to me that is pure political stuff... Someones want the others being vaccinated to protect everyone best, someones don't want to be vaccinated... Well, that is just an explosive melt. I don't think that there is a simple solution, but well... it is obvious that our governments impact/affect us in many ways, I'm not sure if "it <<shouldn't>> have some control on our body as well (to protect the others)" is a real argument.

Fortunately, the context of correspondence chess is not the same as paliaments ^^


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-11-29 02:09:11)
Repeated draw offers

After a case a repeated draw offers, I thought that the rule should evolve from:

"Also, no player will make draw offers repeatedly, particularly serveral times in a row. Doing so may lead to instantly lose the game, and/or being immediately and permanently banned."

... to ...

"Also, no player will make draw offers repeatedly, particularly serveral times in a row. Doing so may lead to get a limited access to the server (until to get a response if necessary) then to lose the game, finally to get permanently banned if this behaviour does not stop."

Reason is that it seems not so obvious for certain players to remember all draw offers while playing quite slowly many many games. Also, they may not receive some warning messages.


Garvin Gray    (2021-11-29 09:20:46)
Repeated draw offers

My first post on this matter already contained a very good solution for this issue that would never result in any bans:

ICCF has a different solution to this matter and I believe it should be incorporated here:

If a player offers a draw in a single game, and that draw offer is declined by the opponent, the server will incapacitate the player's ability to make a second draw offer until at least 10 more moves have been made, with one exception.

If the opponent offers a draw during a player's 10-move count (that is, within 10 moves subsequent to the player's having made a draw offer), then the player's 10-move count is terminated at that time such that the player can again offer a draw with any move. This "10-move" rule does not include claims of a draw related to 3-position repetition, 7-piece tablebase claims, 50-move rule claims, or adjudication-related claims.


Juri Eintalu    (2021-11-29 11:09:53)
Unvaccinated correspondence chessplayers

During the epidemics, restrictions and quarantine are traditional and usual measures. If the restrictions are applied, it is natural that the OTB (over-the-board) chess tournaments are cancelled, and the coaches cannot give indoor lessons. However, such restrictions should not be applied to online chess or coaching as there is no such thing as "online coronavirus".

Suppose that wearing the masks reduces the probability of being infected and also the probability of spreading the virus. Then, it seems natural to demand that the OTB chess players should wear masks. Moreover, chess is not wrestling.

One can also plausibly argue that in the case of contacts with other people outside the home, at least one of the measures should be applied: masks, distance, negative result of the test recently made, or vaccination.

The question of vaccines involves scientific, moral, and political aspects. The scientific issues involve the effectiveness of the vaccine and its side effects. How probably the vaccine reduces the rate of infections, and how probably it reduces the rate of deaths among those infected. How severe is the virus, and how often and how serious are the vaccine's adverse effects. Some religious moral systems, in turn, reject vaccines produced in some specific way. International law rejects uninformed non-voluntary human experiments, etc.

Suppose that the aim is to reduce the rate of infections, and the vaccine is highly effective and without serious side effects. Suppose also that we are utilitarians and aim to maximize the wellbeing of society as a whole.

In the case of such presumptions, it seems natural to demand that the chess coaches giving indoor lessons be vaccinated or show the test results, etc. However, it still does not follow that the unvaccinated chess player cannot play online chess or give online lessons — because there is no such thing as "online coronavirus".

Thibault de Vassal: "Fortunately, the context of correspondence chess is not the same as parliaments."

— Yes, but this is precisely the question: what's the difference? Note that one might also argue that unvaccinated chess players should not play online chess, but the unvaccinated selected deputies should have the possibility to give speeches — because they are political representatives of the people.


Juri Eintalu    (2021-11-29 11:18:31)
Repeated draw offers

First, what you can do, is to make changes to the server program so that the game log or the notation of the game will show, when and who has made draw offers. Sometimes, when the game is finished, the player later wants to know, when did the opponent offer a draw.


Juri Eintalu    (2021-11-29 11:28:45)
Repeated draw offers

The easiest rule is that a player can make maximally three draw offers per game. It is easy to remember that you have made 1, 2, or 3 draw offers. It is easier to program such a rule on the server.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-11-29 18:03:06)
Repeated draw offers

Juri, it seems it's not obvious for several players at least. Garvin's proposition is probably best, avoiding any human intervention, I agree with that. Maybe I can do something according to player's taste, just like for private messages in games.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-12-01 02:12:36)
Repeated draw offers

I just updated the process and rules... let's give a try to this new version (without any human intervention on the result of the game):

"Also, no player will make draw offers repeatedly, particularly several times in a row. Doing so may lead to get blocked by your opponents, finally to get a limited access to the server (until to solve the problem)."

It is now possible to report then block draw offers (at least the main message & popup) just like it is possible with private messages in games. Then it shouldn't be annoying anymore.


Garvin Gray    (2021-12-23 03:39:41)
Cross tables in score order

Currently the tournament cross tables are always shown in start order.

Would it be possible to give players the option to be able to show them in score order?


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-01-04 02:00:57)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess

Well, obviously I re-created this bug a few weeks ago when making the update to allow players to block repeated draw offers... It seems to be fixed now.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-01-07 23:19:23)
Cross tables in score order

Hi Garvin, both options are now displayed... thanks for the reminder :)


Stanislas Gounant    (2022-01-18 22:12:07)
Chess engines in thematic tournaments

Are players using chess engibnes welcome in thematic tournaments?


Vadrya Pokshtya    (2022-02-17 08:53:34)
Grand Dice Chess

The Dagaz server where you can play Grand Dice Chess
https://games.dtco.ru/map


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    (2022-02-27 13:50:13)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

I support this idea.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-02-27 14:00:58)
FICGS support to Ukraine

I must say I'm not used at all to merge politics &/or war to chess... I'm not sure if FICGS should display a ukrainian flag during these obviously very sad times. But I'll do it if the most think it's a good idea. Personally I do support civil people under bombs, probably in all cases.

Also it is quite tough to understand what happens there from 2014 & Minsk agreements... I discussed about it with russians, ukrainians, read many news & fake news, much complexity. I do not think this is the place to discuss about it though, so let's just decide about a way to support or if we should stop players clocks only.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-02-27 14:08:41)
FICGS support to Ukraine

As one ukrainian player registered for the FICGS chess championship, I wrote to him to know his views on his own situation. We may also have to decide what to do about this championship in this very particular case (particularly if I do not receive any news).


Brice Boucher    (2022-02-27 14:09:41)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

we can actually see on the ICCF home page that all TDs have stopped the clocks of tournaments involving Ukrainian players,
good luck to all.


A. T. S. Broekhuizen    (2022-02-27 14:27:01)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

in favour


Bahadir Ozen    (2022-02-27 16:34:37)
FICGS support to Ukraine

-1 Messages of love, hope and light can be shared for people in Ukraine. Although the situation seems political, what is happening is happening to humanity...

-2 During this period, the "Special Leave" feature can be given to Ukrainian - resident players.

-3 During this process, the Russian flag may be suspended. (Of course, it is not the fault of the Russian players, but the flag does not comply with the rules of "Gens una Sumus", as it is to represent.

-4 A special tournament can be organized on behalf of Ukraine.


We are going through difficult times. No to war for humanity.

Best regards,
Bahadir


Stanislas Gounant    (2022-02-27 20:32:00)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

i agree


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-02-27 22:24:49)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

I identified ukrainian players in activity (one of them is still connecting), trying to contact them before.


Matt LaDuke    (2022-02-27 23:24:50)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

Agreed


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-02-28 01:18:10)
FICGS support to Ukraine

Bahadir's point 3 may be tough to me... I have to think about it. More opinions are welcome.

Point 4 may be a nice idea but I'm not sure if it would be significatively efficient. We can do this anyway if players enough ask for it.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-02-28 01:44:32)
FICGS support to Ukraine

"Support to all people under attack", followed by ukrainian flag on the right side displayed about everywhere on the website. Of course, not only ukrainians can be victims in Ukraine, so it may be more appropriate.

Feel free to suggest any other message...


Piotr Wiaderek    (2022-02-28 06:24:31)
FICGS support to Ukraine

on LSS server flags of all players were changed on United Nations flag. Even russian players have this flag. Gens una Sumus. Maybe it is a good solution for these difficult times.


Garvin Gray    (2022-02-28 13:06:22)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

I think this issue is one of those higher order issues where the responsibility is on us, or more in particular, the site owner, to protect the interests of the players who country is under attack from war.

I believe the only responsible option is for their clocks to be stopped.

The players should not have to appeal for their clocks to be stopped. Those players may not be aware of this option. And quite frankly, given what is occurring in Ukraine, they should not have to think about, 'oh, I have to contact ficgs to get my clocks stopped'.

Just stop their clocks immediately and then if a Ukrainian player contacts Thibault and says 'I do not live in Ukraine and can continue playing' then their clock can be restarted.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-02-28 21:22:28)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

Let's do this.

Ukrainian players in activity are now in vacation for 45 days. Of course they still have 45 days of vacation remaining. Even if the war ends shortly, I think this is the least time to recover from such dramatic events. If war should last, then this special vacation could be renewed.

Consequently this topic is closed.


Daniel Parmet    (2022-03-01 18:29:43)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

Yes, stop their clocks. ICCF Stopped the clocks until April 29th. It is the right thing to do.


Daniel Parmet    (2022-03-01 18:30:21)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

Great decision. Thibault :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-03-02 00:55:20)
Russian flag replaced

Dear chessfriends, I think that FICGS should walk the way followed by several federations (tennis, soccer...). The russian flag does not represent russian players anymore. Of course, russian people has nothing to do with the sad events in Ukraine.


Garvin Gray    (2022-03-02 08:18:43)
Russian flag replaced

The situation between ficgs and National sports is very different.

With National Sports, they receive funding and are playing under the name Russia. Therefore, when that team wins, the Russian Government receives a benefit.

On here, whilst players are from Russia, we are all playing as individuals.

And as been clearly noted in a lot of news articles, most Russian people do not support the actions of the Russian Government.

I think this is case in ficgs where if a Russian player wanted to change their flag to a neutral flag, they should be given that opportunity, but it should not be forced on them.


Patrick DeBonis    (2022-03-02 14:19:18)
FICGS support to Ukraine

Of course, I support the Ukrainian people, but I don't hold any of this against the Russian players on this site. I'm not for removing there flags. We are all adults' here and can discern the difference between governments and ordinary people.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-03-02 19:50:53)
Russian flag replaced

I understand your point but it seems to be more complicated... At tennis, in example, Elina Svitolina (UKR) didn't want to play Anastasia Potapova (RUS) yesterday, but federation of tennis "removed" russian flag for individual players... the match finally happened (Svitolina won 6-2 6-1 by the way). All russians I know do not support this war, so I think it is a good sign of support from them to join this idea, kind of support for peace.

If any russian player is pro-Poutine or supports this war, of course he can talk to me and ask for his flag (not meaning he'll get it).


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-03-02 19:54:37)
FICGS support to Ukraine

Clocks for ukrainian players in activity have been stopped yesterday (45 days of special "vacation", can be renewed if necessary).

I don't hold any of this against russian players as well. As I said in the other post:

"(...) At tennis, in example, Elina Svitolina (UKR) didn't want to play Anastasia Potapova (RUS) yesterday, but federation of tennis "removed" russian flag for individual players... the match finally happened (Svitolina won 6-2 6-1 by the way). All russians I know do not support this war, so I think it is a good sign of support from them to join this idea, kind of support for peace.

If any russian player is pro-Poutine or supports this war, of course he can talk to me and ask for his flag (not meaning he'll get it)."


Patrick DeBonis    (2022-03-03 02:54:02)
FICGS support to Ukraine

This reminds me of the 1939 Chess Olympiad in Buenos Aries. In the middle of the tournament, World War II broke out. The participants on both sides managed to put their differences aside and finished the tournament. After the tournament was over, many players from both sides chose to stay in Agrentina and sit out the war. I wish things were that simple today.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-03-06 00:46:16)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

Clodomiro, you qualified from SM group stage 1. Only one player from this group does not qualify for stage 2 (or stage 3)... Please read chess WCH rules for full explanation.


Patrick DeBonis    (2022-03-07 16:51:21)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

It's only fair. They can't help it if their infrastructure is down, or if they have been called into military service. I would do the same thing in the event of a natural disaster.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-03-07 21:08:28)
HTTPS not available on March 7th

There was a huge issue on FICGS server today, I'm glad to have been able to fix this as it was really tough and unlikely ^^ This is what happens when running an old system with recent modules...

No time was added to clocks as it lasted less than 24 hours (sorry :)), and a few players connect to HTTP (not really secure, particularly if you used the right login field).

I started to work with the most recent Linux system a few weeks ago so I should be ready to migrate FICGS to this new server at some time... There is no urge though, it will be a long and difficult operation.


Juri Eintalu    (2022-03-23 17:34:51)
FIDE BANS KARJAKIN

The Telegram channel "Chess Patriot" was established on 13 March 2022. FIDE made its complaint about Karjakin to the ethics committee earlier. Probably it was based on Karjakin's two tweets on Twitter, plus Karjakin's public letter to Putin. The complaint was made only 3 days after the Ukraine war started.
After FIDE banned Karjakin for 6 months, he has started to make a war propaganda on his Telegram channel. He asks "reasonable Ukrainians" not to fight and not to defend the Kyiv regime.
Karjakin's Twitter history is fun. After 24. February, several outstanding chess players should be banned as well by FIDE due to the nature of their replies to Karjakin's tweets.
I am sure that FIDE's ethics code did not contain any demand not to support any wars. There is even not any demand not to talk about the ongoing war during the chess competition, etc.
Moreover, this ethics code was applied right before it will be outdated. Since 1 April 2022, that code used to ban Karjakin is not valid anymore.
I am sure that this code was arbitrarily interpreted to ban Karjakin.


Herbert Kruse    (2022-04-26 19:46:24)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=126437

really?


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-04-26 22:50:40)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

Yes, I made that stupid mistake to mix the 60 days / move & the 100 days max accumulated time in my mind... as a consequence, even that 2nd period of 45 days vacation more for Alexey did not help. As soon as I saw that result, I added some time to his other games. I'm now working on a script that will solve this very special case for our ukrainian friends (because these dramatic circumstances may last), in other words, I'll have to shift the last move time, possibly again & again.

Of course this result will be canceled within hours, by the way I specified in terms & conditions (soon uploaded) that such human intervention like this may only happen in case of war.


Daniel Parmet    (2022-04-26 23:05:14)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

An excellent and swift reply. Thank you Thibault.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-04-27 00:24:31)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

Actually I'm so ashamed to have made such a mistake... at least I can fix it :) ... and fortunately, this game was the only one that Alexey lost on time.


Daniel Parmet    (2022-04-27 02:15:06)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

True but mistakes happen. The true mark of character in a person is how they respond to the mistake.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-04-27 02:35:00)
Ukrainian players clocks during war

Thank you... and thanks Herbert for having pointed it out (I could have missed it after all).

It's all fixed now (including my poker rating & Alexey's one due to that loss that shouldn't have happened), and I'll have the right tools to do it again around June 10. I'm afraid that will be necessary.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-05-06 16:25:43)
Chess.com blocked in Russia

By the way, I'm still not sure what to think about the exclusion of russian teams (at chess.com) or russian players (even more significant, at Wimbledon e.g.) from certain tournaments... many argue not to melt games & political stuff, but it is probably not as simple as this.

Definitely I'm not in favor to exlude russian players from any competition, BUT if they display their political views in favor of this "special op", just like FIDE did for Sergey Karjakin.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-05-08 02:18:53)
FIDE BANS KARJAKIN

"A few minutes ago it was announced that the Court of Appeals of the Ethical and Disciplinary Commission (EDC) of the FIDE has rejected the appeal filed by Grand Master Sergey Karjakin against the 6 month disqualification he had been given for having embarrassed the TRUST because of his own Declarations in favor of Russian invasion into Ukraine.
“According to the FIDE Card and the Code of Ethics and Disciplinary FIDE, such a decision can be contested before the Arbitral Court of Sport (CAS) within 21 daysâ€, the sentence reads.
The disqualification, as it is known, will prevent Karjakin from participating in the Madrid nominees Tournament, where he will most likely be replaced by Ding Liren. The Russian player, born in Crimea, said he is considering the possibility of a new International Federation in competition with FIDE."


Juri Eintalu    (2022-05-09 19:58:15)
FIDE BANS KARJAKIN

Karjakin's Appeal was Dismissed by FIDE

Thus, Karjakin still cannot play in the candidates tournament because he publicly approved the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Karjakin, in turn, writes (on his Telegram channel) as a response that he is proud that his grandfather was a great soldier, also, that there are Nazis in Ukraine.

He criticises Kasparov.

Kasparov demands that Russian chess players who want to play in international tournaments should publicly disapprove Russian invasion of Ukraine.


Juri Eintalu    (2022-05-09 20:00:46)
FIDE BANS KARJAKIN

I am worried about Kasparov's demand that only those Russian players should be allowed to participate in international tournaments who publicly disapprove Russian invasion of Ukraine. This demand seems to be extremist, like Lenin's and Stalin's slogans.

First, not every Russian sportsman can have the luxury of being a dissident.

Second, Kasparov is notoriously inconsistent (outside of the chessboard). From his logic, it follows that FIDE should have banned all the US chess players who did not publicly disapprove of invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-05-11 01:41:05)
Carlos Alcaraz y el ajedrez :)

Approximative translation ^^


Q. One of the most unknown aspects of you is that you like to take a nap and play chess before games. Can you explain it to me?

A. That's right. I was caught on camera at the Next Gen in Milan and in Rio I also slept because rest is important and even more so in such an intense week in which it rained and the games were delayed. Recovery was key and naps before games are for me. And chess helps me because you are focused, your head works...

Q. How does chess specifically help you to practice tennis?

A. It helps me to be faster mentally, to observe plays, to see the movement you want to make, the strategy... To be focused all the time. In chess, like tennis, you get lost for a moment and the game is already mixed up. In this aspect they are two quite similar disciplines.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-05-15 16:39:20)
19th Go championship final match

Hello everyone,

The 19th Go championship final match just started... late, really late. It did not start before because the challenger obviously stopped to play at FICGS and lost games without making a move (cancelling his qualification), but when reading the rules again, I realized that nothing prevented to make a replacement by the 2nd best score.

Consequently Paul Dao (CAN) is the challenger in 19th & 20th Go championships. Of course he will not have to play the 20th final match if he wins the 19th...

(better late than never, sorry for the delay)


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-07-10 02:26:11)
Cancel vacations

Sorry, it is specified in the vacation page: "It is not possible to cancel vacation or to play during your vacation."

There is no way to cancel it...


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2022-07-16 11:31:00)
Unvaccinated correspondence chessplayers

I live in Australia, vaccination was never a requirement for voting ...


Juri Eintalu    (2022-07-16 14:28:11)
Unvaccinated correspondence chessplayers

It does not seem to be sufficiently exact information.


Juri Eintalu    (2022-07-16 15:00:54)
Unvaccinated correspondence chessplayers

I am afraid that it is already too late to respond to my post written 7 months ago. For example, now I am already unable or unwilling to find out that old news reporting that somewhere, someone wanted to prohibit even online voting for the unvaccinated.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-07-17 02:22:23)
Unvaccinated correspondence chessplayers

Sorry, I forgot to answer your question:

""Thibault de Vassal: "Fortunately, the context of correspondence chess is not the same as parliaments."

— Yes, but this is precisely the question: what's the difference?""


IMO, difference is firstly motivation (particularly on this topic)... People are not the same in parliaments and in correspondence chess organizations. Usually, they don't want/have to force this or that to other people, in their real life at least... That's what I meant.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-07-17 02:24:11)
Cancel vacations

This is not a simple matter at all actually... cause any player making any move then would provoke changes that are matter to discuss.


Juri Eintalu    (2022-07-17 06:30:46)
FIDE BANS KARJAKIN

Interesting. Russian defence minister Shoigu ordered the Russian army to do everything possible to prevent Ukraine from shelling Donetsk and Luhansk republics.

The next day, Sergey Karyakin appeared in Donetsk's chess club. Karyakin gave a simultaneous chess exhibition in the Donetsk chess club.

Karyakin announces that under the shelling, he understood the following. It is unimportant to have expensive cars, but it is of the utmost importance to stay alive and to have good friends.

On the same day, in the evening, Russia started the heaviest attack on Marinka - the town west of Donetsk, from where Ukraine was shelling Donetsk.

Karyakin invites all chess players to visit Donetsk's wonderful chess club.

No comments.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-08-11 04:06:49)
poker reflection time

Not really, but it does not bring so much improvement (there will be players whose rhythm will take about the same total time at the end - if I understood well) while it complexifies the understanding of the time added per move, IMHO.


Herbert Kruse    (2022-08-13 11:41:31)
poker reflection time

complexity is no problem with poker players, but if u have 5 days left u psychologaly are more in speed modus

i guess 1-2 years shorter is possible


Herbert Kruse    (2022-08-16 00:03:48)
poker reflection time

ok then, lets do it from now on, before some players lose from death, instead of time


Yeturu Aahlad    (2022-08-16 21:32:54)
respectful legacy

Today, an esteemed opponent, Aleksey Payzansky, a Ukrainian player, resigned all his Poker games against me. I've been wanting to start a discussion here on a FICGS policy of respectful legacy for some time now. What follows is a straw-man to start the discussion.
1. It is reasonable to require a minimum degree of prior participation before this policy applies.
2. Under appropriate circumstances, this policy may be applied retroactively.
3. If we know that a participant has died, it will trigger this policy.
4. If a participant announces that they will no longer participate or suspend their participation for an unknown length of time, it will trigger this policy. (Controversial - this is regardless of their reasons for doing so.)
5. If a participant stops participating for a prescribed length of time without any announcement, it will trigger this policy retroactively from the time the participation stopped. (Controversial - the intent is to give the participant the benefit of doubt.)

When the policy applies,
1. All of the participant's pending games (retroactively if applicable) will be adjudged. A player with a clear lead will be declared the winner. Games which are too close will be either declared a tie or removed from the record with no adjustment of ELO. (Controversial - time on the clock will not be a consideration in the adjudication.)
2. Returning participants will be welcomed. They will retain their ELO, and their degree of prior participation will be reset to zero.

I would be happy to see this policy applied retroactively to Aleksey if that is appropriate.


Yeturu Aahlad    (2022-08-18 22:12:06)
poker reflection time

Am I misunderstanding the math? I don't think that would make a meaningful difference. Against an opponent playing as slowly as possible, the new rule with 30-day max accumulated time would end the game 30 days sooner.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-08-19 02:51:26)
respectful legacy

Hello Yeturu,

Indeed, Aleksey is the last ukrainian player I didn't succeed to get news from yet (or who did not continue his games since the war started), after several attempts :/ I hope he's ok... The only Aleksey Payzansky on Facebook seems to be ok as of may, 2022 (no update since that time). As rules already specify, if I learn (soon or late) that he died during his games, his rating will be retroactively restored. But games have to end at one time, I guess.

About games where there is a clear lead, I don't think it can be a sufficient reason for adjudications, at least in poker games.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-08-20 18:35:27)
poker reflection time

Well, after some thinking and the help of another player who told me about that discussion, I have to add or specify several points:

- There is a "max time per move" rule (60 days)
- There is a "max accumulated time" rule (100 days: chess, 60 days: poker)

- The "max time per move" shouldn't be less than 45 days, because of the 45 days of vacation (or we should lower this number of days too).

- The "max accumulated time" can be 30 days while we have 45 days of vacation, there is no problem with that.

Nevertheless, it can be observed that players like me, who play about 1 move per day in each game, never reach the max accumulated time and keep the same rhythm all time long, so I'm afraid it will not change the game duration (sometimes about 1000 days) for us at least. And unfortunately, tournaments follow the rhythm of the slowest players.

Anyway, I'm ok to test that change and we'll look at the result after 1 year or so...


Garvin Gray    (2022-08-22 03:43:25)
RUSSIA AND BELARUS NOT SUSPENDED?

As I have just attended the in person 2022 ICCF Congress, and only just seen this thread, I will clarify some matters.

It is correct that before the matter of the situation in Ukraine, the ICCF statutes only allowed for a Member Federation to be suspended for financial reasons, and this could only be done at Congress ie by majority vote of the Federations.

Therefore, with the situation in Ukraine, the ICCF EB set up the Online Congress and proposals were arranged to deal with that situation. All proposals were designed only to last until the 2022 Congress in Glasgow ie they would be reviewed at the 2022 Congress and the Member Federations would vote again on whether to keep any sanctions, or not.

At the Extraordinary Congress- The Member Federations decided to vote to suspend both Russia and Belarus Federations, but not the individual players.

First of all, there needed to be a vote to change the Statutes, this is what required the 2/3 vote. And the count for the 2/3's is a simple 2/3 majority- For - Against, abstains don't count.

If abstains were to count, then the term would be an absolute majority. That is not the case here. It is a simple 2/3 majority to change the Statutes.

As is pointed out, 'However, that EC was online.' Hence why the Statues proposals vote was first.

If it did not receive the 2/3 simple majority and the Member Federations did not approve the change to allowing Member Federations to be suspended for non financial reasons, then all the other proposals would be null and void, no further voting would take place on the other proposals and no action could be taken against Russia or Belarus until the 2022 in person Congress in Glasgow.

And at the 2022 Congress, this suspension of the Russian and Belarus Federations were continued until the 2023 ICCF Congress in Amsterdam.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-08-27 02:10:07)
2022 Chess Cup-Group Leader(s)

Hello Misha. The algorithm shows "No leader" when there are at least 3 leaders (if I remember well)... This is just a way not to display too many names when it is the case.


Jan Zidu    (2022-09-19 03:37:50)
Repeated draw offers

In any case, I would introduce a rule that each player has the right to offer the opponent a draw repeatedly, but may not do so more than once every 10 moves. If the player follows this rule, he must not be sanctioned in any way. Does the introduction of such a rule present any problem?


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-09-26 14:57:04)
Magnus Carlsen vs. Hans Niemann

Though it is hard to believe that any OTB GM player would be stupid enough to be caught with such 100% correlation scores... As for me I'll wait for more analysis from different sources like this to make an opinion.


Misha Allport    (2022-09-26 23:52:00)
Chess Cup-1st Stage

How many players from each group in the 1st stage qualify for the next phase?


Misha Allport    (2022-10-03 16:58:26)
Number of moves affect the ratng result?

If I am playing a stronger player(+600 points).do the number of moves I make in a loss affect my new rating?(i.e. do I lose fewer points being defeated in 60 moves as opposed to being beaten in 10 moves)?


Misha Allport    (2022-10-03 22:16:56)
Number of moves affect the ratng result?

I am referring to a LOSS to a superior player ranked 600+ points ahead of me.


Misha Allport    (2022-10-03 22:21:52)
Number of moves affect the ratng result?

If it has no effect, then the quality of play by the loser is unimportant. Scholar Mate=120 moves. Is that right?


Patrycja Zerowska    (2022-10-06 09:54:59)
Threefold repetition

It seems that there is no way to claim a draw by threefold repetition on this site. In the game 136386, where I have Black, the position that occurred after my 50th move, is the same as that after my 58th move, and will be the same after my intended 60th move, namely 60... Bf7. I therefore claim a draw in this game.

Since apparently there is no "automatic arbiter" to process the claim, I called the "referee" on 1 October 2022 (5 days ago), explaining that I made a draw claim as described above (and mentioning my intended move), but I haven't received a reaction yet.

This particular game has been a dead draw at least since move 35. I offered a draw after my 35th move and on my 59th move. Both offers were declined.

1. Why is there no automatic arbiter which processes draw claims? If I am not mistaken, this site exists more than 15 years already, and yet the Laws of Chess are not yet fully implemented.

2. Why can't I stop my clock when I make such a claim? See art. 9.5 of FIDE's Laws of Chess.

3. Why doesn't the arbiter or the referee stop my clock? Without this, a player making a claim can timeout, or, when she is short on time, may be reluctant to make a draw claim.

4. Why doesn't the referee take action? Is there a referee at all?

In the rules section of this site I read: "Also, there is no way to stop the clocks, players cannot claim that they stopped to play after they called the referee for any reason..." This is a violation of the rules of chess; it implies that on this site it is not chess that is being played, but a weird chess variant. Of course I disagree with this corruption of the playing rules, and so should everyone who call themselves chess players!

Your strange rules also state that the referee will "act as soon as possible", but so far, after five days, no referee has shown up. So you are not even acting in agreement to your own rules.

Finally, I find in your rules the following statement: "All games are played until a player resign, accept draw, or lose on time." This is the most ridiculous "rule" I have ever encountered. Not only renders this farcical rule a win by checkmate illegitimate, it is a blatant ignoring of the Laws of Chess, which allow games to be ended by accepted draw claims, or for any other reason at the discretion of an arbiter.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-10-07 02:58:17)
Threefold repetition

Hello Patrycja,

Sorry for the delay, I just saw the email indeed... As Scott says, you have to play the move anyway before to claim a draw (if the site does not recognize it automatically). It seems to me that's how work most chess websites.


1. Why is there no automatic arbiter which processes draw claims? If I am not mistaken, this site exists more than 15 years already, and yet the Laws of Chess are not yet fully implemented.

> The only way to claim a draw after a threefold repetition is to play the move.


2. Why can't I stop my clock when I make such a claim? See art. 9.5 of FIDE's Laws of Chess.

> FICGS offers (mainly) correspondence chess, that is not OTB chess, and some FIDE laws do not apply here.


3. Why doesn't the arbiter or the referee stop my clock? Without this, a player making a claim can timeout, or, when she is short on time, may be reluctant to make a draw claim.

> FICGS is an automatic place, mainly. Games continue even if the referee has to take action later.


4. Why doesn't the referee take action? Is there a referee at all?

> There is one. But he may take some time... the forum & chat are good alternatives to get answers to any question.


Patrycja Zerowska    (2022-10-08 00:56:47)
Threefold repetition

Mr. Thbault de Vassal, you say that this case is treated the same way on most chess websites. This is not true. At the ICCF website, which is the standard for correspondence chess, the draw must be claimed (this in agreement with the Laws of Chess):

" ICCF:
9.2.1 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
9.2.1.1 is about to appear, declares to the tournament director (or the server) the intention to make this move, or
9.2.1.2 has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

At other websites, the rule is also correctly applied:

chess-mail.com
"8. To check the draw ( threefold repetition ; the fifty-move rule ) : Click on "Send and offer the draw". "

Gameknot:
"To declare the draw in a game due to the threefold repetition rule, please use "Declare draw" link located directly below the game board."

None of these sites violates the correct rule.

The FICGS way of handling this case involves several violations of the rules. First of all, the draw must be claimed. This rule exists for more than 100 years, and the advent of server chess hasn't changed it. Secondly, you require me to make a move, thereby taking back my claim and my intended move. Every beginner is told that it is forbidden to take back a move, a draw claim or a draw offer. Thirdly, you refuse to stop the clocks, allowing a player to lose on time by your inaction. This "inaction" constitutes interference in the course of the game by a third party, which is forbidden. Fourthly, your bot wants to automatically end the game when there is threefold repetition (or 50-move rule). Again this is forbidden by the rules! A bot can only act upon a claim, and never when there is no claim. With all these violations, we are no longer talking about chess, but about an undesirable chess variant.

It would be so easy to add a button under the chess board, where a player can make a draw claim. Why isn't this done?

You or your referee still hasn't taken action, and a whole week has passed since my claim.

I have always - since 1972 - played according to the rules and I refuse to violate the rules here and now. Therefore I won't make a move; it is forbidden.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-10-09 01:55:57)
Threefold repetition

Oh ok then... Anyway there are indeed several violations of FIDE rules at FICGS. The first one (the 50 moves rule does not apply) because I found it interesting to try it & to make it different when I created the website. It is specified in the terms & conditions (if you read it).

The other ones exist probably because either I didn't care or know, either because it was technically convenient.

Consequently, I agree with you on this point but it works like this for more than 16 years now and I don't aim to change it until FICGS goes into other hands (that will probably happen one day) for many technical reasons.

About your game, you will have to play that move, just like any other player has to do in such situation. This will prove you agreeded the draw.


Patrycja Zerowska    (2022-10-13 08:16:44)
Threefold repetition

"... or you can lose on time or resign &/or cancel your membership, of course."

Of course... And then you ask yourself why so many strong players have left your site in the past. The answer should be very clear, not only from this incident, but also from the archived forum posts, which yield plenty of indications.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-10-13 15:18:41)
Threefold repetition

I don't ask myself, I know that there are many reasons (many players told me why), but one of them may be the one [FIDE chess rules] you mentioned, I don't know, noone told me about this one before.


Yeturu Aahlad    (2022-10-25 03:45:09)
respectful legacy

Luis is another esteemed opponent and very dear friend from a different troubled region of our world. Once again, should death be the only consideration for the restoration of a player's legacy?
https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=135663


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-11-22 02:31:19)
I did not win a game since 3 years

Voilà un débat qui pourrait être intéressant...

Stanislas' message in english:

"I've been playing on this computer-assisted site for 15 years. Fifteen years ago to win a game you had to use several analysis programs depending on the game phases. I seem to remember that Hiarcs was better in the final than the other programs. Until a few years ago, it was possible to find fortresses that resisted the onslaught of the adversary, even when my program told me that I had lost. But it's been 3 years since I only won against players who played without the help of the computer or who made a mistake when playing their move. What I would like is that a solution be found to restore interest in the game by correspondence."


Scott Ligon    (2022-11-22 14:49:30)
I did not win a game since 3 years

Correspondence chess with modern engines is a draw. The game isn't solved in the game theoretic sense, but from a practical standpoint it plays like a solved game. Anyone who runs the latest version of Stockfish on a computer with decent specs is unbeatable. That's been my experience anyway.


Scott Ligon    (2022-11-22 14:53:59)
I did not win a game since 3 years

As for ways to address this, if engines are allowed you could have tournaments from a starting position where the game theoretic value isn't clear. Where maybe it's a win for one side or the other, or maybe it's a draw, but it's right on the border and it's not obvious which side we're on. Then you play two games from that position against each opponent, once as white and once as black.


Scott Ligon    (2022-11-22 15:10:32)
I did not win a game since 3 years

In that case you'd need some way to address the possibility that a player could always draw their two game match by mirroring the moves their opponent plays in one game to the other game.


Scott Ligon    (2022-11-22 15:22:57)
I did not win a game since 3 years

Here's another idea. We start with two pools of starting positions. One pool where white has an advantage that may or may not be winning. Another pool where black has the advantage. First player picks a position from either pool. Let's say the first player picks from the white advantage pool (on the border between winning advantage for white and draw). Second player gets to choose which side of that position they want to play. They can either play white but then they have to win, or black but then all they need to do is draw. So no matter the outcome, each match will be decisive. We'd just have to populate the pool of opening positions first.


Scott Ligon    (2022-11-22 16:00:33)
I did not win a game since 3 years

Even the idea of having preset pools of starting positions isn't necessary. Going off my previous post, the first player selects any starting position they like (has to be a position that can be reached in an actual game of chess, so let's say the first player gives a sequence of opening moves that results in the position). First player wants to pick a position right on the border between win and draw, but they don't even need to stipulate which side is playing for the win, because a chess engine can run a quick search and determine that automatically. So the first player submits an opening sequence of moves, the FICGS server runs a quick evaluation with Stockfish or whatever just to decide which side has advantage, and the second player chooses between playing the advantaged side for a win or the disadvantaged side for a draw.


Scott Ligon    (2022-11-22 16:25:45)
I did not win a game since 3 years

Yet another amendment. From the previous post, we can eliminate the FICGS server evaluation and let the first player stipulate which side is playing for the win. If they assign the advantage incorrectly, this only helps their opponent, so the first player has no reason to lie. Example: First player picks the King's Bishop Gambit as the starting position (1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4) but erroneously claims that white has the advantage, so the second player has to choose between playing white for the win or black for the draw. Second player happily chooses to play black for the draw and should have no trouble holding the draw.


Scott Ligon    (2022-11-23 21:22:50)
I did not win a game since 3 years

Surely there are some positions where it's difficult to determine, even with engine assistance, whether the position is a game theoretic win or a draw. And then playing that position out would be interesting. That's all my proposed variant would depend on. The first player looks for a position that would be interesting to play, and if they've done their job well, the second player has a difficult task in deciding whether they want to play the side with advantage for a win or the other side for a draw. I think this would work up until the point that chess is actually solved.

The starting position could be as simple as 1. g4 (a terrible first move of course). Maybe black has a forced win and maybe with careful play white can hold the draw. If I did a lot of Stockfish analysis the answer might become clear but with a quick analysis I'm not sure. But if I knew the answer either way for 1. g4, I could always look at other positions. At least this would be a game where the outcome isn't immediately obvious.


A. T. S. Broekhuizen    (2022-11-25 10:20:51)
I did not win a game since 3 years

I think you don't have to go as far as to play dubious variations, as long as the chosen variations (for a thematic tournament) still have some 'music' left in them. I also have two suggestions: the Rio gambit against the Berlin wall and the following transposition into the Rubinstein variation of the French defence: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4. Besides, lately I still have won a game against the King's gambit with black. But this is much harder than holding a draw with white, so I would not define success for white as a draw and for black as a win in this case.


A. T. S. Broekhuizen    (2022-11-25 10:22:11)
I did not win a game since 3 years

I think it would be best to let every player take an equal amount of games with every colour.


A. T. S. Broekhuizen    (2022-11-25 16:48:19)
I did not win a game since 3 years

In case of the openings I mentioned earlier, I think there is a possibility for white to hold on to an advantage. The problem is that with the superhuman playing strength of engines nowadays, one will have to study harder than before to keep up with the engine. But now, after I studied these variations in detail, it has become clear. In practice one nowadays will have to have the right approach before the game to the played opening, otherwise I think it is not doable anymore to find the way to any white advantage during the game. This can be frustrating, but also in OTB chess more and more engine designed defences are played, so it is prudent to study these "unbeatable" defences.


Scott Ligon    (2022-11-25 17:10:39)
I did not win a game since 3 years

What does it even mean to have an advantage? Engine analysis has changed my perspective on this issue. From a human perspective, we can say that white has an advantage at the start of the game, and the statistics support this. At the highest levels of human chess white wins more often than black, but it's more often a draw. So white has a slight advantage.

From the perspective of correspondence chess with modern engines, the advantage is shown to be an illusion. It's just a draw. The engine evaluation at the start might be +0.15 or whatever, but if both sides are using an engine and there's no severe time constraint, it doesn't mean anything. By move 20 or so of a competently played correspondence game the engine analysis will have converged to 0.00 and it will stay there for the rest of the game.

In the final analysis, there's no such thing as a slight advantage. Every position is either a forced checkmate for one side or the other, or it's a draw. Even modern engines haven't pushed things that far, but they're strong enough to obliterate our human concept of an advantage.


A. T. S. Broekhuizen    (2022-11-25 17:26:08)
I did not win a game since 3 years

I am aware of these issues, nevertheless I think I could give any black player a difficult correspondence game in these two variations.


Scott Ligon    (2022-11-26 14:55:46)
I did not win a game since 3 years

I couldn't use the link but I found game number 137701. You won against the King's Gambit but your opponent played 3 d4. Which is actually the kind of position I'm talking about. Right on the edge of outright losing and I'm not sure if white is already over the edge. Anyway I haven't been brave enough to try that one. 3 Bc4 is as far as I go, at least for now.


Stanislas Gounant    (2022-11-27 21:46:50)
I did not win a game since 3 years

I think it's better to play a position with players can't open the center. But i'm ok to play a thematic tournament with black and white on bishop's gambit. Rated if it's possible Thibault


Scott Ligon    (2022-11-27 22:06:35)
I did not win a game since 3 years

If you mean John Shaw's book on the King's Gambit, I have that book and he did say that the Bishop's Gambit is refuted. But he qualifies what he means: "In this context I define the term 'refutation' as Black being better in all variations, not winning by force." Not much of a refutation. If you search my game history, I have played the Bishop's Gambit several times and I haven't lost. That's why I'm confident white can hold the draw.

I'd be willing to play in that thematic tournament, and I'd be very well prepared.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2022-11-30 01:06:20)
I did not win a game since 3 years

> I still believe that Traxler counter attack could bring really good matches, tournaments & championships :)

I'm currently using my e-points for Big Chess matches, but when I get enough of them (Big Chess matches), I would like to play white against Traxler (for e-points, draw counts as loss for white). :D


Stanislas Gounant    (2022-11-30 19:55:08)
I did not win a game since 3 years

In my openning tree of 11 700 000 games with games of big database 2023 + correspondence database 2022 + games play on FICGS in 2022 :

Bishop's Gambit : 6123 Games

Traxler Counterattack : 4293 Games


Stanislas Gounant    (2022-11-30 20:00:22)
I did not win a game since 3 years

In my openning tree of 200 000 games with games played since 2019 and players rated 2400 and more in big datatbase 2023 + games played since 2019 and players rated 2300 and more in correspondence datatbase 2022 + games played in 2022 and players rated 2300 and more on FICGS :

Bishop's Gambit : 27 Games

Traxler Counterattack : 29 Games


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-11-30 22:12:10)
I did not win a game since 3 years

Of course, it is rarely played (and maybe you count thematic tournaments)... but the aim is to find complex lines that decrease the rate of draws, right?


Ilmars Cirulis    (2022-12-03 21:58:05)
I did not win a game since 3 years

Maybe someone wants to play Bishop gambit thematic games/matches? I'm interested.

But not the fast time control... instead at least +1 day/move, if possible. To ensure greater quality of the games. :)

Right now I have almost no e-points, though. If that matters.


Branko Kosic    (2023-02-02 14:38:16)
Advertising a win or a draw with 7th or

How can I advertise a win or a draw with 7th or 6th figure base playoffs 1!?


Thibault de Vassal    (2023-02-05 20:53:53)
Advertising a win or a draw with 7th or

You found the right way (email or any way to contact webmaster)...

As of January 2023, rule is :

"11. 5. Adjudications

In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious.

If time control is superior to 1 day and if a player doesn't want to resign (or accept draw) and obviously last the game, his opponent may report to referee a first time. If the player takes 30 days more to finish the game, his opponent may call referee another time, then the game will be adjudicated. An analysis submitted by a player should contain sufficient information so that no doubt is possible. This may include a sequence of moves, but in some circumstances it may be sufficient to claim a win or a draw on the basis of material or positional advantage. Final decision belongs to referee."


Thibault de Vassal    (2023-03-30 21:52:40)
RUSSIA AND BELARUS NOT SUSPENDED?

Extract from your open letter:

"Second, this decision was discriminatory and selective. For example, US correspondence chess players were not punished for the fact that the US had started wars in Afghanistan, Iraq or Serbia.


Well, many can agree that some US representatives should be judged for what looks like obvious lies but 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)

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 analyzed in depth IMHO. Would you accept to play chess with players from a country that just completely destroyed yours and who think at -randomly- 80% probability that it was a good thing (and incidentally that you are a nazi)?

Here, players from Russia & Belarus can still play chess under a neutral flag partly because I can't filter players geographically (I know russians who left their country because they are against this war) but this remain a complex question that depends on many things.


Thibault de Vassal    (2023-03-31 22:52:44)
RUSSIA AND BELARUS NOT SUSPENDED?

Sorry if I quoted you wrongly... Could you specify?

Yes, first you were talking about wether FIDE and ICCF decisions were justified, but our discussion went on the global case:

you said (quote):

"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. "

"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."

So let's separate discussions: one is about FIDE/ICCF decisions, the other one is about war & its justifications.

About ICCF, I am not aware of a process to ban the russian team just after the invasion, I'm not sure what it means as well... does this mean that the russian team should have played under a neutral banner (that could be understandable), or does this mean that the whole team (every player) was banned?

I have no problem to talk about US war crimes in these countries... if you read my post again, there is a link to a page that deals with it.

I have no problem to talk about war crimes commited by Ukraine as well. There were war crimes for sure. There are proofs of that.

Questions remain: how many, for what aim... Everything will be analyzed.

My additional questions were not provocative, these are real questions to better understand your point of view. But I did not understand your answer (or you did not answer ?!)

Feel free to continue the discussion, you're welcome.


Gregory Kohut    (2023-04-01 02:15:47)
Chess & Go in TV shows

In the tv show Andromeda Captain Dylan Hunt plays Go. You can watch Andromeda on the ROkU Channel.


Pavel Hase    (2023-05-23 13:57:57)
Problem players.

Why are players still accepted into tournaments who overwhelmingly fail to finish their games or lose on time? A tady zase jednoho po pár letech vidím - stále to samé. Plus několik dalších.


Thibault de Vassal    (2023-05-27 03:36:48)
Problem players.

Hello Pavel, please send a private message to me mentioning the tournaments you think about... I'll have a look at it. Many thanks in advance.


Thibault de Vassal    (2023-07-05 03:08:35)
allport_misha: Withdrawal from 2023 CWC

If you cannot play, there will be a replacement.

My very best wishes, Thibault


Stanislas Gounant    (2023-07-23 15:53:11)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

18 players now. 3 groups of 6 players ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2023-07-27 18:47:42)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

Poker WCH : 19 players in the list... 2 missing
Go WCH : 8 players in the list... 1 missing

Let's be patient, it shouldn't last much.


Stanislas Gounant    (2023-08-09 00:42:36)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

I try to ask the players of my chess club to join FICGS and the poker championship


Juri Eintalu    (2023-08-09 22:29:42)
FIDE BANS KARJAKIN

I have not made any political posts on the Forum.
Quite to the contrary: I have criticized politicizing sports.

I am shocked by the answers I received from Garvin Gray and Thibault de Vassal. I do not think their comments exemplify a civilized discussion. The problem is that they are not arbitrary chess players but chess organizers. I conclude that rational discussion with those who support politicizing chess is impossible.

I had already forgotten the FICGS server, but now I have received a notification that someone has commented on my old post.

Bogoljub Teverovski announces on 09 August 2023:

"A self-ban of karjakin continues"

No hints have been made about what event he is talking about—no references, links, or explanations.

I can only understand that Bogoljub regards the FIDE ban on Karjakin as a Karjakin's SELF-ban.

Let me add that 1 e2-e4 is the initial move of the Queen's gambit, and 1 Ng1-f3 is the most popular opening in checkers.

I am logging out from the FICGS not to receive any notifications anymore.


Gregory Kohut    (2023-08-10 14:14:24)
Chess & Go in TV shows

In the tv show Ironside police consultant Robert T Ironside played chess in one episode I saw.


Garvin Gray    (2023-08-10 15:20:00)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

When will Round Robin 25 be starting, and which 8 players be playing in it?

Looking at the three groups from Stage 2 25, what a mess.

I can see arguments for about 12 qualifying from those 3 groups.


Thibault de Vassal    (2023-08-13 02:11:55)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

The 25th round-robin final just started... 7, 9, 11 or at most 13 players should qualify (2 from stage 1 SM group, 1 from each stage 1 M groups, so 4 in total from stage 1, added to the winners of stage 2 groups, 3 in total).

According to the stage 2 results, I added one co-winner (best TER) from each stage 2 groups + the next best TER cowinner (3rd in his group).

Total : 11 players (good luck everyone!)


Garvin Gray    (2023-08-16 14:17:48)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

Thank you for starting RR 25. I think for future Wch RR's, that the RR section should be 9 players instead of 8 to ensure that each player gets 4 whites and 4 blacks.


Thibault de Vassal    (2023-08-17 03:52:00)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

Did it ever start with 8 players? I think I always make the necessary in this way (and to follow rules that specify groups of 5, 7, 9, 11 or 13 players).


A. T. S. Broekhuizen    (2023-08-18 14:32:53)
Next thematic tournament

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 h6 5. c3 d6 6. Nbd2 g5

Two knights defence, pianissimo invitation, declined. Played by some top gm's like Caruana. Seems to give white an edge, but is it winning?


Vadrya Pokshtya    (2023-11-03 07:37:46)
Battle of Kings

As the inventor of many chess variants that can be played on the Internet, I want to share with you a mind-blowing chess variant.
I’m sure you’ve never seen anything like this before, and I’ll say without undue modesty that this is perhaps my best creation.

https://www.chessvariants.com/rules/battle-of-kings-
or more detailed here:
https://www.chess.com/blog/Pokshtya/battle-of-the-kings-is-a-chess-variant-that-drives-you-crazy

Give it a try against a bot (no registration required): https://dagazproject.github.io/checkmate/botk.htm

Feel free to implement it here if you see fit.
Regards,
Vadrya Pokshtya


Juri Eintalu    (2023-11-05 06:03:45)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations

A PUBLIC APPEAL TO CHESS ORGANISATIONS ON THE BOMBING OF THE GAZA STRIP

Israel’s bombing of the civilians trapped in the Gaza Strip has resulted in a catastrophic number of causalities in a very short time. It may amount to crimes against humanity, war crimes, mass murder, collective punishment or genocide, as noted by the UN and several international independent organisations.

I suggest that international chess organisations like FIDE and ICCF should revoke their sanctions on Russia and Belarus concerning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or they should impose the same sanctions on Israel.

Independently of the decisions of these international chess organisations, I call individual chess players to refuse to play chess with those players who are using Israel’s flag, etc.

The full text of my appeal can be read here:

https://medium.com/@eintalu/a-public-appeal-to-chess-organisations-on-the-bombing-of-the-gaza-strip-be56afd3f5ca


Vadrya Pokshtya    (2023-11-17 20:38:28)
Battle of Kings

Thanks, but you are wrong about the engine being able to crush this chess variant ;)
Knowledgeable people, programmers with whom I had the opportunity to talk about this chess variant, argued that not a single engine would be able to adequately evaluate positions in the Battle of Kings due to the colossal combinatorial complexity of the game.
Please note that the server bot plays very, very weakly. The program does not understand the concept of the game and makes a superficial assessment of the position based on material balance.
Playing against a bot is very different from playing against a human.
At the moment you can play by correspondence against other players here https://www.schemingmind.com/default.aspx
or here
https://games.dtco.ru/

Thank you again for your positive feedback!


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 ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2023-11-17 21:18:54)
Battle of Kings

I agree.

What were (how many moves approximately) the longest & shortest games you played until there?


Vadrya Pokshtya    (2023-11-17 21:36:46)
Battle of Kings

On average, a game lasts 70-80 moves. This is provided that the players understand what they are doing. Otherwise the game may end quickly.
Since, unlike ordinary chess, the board does not become empty as events develop on the board, but on the contrary, the evolution of chess pieces pushes towards the collapse of the entire system, its finitude is obvious. The spawning process cannot last forever - everything is limited by the 8x8 chessboard.


Thibault de Vassal    (2023-11-18 19:42:16)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations

Juri, when you say << For example, I am not sure that Hamas "chose" to kill civilians. >>, I'm not sure if your topic is determinism or something else but obviously you cannot be sure of anything. Did you watch the videos? Anyway, any army killing or kidnapping civilians is a war crime for sure and that's most probably terrorism in this case.

On Israel response, many experts say different things, so it remains unclear yet to me. (it is important not to listen what one want to hear only)

About your text, you seem to neglict all contextual elements to compare Russia, Thaïland, Congo, North Korea, China or whatever situation in any country... No chess organization reacted much when Peng Shuai (chinese tennis star) disappeared, but tennis world reacted! For Rohingya, Karabakh or about war in Irak or Afghanisatan. How many chess players in these countries? That is not the same. Russia & Ukraine are among the most influential chess nations in the world. Russia is the biggest country, has the most nuclear weapons. That's why it seems pertinent that chess players and organizations take position towards not just peace (undermeaning "do what Russia wants"), but a fair and right peace.

You say : "Concerning your political views about the real intentions of Russia when starting a war against Ukraine, what you present dogmatically and without evidence"

The evidence is in Putin's speeches, "Russia defends its interests", obviously Ukraine (another country for a while) should not be free of his choices, in example to join an alliance to protect itself just like Finland or other countries... Obviously Ukraine is Russia's interest and should not join OTAN. Did ever OTAN attack Russia?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Dgy4vYTp_Jo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxS9YIBeJbY

Watching full speeches is even more instructive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akzr0K0CE0M

Putin's rhetoric remains both crude and manipulative, appealing to people's conservative reflexes. And it works on most people who get outraged at the slightest conspiracy theory, it's no coincidence.

Finally, the argument saying that there shouldn't be politics in chess or sports has no foundations other than a subjective point of view.

You say that these bans by FIDE were out of international laws and that the same restrictions should apply to israeli playesrs... well, so just prove it and make appeal I guess. Karjakin probably thought about that already!?

Meanwhile, these discussions are only point of views.


Thibault de Vassal    (2023-11-20 19:41:39)
Battle of Kings

Thanks for information... I'll probably play it more when I have some time. And I really hope it will be investigated by chess programmers :)


Juri Eintalu    (2023-11-25 22:00:10)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations

Thibault de Vassal:

"Juri, you probably spread fake news:..."

"In doubt, such news (probably fake news) have no place here... Thanks in advance."

I have NOT shared that video here, on the Forum, neither a link to it. And I have NOT mentioned that video here, on the Forum.

You are a sick slanderer, Mr. Thibault de Vassal.

Don't worry, I will not play a single chess game on the platform FICGS anymore. I decided so already half a year ago.


Thibault de Vassal    (2023-11-25 23:15:04)
Referee Adjudication

The later is best :)

Do not forget that 50 moves rule does NOT apply at FICGS.

If there is a checkmate to come, according to the rules: after you ask, your opponent still gets 30 days to play a few moves more. Not everyone uses tablebases and some may want to see how it ends...


Garvin Gray    (2023-12-02 11:01:06)
Referee Adjudication

And this is a rule that really does need changing. As soon as the 7 man tablebase position has arisen, the player should be able to claim for win or draw and as soon as the result is verified, the game is over.

Allowing the other player to continue playing when the result is clear from the tablebase position is just pointlessly delaying of the game and can lead to claims of dead man defense.

I really do not understand why Thibault sticks with this outdated policy when as soon as the 7 man position arises, the result is clear and the position should be declared as such.


Zbigniew Szczepanski    (2023-12-11 11:50:09)
Referee Adjudication

In ICCF and LSS-Server, when 7 figures are reached, the game ends automatically. Some disadvantaged people are just malicious and continue playing the hopeless game. As a rule, these are people who do not know how to play chess, but only use powerful computers to challenge good chess players. They count on a mistake or the death of their rival. It's a waste of time. 99% of players use engines, databases and tables.


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...


Ilmars Cirulis    (2024-01-06 20:27:54)
Fried Liver analysis on rybkaforum.net?

Does someone want to test this variation (to play it with white and try to win):

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Qf3+ Ke6 8. Nc3 Ncb4 9. O-O c6 10. d4 Qf6 11. Qd1 Ke7 12. Re1 h6 13. Rxe5+ Kd8 14. Ne4 Qg6 15. a3 Bf5 16. Ng3 Bxc2 17. Qf3 Nd3 18. Rf5 Bd6 19. Bxd3 Bxd3 20. Qxd3 Kc7 21. Bd2 Rhf8

I'm currently analysing it.

The 21... Rae8 seems to be losing (I lost the game against Scott Nichols convincingly).


Scott Ligon    (2024-01-16 20:31:54)
Fried Liver analysis on rybkaforum.net?

The Fried Liver just seems like a bad choice for black when the main line (5... Na5) equalizes, and if you want something different there's 5... b5 where white gets some advantage with 6. Bf1 but more frequently plays 6. Bxb5 where black is again equal and can expect to be more familiar with the position. I had a look at your lichess study. Are you mainly just taking notes on the computer evaluations of various lines as a general reference, or is this something you actually intend to learn in detail so you can play it?


Thibault de Vassal    (2024-02-13 02:26:33)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament

Next FICGS WCH will start on March 15th, 2024 (initial date was March 1st). Waiting lists are now open!

Reason for this is that FICGS apps encounter technical problems on Play Store. I hope I'll be able to solve it before these next WCH tournaments start.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2024-02-24 21:47:45)
Fried Liver analysis on rybkaforum.net?

Played thematic game with Bahadir Ozen at LSS, added it to Lichess study:

https://lichess.org/study/MYMU6aQ7/dA04utCi

It ended in interesting, imho, draw. :)




There are 341 results for play in wikichess.


Thibault de Vassal    (2522)
d4

Queen's Pawn Game refer to any chess opening which starts with 1.d4, the second most popular opening move, but is now usually used to describe openings where White opens with 1.d4 but does not follow through with an early pawn advance to c4. Some of these openings have individual names as well.

In the 1800s and early 1900s, 1.e4 was by far the most common opening move by White, while the different openings starting with 1.d4 were considered somewhat unusual and therefore classed together as "Queen's Pawn Game".

As the merits of 1.d4 started to be explored it was the Queen's Gambit which was played most often; more popular than all other 1.d4 openings combined. The term "Queen's Pawn Game" was then narrowed down to any opening with 1.d4 which was not a Queen's Gambit. Eventually, through the efforts of the hypermodernists, the various Indian Defences, such as the King's Indian, Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian, became more popular, and as these openings were named, the term "Queen's Pawn Game" narrowed further.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 58%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2522)
e4 c5

The Sicilian Defence is a chess opening which begins with 1.e4 c5

This is the most popular response to 1.e4 at the master level. Black immediately fights for the centre, but by attacking from the c-file (instead of mirroring White's move) he creates an asymmetrical position that leads to complicated situations. Typically, White has the initiative on the kingside while Black obtains counterplay on the queenside, particularly on the c-file after the exchange of Black's c-pawn for White's d-pawn.

According to Chessbase, black chances are about 43%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
Nf3

The Réti Opening (also called the King's Knight Opening) is a chess opening characterized by the opening move 1.Nf3

It is named after Richard Réti, a Czechoslovakian chess player who used it to defeat the world champion José Raúl Capablanca in 1924.

According to ChessBase, out of the twenty possible opening moves, 1.Nf3 ranks third in popularity. It develops the knight to a good square and prepares for a quick castling. White maintains flexibility by not committing to a particular central pawn structure, while waiting to see what Black will do. The slight drawback to the move is that it blocks the f-pawn. This is not a problem if White does not intend to move it in the near future, but it rules out the possibility of playing systems with f3 and Nge2, which is a fairly popular setup against the King's Indian.

Usually 1.Nf3 will transpose into an opening with 1.d4, such as the King's Indian or the Queen's Gambit. If White follows up with an early c4 a transposition to the English Opening may be reached. Even the Sicilian Defense may be reached if the game opens 1.Nf3 c5 2.e4.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 57%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5

The open game is a fight for center squares : d4 and d5 are already under control, and the probable next moves 2.Nf3 or 2.Nc3, then 2. ... Nc6 or 2. ... Nf6 will take control of e4 and e5 squares as well.

Games are often more tactical than in Sicilian opening (1.e4 c5), and requires more calculation than deep strategy. Furthermore, black chances to win are lower than in Sicilian, so I avoid to play it against computers or at correspondence chess.

According to Chessbase and correspondence chess statistics, black chances are about 43%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 c5 Nf3

The main line, which leads to all popular variants such as Najdorf, Dragon, Sveshnikov, Scheveningen, Richter-Rauzer... The aim is to support d4 pawn advance as a third move. After 3. ... cxd4 white could play 4.Nxd4, giving a good square to the knight and avoiding to the queen to be exposed too early at the center of the board.

According to Chessbase, 2.Nf3 is played at nearly 85% cases, giving 57% white chances.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 c5 Nc3

Closed sicilian is a strategical opening that often leads to a slow white kingside attack. Black usually fights for counterplay on the queenside. Much less played than the main line 2.Nf3, this opening is a good alternative against sicilian experts.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 53%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 Nf3

King's knight opening is prefered at 90% cases.

The knight simply attacks black's e5 pawn, that is not protected yet and controls d4 and e5 squares.

By far the most played continuation is the King's Pawn Game 2...Nc6, and it is sub-divided into many familiar opening names like Ruy Lopez. Petrov's Defense, 2...Nf6, and the Philidor Defense, 2...d6, are also familiar opening names.

Some less familiar continuations of the King's Knight Opening include:

- Gunderam Defense 2...Qe7
- Greco Defense 2...Qf6
- Damiano Defense 2...f6 ?
- Elephant Gambit 2...d5
- Latvian Gambit 2...f5

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 58%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 Bc4

The Bishop's Opening is one of the oldest openings to be analyzed; it was studied by Lucena and Ruy Lopez. Later it was played by Philidor. Larsen was one of the few grandmasters to play it often, after first using it at the 1964 Interzonal Tournament. Although the Bishop's Opening is uncommon today, it has been used occasionally as a surprise by players such as Kasparov and Nunn.

White attacks Black's f7-square and prevents Black from advancing his d-pawn to d5. By ignoring the beginner's rule, "develop knights before bishops", White leaves his f-pawn unblocked allowing the possibility of playing f4. This gives the Bishop's Opening an affinity to the King's Gambit and the Vienna Game, two openings that share this characteristic. In fact, the Bishop's Opening can transpose into the King's Gambit or the Vienna Game, and transpositions into Giuoco Piano and Two Knights Defense and other openings are also possible. In particular, White should remain alert for any chance to transpose into a favorable variation of the King's Gambit, but with careful play Black can avoid this danger.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 55%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2512)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6

2. ... Nc6 is by far the most common and logical response to 2.Nf3, played at about 85% cases. The knight protects black's e5 pawn and controls center squares.

According to Chessbase, black chances are about 43%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6

Petrov's Defence (sometimes spelled Petroff's) has a long history, it was first popularized by Alexander Petrov — a Russian chess player of the mid-19th century. In recognition of the early investigations by the Russian masters Petrov and Carl Jaenisch, this opening is called the Russian Game in some countries.

The Petrov has a reputation of being dull and uninspired. However, it offers attacking opportunities for both sides, and many lines are quite sharp. Often a trade occurs, and black after gaining a tempo (or unit of time) gains a well placed knight. Pillsbury's game in 1896 against Emmanuel Lasker testifies to this. The Black counterattack in the center also avoids the Ruy Lopez and Giuoco Piano.

According to Chessbase, black chances are about 41%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5

The Ruy Lopez, generally called the Spanish Game outside of English speaking countries, is named after the 16th century Spanish priest Rúy López de Segura. He made a systematic study of this and other openings in the 150-page book on chess Libro del Ajedrez written in 1561 (which also included some more esoteric and what some would consider unfair suggestions, such as setting up the board so the sun shines in one's opponent's eyes).

However, although it is named after him, this particular opening was known earlier; it is included in the Göttingen manuscript, which dates from 1490. Popular use of the Ruy Lopez opening did not develop, however, until the mid-1800s when Jaenisch, a Russian theoretician, "rediscovered" its potential.

The opening is still in active use as the double king's pawn opening most commonly used in master play; it has been adopted by almost all players at some point in their careers and many play it from both the white and black sides.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 58%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6

Indian defences are characterized by the opening moves 1. d4 Nf6, although they can be reached by other move orders. These defences have a vast body of theory and have been employed by nearly all masters since the early twentieth century. They are all to varying degrees hypermodern defences, where Black invites White to establish an imposing presence in the centre with the plan of drawing it out, undermining it, and destroying it.

The Indian defences are considered more ambitious and double-edged than the symmetrical reply 1 ... d5. In the Queen's Gambit Declined, Black accepts a cramped, passive position with the plan of gradually equalizing and obtaining counterplay. In contrast, breaking symmetry on move one leads to rapid combat in the centre, where Black can obtain counterplay without necessarily equalizing first.

According to Chessbase, black chances are about 43%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 d5

Queen's pawn opening is the symmetrical response to 1.d4, leading to a more passive play than 1. ... Nf6, particularly after second white move 2.c4 named as Queen's gambit.

According to Chessbase, black chances are about 42%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 d5 c4

The Queen's Gambit is one of the oldest known chess openings, as Lucena wrote about it in 1497 and it is mentioned in an earlier manuscript in Göttingen. During the early period of modern chess queen pawn openings were not in fashion, and the Queen's Gambit did not become common until the 1873 tournament in Vienna.

As Steinitz and Tarrasch developed chess theory and increased the appreciation of positional play, the Queen's Gambit grew more popular. It reached its peak popularity in the 1920s and 1930s, and was played in 32 out of 34 games in the 1934 World Chess Championship.

Since then Black has increasingly moved away from symmetrical openings, tending to use the Indian defences to combat queen pawn openings. The Queen's Gambit is still frequently played, however, and it remains an important part of many grandmasters' opening repertoires.

With 2.c4, White threatens to exchange a wing pawn (the c-pawn) for a center pawn (Black's d-pawn) and dominate the center with e2-e4. This is not a true gambit since if Black accepts the pawn he cannot expect to keep it.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Sebastien Marez    (2377)
d4 d5 c4 c6

The Slav is one of the primary defenses to the Queen's Gambit. Although it was analyzed as early as 1590, it wasn't until the 1920s that it started to be explored extensively. Many masters of Slavic descent helped develop the theory of this opening, including Alapin, Alekhine, Bogoljubov, and Vidmar.

The Slav received an exhaustive test during the two Alekhine–Euwe World Championship matches in 1935 and 1937. Played by 11 of the first 13 world champions, this defense was particularly favored by Euwe, Botvinnik, and Smyslov. More recently the Slav has been adopted by Anand, Ivanchuk, Lautier, Short, and other top grandmasters. Today the theory of the Slav is very extensive and well developed.

Black faces three major problems in many variations of the Queen's Gambit Declined (QGD).

- Development of the Black queen bishop is difficult, as it is often blocked by ...e6.

- The pawn structure offers White targets, especially the possibility of a minority attack on the queenside in the Exchange variation of the QGD.

- White often plays Bg5 to pin the black king knight on f6 against the black queen, and unpinning it is awkward for Black.

The Slav addresses all of these problems. Black's queen bishop is unblocked, the pawn structure remains balanced, and the move Bg5 is not yet threatening as the unmoved black pawn on e7 prevents the pin. Also, if Black later takes the gambit pawn with ...dxc4, the support provided by the pawn on c6 allows ...b5 which may threaten to keep the gambit pawn or to drive away a white piece that has captured it, gaining Black a tempo for queenside expansion.

On the other side, Black usually won't be able to develop the queen bishop without first giving up the center with ...dxc4, and moving this bishop may leave the Black queenside weak. White will try to dominate the center with e2-e4.

According to Chessbase, Black chances are about 43%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Sebastien Marez


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6

This is the second most played line in Sicilian. Reached commonly after 2. ... Nc6, logically the best move. The play is probably easier for Black than in 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 variation, but it is much harder to win against a same level player who plays Sicilian Sveshnikov. In my opinion, one should use this opening only to obtain a draw against a stronger player, and to save energy.

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange, Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2522)
e4 e6

The French defence has a reputation for solidity and resilience, though it can result in a somewhat cramped game for Black in the early stages. Black often gains counterattacking possibilities on the queenside while White tends to concentrate on the kingside.

The defence is named after a match played by correspondence between the cities of London and Paris in 1834 (although earlier examples of games with the opening do exist). In the early 20th century, Géza Maróczy was perhaps the first world-class player to make it his primary weapon against 1.e4. It is currently Black's third most popular reply to 1.e4, behind only 1...c5 and 1...e5. Players including Viktor Korchnoi, Mikhail Botvinnik, Wolfgang Uhlmann and Nigel Short have been particularly fond of it. More recently, the defence has featured strongly in the opening repertoires of Evgeny Bareev, Alexander Khalifman, Alexander Morozevich, and Teimour Radjabov.

According to chessbase, black chances are about 43%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Toncho Tenev


Sebastien Marez    (2377)
e4 c6

The Caro-Kann, like the Sicilian Defense and French Defense, is classified as a "semi-open game", but it is thought to be more passive and drawish than either of those openings.

The opening is named after the German players Horatio Caro and Marcus Kann who analyzed the opening in 1886.

According to Chessbase, black chances are about 43%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Sebastien Marez


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
c4

The English Opening is the fourth most popular opening move in chess. White begins the fight for the center by staking a claim to the d5 square. Common responses are 1...e5 (which can lead to positions similar to the Sicilian Defence but with opposite colors), 1...c5 (the Symmetrical Variation), and 1...Nf6. Also perfectly playable are 1...e6 (often leading to a Queen's Gambit Declined after 2.d4 d5) and 1...c6 (often leading to a Slav Defence after 2.d4 d5, a Caro-Kann Defence after 2.e4 d5, or a Reti Opening after 2.Nf3 d5 3.b3).

The English is a very flexible opening. Although many lines of the English have a distinct character, it often transposes into other openings. If White plays an early d4, the game will usually transpose into either the Queen's Gambit or an Indian defence.

The English derives its name from the English (unofficial) world champion, Howard Staunton, who played it during his 1843 match with Amant. It fell out of favor (the opening was notably disdained by Morphy), but is now recognized as a solid opening that may be used to reach both classical and hypermodern positions. Botvinnik, Karpov, and Kasparov all employed it during their world championship matches. Bobby Fischer created a stir when he switched to it from the King's Pawn against Boris Spassky in 1972.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
f4 e5

This opening is called From's Gambit. White can then transpose into the King's Gambit with 2.e4. If White wants to stay in the Bird's Opening play can continue 2.fxe5 d6 (2...Nc6 is also possible) 3.exd6 Bxd6. Now White must play 4.Nf3 (and if 4...g5, either 5.g3 g4 6.Nh4 or 5.d4 g4 6.Ne5) or 4.g3, avoiding 4.Nc3?? Qh4+ 5.g3 Qxg3+ 5.hxg3 Bxg3 checkmate.

This gambit can give Black an overwhelming attack if White goes wrong, but even if White plays accurately Black still has some attacking chances. From's Gambit is named after the Danish chess player Severin From (1828–1895).

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Daniel Barrish    (2000)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6

Here we've reached the initial position of the famous Sicilian Dragon. For those who are interested in astronomy, its name refers to the black pawn structure d6-e7-f7-g6-h7, which has resemblance with the Dragon Constellation.
Usually White has (generally speaking, of course) two ways at his disposal:
-quiet positional play by castling short, in order to put some positional pressure thanks to his slight space advantage.
-sharp play by castling long, and simultaneous king's attack for both sides, which often leads to real bloodbaths.
============
There are 2 main ways for white to play here: The "passive" classical and minor variations and the aggresive yugoslav attack. the yugoslav has been proven much better
Contributors : Julien Coll, Daniel Barrish


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 Nc3

The Vienna Game. White's second move is in contrast to the more usual 2.Nf3, which can lead to the Ruy Lopez, Giuoco Piano, Scotch Game and other openings. The original idea behind 2.Nc3 was to play a kind of delayed King's Gambit with an eventual f4, but in modern play White often takes much quieter paths.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 56%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4

The most common move, played by 3 players out of 4, even more at a master level. The idea behind is quite the same as in Queen's gambit, giving space to white and controlling center. The c-file could be opened for rooks early in some variants, and the knight Nb1 now could jump to his most designated square c3.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 58%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6

This move is played in about half games, leading to the famous Nimzo-Indian and Bogo-Indian defenses. It allows the black-squares bishop to enter in action quickly (castling usually follows) and to control the d5 center square.

According to Chessbase, black chances are about 43%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3

This natural move increases pressure on d5 square. According to me, it's a more logical decision than Nf3, which is the most played move nowadays, probably because it offers a larger choice of continuations.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 57%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3

When learning chess, I often heard that e3 was the best and more logical move. These considerations probably points out more philosophy than chess, but this move has been played in about half games so far.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 57%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3

This move has been played in more than half games recorded in Chessbase. I consider it less strong than Nc3 but GMs clearly prefer this move, probably offering good chances in a quieter game, avoiding the Nimzo-Indian defense.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 57%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6

Since White's third move 3.Nf3, a move commonly played to avoid the Nimzo-Indian Defence, does not threaten to occupy the centre with 4.e4, Black has the option of playing 3...b6, called Queen's Indian Defense.

The play in the Queen's Indian is similar to that of the Nimzo-Indian. The opening is considered a hypermodern one, since Black does not strive to occupy the centre with his pawns immediately. Instead he intends to fianchetto his queen's bishop and put pressure on the e4-square in order to prevent White from occupying that square. With the White centre restrained Black intends to attack it. As in most other hypermodern openings, White will attempt to solidify his centre, prove that it is strong, not weak, and use his advantage in space to crush Black.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6

The King's Indian Defence is a chess opening that begins 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 followed by ...Bg7 and ...d6. The King's Indian is a "hypermodern" opening, where Black lets White take the center with the view to later ruining White's "wonderful" position, often by an attack on White's king. It is a risky opening, which has been a favourite of players such as former world champions Garry Kasparov, Bobby Fischer and Tigran Petrosian. Prominent grandmasters John Nunn, Svetozar Gligoric, Wolfgang Uhlmann, and Larry Christiansen have also played this opening frequently.

According to Chessbase, black chances are about 42%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4

The Italian Game is a chess opening, or more accurately a family of chess openings, characterized by this move.

The openings arising from the Italian Game are among the oldest recorded openings and the sequence of moves is known as the Épine Dorsale. The Giuoco Piano (Italian: "quiet game") was played by the Portuguese Damiano at the beginning of the 15th century, and the Italian Greco at the beginning of the 16th century. The Italian Game received its name because of Greco's work, while Damiano has the misfortune to have his name attached to the Damiano Defense, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6?, a line he rightly condemned. The Two Knights Defense was analyzed by Giulio Cesare Polerio (c.1550–c.1610) in 1580.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 52%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4

The Scotch Game received its name from a correspondence match in 1824 between Edinburgh and London. Popular in the 19th century, by 1900 the Scotch had lost favor among top players because it was thought to release the central tension too early and allow Black to equalize without difficulty. More recently the Scotch has regained some popularity and it has been used by grandmasters Kasparov and Timman as a surprise weapon to avoid the well-analyzed Ruy Lopez.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 57%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
g3

The King's Indian Attack (KIA) can be reached by different routes (usually by 1.e4, 1.Nf3 or 1.g3). Often the KIA is reached via 1.e4 followed by d3, Nd2, Ngf3, g3, Bg2, and 0-0, an example being 1.e4 e6 2.d3 (this is possible against almost any opening move -- 1...c6, 1...c5, etc.) d5 3.Nd2 followed by Ngf3, etc.

Since the KIA is a closed, strategic opening choice, many 1.e4 players prefer to play sharper, more open variations. When played after 1.e4, the KIA is most often used against the semi-open defences where Black responds asymmetrically to e4, such as the French Defence, Sicilian Defence, Caro-Kann Defence, etc. The KIA is less often played against 1.e4 e5, where most White players prefer to play more aggressive lines such as the Ruy Lopez.

The King's Indian attack is considered to be one of the most solid opening choices for White, but not very aggressive. It is similar to the King's Indian Defense with colors reversed. White's plan is usually to either push the d and e pawns up a rank as the game progresses in order to bind the opponent. If Black castles king-side, White often follows up with h4 and a king-side pawn storm, placing his king at h1 if needed. If Black castles queen-side, White can move his knight to c4 and attack on the queen-side.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 55%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5

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 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 b4

The gambit is named after Captain William Davies Evans, the first player known to have employed it. The first game with the opening is considered to be Evans - McDonnell, London 1827, although in that game a slightly different move order was tried (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. O-O d6 and only now 5. b4). The gambit became very popular shortly after that, being employed a number of times in the series of games between McDonnell and Louis de la Bourdonnais in 1834. Players such as Adolf Anderssen, Paul Morphy and Mikhail Chigorin subsequently took it up. It was out of favour for much of the 20th century, although John Nunn and Jan Timman played some games with it in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and in the 1990s Garry Kasparov used it in a few of his games (notably a famous 25-move win against Viswanathan Anand in Riga, 1995), which prompted a brief revival of interest in it.

The Evans Gambit is basically an aggressive variant of the Giuoco Piano, which normally continues with the positional moves 4. c3 or 4. d3. The idea behind the move 4. b4 is to give up a pawn in order to secure a strong centre and bear down on Black's weak-point, f7. Ideas based on Ba3, preventing black from castling, are also often in the air. The most obvious and most usual way for Black to meet the gambit is to accept it with 4... Bxb4, after which White plays 5. c3 and Black usually follows up with 5... Ba5 (5... Be7 and, less often 5... Bc5 and 5... Bd6 are also played). White usually follows up with 6. d4.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e6 d4

The French defense classical variation, played at 95% cases.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 57%

============

Contributors : Toncho Tenev, Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e6 d4 d5

The main continuation, played at 99% cases.

============

Contributors : Toncho Tenev, Thibault de Vassal


Telmo Escobar    (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Ng4 Bb5

Wins material (JC).

I think it's convenient to examine the possible continuation of the game in order to exclude the possibility that Black could get a reasonable compensation for the material, as many Dragon players are sooo happy when losing an exchange :) (TE)
============

Contributors : Julien Coll, Telmo Escobar


Julien Coll    (1400)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 f3

Here begins the Yugoslav Attack, a very rich way of fighting against the big dragon. Usually White castles queenside and launches a strong attack by pushing his g (g4) and h-pawns (h4-h5) and exchanging the dark-squared bishops (Qd2-Bh6), whereas Black has counterplay with an attack against White's long castle thanks to the c-file, manoeuvres like ...Nc6-e5-c4, pawn pushes like ...b5-b4, ...a5-a4. This kind of game is rarely annoying and very often plenty of sacrifices (ex. sacrifices of the quality in c3 (for Black) and in h5 (for White) are both typical) White should be careful with the g4-square if he plans to castle queenside quickly for an exciting game. Move order is quite important here.

============

Contributors : Julien Coll


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3

King's Knight Gambit. The main variation of King's gambit, played in 2 games out of 3. The knight prevents the black queen from checking in h4, although many King's gambit variants are interesting for white with the king at the center, probably making King's gambit the most illogical and critical opening.

Black still can prevent white from castling by playing the Cunningham defense 3. ... Be7

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 49%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5

Kieseritsky Gambit is a relatively positional opening. This is the most played variation after 2.Nc3

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 Be7

The Cunningham Defense is black's most aggressive option; it can permanently prevent white from castling after 4.Bc4 Bh4+ 5.Kf1 (else the wild Bertin Gambit, or Three Pawns' Gambit 5.g3 fxg3 6.0-0 gxh2+ 7.Kh1.) However, nowadays it is more common for black to simply play 4. ..Nf6 5.e5 Ng4, the Modern Cunningham.

The first "best game" (Game 156 : Hrubaru [1400] - Berthelot [1420]) voted by FICGS players, followed this opening, not played anymore at a master level.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d6

The extremely popular Fischer Defense (planning h6 and g5 but only rarely Bg4, a natural-looking but often weak move that beginners play too early) is complicated and subtle. After Bobby Fischer lost a 1959 game at Mar del Plata to Boris Spassky, in which the Kieseritsky Gambit was played, he left in tears and promptly went to work at devising a new King's Gambit defense. In a 1962 article titled "A Bust to the King's Gambit" he put forth this idea and claimed that it refuted the King's Gambit, which was clearly not the case. The article concluded with the famously arrogant line, "Of course white can always play differently in which case he merely loses differently." Nonetheless, the article was possibly the most influential ever written about an opening, and ever since the King's Gambit has been rare in Grandmaster play, though a few players such as Joseph Gallagher still use it.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


David Grosdemange    (1912)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5

this is the most played move on this position . black don't protect his e5 pawn , so white take it .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


Gino Figlio    (2454)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6

The definition of the Najdorf from other Sicilians, a good move taking control of the b5 square, and preparing b5, this opening named after the Argentinian GM Miguel Najdorf who poularized the opening, but he did not create it as is often the case with so many modern openings. A6 is also designed to play e5 without white being able to reply with Bb5+
============

Contributors : Steven Hanly, Andrew Stephenson, Gino Figlio


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 c5 c3

After this "slow" move, leading to Alapin's variation, White will try to get a strong center and a good positional play.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 52%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4

The most common move. Players who fear Morra gambit (particularly in rapid play) could have transposed in another variant with 2. ... e6

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3

The Morra Gambit is an interesting opening against the Sicilian Defence. It is not common in Grandmaster games or correspondence chess, but at club level chess it is an excellent weapon.

White sacrifices a pawn to develop quickly and create attacking chances. In exchange for the gambit pawn, White has a piece developed and a pawn in the center, while Black has nothing but an empty space on c7.

If black wants to refuse the gambit, he can do so with 3... d5 or 3... Nf6, both of which transpose to the Alapin variation of the Sicilian (usually introduced by the move order 1.e4 c5 2.c3). Alternatively, 3... d6 is the Smith-Morra declined proper, and leads to unique lines.

Some interesting games played on FICGS by David Angeli : Game 563, Game 565 (accepted gambit) or Game 555 (declined, with 3. ... d5).

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


David Grosdemange    (1912)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5

here begins the benoni defense . c5 can also be played at first .
black attacks the white d4-pawn , and "force" d5 , then this pawn is the black's target ( with Cf6 , e6 for example ) .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


David Grosdemange    (1912)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 b5

the benko gambit . when accepted , black have counterplay in the a and b columns , and by the control of the a1-h8 and f1-a6 diagonals .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


Larry Wolfley    (2133)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 Nf3

This is an attempt to trick Black into playing 3..e5 (4.Nxe5 Qa5+ -+), White responds with 4.c3 and after 4..dxc3 will have reached a good variation of the Morra gambit.

An interesting try for Black is 3..a6, and if White plays 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5! reaches a variation of the O'kelly Sicilian that is considered not bad for Black, and he has avoided White's most promising lines.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf6 a6 (O'kelly) and now both 3.c3 and 3.c4 are generally considered more testing against this line.


============

Contributors : Larry Wolfley


Larry Wolfley    (2133)
e4 c5 Nf3 a6 c3

White plays as in the c3 (Alapin) Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.c3) and will try to show that Black's a6 move is not that usefull.

============

Contributors : Larry Wolfley


Larry Wolfley    (2133)
e4 c5 Nf3 a6 c4

White plays for a Maroczy bind. White will play d4 if possible in the next few moves, and after ..cxd4 Nxd4 the so-called Maroczy bind pawn structure will have arisen.

============

Contributors : Larry Wolfley


Pablo Schmid    (1700)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6

This move is generally played to reach the Sicilian Taimanov or the Sicilian Kan(Paulsen).
The advantage of e6 is to keep options open for the bishop of the dark squares. But it as somes disadvantages too: The sicilian with c3 or b3 is stronger here compared to 2..d6 or 2..Nc6 because e6 limits Black's options.
============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid


Pablo Schmid    (1700)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 c3

With the idea to play a Smith-Morra gambit where Black's options of declining the gambit are a little less good compared to the immediate 2.d4

============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid


David Grosdemange    (1912)
e4 c5 Nf3 g6

this interesting move is played to avoid some anti-sicilian like b3,Fb5 . it can transpose into dragon variations .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


Tano-Urayoán Russi Román    (1944)
e4 c5 Nf3 a6 d4

Not the best
White should play c4
============

Contributors : Larry Wolfley, Ulrich Imbeck, Tano-Urayoán Russi Román


Pablo Schmid    (1700)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 g6 c4

This move prepare the Maroczy Bind. Maybe the best way to play for White here.
============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
c4 Nf6

If White plays 2.d4, this line transposes to indian defenses.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
Nf3 d5

Now White can choose to transpose to a Queen's pawn game or to play hypermodern (not to fight for the center in the opening).

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5

The Grünfeld Defence is named after Ernst Grünfeld, the player who first employed the defence in the 1920s. The defence was later adopted by a number of prominent players, including Vasily Smyslov, Viktor Korchnoi and Bobby Fischer. Garry Kasparov has often used the defence, including in his World Championship matches against Anatoly Karpov in 1986, 1987 and 1990, and Vladimir Kramnik in 2000. In more recent years it has been regularly employed by Loek Van Wely, Peter Svidler and Luke McShane among others.

The opening relies on one of the main principles of the hypermodern school, which was coming to the fore in the 1920s - that a large pawn centre could be a liability rather than an asset. This idea is seen most clearly in the Exchange Variation of the defence: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4. Now White has an imposing looking centre - and the main continuation 5...Nxc3 bxc3 strengthens it still further. Black generally attack's White's centre with ...c5 and ...Bg7, often followed by moves like ...cxd4, ...Bg4, and ...Nc6. White often uses his big centre to launch an attack against Black's king, which generally ends up on g8 after Black castles king-side.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7

The King's Indian defense is a "hypermodern" opening, where Black lets White take the center with the view to later ruining White's "wonderful" position, often by an attack on White's king. It is a risky opening, which has been a favourite of players such as former world champions Garry Kasparov, Bobby Fischer and Tigran Petrosian. Prominent grandmasters John Nunn, Svetozar Gligoric, Wolfgang Uhlmann, and Larry Christiansen have also played this opening frequently.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 f3

The Sämisch variation often leads to very sharp play with the players castling on opposite wings and attacking each other's kings.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 60%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 f4

The four pawns attack is a sharp line in which White tries to overrun Black with his center pawns. Such a strategy entails considerable risk, and analysis constantly shifts back and forth as to its validity. The pawn on f4 prevents Black's usual e5 break, but Black can get counterplay with a c5 break instead. The main line four pawns position can also be reached from a Sicilian move order.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 61% , but correspondence chess statistics give no more than 51%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Bc4

Bishop's Gambit, where White's development will rapidly increase after 3... Qh4+!? 4. Kf1 followed by 5. Nf3, driving the queen away and gaining a tempo, however, most modern players will not bring out the queen.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 c5 b4

Wing Gambit is the name given to the branches of several openings in which one player gambits a wing pawn, usually the b pawn).

Most common is the Wing Gambit in the Sicilian Defence. After Black takes with 2...cxb4, the usual continuation is 3.a3 bxa3 (3...d5 is also possible). It is also possible to decline (or at least delay acceptance of) the gambit with 2...d5.

For his pawn, White gets quicker development and a central advantage, but it is not generally considered one of White's better choices against the Sicilian, and is virtually never seen at the professional level (amongst amateurs it is more common, though still not so popular as other systems).

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 Nf6 Bg5

The Trompowski attack is named after the one-time Brazilian champion Octavio Siqueiro F. Trompowski (1897–1984) who played it in the 1930s and 1940s.

With the second move, White is intending to exchange his bishop for Black's knight inflicting doubled pawns upon Black in the process. This is not a lethal threat, Black can choose to fall in with White's plan.

After 1.d4 Nf6, the Trompowski is a popular alternative to the more common 2.c4 and 2.Nf3 lines. By playing 2.Bg5, White avoids the immense opening theory of various Indian Defences like the Queen's Indian and the King's Indian. Some of the grandmasters who often play the Trompowski are Julian Hodgson and Antoaneta Stefanova.

According to Chessbase, white chances are about 56%

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Yeturu Aahlad    (2017)
c4 e5

Normal move which fights for the center. In practice this is a reversed Sicilian. Black eyes d4-square and takes on the kingside. White plans queenside attack while black has play on the kingside.

============

Contributors : Larry Wolfley, Kostis Megalios, Lauri Lahnasalo, Yeturu Aahlad


David Grosdemange    (1912)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 b5 cxb5 a6 Nc3

white develops this knight on his best square . after axb5 , white can play e4 (the vilnius variation) or play Cxb5 , who transpose into a totally accepted benkö after Fa6 Cc3 .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


David Grosdemange    (1912)
f4 e5 g4

this mistake allows black to play the quickest mate possible .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


Larry Wolfley    (2133)
e4 c5 Nf3 a6 c4 e6

Now, when White plays d4, Black will often respond with cxd4 Nxd4 followed by Bb4, with some pressure on the e4 pawn, and the potential positional threat of Bxc3.

============

Contributors : Larry Wolfley


David Grosdemange    (1912)
c4 c5

the symmetrical english .
if blacks plays too long symmetrical , white can keep a little advantage with the advance to play first . but black can isn't forced to continue playing symmetrical .

this move is sometimes used by sicilian players , because it can transpose into a maroczy bind .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


Larry Wolfley    (2133)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 c5

This will transpose to the Modern Benoni when White plays d5.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 is the normal move order that reaches the Modern Benoni.


============

Contributors : Larry Wolfley


David Grosdemange    (1912)
e4 c5 Nf3 g6 d4 cxd4 Qxd4

this move is possible because black hasn't played Nc6 . so the queen attacks the h8 rook .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange


Bradley Gooding    (1700)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6

The "Two Knights Defense", an aggressive alternative to Bc5 which leads to dynamic play for both sides.

============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid, Bradley Gooding


Thibault de Vassal    (2425)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6

The main move. Black doesn't fear the "loss" of the e5 pawn : 3.Bxc6 dxc6! 4.Nxe5?! because of ..Qd4! with equallity at worst.

Morphy Defence, by far the most commonly played Black third move which "puts the question" to the white bishop. White has only two good options, 4.Bxc6 or 4.Ba4. The main point to 3...a6 is that after the common retreat 4.Ba4, Black will have the possibility of breaking the pin on his queen knight by playing ...b5. In fact, White must take some care to not fall into the Noah's Ark Trap in which Black traps White's king bishop on the b3-square with a ...a6, ...b5, and ...c4 pawn advance on the queenside.

============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid, Thibault de Vassal


Terry Godat    (2036)
e4 e5 f4 Bc5

another way to decline the king's gambit .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange, Terry Godat

If Black wants to decline the gambit and still play for a win, this seems to be the best way.




Graham Cridland    (1692)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nc6 Nc3 Qc7

Black has two main choices here, the text move and ...a6. In either case, White can either ignore the move order and proceed with development (the main lines), or attempt to take advantage of the difference. In the case of ...Qc7, this generally means Ponomariov's pet line 6 Ndb5 Qb8 7 Be3!?, using the b5 square before it is covered to inconvenience Black in his development.

Otherwise, we enter the major Paulsen/Taimanov variations (and Black will generally play ...a6 to rule out Ndb5 ideas).
============

Contributors : Graham Cridland


Graham Cridland    (1692)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nc6 Nc3 Qc7 Ndb5 Qb8 Be3

Other moves allow black to play ...a6 without fear, and the position is likely to transpose back to the main lines.

============

Contributors : Graham Cridland


Thibault de Vassal    (2425)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6

The Berlin Defence is logical and solid, although it can be hard for Black to generate winning chances. Arthur Bisguier played this line for decades, and it was later taken up by Alexei Shirov and other young grandmasters. Vladimir Kramnik used the Berlin Defence as a drawing variation against Garry Kasparov in their 2000 World Championship match.

After 4.0-0, Black can play either the solid 4...Nxe4 or the more combative 4...Bc5. After 4...Nxe4 5.d4 (5.Re1 Nd6 6.Nxe5 is also reasonable) Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ (8.Qe2?! Nd4! 9.Nxd4 Qxd4 favors Black. After 10.Rd1, Bg4!? 11.Rxd4 Bxe2 gives Black a pleasant endgame.) Kxd8 White is usually considered to have a small advantage in light of his somewhat better pawn structure and Black's awkwardly placed king, but Black, with a solid position and the bishop pair, has excellent drawing chances.

============

Contributors : Julien Baudement, Tim Bredernitz, Thibault de Vassal


Rémi Marois    (1500)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5

This variation is known as the anti-Najdorf system because black can no longer play 6 ... e5.

============

Contributors : Rémi Marois


Andrew Stephenson    (2000)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bc4 e6 Bb3 Nbd7

At one time thought to be unplayable for black was the main choice of Kasparov when facing Bc4
============

Contributors : Rémi Marois, Andrew Stephenson


Tim Bredernitz    (1100)
e4 e5 Qh5

This is called the Parham Attack. It's used commonly in lower scholastic tournaments. If used against a player who has the ability to see multiple moves ahead, however, the early over-development of the Queen will result in either the loss of the white Queen, or the loss of a tempo. The move is deceiving, because white is actually putting the e5 pawn under attack. If black counters by attacking the queen with 2. ... g6?, they lose a rook a rook to 3.Qxe5+. The most effective way to counter against this attack is to protect the e5 pawn. After the King pawn is protected, white's queen is left overdeveloped and subject to attack. Overall, the Parham Attack is only effective against beginning chess players.


============

Contributors : Tim Bredernitz


Pablo Schmid    (1700)
e4 e5 Qh5 Nf6 Qxe5

It's too late to change the plan, White had to think before playing that queen's move.

============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid


Sandor Porkolab    (2269)
e4 d5

One of the oldest recorded openings, first recorded as being played between Francesco di Castellvi and Narciso Vinyoles in Valencia in 1475, and being mentioned by Lucena in 1497. It and the French Defense are the oldest asymmetric defenses to 1.e4.

It is a playable, underrated defence that can lead to equality for black. White almost always takes the pawn. Other alternatives are 2. Nc3!?, leading to the Dunst opening, 2. d4!?, leading to the Blackmar-Deimer gambit, and 2. e5?!, leading to unique positions where black can easily equalise. After 2. exd5, there are two very different ways of playing the defence, 2...Nf6 and 2...Qxd5.

1.e4 d5 2.e5!? is also an option - going to French/CaroCann Lines - preventing the skandinawian...
============

Contributors : Adam Domurad, Sandor Porkolab


Roger Weber    (1200)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e5

A good counter move, forcing the other player to retire his knight, leaving you with an advantage at the middle. Basically the hunter is now the one being hunted, as you now have the innitiative.

============

Contributors : Roger Weber


Amir Bagheri    (2513)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5

White plays an early Bb5, usually with the intention of trading it for the c6-knight and giving Black doubled pawns. Blacks most usual continuation is to quickly developed by 3...g6, although moves like 3...Qc7, 3...Qb6 and 3...e6 are also possible.


============

Contributors : Amir Bagheri


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 d6

The Pirc Defence, sometimes known as the Ufimtsev Defence.

Amir agheri : When it comes to chess openings, I prefer to play less popular, less traveled lines. For almost two decades, I have mostly played the Queen pawn Opening, the Dutch Defense, and the French Defense, which are all well known, solid openings sane opening choices. However, I must confess I have a passion for opening study and experimenting. Recently I have been experimenting with the Balogh Counter Gambit against 1.e4.

Did he say the Balogh Counter Gambit?? What is that?

Well, play starts out like a Pirc Defense, 1.e4 d6 2.d4 and now instead of 2…Nf6, Black plays the shocking 2…f5!?

============

Contributors : Amir Bagheri, Thibault de Vassal


Amir Bagheri    (2513)
e4 d6 d4 f5

The move has great surprise value! One has to hunt hard in opening books to even find the Balogh Counter Gambit (BCG) mentioned. With a little investigating you will find the BCG is covered under the Dutch Defense, The move order there is 1.d4 f5 2.e4, the Staunton Gambit, then 2…d6 transposes to the BCG.

I first saw the BCG mentioned in Richard Wincor’s book “Baroque Chess Openings”. A whimsical book on less traveled opening lines with the idea of engaging battle on one’s own terms. The book does make an interesting point. One can play less forceful openings that offer soundness and surprise value in return for more frequently getting known lines/positions.

If you are lucky enough to find a BCG referenced in an opening book the analysis line usually runs 1.d4 f5 2.e4 d6 3.exf5 Bxf5 4.Qf3 Qc8 5.Bd3 Bxd3 (5…Bg4 is better) 6.Qxd3 with a clear plus for White.


============

Contributors : Amir Bagheri


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 f5

The dutch defense.

Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development. As of 2005, the defence is unpopular in top-level play. The Dutch has never been one of the main lines against 1.d4, though in the past a number of top players, including Alexander Alekhine, Bent Larsen and Paul Morphy, have used it with success. Perhaps its high-water mark occurred in 1951, when both world champion Mikhail Botvinnik and his challenger, David Bronstein, played it in their championship match.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
d4 f5 e4

The Staunton Gambit, named after Howard Staunton. Though once a feared line, the Staunton Gambit only scores around 50% today, and accordingly is rarely played in high-level games. A number of gambit lines with g4 are also possible, including Korchnoi's 2.h3!? intending g4!? on the next move.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Ralph Marconi    (2095)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 dxe4

The Burn variation. Once considered a dubious line in the French; perhaps some still consider it doubtful, it has gained in popularity in recent years because of it's tendency toward double-edged play. GM Mikhail Gurevich is one of today's main experts in the line.

============

Contributors : Ralph Marconi


Mike Hoogland    (1760)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 d4

An old move, played before Fischer's 0-0. After the pawn exchange, White creates a favourable endgame pawn structure, given his 4-3 pawn majority on the Kingside. Black is unable to exploit his Queenside majority because of the doubled pawn. However in practise, Black is able to to create sufficient counterplay with his bishop pair to hold the balance.

============

Actually, I think this is a bad move. After 0-0 black will have to defend the pawn on e5. 6. Nxe5, Qd4. 7. Nf3, Qxe4 does not work anymore for black, because white can play his rook to e1 and win the queen (the queen is pinned).

Therefore, black usually defends the pawn with f6. f6 is not very useful however, and black would rather have made another move, if he could have done so. Qd6 and Qf6 are also good moves that defend the pawn on e5. However, after 6. d4, exd4 7. Qxd4, Qxd4 black will have lost a tempo in comparison to this variant.

Contributors : Adrian Tan, Mike Hoogland


Thibault de Vassal    (2522)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5

Czech problemist Karel Traxler played first 4...Bc5!? in Reinisch–Traxler, Prague 1890.

Marshall analyzed the variation and named it after the town Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Today this variation is known as both the Traxler Variation and the Wilkes-Barre Variation.

Traxler counter-attack is rarely played at a grandmaster level, but Beliavsky and Shirov have played it occasionally, sometimes in top competition.

============

Contributors : Adrian Tan, Thibault de Vassal


Pablo Schmid    (1700)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 a6

This is the Sicilian Kan (or sometimes called Paulsen.

Black plays a6 to allow Qc7 (by preventing a White Nb5) and enable ...b5.

============

Contributors : Richard Hendricks, Pablo Schmid


Richard Hendricks    (1459)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 a6 Nc3

White plays Nc3 to support his KP and deter a possible 5...e5.

============

Contributors : Richard Hendricks


David Grosdemange    (1983)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 Bb5+ Nc6

It is an alternative for Black to prepare a favourable exchange with Bd7, then a6. Then White can retire by playing Bf1 (after Re1) or exchange the bishop, then black bishop have a good square in c6.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2407)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5

The Latvian Gambit is an aggressive but dubious chess opening, which often leads to wild complications. This opening is almost never seen at the top levels, but some correspondence chess players are devoted to it.

It was formerly known as the Greco Counter Gambit. The name is a tribute to the Latvian players, notably Karlis Betins, who analyzed it in the early part of the 20th century.

It looks like a King's Gambit with the colours reversed.

============

Contributors : Benjamin Aldag, Thibault de Vassal


Gregory Kohut    (1783)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5

The beginning of the end ! Black has no moveoptions and the Qf6-Move is a MUST and not a can.

The following comment is by me (Benjamin Aldag):

The Kings Gambit was good to play in the early 80s. But with comming of good and fast computers, the Kings Gambit is researched move for move in all lines. If both players play the best moves, all white can reach is a draw. But the point is, white has the chance, to do more wrong in the opening, than black. Ok, there are some kiddy-tricks by white, but if black want an equal game, he will get it. Now letz take a look to the latvian,- the Kings Gambit with a tempo down. If the Kings Gambit is bad, why should the Latvian Gambit good for black with a tempo down ? The only way for black is to hope, that the white player isn't prepared for this gambit. There are many traps, but the basics of these traps are easy to see. Black is from beginning on under big pressure and has no dynamic play. In nearly all lines of the Latvian Gambit, black has only forced moves. From now on, i will give to all moves in all lines my commentary. Ok.... i'am not a GM, IM, or FM, but i think i know the Latvian Gambit really good.
============

Contributors : Benjamin Aldag, Gregory Kohut


Benjamin Aldag    (1822)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4

Nc4:

This move in good too. The better move is d2-d4, but you must know a hand full lines in the d4-line, to crush the blacks position while sleeping ;-) For beginners its better to play Nc4, because you will get an easy and advantage game.

============

Contributors : Benjamin Aldag


Sophie Leclerc    (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 f6

This poor looking defense is know as damiano defense. It is far from being refuted, if played correctly, hoverer, this defense is very sharp and lack attacking chance, black doesn't have very good compensation for a pawn.
If played to perfection, it is know as draw, but player avoids it as it is very sharp, one mistake for black and it is over.
2 F6 as many disvatage, is open the a2-68 diagonal, it breaks black short castle. It takes ways the f6 square for the knight and the queen. It also open the very dengerous h5-e8 diagonal, all this to protect a pawn, this is a very dangerous opening. It should called Damiano Gambit. Should be a draw, even if your opponent take the e5 pawn, as 2... f6 isn't an instant protection.
============

Contributors : Benjamin Aldag, Sophie Leclerc


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 Nc6 Nf3

Now if Black plays e5, the game transpose in main open game variations.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Bruno Bragato    (1500)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nd2

The Tarrasch Variation is named after Siegbert Tarrasch. This move was particularly popular during the late 1970s and early 1980s when Anatoly Karpov used it to great effect. It is still played today by players seeking a small, safe advantage.

The move differs from 3.Nc3 in several respects: it doesn't block the path of White's c pawn, which means he can play c3 at some stage to support the d4 pawn; and it avoids the Winawer Variation because 3...Bb4 can be met with 4.c3 when Black has wasted a move (he has to retreat his bishop).
============

Contributors : Dirk Jan Van Dijl, Bruno Bragato


Peter Marriott    (1816)
g4

Grob's Attack named after Swiss IM Henri Grob (1904-74).

White intends to put pressure along the h1-a8 diagonal while also threatening to launch a Kingside pawn storm.

The opening is considered inferior for White (-0.32 at this stage of analysis 29/06/2008), but it avoids endless theoretical discussions and cannot be avoided by Black. The positions are often highly tactical and natural play by Black may lead him into several traps.

Evaluation notes from Kjetil Prestesaeter:
I have added all known named lines plus other lines favored by Rybka (Rybka 2.3 mp 32-bit, 17ply). Many of the named lines seem to be more romantic than strong. Please extend the analysis if you have spare time and computer power.

Notes by Peter Marriott:

I used to use the Grob in many blitz games I have played against humans. I actually had good success, not because it is a good move, but because it confused many players. On a chess server, I actually achieved a rating from 16-1700 by playing it. Many, many players simply responded by ...d5 and after I played Bg2, they took the g4 pawn, which led me to win a whole bunch of games by playing 3.c4, with an eye on b7. Maybe the right way to play this for black is simply to play 1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 then c6. Then white wonders what he's gonna do (At least I did!)
============

Contributors : Benjamin Aldag, Gary Gruwé, Kjetil Prestesaeter, Peter Marriott


Thibault de Vassal    (2424)
e4 c5 f4 d5 Nf3

A provocating move I didn't see before SM Wladyslav Krol played it at several occasions in FICGS tournaments. (Game 864, Game 876, Game 1750)

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2424)
e4 c5 f4 d5 Nf3 dxe4 Ng5 Nf6 Bc4 Bg4

Until White plays Be2 (which is not very coherent), Black takes the queen and leaves a bishop, a knight and an awful structure. A very interesting unsymmetrical position to come. However I think it's equal.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2424)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Bc4

The Scotch Gambit.

Instead of 4.Nxd4, White has two ways to offer a gambit. The Scotch Gambit starts with 4.Bc4

Black can transpose into the Two Knights Defense with 4...Nf6 or he can continue the Scotch with 4...Bc5 5.c3 and now 5...Nf6 will transpose into a safe variation of the Giuoco Piano. Black can instead accept the gambit with 5...dxc3 but this is riskier because White will gain a lead in development. A possible continuation is 6.Nxc3 (Grandmaster Sveshnikov has played 6.Bxf7+!? Kxf7 7.Qd5+ followed by 8.Qxc5) 6...d6 7.Qb3 Qd7 8.Nd5 Nge7 9.Qc3 0-0.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Thibault de Vassal    (2424)
d4 Nf6 c4 Nc6 Nf3

Black wants to play hypermodern style and destruct White's pawns center later. White develops quietly.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Dragan Florin    (1800)
g3 d5

Black plays for control of the center.

============

Contributors : Mark Carroll, Dragan Florin


Mark Carroll    (1700)
g3 d5 Nf3 Nf6 Bg2 e6 O-O

These first few moves for white are known as the Barcza System. It allows for flexible play in the center.

============

Contributors : Mark Carroll


Mark Carroll    (1700)
g3 d5 Nf3 Nf6 Bg2 e6 O-O Be7 d3 c5 Nbd2 Nc6 e4

White is going for the e5 square which will force the Knight on f6 away. By closing the center, white will have strong play on the king side, or the queen side.
============

Contributors : Mark Carroll


Mark Carroll    (1700)
g3 d5 Nf3 Nf6 Bg2 e6 O-O Be7 d3 c5 Nbd2 Nc6 e4 b6

Black begins play on the queenside and allows his Biship to be developed attacking the center.

============

Contributors : Mark Carroll


Mark Carroll    (1700)
g3 d5 Nf3 Nf6 Bg2 e6 O-O Be7 d3 c5 Nbd2 Nc6 e4 b6 e5 Nd7 Re1 Qc7 Qe2 Bb7 h4 O-O-O a3 h6 h5

This move stops black from being able to play g5, which would begin a good attack for him.

============

Contributors : Mark Carroll


Marc Lacrosse    (2233)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Bc5

The Basman-Sale sicilian.
If white plays Nb3, Black intends to go for some original play with Bb6, Ne7 and often f5.
If Be3, than Qb6 with pressure along the a7-g1 diagonal. Some lines lead to extremely confuse highly tactical positions.
Originally played by british IM Michael Basman in the seventies and eighties. More recently IM Srdjan Sale has been the main exponent of the variation with some fair results including a win against the then young Peter Leko.

============

Contributors : Marc Lacrosse


Adam Goodwin    (1365)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O c3 d5

Frank Marshall analyzed this move for at least 9 years before he played it against Capablanca in 1918.

============

Contributors : Marshall Gambit
chess thematic tournament, Adam Goodwin


Benjamin Aldag    (1822)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4 fxe4 Nc3

Qf7:

G. Gunderarms Move. Black follows the gambit-style and white must be prepared in this variantion. But with a good preperation, white is playing for the full point (in my opinion). Black prepares d7-d5.


============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Benjamin Aldag


Benjamin Aldag    (1822)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4 fxe4 Nc3 Qf7

Qf7:

G. Gunderarms Move. Black follows the gambit-style and white must be prepared in this variantion. But with a good preperation, white is playing for the full point (in my opinion). Black prepares d7-d5.
============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Benjamin Aldag


Benjamin Aldag    (1822)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4 fxe4 Nc3 Qf7 Ne3 c6

c6:

Black still want to play d7-d5 and the c6 move is preparing it. White has now the choice between Nxe4 and d2-d3. The best move for white is in my opinion d2-d3, known as the Budowskys-Line.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Benjamin Aldag


Benjamin Aldag    (1822)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4 fxe4 Nc3 Qf7 Ne3 c6 Nxe4 d5 Ng5

How can i describe the past moves of this game with one word ? Hmmm....it's GAMING ! White is playing with his opponent like a cat with a mice. Just count the queenmoves of black, and you will understand me. Let us remember some opening rules:

1. Don't move to early the queen.
2. Don't move with the same figure in the opening twice or more times.
3. Don't open the pawnshield of your king (f-pawn etc.).
4. Develope your figures fast and with one move.

Now......we can see,- Black did in the opening all wrong, what a chessplayer can do wrong in the opening. In the Latvian Gambit, White will kill Black with a headshot !

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Benjamin Aldag


Benjamin Aldag    (1822)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4 fxe4 Nc3 Qf7 Ne3 c6 d3 exd3 Bxd3 d5 O-O Bd6 Re1 Ne7 Nc4

Nc4!!:

Better than to play Nxd5. Nxd5 is also good, but Nc4 is better.

============

Contributors : Benjamin Aldag


Benjamin Aldag    (1822)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4 fxe4 Nc3 Qf7 Ne3 c6 d3 exd3 Bxd3 d5 O-O Bd6 Re1 Ne7 Nc4 dxc4 Bxc4 Bxh2+ Kxh2 Qxc4 Re4 Qc5 Be3 Qf5 Qd6

After Qd6, black is totally lost. Is this the way, you want to go in the opening with black ? I believe not ! All white figures are activ and not far away, to crush the black king. If you think the position of black is O.K., than chess is not your game and you should change your hobby (maybe its better for you to play checkers or backgammon)

;-)

============

Contributors : Benjamin Aldag


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



Thibault de Vassal    (2425)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 g6

The Smyslov Defence is a quiet positional system played occasionally by Vassily Smyslov and Boris Spassky. It became popular in the 1980s when it was shown that 4.c3 a6! gives Black a good game. Later it was found that after 4.d4 exd4 5.Bg5 White has the advantage, and the variation is rarely played today. An interesting gambit line 4.d4 ed4 5.c3 has also been recommended by Alexander Khalifman, although some of the resulting positions are yet to be tested extensively.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Peter Marriott    (1816)
g4 d5 Bg2

Grob's Gambit

White aims to tear open the centre for an early material advantage on the queenside.

Notes by Peter Marriott:

The main gambit. White threatens to play 3.c4 if black takes the g4 pawn.
============

Contributors : Ron Keyston, Kieran Child, Kjetil Prestesaeter, Peter Marriott


Kjetil Prestesaeter    (1600)
g4 d5 Bg2 Bxg4 c4

Fritz gambit.

If black goes on the defensive, white can get some good play and has many tactical tricks. These can all be easily seen off though, and black can even counter-gambit with a much superior position.

Chessbase considers this 52% win for white

============

Contributors : Ron Keyston, Kieran Child, Kjetil Prestesaeter


Dirk Ghysens    (2245)
a3

Not very impressing, but it was played by Adolf Anderssen against Paul Morphy in their 1859 match. Anderssen subsequently used the variation, with more success, against other adversaries.

Anderssen scored 1.5/3 with it against Morphy (DG).

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar, Don Burden, Dirk Ghysens


Telmo Escobar    (2086)
Nf3 g5 Nxg5 e5


I have seen the legendary Mischa Tahl playing this gambit in 1991, at Club Argentino de Ajedrez. The girl who was White lost without a fight, but it was difficult to play blitz with Tahl, even when he was ill- and apparently drunk.


============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Thibault de Vassal    (2425)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Bc4 Qh4+

The line of the famous "Immortal game", played by Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky.

============

Contributors : Thibault de Vassal


Ingo Schwarz    (1824)
e4 c5 Bc4

An idea, which I have tested in some tournament games. I often played Bc4 in other Sicilian systems, so I asked me, why not play it as soon as possible.

This move works against d5 and sometimes a Bxf7+ combination is possible like in other openings with sharp play.

============

Contributors : Ingo Schwarz


Peter Marriott    (1816)
e4 c5 Bc4 e6

IMO, this is the best move after 1.e4 c5 2. Bc4. It threatens to play ...d5, chasing away the bishop.
============

Contributors : Ingo Schwarz, Peter Marriott


Ingo Schwarz    (1824)
e4 c5 Bc4 Nc6 Nf3 Nf6 e5 Ng4 Bxf7+ Kxf7 Ng5+ Kg8 Qxg4 Nxe5

A sharp position with chances for both players.
============

Contributors : Ingo Schwarz


Kostis Megalios    (1400)
f4 d5

This is the basic position of the Bird, it actually looks like a Dutch reversed, but with a tempo more. Though the dutch is considered to be quite sound the problem of playing it with white is that with black you go for the equality, but with white you have to go for the for advantage.
============

Contributors : Gregory Kohut, Kostis Megalios


Gregory Kohut    (1700)
f4 c5 e4 d6 Nc3

after 2)...d6 , white can obtain a grand prix attack where black lose a tempo , because he's played d6?! .

============

Contributors : David Grosdemange, Alexander Minkin


Gregory Kohut    (1700)
Nc3 Nf6 e4

This is the main alternative to e5, but it is easier to Black to reach equality. They can play 2..e5 transposing into the Vienna game (1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6), or play the sharp 2..d5!? to stay in an independant line.

============

Contributors : Pablo Schmid


Max Rau-Chaplin    (1600)
e4 d5 exd5 Nf6 d4

3 d4. is the standard move in this position. Rather than attempting to hold its over-extended doubled pawn White plays for a strong center and easy development. From here there are two popular variations, 3 NxF6(main line) and the sharper portugese variation 3 BG4

============

Contributors : Max Rau-Chaplin


Wolfgang Utesch    (2461)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Bc5 c3 O-O d4 Bb6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 d6 Qd3 Bd7 Nbd2 a6 Bxc6 Bxc6 Rfe1 Re8 a4 Ba7 b4 b5 axb5 axb5 Ra5 exd4 cxd4 Bb6 Rxa8 Bxa8 Bxf6 Qxf6 Qxb5 Re7 Qd3 Bb7 Re3 Qf4 Qb5 Qg4 h3 Qf4 g3 Qf6 Kg2 Re6 d5 Re7 Re2 Qa1 Qc4 Ba6 b5 Bb7 Qd3 Qd1 Re1 Qa4 Rb1 Qa7 Nh4 Bc8 f4 Bd7 Nhf3 Re8 g4 Qa4 Kg3 f6 f5 Rb8 Qc3 Kf8 h4 Re8 Kf4 Re7 Nc4 Qa2 Nfd2 Qa7 Nxb6 Qxb6 Qe3 Qa5 b6 cxb6 Rxb6 Be8 Nf3 Qa7 g5

End of game see Utesch - Daus 1-0, 2006, ICCF-CL-B2/2

This position is nice to play out!

============

Contributors : Wolfgang Utesch


Thibault de Vassal    (2522)
e4 e6 d4 f5

The 'Kingston Defence' is characterised by the opening moves:

1.e4 e6
2.d4 f5

It can also be reached after the transposition of moves 1.d4 f5 2.e4 e6 — a form of Staunton Gambit Declined.

The first record of the defence being played is Schiffers-Chigorin, 1880. The first record of a win by Black is the 1892 victory of Elson over Emanuel Lasker. It remains obscure, but has considerable surprise value.

The Kingston Defence shares a weakness with the French Defence — in the form of the constrained queen's bishop -- and a strength with the Dutch Defence — namely the early thrust of the f-pawn, which often supports a knight on e4. (These French and Dutch similarities led to the first, uncomfortable name for the defence: Frutch.) White's decision at move three tends to define the nature of the game that follows.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5


============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

In general, Black usually gets a nice game in this, the Advance variation of the Kingston Defence, as soon as White has played e5.


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7



============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

If Black plays ..c5 immediately, 4.d5 is uncomfortable.


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3



============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

A good waiting move. White is likely to play Nf3 at some point. (An immediate 4.f4 admits that Black has determined the closed nature of the game.)


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5



============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

The obvious freeing move, but it will disturb very weak players of White. If 5.dc then 5.. Ng6 and Black can target both of White's advanced pawns with natural moves such as ..Nc6, ..Qa5+ and ..Qc7.


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bd3 Nc6 Bxf5 Qf6



============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson

White cannot hang on to the extra pawn without compromising his position. Play becomes very sharp now.


Miguel Pires    (2143)
e4 e5 Bb5 c6 Ba4 Nf6 Nc3

For some of the stronger players in Portugal the best move.

============

Contributors : Miguel Pires


Miguel Pires    (2143)
e4 e5 Bb5 c6 Ba4 Nf6 Qe2 Bc5 Nf3 d5 exd5

Only whay to play, any other move is bad. Now black as to decide what to do, but the game is hard!!!!!!!

============

Contributors : Miguel Pires


Telmo Escobar    (2107)
e4 e5 Bb5 c6 Ba4 Nf6 Nc3 d5 exd5 b5 Bb3 b4 Na4 cxd5 d4 e4 Ne2


Play is unclear here.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Mark Hailes    (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6

The fight in the Nimzo often revolves around controlling the square e4. If white manages to force through e3-e4 unhindered, the b1 bishop will be released and white will have a dominating position in the centre, often with the threat of playing e5 gaining space and a kingside initiative. So Black plans Bb7 controlling the long diagonal and in particular the square e4.

============

Contributors : Wladyslaw Makosiej, Mark Hailes


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 Nc3

An early Nc3-b5 can work well for White in several variations of the Kingston Defence, particularly if White has also played Bf4.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


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)
Nf3 d5 e4 dxe4 Ng5

The obvious continuation perceived from the moment white played e4. White aims for early attacks on f7, and this move also threatens to regain the pawn. If black defends the pawn, the attack on f7 will look to be exploited, if black aims for natural development and prevention of an early tactical trick, he will be ok.

Chessbase considers this 49% win for white

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
Nf3 d5 e4 dxe4 Ng5 f5 Bc4

Most players would be able to spot this over the board. It's the best, and it exploits black's lack of king protection.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
Nf3 d5 e4 dxe4 Ng5 f5 Bc4 e6

An ugly looking gambit, but one which black should be prepared to play in order to prevent an overwhelming white attack.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
Nf3 Nf6 Nc3

Reti - Van Geet

A hypermodern move and one that refuses to confirm central pawn structure. However, after blocking the f pawn, this block of the c pawn can be considered weak and restrictive. If black plays d5 and c5, he can often get a good game.

ChessBase considers this a 49% win for white - lower than the average opening.
============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
Nf3 Nf6 b4

Santasiere's folly

A move so named because, when it was first played by Anthony Santasiere, he commented "oh dear, I meant to play it to b3!" Like the Sokolsky though, it is seen by many as more than a Basmanesque joke. White will aim to play a further b5, Bb2 and a4, gaining much queenside space and restricting the development of black's queenside rook and knight. Black will aim to prevent this queenside space with quick counter attacks on the queenside.

ChessBase considers this 55% win for white

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Nc6 Qh5+ g6 Nxg6 Nf6 Qh4 Rg8 Nxf8

Most frequently played, but probably a blunder. Black's attack is now tremendous.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
e4 e5 f4 c5

Mafia defence

Black's aim is to prevent d4 being played and thus marginally restricting white's hopes of a recapture on f4. This has yet to see any success though, and Bc4 and d3 by white seems to refute it pretty well.

Chessbase considers this 38% won for black

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Terry Godat    (2036)
e4 e5 f4 Nf6

Wade defence

While looking tactically sharp, this move offers black few chances, and blocks off the queen's path to h4. If white transposes this with Nc3 into the vienna gambit, or Bc4 into the greco gambit, black should be ok. But if white plays fxe5 then Nf3, black's knight looks very out of position.

Chessbase considers this a 42% win for black.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child, Terry Godat

I have played this move often in blitz games and rarely had much trouble equalizing. Fischer got little if any advantage against Wade.


Kieran Child    (1600)
e4 e5 f4 Qf6

Norwald variation

An uncommon response as it brings out the queen (much too early) and blocks the g8 knight, but it does put black clear material up and with no obvious tactical flaws.

Chessbase considers this a 38% win for black, but it should be noted that it mostly just gets played experimentally by players expecting a loss.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
e4 e5 f4 Qf6 d4

Norwald variation - Electric eel attack

Possibly the least played opening to still have a name. On bigbase9, only 4 games played d4 in response to the Norwald and thus it is hard to analyse. Black doesn't have any immediete wins though, and after the pawn takes on d or e, white will play e5 and Nf3 for an OK game.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
h4 e5 Rh3 d5 Re3 Nc6 d4 e4 c4 Nf6 cxd5

Ok, I'll admit it, I'm a bit peeved with the fact I can't play f3 or Bg5, but this move sets another trap for the player who isn't concentrating.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Lazaro Munoz    (1785)
h4 d5

Kadas opening.

Black prevents the rook from developing. White's only plan has been destroyed. The type of player who would play h4 is the same player who would follow up with h5, trying to develop the rook again to h4 this time.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child, Lazaro Munoz


Kieran Child    (1600)
h4 d5 h5 e5 h6 gxh6 d4 exd4 Qxd4 f6

The most common move, and yet another blunder. Often played by those who were confused by white's opening, and think they can hog the pawn advantage.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Toon Pepermans    (1992)
d4 e5

Englund gambit (/Charlick gambit)

Black's aim is to avoid closed systems and castle early, though nowadays this move is rarely seen without the follow up trap. In case the multiple follow up traps appeal to anyone reading this, remember that this opening is never seen at grandmaster level, emphasising its hideous unsoundness.

-K.Child

===========
1. d4 e5
{The Seccond best first move gambit in Chess. The authority is GM Stefan Bücker, who wrote one of the bibles of unorthodox openings, with his book "Englund Gambit" (1988). He has touched upon the opening in later collumns both at chesscafe.com and in his magazine; Kaissiber. The conclusion seems to be that White is better with acurate play, but OTB White usually avoids those main lines.}

2. dxe5 Nc6
(2... d6 "Hartlaub-Gambit")

3. Nf3 Qe7
(3... f6 "Soller Gambit")
(3... Nge7 "Zilbermints Gambit")
{Now White can chose between several playable lines:}

A) 4. Bf4 {Grob Variation}
B) 4. Qd5 {Stockholm Variation}
C) 4. Nc3
D) 4. e4

-P.Valle, 5th Nov 2010

============

Contributors : Kieran Child, Paul Valle, Toon Pepermans


Kieran Child    (1600)
d4 e5 dxe5 d6

Hartlaub variation

The initial idea of Henry Charlick when playing the Englund. It's more respectable than the modern trap, but is unsound. Black aims for early development and castling. White will aim to not stray too far behind development-wise, and win a pawn-up endgame.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
d4 e5 dxe5 Nc6 f4

Purely for those scared of black's opportunity for setting up traps. Inferior to Nf3, but stopping any black play for good.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
e4 e5 Bc4 f5

Calabrese countergambit

A relative of the latvian gambit. Black's aim is a subtle exploitation of white's early bishop choice. He seeks to play a quick d5 and gain the centre with a tempo. White can just play like a kings gambit declined with a tempo up.

Chessbase considers this a 61% win for black, unusually high, and probably because of the many sticky situations white can find himself in if he is too aggressive.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
e4 e5 Bc4 Nf6

Berlin defence

The standard reply. Black develops normally and will aim to play Nc6 and Bc5 and castle for a typical open game. This move does justify white's early bishop move though, as he can now play d3 and get a middlegame with two active bishops.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
e4 e5 Bc4 b5

Andersson gambit

Black gambits a pawn for some central control. This is unsound though, as even if white accepts the pawn, black will still have trouble playing d5 effectively.

Chessbase considers this 23% win for black.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Nicolas Vedovotto    (2039)
Na3

The Durkin

Named after American master, Robert Dirkin, who probably would have known better than to play it anyway. This is a very strange place to develop the knight. If white wanted the knight to exert central control, Nc3 is better. If his aim is to keep the c pawn flexible, the English, or even the Saragossa is preferable. White's aim will be to move this knight yet again, probably to c4. Black is fine developing normally.

Chessbase considers this a 54% win for white.



============

Contributors : Kieran Child, Peter Marriott, Nicolas Vedovotto


Kieran Child    (1600)
Na3 d5

Preventing Nc4 and staking a claim in the centre. Not quite as good as e5 but that will probably be played soon after anyway.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Roberto Migliorini    (2058)
c4 b5

Jaenisch gamnbit

Never been an especially popular opening, the Jaenisch gambit is a theoretically unsound attempt at getting an interesting game out of the English. Black aims to quickly develop the bishop to b7 and gain central control, though he is not without some tactical traps on the queenside. White can easily fight for a solid centre, and start some counterplay while black is trying to regain the pawn.

Chessbase considers this a 34% win for black, 32% if white accepts the pawn.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child, Roberto Migliorini


Kieran Child    (1600)
Nf3 Nf6 b4 e5

I'll call this idea the "Rebaudo variation" because, in all my time playing this opening, he's the first person to play it against me, and I actually think it looks quite good. Black threatens to stop any hope white had of queenside space by capturing the pawn on b4. This move is also more forceful than the common e6 as b5 now falls foul to e4 and black has the advantage.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
e4 e5 d4 Qh4

A variation from the centre game that doesn't have a name (so we can call it the Child variation) but probably should, because IMO it's the best reply. Black manages to avoid any tactical traps from the Danish, and plays on the fact that d4 weakens the c3 square, allowing the knight to be pinned should it ever choose to go there.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Kieran Child    (1600)
e4 e5 d4 Qh4 Qd3

Deals with the threat, but blocks in the f1 bishop and doesn't do much in the way of development. If white can play Nf3 soon, it could be all over for black.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 Be3

Not recommended. Puts pressure on Black to decide about the c-pawn, but Black wants to play ..cd here anyway.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nf3 Be7

Prevents an immediate Bg5 by White. Black wants to avoid playing ..d6 or ..d5 for as long as he can.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nf3 Be7 c4 Nf6

Black has to play this some time. Why not now?

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Kieran Child    (1600)
Nf3 g5 Nxg5 e5 d4

Sharp, and the move that is favoured in longplay games. It probably needs more analysis than I could provide though.

============

Contributors : Kieran Child


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Bc4 c5 dxc5 Ng6 Nf3

White decides to concede the c-pawn straight away. But will he be able to defend the e-pawn sufficiently, now that he can no longer play f4?

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Bc4 c5 dxc5 Ng6 Nf3 Bxc5 O-O

Brings the rook into play.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 c4 c5 Be3 cxd4 Bxd4 Nbc6 Nf3 Ng6

Black continues the plan to attack the e5 pawn, a task White has made easier by making it impossible to play f4 quickly.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 c4 c5 Be3 cxd4 Bxd4 Nbc6 Nf3 Ng6 a3 Qc7 Nc3 Ngxe5

Best to take with this knight first, to preserve the possibility of playing Nxd4.

9...a6 is also worthy of consideration.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 c4 c5 Be3 cxd4 Bxd4 Nbc6 Nf3 Ng6 a3 Qc7 Nc3 Ngxe5 Nxe5 Nxe5 Nb5 Qb8 Qh5+ g6 Qe2 Bg7 f4 a6 Nc3 Nf3+ Qxf3 Bxd4 Rd1 Bg7 g3 b5

The most aggressive counterplay.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Bg5 c5 c3 cxd4

Black cannot play an immediate ...Nbc6, because it does not prevent d5. If ...Nbc6, d5 Nbxe5, then d6 wins the knight on e7.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nf3 Be7 g3 Nf6 Bg2 O-O O-O Ne4 Qd3 d5

Denying White the opportunity to play d5 himself, and reinforcing the protection of the knight on e4.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 c3 Nbc6 Bc4 cxd4 cxd4 Ng6 O-O a6 a3 b5 Be2 Bb7 Be3

Not the best square for this bishop. Black, once castled, will have the option to play ..f4.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bc4

Not a great move. White does not need to provoke Black to play ..d5.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bc4 Nf6

Reserving the right not to play ..d5.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bc4 Nf6 Nf3 d5

Before White thinks of playing d5 himself.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bc4 Nf6 Nf3 d5 Bb3 Qe7+ Ne5 Nc6 Bf4 Be6 O-O Nxe5 Bxe5 O-O-O Re1 Qf7 Nc3

Looks wrong. Once Black plays ..c6, this knight could be stuck. Nd2 is better.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 Bd3 fxe4 Bxe4 Nf6 Bg5 d5 Bf3 c5 Ne2 Nc6 c3 Be7 Nd2 O-O O-O Bd6 Re1

Playing on auto-pilot. dxc5 Bxc5 c4 would have regained equality for Qhite.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 Bd3 fxe4 Bxe4 Nf6 Bg5 d5 Bf3 c5 Ne2 Nc6 c3 Be7 Nd2 O-O O-O Bd7 Re1

Playing on autopilot.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 Bd3 fxe4 Bxe4 Nf6 Bg5 d5 Bf3 c5 Ne2 Nc6 c3 Be7 Nd2 O-O O-O Bd7 Re1 Rc8 Nb3

We're back to near-equality. This would be worth -0.09, says Fritz, if Black now plays ..c4. Unfortunately he played...

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 Bd3 fxe4 Bxe4 Nf6 Bg5 d5 Bf3 c5 Ne2 Nc6 c3 Be7 Nd2 O-O O-O Bd7 Re1 Rc8 Nb3 cxd4 N2xd4 h6

If White now plays Bh4 (best), the position is rated about 0.50.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 g4 fxg4 Qxg4 c5 Be3 cxd4 Bxd4 Nbc6 Bc3 Nd5

Enables the dark-squared bishop to develop. If Qh5+, then the natural ..g6 is best, resulting in a position valued by Fritz at -1.03.

Sadly, in the Internet game on which this analysis is based (March 2007), Black played ..Ng6 instead of ..Nd5, and should have been punished by a natural Nf3.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nc3 d5 Qh5+ g6

The only playable reply.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nc3 d5 Qh5+ g6 Qe2+ Be7 Bg5 Kf7

Worth playing for the shock value!

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nc3 d5 Qh5+ g6 Qe2+ Be7 Bg5 Kf7 Qe5 Nf6 Bxf6 Bxf6 Qxd5+ Kg7 O-O-O c6 Qf3 Be6

Fritz rates this as +0.75 for White, so Black still has work to do from this position. However in an Internet game (March 2007), Black actually played ...Bxd4, and after White's Qf4 (+1.06), Black quickly collapsed after a string of inaccurate moves.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 c3 Nbc6 Bd3 Ng6 Be3 cxd4 cxd4 Bb4+ Nc3 O-O O-O

White had to play it some time.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 c3 Nbc6 Bd3 Ng6 Be3 cxd4 cxd4 Bb4+ Nc3 O-O O-O a6 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 b5 Ng5 h6 Nh3 Qh4 Qf3 Bb7 Qe2 Rac8 a4 Nce7 axb5 axb5 Bxb5 f4

Black should play ..Nd5 instead.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 c3 Nbc6 Bd3 Ng6 Be3 cxd4 cxd4 Bb4+ Nc3 O-O O-O a6 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 b5 Ng5 h6 Nh3 Qh4 Qf3 Bb7 Qe2 Rac8 a4 Nce7 axb5 axb5 Bxb5 f4 Bxd7

Frtiz rates this as +0.75. In an Internet game (March 2007), White incomprehensibly played f3 instead.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nh3 c5

Black plays this thematic move, which doesn't make even Fritz's Top 8 list of moves.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Ulrich Imbeck    (1342)
h4 g6 h5 Bg7

============

Contributors : Yugi Inving

This look like a good error and will force the black to play h6


Yugi Inving    (0980)
h4 e5 h5



============

Contributors : Yugi Inving

Black will not understand, but they may see your pawn coming and play h6 before you do, be carefull. a real good player will play h6.


Yugi Inving    (0980)
h4 e5 h5 h6 e4


============
the game is like a normal again. a few differance. which are to white advantage even if he lose time, black cannot push the pawn on g5 or g6 if the game is player well.

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nf3 Be7 Bd3

This creates the classic formation for White. If Black plays ...d5, he creates a hole on e5 for the White night. But if he doesn't play ...d5, then White himself can play d5 and then feed the knight onto e6 via d4.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nf3 Be7 Bd3 d5 Ne5 Nf6 Bg5 O-O c4 c6 Bxf6 Bxf6 O-O

At last White plays it, but now it's too late.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8

Both of White's options are played. Black can choose an active or passive defense versus Bc4, while after Bg5 Black must wait for some time for activity.
============

Contributors : Collin Bleak


Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bg5


In this line, Black allows his pawn structure to be damaged, and cannot retain his two bishop advantage, but the resulting position is very solid and Black gets counterplay in the center.
============

Contributors : Collin Bleak


Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bc4 Bb4

Black plays for counterchances, and gets enough activity for equality.

============

Contributors : Collin Bleak


Collin Bleak    (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bc4 Bb4 Bxf7

Black coordinates play against e4 and f2 and is better than white. =/+.
============

Contributors : Collin Bleak


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nc3

White is still ahead after this move, but it just seems a shotgun approach. Black was likely to play ..a6 soon anyway, rendering Nc3 fairly pointless.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nc3 a6 Nf3 c5

Fritz does not like this move at all, rating it +1.06 to White, assuming he plays dxc5. But it is thematic.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nc3 a6 Nf3 c5 Bg5

White should have played dxc5 or d5.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nc3 a6 Nf3 c5 Bg5 cxd4 Nxd4 Qa5

Black now has fluid movement for his pieces, but Fritz still rates this as +0.53 if white plays f4.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Gavin Wilson    (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nc3 a6 Nf3 c5 Bg5 cxd4 Nxd4 Qa5 Bd2 Qxe5+ Nde2 N8c6 g3 b5 Bg2 Bb7 O-O Ng6 Re1 Qc7 Nf4 Bc5 Nxg6

White may think he is scuppering Black's plans to castle kingside, but really he's just opening the h-file for the black rook against the white king. Black's kingside attack will play itself now.

============

Contributors : Gavin Wilson


Yugi Inving    (0980)
h4 h6 h5

So you got first to start and you refuse to play?. you got, have a pawn into the opponent zone is an advantage and a disavantage.

============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


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


Kostis Megalios    (1400)
d4 d5 Nc3

Developing a knight and defending e4-square.
This move is not very good, because it blocks the c pawn and white can't fight for the center by playing c4.

============

Contributors : June Lorena, Kostis Megalios


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 Nh4 Rxf2 Kxf2


Best! Now the king is "threatening" to go to g3 (don't laugh about).
In this position I guess White has better prospects, but as White's king seems to be in danger, I wait for other players to provide analysis demonstrating Black's prospects.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Mike Hoogland    (1764)
d3

I have seen this move twince. it is a very good move for people that want to play whit black but dont have them.

I play this opening a lot when I want to get an initial passive game.


============

Contributors : Yugi Inving, Jose Fernández Bueno, Mike Hoogland


Adam Goodwin    (1500)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4 Nxc3 bxc3

This position gives us a real battle of philosophies! White will give his center all the support it needs, since if he succeeds, then Black will be without space and counterplay.

Black, however, labels White's center as a target and decides to attack it with everything he's got. Black would like to force the advance of a pawn, when the squares the pawns vacate will become available to Black's army.

============

Contributors : Adam Goodwin


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


Graham Cridland    (1406)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Be7 Qf3 Qc7

To play Nbd7 without allowing the response Bf1-c4.

============

Contributors : Graham Cridland


Than Serd    (1300)
e4 a6 d4 b5 Nf3 Bb7

the idea is to play e6 and c5 and attack the d4 with Nc6 and Qb6

============

Contributors : Than Serd


Sebastiano Paulesu    (1969)
e4 d5 exd5 Nf6 c4 e6 dxe6 Nc6

An interesting gambit: white must play very accurate moves to avoid an early dangerous attack...

============

Contributors : Sebastiano Paulesu


Sebastiano Paulesu    (1969)
e4 d5 exd5 Nf6 c4 e6 dxe6 Nc6 exf7+

White, certainly, can play simply Nf3 and so transpose in the lines of the Icelandic gambit.
But this move can't be wrong...

============

Contributors : Sebastiano Paulesu


Alexander Minkin    (1882)
e4 c5 b3 Nc6 Bb2 e5 Bc4 Nf6 d3 d6 Nc3 Be7

6...Be6 7.Nge2! Be7 8.0–0 0–0 9.f4! (That's the way.) 9...exf4 10.Nxf4 Bxc4 11.bxc4 Nd7 12.Ncd5 Nde5 13.Nh5 Re8 14.Qe1 Bh4 15.Qe2 Re6 16.Nhf4 Rh6 17.Ne3 Bg5 18.g3 Rf6 19.Nf5 Qd7 (If 19...Bxf4 20.gxf4! Rg6+ 21.Kh1 Nd7 22.Rg1. I think what I like is that the ideas are simple to understand and very effective. Black is being denied his traditional Sicilian counterplay and forced to engage in a protracted defense of his King.) 20.Qh5 Bh6 21.Nd5

============

Contributors : Alexander Minkin


Benjamin Block    (1660)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Bd3


============

Contributors : Joel Mazo

This move ensures that White will be able to play c4 and achieve a Maroczy Bind position., Benjamin Block


Yugi Inving    (0914)
h4 d5 f4

you know, they said fight for the center. what i am doing now? and beside trying to take oppertunity of the diagonal is hard now. if you play well.....

============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Yugi Inving    (0914)
h4 d5 f4 Bf5 d3 e6 Nf3 Nc6 Be3 d4 Bf2


I may actually be a pretty bad player now.
============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Telmo Escobar    (2055)
h4 e5 h5 d5 h6 g6


Now white is strategically lost as, after spending three tempi with his "h" pawn, he has no chances to eventually open the "h" file. Now the probable continuation of the game might be both players castling long, after which Black has the upper hand both in the middlegame (due to his superiority in space and centre control) and the endgame (when White pawn at h6 will be a painful weakness).

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Mike Hoogland    (1760)
d4 f5 g3 Nf6 Bg2 g6 c3

White, having not played c4 as in a typical Dutch opening, choses to put the pawn on c3. This has two advantages:

-It reinforces the d4 pawn, so that Bg7 is not putting real pressure on the d4 pawn. Subsequently, the chance of a succesful counterattack by black in the centre has become significantly lower.

-It opens the d1-a4 diagonal for the queen. From b3 the queen can attack the b7 pawn, together with the bishop on g2. Also, because f5 has weakened the black's king position, the queen can give a check on b3 or make castling for black more difficult.


============

Contributors : Mike Hoogland


Mike Hoogland    (1760)
d4 f5 g3 Nf6 Bg2 e6

More solid than g6. After this move, black most commonly plays the stonewall, with d5 and c6, or attacks the centre with d6-e5.

============

Contributors : Mike Hoogland


Mike Hoogland    (1760)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Qxd4 Nxd4 Bd7

A very useful move. Black prepares castling long and retains the possibility of playing c5. The immidiate c5 chases away the white knight, but weakens the d5 square. White can then develop accordingly and try to take advantage of this weakness.

They say develop knights before bishops, because the bishop often does not know yet where to go. In this case the bishop knows better where to go than the knight. It only has one good square, because on g4 it can be chased away by the useful move f3. The knight on the other hand could go to d7, f6 or even h6.

Black's bishop pair, his control over d5, the fact that his pawn structure has no weaknesses and the weakness of the white pawn on e4 give black an edge.

============

Contributors : Mike Hoogland


Yugi Inving    (0914)
b3 g6 Bb2 Nf6 e4 d6 g3 Bg7 Bg2 O-O Nf3 Nc6 Ng5 e5 O-O Nh5 h4 Bf6 d3 Bxg5 hxg5

============

i never played a game like for a while. and look everyone how i won a pawn. it is my lucky day.

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Normajean Yates    (1946)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 c5 Nf3

============

Contributors : Simon Lemay

white need to protect the d4 pawn or get out the queen dangerously.

Or to play d5 instead, to transpose into a Benoni finchetto line.

les blancs doivent défendre le pion d4 ou sortir la dame dangereusement.

, Normajean Yates


Simon Lemay    (1600)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 c5 Nf3 Nc6



============

Contributors : Simon Lemay

prepare a great game if the whit play d5 or an even position if they play Bg2

prépare une partie interessante si les blancs jouent d5 ou une position équilibré si ils jouent Fg2


Timothy Mason    (1600)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Bg5 dxc4 e4 b5 e5


============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar, Timothy Mason how do i play against someone


Mike Hoogland    (1760)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 d5 exd5 Na5 Bb5 c6 dxc6 bxc6 Be2 h6 Nf3 e4 Ne5 Bc5 c3

White plays for control of the b4 and d4 squares. But, now white cant play his knight to c3 anymore, or fianchetto his bishop on b2.

============

Contributors : Mike Hoogland


Yugi Inving    (0914)
d4 e6 h3 Nf6 f3 d5 Bf4 c5 Nc3 Nc6 Nb5 e5 Bxe5 Nxe5 dxe5 a6 Nd6+


This move prouved to me that i was playing vs a noob.
============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


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


Risky- for both players!
============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2055)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Be2 a6 O-O Nbd7 f4 b5 Bf3 Bb7 e5 Bxf3 Nxf3 b4 exf6 bxc3 fxg7 Bxg7 b3 Qb6+ Kh1 O-O Ba3 Nc5 Bxc5 Qxc5 Qd3

White has slightly better chances because of his absolute control of light squares and his better pawn structure- but a draw is the probable outcome provided Black defend accurately his inferior position. Advice for Black: play 18...h6 (Nf3-g5 is the current threat) and then "do nothing".
============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2055)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Be2 a6 O-O Nbd7 f4 b5 Bf3 Bb7 e5 Bxf3 Nxf3 b4 exf6 bxc3 f5 Qb6+ Kh1 cxb2 Bxb2 Qxb2 fxe6 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


Telmo Escobar    (2055)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 e3


{after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5} Another way of avoiding the Indo-Benoni. Not adviced when you are a strong grandmaster playing another strong grandmaster, as this move goes into a variation of the Tarrasch (or Semi-Tarrasch) defence where Black has little trouble to equalise.

But, for you or me, this move is psychologically good as if prevents the opponent to reach the kind of position he's looking for.
============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2076)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Ndb5 d6 Bg5 a6 Na3 b5 Bxf6 gxf6 Nd5 f5 Bd3 Be6 Qh5 Rg8 g3 Nd4 c3 fxe4 Bxe4 Bg4 Qxh7 Rg7 Qh6

17.Qh8 Nf3+ 18.Ke2 Ng5+ 19.f3 Nxe4 20.fxg4 is unclear, but hard to play for White.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Kostis Megalios    (1400)
d4 d5 e3

This move is quite a passive one for white. Usually it's played by players who are afraid of gambiting the c pawn right away and they try to support the c4 pawn push.
============

Contributors : Yugi Inving, Kostis Megalios


Lauri Lahnasalo    (1600)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 b5 Nf3 g6 cxb5 a6

Black still thinks he can get counterplay after exchange, but he doesn't see that he has to do the exchange using his own time while white is able to further develod his attack.
============

Contributors : Lauri Lahnasalo


Telmo Escobar    (2076)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 dxc4 e4 g5 Bg3 b5 Ne5 h5 h4 g4 Be2 Bb7 O-O Nbd7 Qc2 Nxe5 Bxe5 Bg7 Bg3 Qxd4 Rad1 Qb6 e5 Nd5 Ne4 O-O-O Nd6+ Rxd6 exd6 f5 Kh2


As played in Wu Shaobin-Al Sayed, Doha 2003
============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2076)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 dxc4 e4 g5 Bg3 b5 Ne5 h5 h4 g4 Be2 Bb7 O-O Nbd7 Qc2 Nxe5 Bxe5 Bg7 Bg3 Qxd4 Rad1 Qb6 b3 cxb3 axb3 a6 Rd2 c5 Rd6 Qa5 e5 Nd7

From Aronian-Gustafsson, Khanty Mansiysk World Cup 2007 (Arionian played 22.Rfd1 in this position).

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2076)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 dxc4 e4 g5 Bg3 b5 Ne5 h5 h4 g4 Be2 Bb7 O-O Nbd7 Qc2 Nxe5 Bxe5 Bg7 Rad1 O-O Bg3 Nd7 f3 c5 dxc5 Qe7 fxg4 hxg4 Bd6 Qxh4 Rf4 Qh6 Rxg4 Bc6 a4 Qe3+ Kh2 Qh6+ Kg3 Qe3+ Bf3 Nf6 Rxg7+ Kxg7 Qc1 Qxc1 Rxc1 bxa4 Bxf8+ Rxf8 e5 Nd5 Ne2 Rb8 Nd4 Be8 Rxc4 Rxb2 c6 Nb6


The endgame, is correctly played, should be a draw.
============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Jose Fernández Bueno    (1769)
Nf3 d5 d3

This move encourage black to attack, but white can play an important tactic them with g3 and after, Bg2.

============

Contributors : Jose Fernández Bueno


Telmo Escobar    (2076)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 Na5 Bc2 d5 Nxe5 dxe4 d4 exd3 Bxd3 Bb7

With equal play

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2076)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 Na5 Bc2 d5 exd5 e4 Bxe4 Nxe4 Rxe4 Bb7 d4 Re8 Bf4 Nc4 Re2 Bxd5 Qd3

Better than 17.Ne5 Bg5 18.Bg3 Nxe5 19.Rxe5 Rxe5 20.Bxe5 Qd7 as played in Adams-Carlsen, Khanty Mansiysk World Cup 2007, when White has to work harder in orden to keep a slighter advantage (indeed the game, after a long fight, was eventually a draw and Adams was out of the World Cup).

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Terry Godat    (2088)
e4 f5

This is Inving gambit. this gambit is the most dengerous weapon to use for black, as it can turn on the face because of Qh5+ the inving Gambit accepted have only four variant possible, After Fxe5. 2... g6, 2... h5 2... Nf6 and 2.. Kf7
the gambit can also be refused with , Nc3, Nf3, d3, f3, g3... or white can play the Advence Inving Gambit Variant (AIGV).

This gambit is not a bad move tough it's is -0.37 for Rybka. ( This opening has no name, i just name it like that for fun) it can also be an inversed From gambit.
============
This gambit, the Fred, is completely unjustified, except as a joke.
Contributors : Yugi Inving, Terry Godat


Roger Whitman    (1971)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kf1 Qe7 Nxh8 d5 exd5 Nd4 d6 Qxd6 Nf7 Qc5 d3 e4 c3 Bh4 Bf4


============

Contributors : Roger Whitman

I don't know if this is best, but I'm going to keep playing it till someone proves me wrong.


Roger Whitman    (1971)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Bxf7 Ke7 Bd5 Qe8


============

Contributors : Roger Whitman

Beliavsky played this against Anand and won. It's probably as good as the more common 6...Rf8.


Yugi Inving    (0914)
e4 c5 Nc3 Nc6 Nf3


============

This a really ugly game i have played, it counts 43 moves, it is a good games from the scicilien but still my 11 move was not good.
Contributors : Yugi Inving


Telmo Escobar    (2076)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 dxc4 e4 g5 Bg3 b5 Be2 Bb7 O-O Nbd7 Ne5 Bg7 Nxf7 Kxf7 e5 Nd5 Ne4


As played in Topalov-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2008. White probably has a reasonable compensation for the sacrifice- and indeed Topalov won that game. Yet the definitive evaluation of this idea is still unclear. Notice that White is threatening 15.Nd6+ winning the bishop, otherwise Black would advantageously play c6-c5.
============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Yugi Inving    (0914)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 b3 Qe5+ Ne2 Qxa1 Nec3 Be6


In order to prevent whit play, they will try to put their knight on b3, This move prevent it.

castling and try to exchange the second rook for the queen will take a considerable amout of time.
============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Yugi Inving    (0914)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 b3 Qe5+ Ne2 Qxa1 Nec3 Be6 d4 Nf6 Bd3 Nbd7 Qe2 c6 Bd2 O-O-O

Qb2 while only force white to play Bc1, and replay it many times, leading to a draw is not an option.
============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Benjamin Block    (1419)
d4 d5 Nf3 c6

Played by the computer Deep blue round 6 vs Garry Kasparov 1996.

============

Contributors : Benjamin Block


Telmo Escobar    (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 f3

A move that usually means a transposition to lines arising from 6.Be3. Yet it is critical if you want to play the Dragon for two reasons:

i) many weak players are prone to play it because they -mistakenly- fear to play 6.Be3 because the apparent possibility of 6...Ng4. So you have to be ready to face this move;

ii) some strong players could play 6.f3 because they're setting a trap, as we will see. A grandmaster will easily see the point over the board. You, that presumably are not a grandmaster, should study the trap in order to not fall in it.

May I add that are two reasons because of a chess move is *critical*:

a) because it is presumably best, or at least it is good enough to atract many strong players, so the move must be studied because -due to its popularity- people will play it often;

b) because it is far from best, but you -that are not a grandmaster- could easily go astray when facing it over the board without knowing about it in advance. So, if you want to play the Dragon -in this case- you *must* to be knowledgeable about the move.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 f3 Qb6 Be3 Qxb2 Ndb5 Qb4 Nc7+

Anyway! Not as good is 9.Bd2? Qc5 and White has -at most- some hope of outplaying the opponent in tactical complications: a poor result when playing White.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Ng4 Bb5 Nc6 Nxc6 bxc6 Bxc6+ Bd7 Bxa8 Nxe3 fxe3 Qxa8

A critical position. In order to understand why a single tempo will be decisive for the evaluation of the position, it's advisable to remember that Siegbert Tarrasch postulated that "two bishops plus a rook are better than two rooks plus a knight". According my oddly uneven experience of near forty years of tournament play, during which I lost to many patzers but beat many masters -and a few grandmasters- as well, I think Tarrasch's axiom is correct most of the time. Indeed, *as most players seem to not know about Tarrasch's axiom*, one of my dirty tricks has been to look for these positions, when my adversary think he -one exchange up- is better, but I -one exchange down- usually know better.

In this position, both Black bishops seem to have excellent prospects and, should my dark bishop be already at g7, I'd be sure that Black has winning prospects.

But it's White turn to move, and...

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 Bc4


This move has little independent meaning, as Black can enter the main lines if he so wants, yet some White players may have some spetial in mind as we shall see.
============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 Bc4 O-O


Absolutely correct and reasonable. Now White will presumably play 8.f3 or 8.h3 (to be followed by Bb3 and 0-0), both of which are mainstream.
============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 Bc4 Ng4 Bb5+ Kf8 O-O Nxe3 fxe3 Nd7 Ne6+


And, naturally, Black resigns. This was Giorgi-Escobar, Buenos Aires (Club tournament) 1976. Please not make it into a "famous game"! It was the only game I lost at that tournament- and the only game my adversary won! In fact I finished 1st, my adversary finished last :)

It's true that i was playing the game after a (memorable) night without sleeping, so I was not precisely awake while playing. But the position is not as easy to play with Black, otherwise I would be able to outplay my adversary anyway. I'm sure that this blunder 10...Nd7?? has been played by other people as well- alas even now I find difficult to renounce to such a natural move...

As you see, both moves I suggest in this position
(10...Nc6!? that sacrifices a pawn, 10...e6!? that sacrifices the square d6) are not trivial.
============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 Bc4 Ng4 Bb5+ Kf8 O-O Nxe3 fxe3 e6 Bc4 Qe7 Ndb5 Be5


What a bishop. Now Black plans to play simply Kf8-g7, etc, and apparently White has little to celebrate.
============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 Bc4 Ng4 Bb5+ Kf8 O-O Nxe3 fxe3 Nc6 Nxc6 bxc6 Bxc6 Ba6 Bxa8 Bxf1 Qxf1 Qxa8

Black is a pawn down but this is of no importance in this position. Indeed, Black has "threatening" 15...Bxc3 16.bxc3 Qxe4 or (even!) 16...Kg7 when White, if any, has to play accurately not to going into serious trouble. Remember that pawn weaknesses are particularly serious when there are rooks.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Telmo Escobar    (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 Bc4 Ng4 Bb5+ Kf8 O-O Nxe3 fxe3 Nc6 Nxc6 bxc6 Bxc6 Rb8 Bd5 e6 Bb3 Be5 Qf3 Qe7

Again, Black has more than enough compensation for the pawn minus. Indeed he's "threatening" Kf8-g7 and White has to play very carefully in order to hold a draw.
============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Mark Hailes    (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6 Bd3 Bb7

Black controls the long diagonal and attacks the pawn on g2. White would have liked to play Nge2 on the next move, but now that is a pawn sacrifice.
============

Contributors : Mark Hailes


Benjamin Block    (1397)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Ng5

Played by deep blue vs Garry Kasparov 1997 1-0.

============

Contributors : Benjamin Block


Yugi Inving    (1280)
d4 Nf6 Nf3 d5 Nc3 Nc6


Nc6 is played for the exact same reason as Nc3
============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Yugi Inving    (1280)
d4 Nf6 Nf3 d5 Nc3 Nc6 e3 g6 Bd3 Bg7 Bd2 O-O O-O a6 Re1 Nb4 a3 Nxd3 cxd3 Bf5 e4 dxe4 dxe4 Bg4 h3 Bxf3 Qxf3 Qxd4 Rad1 Rfe8 e5 Nd7 e6 fxe6 Rxe6 Bf6 Bf4 Qc4 Nd5 Nb6 Re4 Red8 Rde1


alright, i didn't see it, a queen like this. to think Rybka play this...
============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Paul Brand Lyard    (1777)
Nh3

1/Played by French amateur chess player Charles Amar in the 1930s, this opening is also known as the Drunken Knight Opening, or the Ammonia Opening (NH3 is the chemical formula of the ammonia).

There is no particular interest in choosing to play NH3, and it is therefore considered as an irregular opening. It prepares for kingside castling, but so would NF3...


2/Here is the "Sodium Attack", an very rarely opening played in profssional tournaments,the interest of this
Non-orthodoxe opening,is to control cells g5
and f4 in One also move... to prépare the attack on column f, with bishop on c1 at thé 3th.move, and to prépare the casting, so of course!

Paul,Emma& Sandra Brand-Lyard. 2021/07/24th.


============

Contributors : Benjamin Block, Normajean Yates, Florian Cafiero, PaulSandra Brand-Lyard
aka "The Sandra Lyard13061975-03081997 Inventor
Chess variants Annapurna' séries.


Yugi Inving    (1280)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 c3 f5


I dont know how to call this gambit, but this a logical reponse that make the game dengerous for both player.
============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Terry Godat    (2088)
e4 f5 exf5 Kf7

The real inving gambit or the Inving gambit of the king, can also be called the drunked king opening, Kf7 does somewhat something to prevent White plan

============

Contributors : Yugi Inving, Terry Godat

This has been dubbed (allegedly by some Russian players) the Mao Zedong Attack, as it sacrifices pawns for no reason. Black is already completely lost.


Yugi Inving    (1280)
e4 f5 exf5 Kf7 Qh5+ g6 fxg6+ Kg7

Kf6 is not playable for the same reaon as before and hxg6 leave the way for a queen to take a rook freely. thus this move is played.

============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Terry Godat    (2088)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 Nf6 Bc4 d5 exd5 Bd6 d4 Nh5 O-O O-O Rxf4 Nxf4 Bxf4

============

Contributors : Terry Godat
Here Black can either play 11...Bf5 or grab the h-pawn. In either case, White has excellent compensation for the exchange. In the game, Black fought an uphill battle for a draw.


Sebastian Boehme    (1836)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Qd3 Qxb2 Rb1 Qa3 f5

White is down a pawn, but surely a creative attacking player will have his fun here.

============

Contributors : Sebastian Boehme


Graham Cridland    (1438)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 b5 e5 dxe5 fxe5

Black wins the Bg5 after exf6 by ...Qe5+ and Qxg5. The resulting positions permit active play by Black.
============

Contributors : Graham Cridland


Graham Cridland    (1438)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 b5 e5 dxe5 fxe5 Qc7

Black wins the Bg5 after exf6 by ...Qe5+ and Qxg5. The resulting positions permit active play by Black.

============

Contributors : Graham Cridland


Yugi Inving    (1557)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Ng4 Bb5 Bd7

White wins material?

Where? I think i drink too much, after all,this fact is not properly explained. could you just tell that playing Nd7 or Bd7 allow Qxg4

============

Contributors : Yugi Inving


Joeri Ramon    (1758)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 c5


move from Opocensky czech player

============

Contributors : Joeri Ramon


Benjamin Block    (1711)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4 Nxc3 bxc3 Bg7 Bc4 c5 Ne2 Nc6 Be3 O-O O-O Bg4 f3 Na5 Bd3 cxd4 cxd4 Be6 d5 Bxa1 Qxa1 f6

Save the king from Bh6. If black did not played f6. White could play Bh6 and take the rook or Mate on Qg7.

============

Contributors : Benjamin Block


Premraj Natarajan    (1800)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Qd2 Qxb2 Rb1 Qa3 e5 dxe5

This one is a transposition move so it can be achieved even after playing h6 and divert white's bishop.

============

Contributors : Premraj Natarajan


Paul Brand Lyard    (1400)
a4

============

Contributors : Benjamin Block, Ruddy Franco, Kostis Megalios, Paul Brand Lyard

This opening is the Ware" opening A4
Mr. Ware, US champion in his time, had
won very much games in tournaments with his
rarely,amazing opening....
What do you play after one a opening a4?
Best move isn' t it to play pawn e5 for blacks?
Blacks to play.

Nota bene

Mr.Paul-emmanuel Brand FRA, Aka
"The Sandra LyardVers13061975",
Inventor Annapurna' chess séries variants said
about this Non- orthodoxe, rarely uses in tournaments by players,afer a long time to try and studied this,that was a precious opening because she can create an big surprise attack on column A,for the oponnent after only twelve moves....

Thé " Meadow Hay" Ware opening' is most strongest than WE believe...2021 July 20th.
Paul,Emma&Sandra Brand-Lyard.


Normajean Yates    (1858)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Nc6 Qh5+ g6 Nxg6 Nf6 Qh3 hxg6 Qxh8 Qe7 Nc3

Any thoughts on this line? Someone played this [8. Nc3] against me at another correspondence-chess site, and I am ie Black is already in serious trouble after 8. Nc3 fxe4 9. Be2 Nd4 10. O-O. I don't see any counterattack by black!

I mean latvian-fraser is supposed to be in crisis, but is the old main line [ie until black's 7th move] so bad? Or did I blunder? No, I didn't blunder - except by choosing this line [or, except by playing the latvian ;) ]

PS: I (black) managed to win that game because it was no-engines and white got overconfident, but that's another story :) ] For the curious, here is *that* story:

NN v Normajeanyates
chess.com corr no-engines 2008
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Nc6 4. Qh5+ g6 5. Nxg6 Nf6 6. Qh3 hxg6 7. Qxh8 Qe7 8. Nc3 fxe4 9. Be2 Nd4 10. O-O Nxc2 11. Rb1 Nd4 12. d3 Nxe2+ 13. Nxe2 exd3 14. Nf4 Kf7 15. Nxd3 Bg7 16. Qh4 Qe4 17. Qxe4 Nxe4 18. Be3 d6 19. Rfe1 Bf5 20. Red1 Re8 21. Rbc1 c5 22. b3 Nc3 23. Rd2 Bxd3 24. Rxd3 Ne2+ 25. Kf1 Nxc1 26. Rxd6 Nxa2 27. Bxc5 Bf8 28. Rd7+ Ke6 29. Rc7 Bxc5 30. Rxc5 Rd8 31. Ke2 Rd5 32. Rc7 Rb5 33. Rg7 Kf6 34. Rd7 Rxb3 35. Rd2 Nc3+ 0-1

============

Contributors : Normajean Yates


Kostis Megalios    (1400)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5

This move is known to be slightly worse than Bf5, but, it's been played by quite a few strong Grandmasters.
============

Contributors : Kostis Megalios


Kostis Megalios    (1400)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 Qb6 Qd2 Qxb2

This variation was liked very much by R. J. Fischer who had played this many times with both colours.
============

Contributors : Kostis Megalios


Ilmars Cirulis    (1632)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Bc4 fxe4 Nxe5 Qg5 d4 Qxg2 Qh5+ g6 Bf7+ Kd8 Bxg6 Qxh1+ Ke2 c6 Nc3 Kc7

If you want to win, play Bf4.
If you want fun, play Bxe4. :)
============

Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis


Alexis Marcel    (1047)
f4 f5 e4

idea it's play from gambit with white
============

Contributors : Alexis Marcel


Terry Godat    (2117)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 b4 Bxb4 c3 Ba5 d4 exd4 O-O dxc3 Qb3 Qf6 e5 Qg6 Nxc3 Nge7



============

Contributors : Terry Godat
This is the main position of the Compromised Defense. Although theory says White has more than enough for the two pawns sacrificed, Black may well be able to survive. White should play either Ne2 or Ba3 next.


Sophie Leclerc    (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 f6 Nxe5 Ne7

This move is simple too. Ne7 take control of both d5 and f5 sqaure, it also control g6 square which just save from a little Qh5+

As for, Qh5+ g6, The queen is attacked, and you lose the knight

Refuting this is not an easy task. And blakc does have well hidden compensation for the pawn. this opening is gived the rating as the halloween gambit.

Black can not come up with many plans, depending where the knight woulg go, Nf3 just mean you have lost a tempo, Nd3 prevent d4, and Nc4 will cause black to play d5 right away, since they don't want a knight on e3.

the f6 pawn can serve later, in attack, with the moves, g5, -h5 g4- h4.

Black has a little initiative, he must not lose to win the game.

============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 f6 Nxe5 Ne7 Qh5+ g6

Because the king can't move and Ng6 fails to Nxg6, We must and we should play g6. it attacks the queen. Black should still carefull, White as a trap for you
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 f6 Nxe5 Ne7 Qh5+ g6 Bc4 Bg7

The best move, is very easy to miss, but the best choice for black. here, the knight is lost for a poor pawn, we should at least take a pawn. But by doing so, we give compension for black, while we should be the ones to have the compensation, ours attacks is note finished, but we must move our queen. Or we could be even more mean, for a poor player.

============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 f6 Nxe5 Ne7 Qh5+ g6 Bc4 Bg7 Bf7+ Kf8 Qf3 fxe5

This one of the worse move black can play here.

============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 f6 Nxe5 Ne7 Qh5+ g6 Bc4 Bg7 Bf7+ Kf8 Qf3 fxe5 Bxg6+ Nf5 Bxf5

Treatning another discovery check, on d7 then exange the white bishop for black's. White lack developpement, But Nc3, d3, and Be3 are played faster then excepted. White is up two pawn now.

============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 f6 Nxe5 Ne7 Qh5+ g6 Bc4 Bg7 Bf7+ Kf8 Qf3 d6

The great counter attack, Shall the knight leave, Black king take the bishop then the would move the rook on the open file, secure his king, push the a f pawn, develop queen side then bring the a rook on e8, so he take advantage of the tow open files, the f files is bond to open, White as no more light square bishop. From a passive and poor defense, Black would gain a very offensive play.


Bb3 is the best variation.
Leaving white whit a little attack, but after black take the knight with the d pawn, black should stand well.
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Normajean Yates    (1946)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 Qf3 h6

chessgames.com gives 27-33-40% resp. for white win-draw-loss in this position.

Similarly, chesslab.com gives 27-19-54% for post-1990 games and 30-34-36% for the period 1485(!)-1990. (Chesslab.com (generally, and here too) covers more games 33+75=108 games with this position, but its statistics include games between weaker players or old games - also.)

============

Contributors : Normajean Yates


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.


Dan Geana    (1921)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Ndb5 d6 Bg5 a6 Bxf6 gxf6 Na3 f5 Bd3 Rg8 g3 Nd4 Nd5 f4

Black obtains counterplay
============

Contributors : Dan Geana


Kostis Megalios    (1400)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 Bf5 Nf3

this is along with c3 the quiet way to play for white.
============

Contributors : Kostis Megalios


Kostis Megalios    (1400)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 Bf5 h4

A really aggressive move which is quite popular in club play and especially in blitz games as white now is not able to play e6.
============

Contributors : Kostis Megalios


Normajean Yates    (1975)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Qd2 Qxb2 Rb1 Qa3 e5 h6 Bh4 dxe5 fxe5 Nd5

Rybka 3 opening book line. According to the author Jeroen Noomen:

"In 2007 the Poisoned Pawn variation of the Sicilian Najdorf was experiencing a crisis. White players found out that after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 the old move 10.e5!? was not so easy for black and they scored a few impressive victories. The Poisoned Pawn finally refuted? Not really! After 10.e5!? h6 11.Bh4 dxe5 12.fxe5 black has a move that gives him full equality: 12... Nd5!
"


============

Contributors : Normajean Yates


Sophie Leclerc    (1242)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 g4 g6 g5 Ne4 d3

Not the best move. Black will have to play Nd6 anyway.
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Reto Bhunjun    (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 h6


Rarely played move
============

Contributors : Reto Bhunjun


Sandor Porkolab    (1476)
e4 e6 d4 d5 e5 b6

An interesting sideline (instead of the Mainline 3...c5) Black intention with b6 move is to change the light square bishops - by playing ...Ba6 later on - removing an active piece from the table.

Notable games:
GM Ulibin - GM Rustemov 2004 0-1
GM Ganguy - GM Berkes 2002 1/2-1/2
GM Ye Jiangchuan - GM Ivanchuk 2001 1/2-1/2
GM Khalifman - GM N. Short 2001 0-1
GM Baklan - GM Vaganian 1999 0-1
GM Shabalov - GM Seirawan 1999 0-1


============

Contributors : Sandor Porkolab


Sandor Porkolab    (1476)
e4 e6 d4 d5 e5 b6 c3 Qd7 a4 Ne7

5...Ne7 is a playable option.

============

Contributors : Sandor Porkolab


Sandor Porkolab    (1476)
e4 e6 d4 d5 e5 b6 c3 Qd7 Nf3 Ne7 Bd3 Ba6 a4

7.a4 is still playable - aiming for a a5 push...

============

Contributors : Sandor Porkolab


Normajean Yates    (1975)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 f3

4.f3 was played by Dr Max Euwe against Harry Golombek (Hastings 1938), and is a favourite (as of Feb 2009) of super-GM S. Mamedyarov. Ivanchuk also dabbled in it in 2006.

============

Contributors : Normajean Yates


Telmo Escobar    (1929)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Qd2 Qxb2 Rb1 Qa3 f5 Nc6 fxe6 fxe6 Nxc6 bxc6 e5 dxe5 Bxf6 gxf6 Ne4 Qxa2 Rd1 Be7 Be2 O-O O-O Ra7 Rf3 Rd7 Rg3+ Kh8 Qh6 Rxd1+ Bxd1 Rf7 Qh5 Qa5 Kf1 Qd8 Qxf7 Qxd1+ Kf2 Qxc2+


This is same drawn position as the game Vallejo-Kasparov, where 23...Qd5 (not 23...Qa5) was played.

============

Contributors : Telmo Escobar


Sophie Leclerc    (1573)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 f3 h5

A new variation, Yugi variation, ( no, I don,t who got the idea), but black decide to delay castle and make this usefull move as this move gain even more control over the g4 square, it will be harder for white to continue with his pawn storm.

Black may want to play Bd7 and Nc6 before this move,

Can this be a good dragon variation. of course black may not castle at all.


right after making this strange, the play will normaly continue by white playing on kingside and black on the queen side. His king may go to the d7 square in order to find safety and connect his rook.
============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Sophie Leclerc    (1573)
f4 d6 Nf3 Nc6 c4 Nf6

The new yugi attack take position after Nc3, he take seiorus claim on d5 and e5 square when we let him play this.

Move strange would be to fianchetto both bishop.

============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Benjamin Block    (1660)
e4 c5 Ne2

Sounds more passive then Nf3 but it is possible to play.

============

Contributors : Benjamin Block


Benjamin Block    (1660)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e5 Nb3 Be6 Nd5 Nbd7 f3 Be7

?! Not recomdenderad but there is some nice analys by some good players+fast computers that even make white win but in the moment black fix a draw.
============

Contributors : Benjamin Block


Normajean Yates    (1967)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 a3

White sets a little trap. It is specially recommended against players who merely memorise 'book' lines: such players (as black) might play Qxb2? thinking it is the 'book' poisoned pawn variation; and Even if they do not, they are out of their 'book' :)

============

Contributors : Ray Downs, Normajean Yates


Sophie Leclerc    (1573)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 Be7 Bc4 Bh4+ g3 fxg3 Kf1 Qe7 Kg2 Qg5 Rf1 Qd8 Kg1 gxh2+ Kh1

The three pawns gambit, white take enermous risk and hide behind the black pawn.


White king would really exposed if he would take that pawn.


There is no real raison to play that.


I could not enter 0-0, sorry.

============

Contributors : Sophie Leclerc


Lauri Lahnasalo    (1600)
c4 e5 Nf3 e4

This is called King's english: Nimzowitsch-Flohr variation.

This is Alekhine defense reversed where position differs in that white has played c5.

============

Contributors : Lauri Lahnasalo


Lauri Lahnasalo    (1600)
c4 e5 Nf3 e4 Nd4 Nc6 Nc2

This is good spot for white knight. One could look at the position as being sicilian defence reversed where "black" had played "Nf6" after "Nc3". Of course in reversed positiont white always has extra tempo.

============

Contributors : Lauri Lahnasalo


Lauri Lahnasalo    (1600)
c4 e5 Nf3 e4 Nd4 Nc6 Nc2 d5

High class alternative. As played in Maleja-Bu Xiangzhi Stepelnakert A 2005.

============

Contributors : Lauri Lahnasalo


Lauri Lahnasalo    (1600)
c4 e5 Nf3 e4 Nd4 Nf6

Interesting alternative without much theory behind it. d3, Nc3 and e3 might be most playable here. Nc3 has been most tried by white in history.


============

Contributors : Lauri Lahnasalo


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4

The right way of playing.

============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4

Curions opening, a curious gambit, in which white attack black's centre,

Black has no reason to accept it, but he can just take b4 and not on a3.

This^ opening should called the AudreySophie gambit. Or by my name, if your prefer to be not imaginative...
For now, black does not seem to have any way to bust it. And white trie for a big play everyside of the board.

============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 b6


The move continue of game I played, in the Club d'échecs de sherbrooke, an free game with a friend, Alexandre Allard-dos-Santos. So this will be the game Leclerc-Allard_Dos_santos

He tought this was a benko. since we played a benko.
Also the conitnuation of a game on Uchess. agaisn't a 2000 rated anonymous player.
============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 b6 g3 Bb7 bxc5 bxc5 Bg2

Natural play. one should not worry, should castle and maybe after he could play an Ne5, which is naturel, in the bird, even at the cost, of exchanging the white,s square bishop.

============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 b6 g3 Bb7 bxc5 bxc5 Bg2 Nc6 O-O e6 Na3 a6 Qa4 Qa5

An unfair exchange., but best play for black.

============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 b6 g3 Bb7 bxc5 bxc5 Bg2 Nc6 O-O e6 Na3 a6 Qa4 Qa5 Qxa5 Nxa5 d3 Nf6 Bd2 Nc6 Ne5 Rc8 Rab1 Ba8 Nxc6 Bxc6 Bxc6+ Rxc6 Rb8+ Kd7 Rfb1


there is little to do now. white is too active for any serious move, black lack any counter play.
============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 b6 g3 Bb7 bxc5 bxc5 Bg2 e6

still a good move, it can transpose, as Nc6 / Nd7 , and Nf6 are played in any order possible.

============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 b6 g3 Bb7 bxc5 bxc5 Bg2 e6 Na3 Qf6

The attack on the rook, is an good idea, but is because some 2000 rated player plays it, that is it good.

============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 Nf6 bxc5 e6 Ba3 Nc6 g3 Qa5 Qb3

A good move, and maybe the best one, one of those move, you got to know before playing the gambit, anywhere, you can't rely on computer...

Same truth for many gambits, knowing theory helps.

============

Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Luc-Olivier Leclerc    (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 e3

the normal continuation..


White plan include the exchange of the white square bishop for black's queen knight, b3 Bb2, d3, Ne5 + Nd2-f3-g5....

Altought, this is white's dream, it do not always happen.


lasker had the habit of playing Bd3 when black take long to develop the queen knight and let black scrap his pawn structure. In fact here, white became black and fight for equality.


============

Contributors : Gerard Gonet, Luc-Olivier Leclerc


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2005)
e4 e6 Qe2


============

Contributors : Rodolfo d Ettorre
Tchigorin Variation, rarely played


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


Peter Marriott    (1982)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 f3 b5 a3

This move is calmer than g4. White has many options now, he can play Qd2 and castle queenside, and still has the option of a pawn storm on the kingside with g4 h4 etc.

============

Contributors : Peter Marriott


William Taylor    (2110)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O b5 Bb3 Bb7 d3

The line which is currently causing Arkhangelsk practitioners some problems. Black can quickly run into trouble after Bc5, so he usually plays Be7 instead, leading to less active positions. d3 also strongpoints e4, making black's bishop on b7 look less than optimally placed. The d3 line is a good way of avoiding the sharper variations which arise after Re1 or c3.

============

Contributors : William Taylor


William Taylor    (2110)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O b5 Bb3 Bb7 Re1 Bc5 c3 d6 d4 Bb6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 g5 Bg3 O-O

Although black's kingside pawn structure looks a little weakened, practice has shown that black gets excellent play in this position. His two bishops look strong, he has a solid foothold in the centre, and he is ready to commence active operations on the kingside with moves like Nh5.

============

Contributors : William Taylor


Om Prakash    (2000)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Qxf3 Qf6 e5


Only way to play In Muzio style.
============

Contributors : Om Prakash


Daniel Barrish    (2000)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 f3 Nc6 Qd2 O-O Bc4 Rb8


This is the newer, modern Chinese Dragon. The basic idea is to play b5, Na5-c4 Bxc4 bxc4 and atack down the b file.
============

Contributors : Daniel Barrish


Paul Brand Lyard    (1777)
c4 c5 Nc3 d6 Nf3 Bd7 d4 a6 dxc5 Nc6

============

Contributors : Piotr Wiaderek, Paul Brand Lyard

Play knight on c6 is it really the best move to play here,
or to capture the white pawn c5 with the black pawn d6 now is the better and stongest attack,
to get the control of cells b4 and d4, ans qu'on the advantage opening position?


Paul Brand Lyard    (1777)
e4 e6 d4 g6 h4 Bg7 h5 g5 h6 Bxh6 Rxh6 Nxh6 Qh5 Qf6 Bxg5 Qxd4 Qxh6 Qxb2

============

Contributors : Janusz Swiatek, Paul Brand Lyard

Queen on b2 is an very good move,and the trap on the castle is now irreversible.
Played by Janusz Swiatek vs me.
Congratulations.






FICGS : play ,   Wikipedia : play ,   Dmoz : play ,   Google : play ,   Yahoo : play




We like to think. (Gary Kasparov)

Before the endgame, the Gods have placed the middle game. (Siegbert Tarrasch)

Not all artists are Chess players, but all Chess players are artists. (Marcel Duchamp)




Back to FICGS , Wikichess




[Chess forum] [Rating lists] [Countries] [Chess openings] [Legal informations] [Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]