referee
FICGS - Search results for referee
There are 133 results for referee in the forum.
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 (2006-04-16 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 (2006-04-24 07:33:39)
Referee
You can call referee after a while. Anyway your opponent will loose on time before the one move time limit.
Michael Hoppenstein (2006-04-24 15:45:19)
Referee - Checkmate
That's not quite all right, I think. In case a game is won by checkmate, the game should be over - that is: without referee and without me waiting for my opponent losing on time. Would you consider changing this? Just a suggestions.
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-25 18:02:08)
1st Rating Calculation - May
Be patient... :) I'm sure you won't have to wait so long. Resigning today or next week doesn't change anything, the first rating calculation will occur the first days of May. Just call referee at the end of april if he didn't resign before.
Amici sumus.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-17 13:41:07)
I just realized...
... that the "call referee" option was not reachable when it's not your turn in a game :/ I'll fix that soon ! It should arrange the situation.
Sorry about that.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-17 15:24:43)
"Call referee" fixed.
Hello Wayne.
Now you can ask for an adjudication (even if it's not your turn). Thanks again for feedback.
Best wishes.
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 (2006-05-19 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.
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-01 12:46:14)
Go rules
Hello,
Even if a well chosen komi rules out scoring draws, you still have the problem of infinite repetition.
Traditionally, a game in which a triple ko or other infinitely repeating position arises is annulled, or treated as draw or replayed.
Some rules (New Zealnd, USA, SST) deal with these positions by stating that a player cannot make exactly the same position on the whole board twice. (Note that it is then not always easy without computer assistance to determine the legality of a move).
The chinese rule (at least the 1988 official one) also forbids reappearance of the same board position, but in some situation this is not enough to prevent a draw: in some cases neither player want to start a sequence and keep passing to avoid solving a situation at their disadvantage. (and to forbid passes triggers others worse problems...).
As you see, the situation is quite complex, and while rules of Go seem simple, their precise definition is not easy. In practice, you eventually have to rely on the sportmanship of the players or on a referee decision.
Personally I have played till now only under the japanese rule, and in case of problems (very rare as this rule is quite detailled, but then rather complex in its exceptions handling), a senior player says the truth, and, at least in Japan, this truth is undisputed and becomes the laws :-)... quite simple!
Lionel
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-01 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 (2006-06-02 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 !
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...
Gino Figlio (2006-07-04 20:36:39)
Symmetrical games
Dear Thibault,
I respect your opinion about the ability of a referee being able to detect who has cheated and when, but I don't share it. That is the main reason why I am planning to avoid these situations, when a third party's opinion(very valuable of course but still not error-free) will decide the outcome of a game.
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 :>
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."
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 (2006-08-31 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 :)
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."
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 :-)
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.
Elmer Valderrama (2007-01-02 18:19:12)
my try
Miguel was quicker, here is my shot at it anyway (I thought it was a requirement for a referee in international CC to have a good command of English..]
====
I only wanted to clarify [to you] that I did not receive the mail that [you]
are re-sending. Please, make sure that your [email] server is working well.
As of this moment, if I do not receive any of your mails, [and then] there is
a claim from anyone of you, I will assume that the message was not sent,
charging the time spent to the player who default [didn't send a copy].
I will adopt this measure from now on in order to avoid missunderstandings
and that the game finishes the best way. In summary, in case of not having
copies of your mails, I will have to decide in favour of the claiming party
immediately. Warm greetings and Happy New Year
=====
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-15 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.
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.
Don Groves (2007-03-15 00:05:31)
CG Rules
I would not be embarrassed to ask the referee if the game were truly out of hand. The message must be worded properly. Not like "Tell this idiot to resign!" ;-)
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.
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.
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) :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-15 18:37:06)
Tablebases 5-pieces
Well, quite strange.. Shredderchess.com tablebases don't give a result anymore for the current 7-pieces position !? .. Was it a bug or...
Indeed it is mate in about 37 moves, but my engine with 5-pieces tablebases can't see it. If the game is not finished in a while (before the next rating calculation), you can call referee for adjudication.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-20 14:25:05)
Opponent dragging out lost game
Hello Robert.
According to the rules, in a lost position your opponent has at most 1 month to finish the game after you called referee a first time (done). Feel free to ask for an adjudication in about one month, or at least before the next rating calculation.
Best wishes, Thibault.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-29 15:07:34)
Call Referee
Hi Phil,
I'm still the only referee... What game is it about ?
Best, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-30 15:16:36)
White wins
Hi Phil, didn't you receive my email after you & your opponent called referee ?
Indeed, White wins this game. Feel free to try the Go scorer :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=score&game=9752
.. you'll see the score after removing stones s11, s17, r18.
You have to resign, sorry.
Best, Thibault
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
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
Ulrich Imbeck (2007-08-31 00:47:59)
Go-Endgame at ficgs
Are you the referee, Thibault?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-31 09:24:51)
Go-Endgame at ficgs
Yes... Until now, I am the only referee at FICGS. (fortunately, this is not much work :))
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-03 23:27:30)
Adjudication
Hello Andrew.
That's an idea, but your opponent is not supposed to use tablebases, he may just want to see how you'll checkmate him and learn from the game. Correspondence chess shouldn't be more computerized IMO, so only 'obvious' endgames will be adjudicated.
You may call the referee in a few more moves.
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...
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-05 05:04:29)
Adjudication
Thibault I understand that to some players it might be unacceptable to have the game suddenly declared lost or drawn in a Q v Q+P ending or R+P v N+p ending. In my view these players should opt for the non computer tournaments you are going to set up. To cover the point raised: yes there can remain a need for a referee which should be human. Linking to table bases does not affect the beauty of an endgame Thibault its just a small range at the moment of 6 piece endings. There is no aesthetic value in following the moves advised by the tablebase the value is in getting there. Every strong player is consulting the tablebases when analysing positions leading to 6 piece situations so automating table base adjudications in say A M and WCC tournaments seems completely logical. Yes strong tournaments are played only for the sporting result Thibault I dont think anyone would choose an inferior move for the beauty they might try it to take a risk to win by complicating the game. I have seen 30+ moves games of yours of absolute poisened pawn Najdorf theory leading to a dead draw ..... I guess what I am trying to avoid is opponents dragging out games which are table base won. In the case of reasonable strong opponents 2100+ in my view this is because they just dont want to resign. by the way how do you call for the referee?
Garvin Gray (2007-09-05 06:30:28)
calling referee
Andrew- By the way how do you call for the referee?
Scroll down in the game window in question and press call referee and follow instructions. It is located under the move notation/game score.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-05 06:40:22)
Referee
Thanks Garvin! I should add that we are spoilt (at least I feel I am!) by Thibault's magnificent work on setting up running and maintaining this site so always want to ask for more!
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
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)."
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.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2008-04-07 15:56:48)
Call referee
Hi Lincoln,
there is one of the FAQs:
Question - My opponent is checkmated, why the game isn't finished ?
It's a more friendly way and your opponent can send a last message to you. If he does not resign, he will lose on time anyway. (you can call referee if it takes too much time)
So in case of a checkmate you can call referee.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-06-21 16:49:05)
DMD
Hi Marc.
Rules specify that in such cases one should call referee a first time then again ie. one month later, then things become more clear.
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.
Normajean Yates (2008-07-17 23:48:15)
and this takes the cake!
rule 11.2 - last paragraph: <<The rules assume that FICGS referees 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 the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors. FICGS appeals to all its members to accept this view.>>
You see,even if you find 'loopholes' in La Code Tibault, you come against the above! :)
Jonathan Willis (2008-07-18 00:52:18)
Ending a game of Go
Thank you Thibault for the information. I shall be calling a referee now as we are about to enter our fourth round of passes in this game.
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
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).
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.
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.
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 :)
Don Groves (2009-04-14 05:54:35)
draw offer
I agree with Nick. The second player sent a move which he should not do if he wants to accept the draw.
I also agree that the draw offer that was made should be binding just as if the box had been checked. If the second player accepts the draw he can check the box. If the first player then wants to continue, the referee should be called to adjudicate the draw.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-14 15:37:00)
Draw offer and rules
Very good point. I quite agree with this but it is now a bit complicated for players (more or less beginners) to know what to do in such a case. We can also imagine the case of a player saying "I resign" without checking the resign box.
FICGS rules are official (FIDE) chess rules when proper FICGS rules don't exist. It may apply there, but I feel we should clarify and why not change the rules to make it clearer & simpler.
Let's see what is your favourite proposal :
1) A draw offer sent in the message (draw box unchecked) should be considered as a real draw offer if the opponent called the referee to accept it and did not reply to the move.
2) A draw offer sent in the message (draw box unchecked) should be considered as a real draw offer if the opponent called the referee to accept it, even if he replied to the move.
3) A draw offer sent in the message (draw box unchecked) shouldn't be considered as a real draw offer because there shouldn't be such human decision in server chess and it could be ambiguous.
The proposition 2) may bring problems IMO, I think 3) is generally better in server chess (maybe even in OTB chess when the sheet in not signed, I suppose the case happened already) as there should be as few human decision as possible, 1) is more fair in a certain way though.
Nick Burrows (2009-04-14 17:45:59)
draw
The reason i ask is that this would give the players to capability to fix matters themselves without referee intervention, though i can see that it may cause more problems than it solves.
I think no.1 is the better ruling. On the rare occasion that this occurs, the player truly did offer a draw but simply didnt know the correct way to offer it. If his opponent consults the rules and calls the referee, the draw is binding, if he plays a move then the game continues...
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2009-04-14 20:20:57)
Draw offer
In my opinion only the marked check box should be a regular draw offer. There is also no way to accept a draw offer and finish a game by sending a message to your opponent.
Messages are nice, but should not have any influence on the game. And we should not misuse Thibault (the referee) to decide if our games are drawn.
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.
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2009-04-18 17:36:57)
Draws and more draws ...
I can see the points, a verbal draw should be binding, but, because there is only one Thibault, we do not have many referees to solve disputes, so, checking the box offers no ambiguity, no misunderstandings and no human interventions, so Thibault can sleep longer.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-18 22:33:10)
Referees
Rodolfo, the point mustn't be the number of referees, actually this case may happen once a year, so this is not the problem. In one of the very first discussions in this forum while building most of the current rules, it has been said that human decision should be as rare as possible in server chess and I was (and I'm still) ok with that, every rule here follow this way, however I can't totally disagree with Don so I'm still trying to find a decisive argument to choose the right way.
Once more, does anyone know how this issue is ruled at ICCF or IECG ?
Normajean Yates (2009-04-18 23:22:12)
actually, there is a rule to cover this!
Quoting Last para of rule 11.2 - "The rules assume that FICGS referees 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 the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors. FICGS appeals to all its members to accept this view."
Translation: Thibault's decision is final. ;)
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.
Michel van der Kemp (2009-06-04 10:01:38)
re
Offering a draw is one thing, offering a draw in several consecutive moves is another. I would think that is harassment, especially when the other player has answered politely he thinks he has chances. Harassment should be fought.
I remember a case in FIDE tournament, where one player would offer a draw with each move. The player was first warned by referee, and when he didn't stop, was expelled from tournament.
One could argue if consecutive draw offers in correspondence chess should still be considered harassment, but it is still irritating to say the least.
Normajean Yates (2009-06-05 03:07:37)
oh then minor technical change...
instead of the game having been drawn automatically, referee *adjudicates* it as a draw.
This ensures that fide rules are not violated, because a game result *can* be changed by adjudication: for example:
Suppose OTB, immediately after a game is over, the winning player is found to have a hidden transciever with a *log* showing that moves *were* transmitted and move-suggestions *were* recieved. And the player breaks down in tears and admits to cheating: pleading for leniency - not in re that particular game, but for a shorter ban-from-tournaments than s/he expects to get. In this case, at the very least the game would be readjudicated as a loss for said player, no?
Also, on ficgs the 50-move rule is not implemented; so a game won here which would otherwise be drawn under the 50-move rule - wouldn't *that* violate fide rules? For corr chess, it is more iecc/iccf than fide - fide will come around :)
Robert Osborne (2009-11-02 02:58:14)
:-Q
Watchman & The Referee
Btw... should I tell all Eros Riccio nicks here? :-O
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-04 13:13:05)
Castling
Funny story... So we can imagine the problems referees may encounter in OTB tournaments when the question is more complex :)
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 (2010-05-20 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 (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 23:05:45)
Strange game
Thanks, Thib. Please see this post as an official report to the referee. :)
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.
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 07:55:09)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
Insert: "... or withdraws in such positions [without a valid explanation to the referee] may face ..."
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?
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-07 21:48:29)
50+ Poker Games
Don, it would be easy to manipulate such a rule... most important is to avoid any human (referee) intervention in the results. We have to find something better. Paul's idea is a first step.
Scott Nichols (2012-03-21 15:05:51)
Slow tournament entries
Yes, and I thought later in the cases I pointed out, there is always the "call the referee" option.
Garvin Gray (2012-03-23 11:16:48)
Slow tournament entries
SN: Call the referee option is probably the best compromise, partly for the reasons Thib mentions.
SN: On the issue of 3 days per move increment, I think this is better than 10 moves in 40 days cause at least it keeps the games moving along.
I do think 10 moves in 40 days is wayyy too long a time control on here and as already mentioned 10 moves in 20 days might be better.
Is it possible to have a combined time control of say 10 moves in 30 days repeating, followed by 3 days per move from move 61 (or 41)?
Herbert Kruse (2026-04-17 18:06:53)
Call referee about game ...
how long must i wait?
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.
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.
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-10-27 20:44:31)
Tournaments rating ranges
Hello all,
As you may know, certain top tournaments are really too long to start... After a long wait, I finally decided to test this new rule:
12. Tournament rules
(...) Please note that the referee may change the rating ranges if a tournament takes too much time to start (such cases are quite rare).
As an example, for the tournament chess class SM, I just changed the low rating limit to 2300 only to find the 7th player. The rating limit will return to 2400 after that. This is not a good thing according to me but it may be the "less worst"... To be continued.
Feel free to tell what you think about this.
Thibault de Vassal (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?
Herbert Kruse (2016-11-30 15:53:22)
Future penalties for games lost on time
11. 5. Adjudications
In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious.
If time control is superior to 1 day and if a player doesn't want to resign (or accept draw) and obviously last the game, his opponent may report to referee a first time. If the player takes 30 days more to finish the game, his opponent may call referee another time, then the game will be adjudicated. An analysis submitted by a player should contain sufficient information so that no doubt is possible. This may include a sequence of moves, but in some circumstances it may be sufficient to claim a win or a draw on the basis of material or positional advantage. Final decision belongs to referee.
David Fierry Fraillon (2016-12-03 09:12:28)
Future penalties for games lost on time
Well .... how long takes a referee decision ?
If it is less than a few days it could be better than using banishement.
You may just have to fix the level of difference in rules : + 10 .... +15 ....Just have to keep in mind that in our game an oponent mistakes can happen
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).
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.
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 (2018-01-23 00:08:33)
Conditional chess moves (again)
The exact rule is "The 50 moves rule is not implemented, please call referee if an obvious draw is not accepted by your opponent. Please note that a forced checkmate in more than 50 moves won't be considered as a draw."
Consequently, if tablebases say there is a draw, it is not always a draw here, e.g. if this is a draw because of the 50/60 moves FIDE rule.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-03-31 19:39:34)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Well, in all cases I think that it shouldn't be allowed to designate anyone publicly as a (possible/probable) cheater. This would certainly lead to a terrible climate of suspicion and unfriendship. So, this has been added to the FICGS rules (11.1):
"To maintain a friendly community, any cheating complaint should be addressed to the referee and should not be made publicly in games comments or in the forum, otherwise with the same consequences."
Some comments in this thread will now be moderated this way.
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?
Thibault de Vassal (2018-09-07 20:40:30)
Netiquette reinforcement
I agree, but it should be avoided that a few understand there that "any kind of message that seem provocative according to anyone will lead to instantly lose a game"... only a moderator/referee should decide it, probably.
Even if this remains quite fuzzy in all cases, the main idea is here: a threat is stronger than execution.
But... you may be right at the end, we'll see... I'll update it if this reveals to be not efficient enough.
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.
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.
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 (2019-04-01 16:09:49)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?
Hello Herbert, you can either wait or call referee.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Daniel Parmet (2021-01-05 01:01:00)
K+B vs. K
Should be able to call the referee
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 :)
Herbert Kruse (2021-06-13 15:44:53)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?
i have 6 big chess mates now und no referee had made this a win :(
Thibault de Vassal (2021-10-21 00:25:35)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Yes, I follow this game. Well, it had to happen :) But don't forget that there is no 50 moves rule at FICGS, the game can continue some longer... if there is a forced mate in (e.g.) 157 moves at some point, then it can go on. If the defender has a clear plan to ask for a draw, then he can call the referee to explain it. To be continued.
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 (2022-10-30 21:39:28)
What about this position?
In such case, anyone can call the referee, but the game can continue during one more month even if it is proven that the win (or draw) is forced.
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."
Timothy Cookson (2023-11-24 01:40:53)
Referee Adjudication
At what point should I ask for an adjudication by tablebase?
Is there a rule for 5-6-7 man syzygy positions? It is a 167DTM position and it does not draw by 50 move rule.
Thibault de Vassal (2023-11-25 23:15:04)
Referee Adjudication
The later is best :)
Do not forget that 50 moves rule does NOT apply at FICGS.
If there is a checkmate to come, according to the rules: after you ask, your opponent still gets 30 days to play a few moves more. Not everyone uses tablebases and some may want to see how it ends...
Timothy Cookson (2023-11-26 00:09:20)
Referee Adjudication
Thank you Thibault!
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...
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2025-07-05 09:48:01)
50 moves rule
''please call referee if an obvious draw is not accepted by your opponent.'' - would such a position at some point count as an ''obvious draw''?
Wilhelm Schuett (2025-11-03 03:18:00)
go game 146698
Do we have a referee?
Yeturu Aahlad (2025-11-03 22:57:20)
go game 146698
Near the bottom of your screen for this game, you will see the link "call referee"
Herbert Kruse (2026-04-24 14:42:48)
Call referee about game ...
if i lose on time until an answer, have i lost?
Thibault de Vassal (2026-05-11 23:36:59)
Call referee about game ...
Hello Herbert, I don't remember if you sent me an email about that game... please just do it if necessary. Thanks!
Garvin Gray (2026-05-12 05:10:48)
Call referee about game ...
I have also used call referee previously and not received a response. So the issue is not us emailing you. It is using call referee and not getting a reply
Herbert Kruse (2026-05-12 10:26:52)
Call referee about game ...
Game 149456, request from Herbert Kruse
it has been a month now, since:
12.04.2026, 06:04 Uhr
Game 149456, request from Herbert Kruse
I Claim win, after 4 Pass
Thibault de Vassal (2026-05-18 16:07:40)
Call referee about game ...
I see every call... There is no need to act in most cases, that's why I take some time (added to the 1 month rule when the game is decided) to answer.
Garvin Gray (2026-05-20 05:01:42)
Call referee about game ...
Well. In the two cases mentioned above, it seems that both Herbert and I believe that there was at least a need to reply and a decision to be made.
And in our opinion, the worst decision was to 'go silent'.
If we take a similar situation in otb chess, and I imagine the same would be for go as well.
In an otb chess tournament, a player has an issue in their game, stops the clock and either raises their hand or comes over to the arbiters table to get their attention.
The arbiter would then come to the board and issue a ruling. Yes, sometimes their ruling would be to take no action, but at least the player knows that the arbiter has heard their asking for a ruling and the game proceeds.
In the two cases shown above, it seems that Herbert and I believe that we has occurred is that you have not even bothered to attend to our issue at all.
And that has left us dis-satisfied to the point where we are now having to raise it as a forum topic for everyone else to see.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-05-25 14:21:01)
Call referee about game ...
Rule 11.5 says: "Finally, if players do not agree the result, please let the clock run out of time, a referee will confirm or correct the result later."
So yes, I can set the clocks fairly to fix a situation... It happened in some cases and it will happen again.
Maybe I should add such an example in the rules to reassure.
There are 0 results for referee in wikichess.
FICGS : referee , Wikipedia : referee , Dmoz : referee , Google : referee , Yahoo : referee
Chess, like love, is infectious at any age. (Flohr)
Every Chess master was once a beginner. (Chernev)
For me, Chess is life and every game is like a new life. Every Chess player gets to live many lives in one lifetime. (Eduard Gufeld)
Back to FICGS , Wikichess