strategy
FICGS - Search results for strategy
There are 84 results for strategy in the forum.
Scott Ligon (2025-01-07 18:55:30)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
I am running an experiment where each move will be selected by Stockfish 17 in a deterministic configuration, so it will be possible to predict my response to any given move with certainty. I believe Stockfish 17 at these settings is so strong that it will be difficult if not impossible to exploit this strategy. However, if I reach a position where it looks like this strategy is going to lose, I reserve the right to deviate. If this happens, I will message my opponent to let them know that I am no longer following this system.
I'm using a python script to interact with Stockfish, but you should be able to get the same results running Stockfish 17 from the command line. I am currently running the search with the parameter nodes = 10 million (previously I tried nodes = 5 million but I found a way for white to win against Stockfish at that setting). From the command line:
go nodes 10000000
In order for Stockfish to be deterministic, it needs to be running on just 1 thread and from the command line that's the default. If for some reason Threads has a different value on your machine:
setoption name Threads value 1
I'm using the default size for the hash table, but if you run the search a second time without clearing the hash, you will get a different search result. So either close and restart Stockfish between searches or else clear the hash table:
setoption name Clear Hash
Lastly you need to be able to input the position before running the search. It is important that you enter the position via FEN string rather than by inputting the moves, because you might get different search results otherwise. Use only the first four fields of the FEN string, like this to get black's response after 1 e4:
position fen rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq -
From that position if you run Stockfish with nodes = 10 million, the last two lines of text output should say:
info depth 32 seldepth 46 multipv 1 score cp -26 lowerbound nodes 10000376 nps 462252 hashfull 999 tbhits 0 time 21634 pv c7c5
bestmove c7c5 ponder g1f3
I think only the values of "nps" and "time" will vary, everything else should be identical between runs / machines. So in this case Stockfish 17 recommends the Sicilian Defense and gives an evaluation of +0.26. (cp -26 is the evaluation in centipawns from the perspective of the side to move, but usually evals are given from white's POV).
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-01 15:02:56)
Infinite repetition
Well, it might work, but that seems unfair to black IMO, because it creates discrepancies in the rules depending on you being sente or gote.
Admitedly, the komi can be seen as such discrepancy, but all it does is forcing sente to be bit more aggresive, the stategy and tactics, the feeling of the game being globally the same. What you propose would induce a kind of strategic play on the rules... not really Go anymore!
I realise I may not be clear: as an extreme example of rules discrepanies, just consider Renju. Here the rules are different for sente and gote and the strategy is indeed really different for both! While this is fine in Renju, because actually it became the heart of the game, I do not think Go needs it.
Besides, it would spoil somehow IMO the aesthetic feeling of the game flow.
Just my opinions of course :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-01 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 (2006-07-21 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 ;))
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 :)
Don Groves (2006-09-09 08:30:21)
Second vote for Backgammon
Like Chess and Go, Backgammon is an ancient game. Also it is a game with an element of chance but one where strategy and tactics can overcome bad luck.
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 (2006-10-13 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...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-17 14:40:56)
Chess and politics...
Just noticed this link on TCCMB correspondence chess forum, to MSNBC article by Howard Fineman : "Iraq exit strategy and the Tehran gambit"... Quite funny. (no matter political ideas, only chess metaphors)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15728086
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 (2007-03-25 11:24:50)
Computer Go
While I agree that programming Go is much more a problem of algorithm than a hardware one, I think you underestimate the theorical difficulties.
First, a word on the alluded new approach (BTW the french edition of 'Pour la Science' has an article on this algorithm this month, but not very involved): it seems promising only because that program regularly beats other program using what we can call a traditional approach: tree exploration combined with pattern recognition and some clever splitted evaluation function. That is fine, but does not mean much for human, considering the poor level of all these programs.
AFAIY the very best program is said to be at low pro-dan level on a 9x9 (without any concrete real test match, that is with money at stakes... but let's suppose it is true). The problem to play on 19x19 is that the nature of the game dramatically changes: in short the tactics is more complicated and the once very basic strategy of 9x9 becomes overwhelming! There is still no known algorithm to tackle that problem. Such algorithm could exist of course, but don't hold your breath :-)
Now I am quite eager to read the tests and pubications on these researches :-)
The neural network approach is interresting but is more or less stalling (again AFAIY) in recent programs mainly because of a fundamental flaw: the tuning of the gap functions. In Backgammon, where this approach works very well, these functions are tuned by simulation: basically, the program plays many, many games against himself and in a way learns (that is tunes its network) depending on the results. As you may guess, this can not work in Go because of the complexity of the branch tree. So the problem is how to tune the network (and 'by hand' cannot be a soution, believe me, considering the number of nodes and the type of the functions being commonly used!)
Of course I simplified a lot and the maths behind these kind of algorithm are involved enough (and very interresting :-)) that someone may find new ideas that will revive one path or another. But my feeling is that the pros of go have nothing to fear for a long time...
You have to consider that the very best programs are not beaten, but crushed, by multi-dans amateurs, you know, the kind of player a top pro will beat at 5 stones while blitzing and at 9 stones if some money is at stakes :-)
Now I may be wrong, and I remember in the 80s many people saying the same thing for chess, and betting on the fact that a program could never beat a good player in at least 50 years :-)... but at that time, I did not agree :-)) mainly because the algorithms were more or less basically known already... the 80s hardware was a problem, but a technical and not theorical one...
Sorry for that too long reply... I can't believe I typed so much... that must be my new keyboard, and the fond memories of some past jobs ... :-)
Elmer Valderrama (2007-03-26 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-)
Elmer Valderrama (2007-03-26 19:18:28)
imitate = model
..nice description of the candidates' campaign strategy, Thibault :-)
How Science model Reality, and How Chess model Life, does it make sense to you?
Hope so, since
the object to be imitated is Reality or Life, and the imitator must be smaller/lesser by definition. (other synonyms are: imitate = try to be similar to = tend to look like = model)
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-30 14:05:46)
The meaning of Go for modern Russia
An interesting (as usual) article from IGN "Goama" newsletter - http://gogame.info
Alexander Rodin, the member of Go Federation
"The meaning of Go for modern Russia"
I'll try to state my thoughts about the meaning of the Go for modern Russia.
To begin with I suggested that we extrapolate Go models on the political and economical maps. These maps are very important as the spheres of social life, because the questions that are discussed at political and economical levels touch upon our lives, the lives of ordinary Russian citizens. In these spheres they continue the fierce struggle for life and death; in these spheres rivalry is especially keen and the made decisions define the vectors of our country development.
Let's imagine a situation if somebody inadequate came to power and set the totalitarian regime! Then all social "dissident" institution would start dying and so would do the Go Federation as a phenomenon which unifies people with independent thinking. Then it would be inevitable to start "hiding in basements" to keep the organization and set the secret addresses. Under conditions of modern Russia such kind of reasoning seems to be mostly fantastic than real. But if we look behind into our history we’ll remember that we have already had this phase of social development and know everything about it.
I am for that only "adequate" people, patriots, must hold power (I mean all its levels: federal, regional, local and busyness elite as well). These people must think independently and it would be just perfect if they were the people who both understand the very notion of strategy and use in their activity all the arsenal of strategic instruments and among them principles, stratagems and Go philosophy.
Someone can argue: "What are the patriots who set Japan draughts?" the heart of the problem is not in the fact that somebody sets draughts and even the Japan ones. The matter of fact is that there is a "pacific" model the centre of which is the idea of balance and peaceful division of the territory and influence. If someone of us can offer something better, so let him rule. In my opinion, it's the same as to rewrite the Bible or "The Treatise of Military Art" Soun Tsi.
The Go essence manifests in the state scale in the following aspects:
The first one is historical and cultural. The game has a great history and longstanding traditions. Go is no less than a civil game with the development of which hand by hand goes statehood making in many countries. Besides, it's followed by strengthening of spirituality and moral principles of society.
The second aspect is social. Go unifies people, sets friendly relationships between them. Through Go a man manifests quickly, through it s/he can see his/her reflection. Owing to "open spiritual fight" your adversary is likely to become your best friend without saying a word during a game.
The third aspect is pedagogical. Through Go they bring up the grown generations and form their active civil position. Like chess, Go forms and consolidates dynamical stereotypes showing in following behavioral models of people. Penetrating and consolidation happen imperceptibly when sleeping, during the junction of conscious and unconscious.
The fourth aspect is economical. Why are business people interested in Go? Because through the game model a man learns how to manage material and non-material resources. Via the game s/he realizes economical and management notions: market (territory), economical integration, SWOT-analysis (the analysis of weak and strong aspects) etc. Managers start realizing the importance of interconnection and interaction of structural subdivisions ensuring. These subdivisions shouldn't be isolated from each other. They should work time in time like a well-tuned tuning fork.
The fifth aspect is political. The idea of community in politics is as relevant as the idea of group of stones. When a group is weak there is always a possibility of dividing it and this is a sign for the whole group. When our country, being a federal union of equitable subjects, was going through its stage of making a number of subjects had a wish to use the weakness of this chain. So, in 1992 1994 for the first time after the collapsing of the USSR there appeared first separatist tendencies. E.Rossel, the governor of Sverdlovskaya region, A. Philipenko, the governor of HMAO, claimed about the possibility of Ural republic creation. The emissary of Chechen separatists Gokhar Dudaev proclaimed the independence of Chechen-Ingush republic. The detachment didn't happen but the country paid with blood for it. Nowadays we can see demonstration of political integration and isolation on the modern political world map. Take a strong unity of the European Union and states-outsiders: Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Iran.
In terms of remaining of the USA's striving for establishment of world hegemony (from V.V.Putin's speech at the recent Munich conference), Russia needs the processes of integration and consolidation with other countries aimed at its strengthening. The unified countries have a lot of dame.
Now we can observe the stronger split in the CIS as a consequence of energetic and territorial policy of Russia that uses economical instruments of pressure upon "unfriendly and opposing" countries. Is it good or not? It's more likely that it‘s bad. But there are some positive tendencies: the role of the EurAsEC as a community which's built not on the basis of "strange brotherhood" and the role of Russia in it are increasing. Go is an ideological and spiritual base making us related to the countries of Asia-Pacific region. Go teaches how to see and distinguish creative and destroying processes.
The sixth aspect is psychological. The game develops thinking, in particular such processes as analysis and synthesis. It develops the ability of seeing the whole board and its details, the ability of seeing processes proceeding at global and local levels.
The seventh aspect is verbal and lexical or even philosophical. Through studying of the game theory we realize such categories as life and death, territory and influence, reliability, stability, the whole and the parts etc.
So, what is the Go meaning on the country scale? I assume that Go, as philosophy (an ideological and spiritual base), is a very important instrument of upbringing of strategic leaders, those who make decisions at high economical and political levels that influence the country's fate. Because in Go the idea of peaceful co-existence shows the way to harmony. The most pleasant is the fact the "Go way" doesn't have an end and there sky's the limit.
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
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.
Philip Roe (2007-09-01 20:04:25)
engine-free chess
When I started playing here about three months ago I did not realise that engine use was allowed (or even encouraged, according to some) What did attract me were some features like being able to see ongoing games of other players, which makes the experience more like a "real" OTB event.
I have played on other sites (IECG,ICC) where engines are forbidden,
and ICC at least claims to have software that detects cheating. I play without an engine (but using books)simply because I enjoy it more. I dont care all that much what you do as long as you play interesting moves. It seems very clear from the games that lower-rated players certainly dont use engines and higher-rated players probably have to. At my kind of level (1900ish) it seems optional, but the suspicion that my opponent analyses with an engine steers me away from certain types of position (speculative sacs, or clear strategy but complex tactics) which is a shame because that may be where the position wants to go.
The previous thread got very heated, and Im not sure why. One suggestion was
to let non-computer users go away and play funny little unrated games by themselves. That is not attractive. Im not interested in playing walkover games against weak opponents. Rating is essential. Other than that, Im very interested to find out what other people think. That will determine whether or not I come to feel at home here.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-17 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 (2007-09-20 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 :)
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-24 14:05:27)
Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition
Kasparov : "In Russia we are not fighting win elections, we are fighting to have elections."
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4198
Fighting from the opposite side of the earth, quite good strategy :)
Arnab Sengupta (2008-05-21 18:55:19)
Quotes
1. "There are only two kinds of tragedy in this world, one is not getting what you want and the other is getting."- Lord of War
2. "We cannot be sure of having something to live for unless we are willing to die for it."- Ernesto Che Guevara
3. "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."
Winston Churchill
4. "You must have a dream in order to have it come true" - A.P.J Kalam
5. "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results."
Winston Churchill
6. "If you are going through hell, keep going."
Winston Churchill
NOW THE BEST
7. "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations."
Winston Churchill
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?
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.
Hannes Rada (2008-07-15 19:07:00)
Learning effect ??
I suppose you are here to improve your chess ability. For this purpose a mirroring moves - strategy seems to be useless ....
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.
Mladen Jankovic (2008-08-04 12:45:58)
Strategy stealing
Actually, that comes from the strategy stealing argument in the game theory.
Shannon was the first to formaly study theory of chess engines. See:
http://www.pi.infn.it/%7Ecarosi/chess/shannon.txt
Normajean Yates (2008-08-06 02:50:15)
re strategy stealing...
What I meant was to try and define 'strategy stealing' formally you have to define 'strategy' - which is a solution subtree of your game tree -- etc etc :) A combinatorial 2-person complete-information game being a quintuple blah-blah-blah ...
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 ...
Alexis Bromo (2008-09-12 08:34:29)
Does anybody play "Travian"?
It is on-line strategy game. "mind-killer" :)))
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-27 03:57:49)
Obama, McCain on tactic & strategy
Just heard a few words (live) in the first debate between senators Barack Obama & John McCain about tactic & strategy (around Iraq) but I didn't understand what followed... Can anyone describe what McCain mean by "tactics & strategy" ? :)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-27 04:14:35)
Tactics & strategy
... of course my question raised from the fact that McCain said that Obama made no difference between tactics & strategy, I assume in general, I'm not interested here on the U.S. moves and complete strategy in Iraq !
Don Groves (2008-09-27 06:43:07)
Strategy and tactics
Salut Thibault -- Military strategy and tactics are similar to chess. For example, the US opening in Iraq was flawed -- too few troops, overconfidence, etc., a bad strategy exposed by the insurgents' successful counterattack. On the other hand, this year's "surge" in Iraq was a tactical move, like moving a rook into an attacking position.
Actually, it was more like adding another rook in the late middle game ;-)
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-30 20:13:50)
Caire - Utesch
The strategy may work :)
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 .....
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-12-01 18:53:45)
Why not both strategies ?
I have been surprised also about my opponent's strategy - 4 games the same opening - but it can work sometimes. I don't know whether another strategy would have been better? I think Francois has been surprised also about my answer 1.e4 e5 four times. In the past I prefered 1.e4 c5 mostly. The openings beside Marshall attack for the other games has been very well prepared by my opponent.
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 (2008-12-30 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 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.
Scott Nichols (2009-05-05 04:09:49)
The "Theme"
You are missing the theme, it's not Batman, Darth Vader, or even Monty Python. It is how you will feel when trying to "see" into this teams strategy. You will see shadows of Bishops sliding in front of you, you will see Knights suddenly appearing behind you, you will see pawns at every turn wielding their swords of death. You will only feel the Queen's presence, something all powerful hidden behind the veils of darkness. You pray for some sort of light, but all you can see is a brief reflection before the axe ends your existence.
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-16 10:37:01)
Interview with E. Kotlyanskiy
Congrats again to Edward Kotlyanskiy, new FICGS chess champion after beating Xavier Pichelin (2577) in the 12 games final match of the 3rd cycle.
Edward kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match and correspondence chess in general :
_________________________
> Hi Edward, first of all congratulations for winning this 12 games match against the former FICGS chess champion, Xavier Pichelin. You had to score at least one point more than your opponent, what was your strategy when the games started?
Knowing that I had to score at least +1 against Xavier, I had to try to get the games into complex positions where there are many options to play for both sides. At the point when the games started, I was the underdog to Xavier (mainly due to the face that I was rated about 200 points lower). In part, I think that one of the reasons why Xavier allowed the games to reach such complex positions is due to the fact that his rating was undoubtedly higher than mine and therefore he probably assumed that he could “outplay” me. Although this was simultaneously a brave and admirable choice, I think an option that many other players would have pursued would have been to play “drawish” lines with the hope of having all of the games ending in draws. I have great respect for Xavier due to the fact that he didn't choose such a path and allowed us to put on a hard fought show that was worth watching.
> What could you say on the hot moments of the match?
The first game in which I thought I had very good chances to win was game 34739. In this game (particularly on move 18) Xavier played the move Nb8?? Looking back at the move, I realized that the game was lost for him. I assumed that Xavier probably underestimated the threat of f5. There were no good responses and/or countermeasures for the move f5. For example, if 19) gxf5, I have 20) Nxh5 Nc6 21) Rc3! Bxh4 (Qd8 was also possible) 22) Qf4 Be7 23) g4! His king is just clearly caught in the attack! 19) exf5 also fails to 20) e6 f6 (trying to keep the king safe) 21) Bxh5!! gxh5 22) Nc6 Rc3 and therefore it’s easy to see that it is just a matter of time. Xavier did try something better although even that failed due to some nice moves. I believe that 21) g7 came as a surprise to Xavier (or that at least he hadn't seen this move when playing Nb8). After Nxh5 (another neat move), another line that I thought Xavier would enter (which is also losing) is 22) Qxc2 23) Qxc2 Rxc2 24) Nf6+! Bxf6 25) exf6. Clearly my pawns are just too strong! Knowing that I am winning after the mentioned alternatives, the other games (although I won three others) were just necessary to hold without falling for any tactics/tricks.
A second game I want to briefly comment on is game 34729. I played a very nice (although I am not sure if it is winning just yet) move known as 17.a4! It was a very nice way to open the position on both of our kings. In all honesty, the move that I think was winning in this situation 25) Rd3, I did not even consider too highly until the position reached that very move. After a relatively short analysis, I was indeed pleasantly surprised to see that; overall, it was completely winning for me.
> What could you say on the advantages and inconveniences of this 12 games match format played at a quite fast time control?
From the days when I first starting playing correspondence chess, I have always been accustomed to making moves rather quickly. In fact, when I first started playing, in some games I made moves within 10 minutes of looking at the position. Although I take a lot more time to analyze now-a-days, I still consider the speed of my play to be relatively faster compared to most other correspondence players. Playing 12 games simultaneously can have drawbacks as not having enough time to properly analyze; however, I didn't have such a problem. With the exception of a few games that I was playing on IECG at the start of the FICGS Championship, the 12 game series was my main concern.
> Without revealing your secrets, how would you define modern correspondence chess as a centaur (playing with chess engines)?
These days, it is impossible to play correspondence chess on a high level without consulting the engine. It is also unlikely that one can achieve a lot of success just by following the engine blindly (even after a long analysis). Personally, I know that some of my friends believe that in correspondence chess you are just following the engine but I believe that most “high level” correspondence players know that it just doesn't work that way.
In my opinion, one of the most important skills that a correspondence player should have is having some sense of where the engine he is analyzing with is faulty. To give a well known example, many people know that there are certain endgame positions that an engine alone can't be trusted in (a simple case is the wrong color bishop). In essence, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of whatever engine you are analyzing with is critical to playing correspondence chess at a “high level”.
> Why did you choose to play correspondence chess, do you play OTB (over the board) chess as well?
Before starting correspondence chess, I played OTB chess for quite a few years. When my schedule became busy, I realized that I wouldn't have much time to play OTB in clubs. I came across correspondence chess and got hooked on it very quickly. Also, I began to enjoy more of the subtleties of the game; something that is just lacking in OTB blitz games. I imagine that some people prefer to play practical chess (OTB) in which a move order wouldn't make much of a difference; however, I guess I am a perfectionist and believe the game should be played on as high of a level as possible.
> How many correspondence games do you usually play at the same time (on different chess servers or by email)? Would you say that it is an addiction?
Usually, I played about 5 to 10 games on average on all different sites. I did play via email on IECC but wasn't fond of playing by email therefore I went back to server only sites (IECG, FICGS, Schemingmind).
I can definitely say that correspondence chess is an addiction. All too often, I catch myself analyzing games when I really should be doing something much more time sensitive. Well, at least I can say that this addiction paid off in that I am the new FICGS champion!
> Are you interested in other games?
As far as board games go, chess is primarily the only game I play. At times I do play games like monopoly and scrabble with my friends. Another interest that I have is billiards.
> The next challenger for the FICGS chess champion title is SM Eros Riccio (winner of several PlayChess PAL freestyle tournaments). Do you think that you'll play him? What does this perspective inspire in you?
I can't wait to play Eros! I believe that he would be my toughest opponent yet (although I have played GM Leităo, Rafael (fide elo: 2619) and managed to draw). Eros is like an unstoppable juggernaut in corr chess. That said, I look forward to our games and I am certain that they will simultaneously be challenging and entertaining.
> Thanks and best of luck in your future games!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-13 13:13:07)
RYBKA 4 UCI available in the first part
Thanks for the great news!
I just wonder why "without copy protection" and why it is specified... or was he convinced by the "Bill Gates/Microsoft" strategy as well?
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.
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-01-30 21:07:31)
Eros on his win in the 4th chess WCH
Eros Riccio kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his win in the 4th FICGS chess WCH, and explained how one particular game influenced another one that he finally won:
- Hi Eros, first of all congratulations for your latest outstanding results at FICGS, you won the Freestyle tournament, now two chess championships in a row... When the privilege of the champion is to defend his title without playing the preliminary tournaments, you are involved in all championship cycles & a few regular tournaments, do you plan to avoid that anyone can even reach the championship final in the future? :-)
Thanks! I must admit that this is really a magic moment for me in chess... if you consider that despite my recent ICCF Grand Master Title, probably I will also soon win my third italian Correspondence Champion Title out of three participations in the Italian Final Tournaments. And now also this huge satisfaction of being the FICGS Champion! I look forward to seeing a new challenger soon, I wonder who he will be, but let me enjoy the next few months for now ;-)
- What are your impressions on the games? Did you have any strategy from the beginning to the end? Finally did it work or was there another factor? (without revealing your secrets, of course :))
The games in the opening were as I expected, all Najdorf Sicilians except one game where I played 1.d4. My goal was to win at least one game, so I tried different aggressive variations as White (6.Bg5, 6.f3, 6.Be3 and 6.h3) with the hope of catching Edward unprepared on at least one of these, but uff, he was very well prepared on each one of them! A curious thing is that my biggest chance of winning happened in a game where I had the Black pieces! So Edward had to take some risks in one of his games where he had Black (the games where he had White were already finished or all very drawish) he was forced to avoid an easy draw he had (the 6.h3 game) and eventually he lost that game. Happy of having reached my goal of winning at least one game, I accepted his draw offer in that other game (6.f3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Be3 Be7 9.Be2) where I had good winning chances.
- You probably noticed, like many correspondence chess players, that the hardware still fastly improves while chess engines are continuously getting stronger, particularly since that "supposed" clones of Rybka (some may be even stronger than Rybka herself) appeared in the race. Do you think that the rate of draws will be so high soon that it may definitely kill correspondence chess? Do you have any opinion on these new engines?
I think that despite the big improvement of Hardwares and engines, we are still very far (and we will still be in the next 5 years, hopefully) from a situation where all the games will most probably end in a draw. So I think we can enjoy correspondence chess for many more years in the future, even if of course the Draw percentage at the highest levels will be higher and higher.
- I remember that you were surprised to win your match against Alberto in the Candidates Final of the 5th cycle (the reason why you do not even have to defend your title this time), the WCH rules (particularly the co-existence of the round-robin tournament & knockout tournament) are obviously not well understood by all players, what do you think about this system and the tie in 8 games matches? Are there changes you'd like to see in the future?
Yes, I really was! We were both convinced that with all draws, the higher rated player would have won (Alberto was higher rated than me in that match). Anyway it was our fault, as we didn't read the rules carefully. I am not sure what changes could be done in the future... maybe this is anyway the best setup, no new ideas are coming to my mind right now.
- Do you have a few more words for Edward after these nice games? Maybe also for your future opponents? :)
It was a real pleasure for me to play him, not only for the interesting games we played, but also for the friendly chats we had during the exchanges of the moves. I hope to play him again in the future for a rematch.
- Thanks for your answers and congratulations again!
Welcome, and thanks ;-)
_________
It is very interesting to see that a even a player like Eros prefered to minimize the risks (avoiding mouse drops or whatever) as much as possible by accepting a draw in a game where he had winning chances. Correspondence chess is definitely not all about chess, that's probably the lesson.
Also it is reassuring to read that correspondence chess is NOT dead yet, nor soon :)
Thibault de Vassal (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.
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! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-27 23:39:12)
Eros Riccio wins 6th and 7th chess WCH
By beating Alberto Gueci in the final match of the 6th chess championship & Ostap Hladky in the candidates final of the 7th chess championship, Eros Riccio will remain FICGS chess champion for at least 16 months! After this huge performance, Eros accepted to answer a few questions:
----------------------------------
- Hello Eros and congratulations again for winning your 3rd and 4th (respectively 6th and 7th cycles) FICGS chess championships in a row, beating Alerto Gueci in the 12 games match of the final match and Ostap Hladky in the 8 games match of the candidates final so that you meet yourself in the last round that thus will not happen for the 3rd time of the championship (first time was during the first cycle because there was no champion yet). All games of the two matches were drawn, but it does not say much on the intensity of the match as we all know your strategy since your win in your first final match vs. Edward Kotlyanskiy when you explained that your preferred a draw that guarantees the victory than a possible win where a mouse slip is still possible. Obviously your strategy works very well but one can add that you had an impressive number of running games at the rapid time control, so very much pressure... How did you live these last months of correspondence chess and these two matches?
Hi Thib! And thanks once again for the congratulations. These 28 games (let's not forget also the 8 games match against Gino Figlio) probably started in the worst moment for me, just a few months after the very important European Team Championship on ICCF had started. When I told my captain that I was starting another 28 games... he was very disappointed and worried, as he had repeated a lot of times to every player of our team not to start new tournaments and to focus only on this tournament. Also for this reason I had decided not to join the new Italian Championship and other tournaments and to withdraw from the Champions League, but unfortunately I had no control on when to start my FICGS games. So... my priority was for my ICCF games, and fortunately for me all I needed to do in my FICGS Matches to win was to make draws, and that's what I tried to do in most of my games as fast as possible, and to my surprise my opponents accepted to draw many games quite quickly, not trying to fight each game "to death" like I would have done if I would have been them. This of course only created quick boring games, but I didn't see the point in putting energy in trying to win games myself.... I think my opponents should have done that!
- We all know that you and Alberto are good friends from long time, did it influence your match in the 6th WCH in any way according to you?
Well, it's a good think knowing your opponent's habits... you can send your moves as soon as you know he goes to bed :-)
- Ostap Hladky is undoubtly one of the strongest players at FICGS, was this match (7th WCH candidates final) very different from the other one?
Hladky was the strongest player I had ever played on FICGS, he is very unpredictable, he simply plays unexpected moves that engines don't suggest, but if you show them those moves, they slowly realize those are very good moves. I risked to lose more than one game vs him, even as White. Luckily I still managed to draw, and in my opinion he also accepted some draws too quickly.
- With the last evolutions of chess engines, playing better & better chess, would you say that you now spend less time on each game or not at all?
I don't spend less time on my games, I still try to use (almost) all the time on my "clock". Trying to analyze as many variations as possible with the time you are given has little to do with engines improvement, who still are far from being able to always suggesting the best move by simply letting them run for hours on a static position. You need to analyze going "forward" in the position in order to be able to find the best moves.
- By the way, it is said sometimes (again) that correspondence chess will not survive the decade, what do you think? Do you envisage to change for Go or poker like many players? :)
Wins and Losses still happen even at the highest levels at the present time. I think that many years still have to pass before having all draws in high level tournaments. When that happens... and it will probably happen sooner or later as chess in my opinion is a draw with perfect play... then probably new rules will be introduced, maybe the board will be enlarged and even new pieces with new movements might be invented.
- You now are ICCF GM with an impressive 2624 rating, how are going your other correspondence chess competitions? Do you have any goal to reach yet?
All my ICCF tournaments are going good, and very soon I will be Italian Champion once again (just waiting my last opponent to resign a lost position). I still haven't reached the first place in the italian elo rating list though. That would be a goal I would surely have pleasure in reaching, and of course I would like to win the ICCF's World Championship at least once. After that I can retire :-)
- Thank you Eros, also for this great correspondence chess lesson.
Welcome Thib! A pleasure for me.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-10-09 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 (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.
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 (2015-07-11 02:18:11)
E. Riccio on his win in the 10th CC WCH
Once again, Eros kindly answered a few questions after his win in the 10th FICGS correspondence chess championship. His answer on tie break rules meets the discussion in this thread:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=11773
____________________________
- Hello Eros and congrats again for this new win in the FICGS correspondence chess championship! This time, your opponent was Peter W. Anderson and you're playing him once again in the next final match. Actually, all games finished in less than 3 months, which looks like superfast, how did it happen?
Hello once again Thibault! Yes, the match with Anderson was very quick. The reasons are that he moves very fast, and like me, I don't seem to remember that he took any day of leave.
Also, our games were not played until the very end; many draws were agreed with many pieces on the board, as soon as we thought that none of us had winning chances.
- For many players, it is quite impossible to beat you in such a 12 games match (probably because of the tie rule). After all these won matches do you start to think that the advantage is too big?
It's a fact that a very high percentage of correspondence games played at the top level ends up in a draw... (and that percentage is even higher in my case, as my strategy is to avoid taking risks) so yes, talking against my interests, I think that something in the rules should be changed.
- By the way, your opponent suggested an interesting tie rule in the forum ( Chess, Poker & Go forum - Topic 11773 ), in the context of more general new ideas for correspondence chess rules (e.g. article by GM Arno Nickel - Correspondence Chess – the draw problem ) in order to increase the interest of the game. Do you have any opinion on all this?
The idea GM Nickel launched could be interesting, even if before we can say for sure if it can be applied in serious tournaments, it needs to be tested.
If I understood correctly, having a piece more in a draw endgame, after the game is over, a little plus on the score would be given to the player who had the small advantage.
I always thought like: How unfair! That player had King and two Knights against a lone King of his opponent... still he only got a half point anyway! Or even worse, in theory, one player could have this position: King in e1, Bishop in h1 and 6 Pawns from h2 to h7. (Black King in h8) Counting the value of pieces that would be a a +9 advantage, like a Queen more, but still it would be a draw. Another crazy scenario, more common, are those blocked positions were 16 pawns block the center (or more simply any fortress position) and not rarely it happens that a color has a huge material advantage but can't break through in any way. In this last case the player with material disadvantage could have found a genial idea to reach that blocked position, should his opponent with extra pieces still be given an advantage after the game?
Another important consideration is that this rule could discourage attacking players to play gambits or make sacrifices, as if the attack fails, their efforts to try to win would be punished! This last case would even increase the draw rate.
Probably Nickel didn't talk about giving a plus after games finished with advantage but still many pieces on board, anyway those positions (except the 16 Pawns one) could very well be played on until only one piece would be left.
After these examples we can see that there are so many different ways that a position with material advantage can be reached... but it's not always fair that the player with the advantage should be given a plus after the game. As a paradox, an advantage should be given to the opponent if he smartly managed to sacrifice one or more pieces in order to reach a draw endgame which he would have lost if he didn't give away material.
- Of course, the level of chess programs is for much in it. Do you feel that high level correspondence chess and centaur chess evolved much this year, or did it reach a kind of peak?
The level of correspondence chess increases in a parallel way as computers, databases and chess programs improve. Slowly everything keeps improving. Of course, due to the more thinking time, correspondence chess will always have a higher draw percentage than blitz games played by computers.
- Finally, what can you tell us about your correspondence chess path this year, particularly at ICCF where you're currently ranked #13?
On ICCF I am fighting with the Italian Team (I am playing in second board behind the World Champion Finocchiaro) in the 9th European Team Championship.
---> https://www.iccf.com/event?id=44123
Garvin Gray (2015-10-01 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 Ligon (2025-04-22 16:09:34)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
I have found a line for white that defeats the 15 million node strategy, so it's time for another strategy upgrade. Due to games in progress I won't specify the line now except to say that once again, it's in the Sicilian defense. Of course there may be other lines as well but one is enough.
Rather than up the node count, I will be moving on to Stockfish 17.1. Conveniently for my purposes, Stockfish 17.1 prefers to meet 1 e4 with e5 at all settings I have checked (1 million to 15 million nodes in 1 million node increments). So for now, my plan is to play Stockfish 17.1 at 10 million nodes in all upcoming games, while sticking with the strategy I started with in currently running games. Of course if I find a winning line for white against 17.1 @ 10 million I will update this.
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.
Herbert Kruse (2023-11-16 08:49:50)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations
Hamas strategy is to hide after civiliens, thats so obvious and you fall for it
Juri Eintalu (2023-11-16 23:40:31)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations
Herbert Kruse:
"you ignore, who is victim and who startet it"
I do not ignore anything, but it is you who ignores everything relevant:
1) You ignore the text of my Public Appeal and the arguments presented there, and I have already said that above.
2) You ignore the definitions of "war crime" and "genocide". Above, I have even inserted some links to international conventions.
3) You ignore my replies. Above, I just explained to you that war crime is a war crime, and genocide is a genocide independently of the previous history. Who started the war or whether the opponent committed some war crimes earlier is irrelevant.
4) You also ignore the history. The Israel/Palestine wars started already in 1948. On 09 April 1948, one radical Zionist group committed a massacre of Palestinians in the village of Deir Yassin.
5) You also ignore the documents concerning the current background. In the United Nations documentation, it is stated that the Gaza Strip is a territory occupied by Israel. There are other such territories. The UN documentation uses the phrase "Israel and occupied Palestinian territories".
"inhumnan war crimes by Hamas caused this"
It is more precise to say that Hamas's attack PROVOKED Israel's reaction.
"Hamas strategy is to hide after civiliens, thats so obvious and you fall for it"
I cannot speak with someone who arbitrarily ascribes to me some thoughts or attitudes I do not have.
The use of human shields by Hamas in no way justifies Israel's current massacres in the Gaza Strip.
Your argument is based on not knowing what is and what is not a war crime and what exactly is written in, e.g., the Genova Convention. It is also based on ignoring the text of my Public Appeal.
I cannot continue the discussion with you because you violate the most basic principles of meaningful discussion.
Thibault de Vassal (2023-11-17 20:52:46)
Battle of Kings
I understand your point of view. Indeed, it would be very tough to evaluate positions, but I think that pure calculation would be far enough to surpass human abilities there.
I agree that the bot is really weak :) After a second game, I realized that it had no strategy at all... and that the game is even more interesting!
Scott Ligon (2025-01-21 23:17:17)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
And now I have found a line that defeats Stockfish 17 at 10 million nodes, so that strategy is not safe to play as black. I won't post the line yet because I don't want to give away information that might be relevant for my opponents in games that are still running, but I intend to post it later.
I will continue to use the 10 million node strategy in the tournaments I had already started, but in my upcoming tournaments I will switch to the 15 million node version of this strategy, to test whether or not there's a line that defeats it. As mentioned in the first post, if Stockfish's recommended move gets to what appears to be a losing position, I will deviate from these strategies to try to avoid losing, and I will message my opponent to let them know this has happened. In my games so far, I have not deviated from the 10 million node strategy, unless it happened by mistake. But I'm not aware of any such mistakes.
Scott Ligon (2025-02-09 21:47:17)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
My remaining games where I'm using the 10 million node strategy as black have gone past the point where they could transpose into white's winning lines against the 10 million node strategy (at least the two winning lines that I managed to find), so I will post them now. I found both lines while analyzing games that have now finished.
Game 147097: Kruse vs Ligon
https://ficgs.com/game_147097.html
Due to a repetition, the position after black's move 22 in the game was the same as the position after black's move 20 in the following line where white wins.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. Re1 e5 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. a4 Nh6 8. d3 O-O 9. Be3 Qd6 10. Na3 f6 11. Nc4 Qe7 12. a5 Ng4 13. Bd2 Nh6 14. Qe2 Be6 15. h4 Ng4 16. Ra4 Rf7 17. Rb1 Bf8 18. h5 Qd7 19. b3 Re8 20. Re1 Rg7 21. Rb1 g5 22. Ne1 Nh6 23. Ne3 Qc8 24. g3 Bd6 25. N1g2 Bf8 26. f3 Qb8 27. Rba1 Nf7 28. Ng4 Qd8 29. Qf2 Nd6 30. Be3 b5 31. axb6 axb6 32. b4 Bxg4 33. fxg4 cxb4 34. Rxb4 b5 35. Rbb1 Qd7 36. Qf3 Rf7 37. Kh2 Rb8 38. Ba7 Rc8 39. Bf2 b4 40. Be1 c5 41. Ne3 Nb5 42. Nd5 Qc6 43. Bd2 Nc7 44. Ra7 c4 45. Rba1 Bc5 46. Nxb4 Bxb4 47. Bxb4 cxd3 48. cxd3 Rb8 49. Be1 Rb2+ 50. Bf2 Ne6 51. Ra8+ Rf8 52. Rxf8+ Nxf8 53. h6 Kf7 54. Kh3 Rb3 55. Ra2 Ke8 56. Ra7
Game 147106: Pineda vs Ligon
https://ficgs.com/game_147106.html
First 36 moves are the same as the following line where white wins. Black got the win only because white made a mistake in entering the final move, otherwise we were headed for a draw.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6. d3 a5 7. h3 b6 8. a3 Nf6 9. Qe2 O-O 10. Nc3 Ne8 11. e5 Nc7 12. Qe4 Ne6 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Qh4 f6 15. Be3 h6 16. Qg3 g5 17. h4 Qd8 18. Bd2 b5 19. b3 Kh7 20. Rac1 Kg8 21. Rcd1 Ra7 22. Rb1 Ra8 23. Rbc1 Ra7 24. Rcd1 Rb7 25. Bc1 Ra7 26. a4 b4 27. Ne2 Qe8 28. Bb2 Qf7 29. Nd2 Qh5 30. hxg5 fxg5 31. Qe3 Rd7 32. Nc4 Rdd8 33. Ng3 Qg6 34. Nxa5 h5 35. Qe4 Qe8 36. Ne2 h4 37. f3 Nd4 38. Rf1 Bf5 39. Qe3 Ne6 40. Bc1 Qg6 41. Nxc6 Rd7 42. Na5 Rf7 43. Rde1 Rd8 44. Nc4 Rdf8 45. Nb6 h3 46. Rf2 hxg2 47. Rxg2 Qh5 48. Rh2 Bh3 49. f4 g4 50. Qg3 Ng5 51. Rf1 Bxe5 52. Nd7 Bc7 53. Nxf8 Kxf8 54. Kh1 Qh6 55. Rff2
Scott Ligon (2025-02-15 22:20:35)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
What I'm calling the winning line is only winning if black is restricted to the strategy of Stockfish 17 using 10 million node searches, though by the end of the line it is also objectively winning. Some of black's responses when using this strategy are mistakes, otherwise white wouldn't have a winning line. 21... g5 might not be black's best response but the position should still be defensible at that point. It starts to get very bad after 27 Rba1 Nf7 which I think is black's fatal error or close to it. Prior to that black should still have some defense.
Scott Ligon (2025-02-16 09:39:42)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
I wouldn't draw that conclusion, but when I was looking at the 15 million node strategy as compared with 10 million nodes, I was happy to see that black switched from 2... Nc6 to 2... d6 in the Sicilian. Only because the 10 million node strategy lost in that line, so I wanted it to try something different. I would also have been happy with a switch from the Sicilian to 1 e4 e5.
It doesn't always stay with 2... d6 at higher node values either. At 19 million it goes to 2... e6 and at 20 million it's back to 2... Nc6.
Scott Ligon (2025-02-16 21:19:28)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
Since I only won because you made a mistake entering the last move, I will give you a return match at 10 million nodes. You can play it however you want but if we reach a position where I can see that the 10 million node strategy takes me into a losing position, I will take over at that point. Other than that one game, I'm officially retiring the 10 million node strategy since I already know that white can win against it.
Check the waiting lists. I think there's a tournament where I'm first on the list and there's one other player. If you enter third, I believe you would have white against me. I think that's how it works.
Scott Ligon (2025-02-17 04:20:15)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
Here are three lines I analyzed with Stockfish. I think black should be able to hold the draw in all of them, but the 10 million node strategy makes some mistakes. Notably 54. Qf3 Bd6 is bad and black should have played Bg3 there, but apparently not bad enough to lose unless further mistakes are made. Anyway these are the lines I looked at.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6. d3 a5 7. h3 b6 8. a3 Nf6 9. Qe2 O-O 10. Nc3 Ne8 11. e5 Nc7 12. Qe4 Ne6 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Qh4 f6 15. Be3 h6 16. Qg3 g5 17. h4 Qd8 18. Bd2 b5 19. b3 Kh7 20. Rac1 Kg8 21. Rcd1 Ra7 22. Rb1 Ra8 23. Rbc1 Ra7 24. Rcd1 Rb7 25. Bc1 Ra7 26. a4 b4 27. Ne2 Qe8 28. Bb2 Qf7 29. Nd2 Qh5 30. hxg5 fxg5 31. Qe3 Rd7 32. Nc4 Rdd8 33. Ng3 Qg6 34. Nxa5 h5 35. Qe4 Qe8 36. Ne2 h4 37. Rf1 Nf4 38. f3 Be6 39. Nxf4 Rxf4 40. Qe2 g4 41. Bc1 gxf3 42. Rxf3 Rg4 43. Rdf1 Rg6 44. Nc4 Bg4 45. Be3 Rd5 46. a5 Bxf3 47. Rxf3 Bxe5 48. Nb6 Rd8 49. a6 Re6 50. a7 Bc7 51. a8=Q Rxa8 52. Nxa8 Qxa8 53. Rf1 Qe8 54. Qf3 Bd6 55. Bg5 Kg7 56. Bxh4 Be5
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6. d3 a5 7. h3 b6 8. a3 Nf6 9. Qe2 O-O 10. Nc3 Ne8 11. e5 Nc7 12. Qe4 Ne6 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Qh4 f6 15. Be3 h6 16. Qg3 g5 17. h4 Qd8 18. Bd2 b5 19. b3 Kh7 20. Rac1 Kg8 21. Rcd1 Ra7 22. Rb1 Ra8 23. Rbc1 Ra7 24. Rcd1 Rb7 25. Bc1 Ra7 26. a4 b4 27. Ne2 Qe8 28. Bb2 Qf7 29. Nd2 Qh5 30. hxg5 fxg5 31. Qe3 Rd7 32. Nc4 Rdd8 33. Ng3 Qg6 34. Nxa5 h5 35. Qe4 Qe8 36. Ne2 h4 37. Rf1 Nf4 38. f3 Be6 39. Nxf4 Rxf4 40. Qe2 g4 41. Bc1 gxf3 42. Rxf3 Rg4 43. Rdf1 Rg6 44. Nc4 Bg4 45. Be3 Rd5 46. a5 Bxf3 47. Rxf3 Bxe5 48. Nb6 Rd8 49. a6 Re6 50. a7 Bc7 51. a8=Q Rxa8 52. Nxa8 Qxa8 53. Rf1 Qe8 54. Qf3 Bd6 55. Bg5 Kg7 56. Qf5 Re5 57. Qf4 Re6
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6. d3 a5 7. h3 b6 8. a3 Nf6 9. Qe2 O-O 10. Nc3 Ne8 11. e5 Nc7 12. Qe4 Ne6 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Qh4 f6 15. Be3 h6 16. Qg3 g5 17. h4 Qd8 18. Bd2 b5 19. b3 Kh7 20. Rac1 Kg8 21. Rcd1 Ra7 22. Rb1 Ra8 23. Rbc1 Ra7 24. Rcd1 Rb7 25. Bc1 Ra7 26. a4 b4 27. Ne2 Qe8 28. Bb2 Qf7 29. Nd2 Qh5 30. hxg5 fxg5 31. Qe3 Rd7 32. Nc4 Rdd8 33. Ng3 Qg6 34. Nxa5 h5 35. Qe4 Qe8 36. Ne2 h4 37. Rf1 Nf4 38. f3 Be6 39. Nxf4 Rxf4 40. Qe2 g4 41. Bc1 gxf3 42. Rxf3 Rg4 43. Rdf1 Rg6 44. Nc4 Bg4 45. Be3 Rd5 46. a5 Bxf3 47. Rxf3 Bxe5 48. Nb6 Rd8 49. a6 Re6 50. a7 Bc7 51. a8=Q Rxa8 52. Nxa8 Qxa8 53. Rf1 Qe8 54. Qf3 Bd6 55. Qf5 Rf6 56. Qg5+ Kh7 57. Qxh4+ Kg7
Scott Ligon (2025-03-04 16:30:48)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
So the current state of the experiment is that white can defeat the 10 million node strategy, and so far I haven't seen a way for white to win against the 15 million node strategy. Somebody might find a win for white, it just hasn't happened yet.
I already mentioned that if this strategy leads me to a losing position and I notice this in time, I will intervene and stop playing the strategy to try to avoid losing. I will add another exception. If I reach a position that is winning or close to it, I will intervene to try to play for the win, because of course these fixed node strategies don't always find the best move. This has already happened in at least one of my games but I wanted to make my policy clear. I'm using a deterministic strategy as a sort of autopilot mode, but if I get close to winning or losing, I'll turn off the autopilot. This is rare though. Most of the time neither side gets a decisive advantage and I'll stay on autopilot and the game will end in a draw.
Scott Ligon (2025-03-29 15:42:08)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
I played one last game using the 10 million node strategy against Pineda. The game ended in a draw, but I had to deviate from the 10 million node strategy at the end to avoid losing. I thought the finish was interesting.
https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=147951
The key position came after black's 56th move, and up to that point with black I am just following the 10 million node strategy. These are the moves:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6. d3 a5 7. h3 b6 8. a3 Nf6 9. Qe2 O-O 10. Nc3 Ne8 11. e5 Nc7 12. Qe4 Ne6 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Qh4 f6 15. Be3 h6 16. Qg3 g5 17. h4 Qd8 18. Bd2 b5 19. b3 Kh7 20. Rac1 Kg8 21. Rcd1 Ra7 22. Rb1 Ra8 23. Rbc1 Ra7 24. Rcd1 Rb7 25. Bc1 Ra7 26. a4 b4 27. Ne2 Qe8 28. Bb2 Qf7 29. Nd2 Qh5 30. hxg5 fxg5 31. Qe3 Rd7 32. Nc4 Rdd8 33. Ng3 Qg6 34. Nxa5 h5 35. Qe4 Qe8 36. Ne2 h4 37. Rf1 Nf4 38. f3 Be6 39. Nxf4 Rxf4 40. Qe2 g4 41. Bc1 gxf3 42. Rxf3 Rg4 43. Rdf1 Rg6 44. Nc4 Bg4 45. Be3 Rd5 46. a5 Bxf3 47. Rxf3 Bxe5 48. Nb6 Rd8 49. a6 Re6 50. a7 Bc7 51. a8=Q Rxa8 52. Nxa8 Qxa8 53. Rf1 Qe8 54. Qf3 Bd6 55. Bg5 Kg7 56. Bxh4 Be5
I ran a width 6 / depth 55 search with Stockfish 17 on the position after black's 56th move, and the top 5 moves for white along with their eval scores were:
57. Re1
+ (0.39)
57. Qf5
+ (0.37)
57. Qg4+
+ (0.32)
57. Bg3
+ (0.25)
57. Qh3
+ (0.01)
Based on that, you might think white should only consider the top 4 moves. But if we look at this from the point of view of exploiting the 10 million node strategy, here are the evaluations of those top 5 moves after the 10 million node strategy response:
57. Re1 Bd4+
+ (0.52)
57. Qf5 Bd4+
+ (0.54)
57. Qg4+ Qg6
+ (0.42)
57. Bg3 Bc3
+ (0.27)
57. Qh3 Rg6
+ (1.65)
So presumably using that logic, my opponent played Qh3 where the 10 million node strategy would require me to respond with Rg6, which loses the game. Qh3 doesn't stand out at all unless you're trying to exploit the 10 million node strategy. The actual game ended with 57. Qh3 Bd4+ and we agreed to a draw.
Ulises Pineda (2025-03-29 17:10:11)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
What I don't get is, what are your other opponents doing? I mean, it took some time, but at all points I had a line that I knew would beat the 10 million strategy if they were followed through, this is an opportunity to always get ponder hits because one always knows what move will be played in all positions.
Are those people aware that the fixed node strategy will lead to a draw, and they play it anyway? That's too weird to me.
I'm confident in a future game against the 15 million node strategy I would find another such line and play it out, just to retire it, but I wouldn't make any moves in the game until I had it, I don't know what those players that know all moves played would lead to a draw are doing.
Scott Ligon (2025-03-29 18:03:58)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
I think there's a decent chance that the 15 million node strategy is unbeatable, but I can't say what that chance is. Maybe I overestimate it. I have spent considerable time looking for a winning line for white and I haven't been able to find one. But, I had that same opinion about the 10 million node strategy before I found evidence in my games that it loses. Specifically games in the Sicilian. I haven't found any other winning lines for white.
As for my opponents, I think mostly they enter tournaments and play their usual game. I'm just another opponent. My focus is on the experiment I'm running, but I wouldn't assume everyone else is focused on it. But if anyone cares to prove that the 15 million node strategy is beatable, exploitive play is clearly the way to go about it. This most recent game shows that even a move that fails to give white an objective advantage could still merit consideration as a possible exploit against the fixed node strategy.
Ulises Pineda (2025-03-29 18:12:32)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
A more interesting question is how to defeat YOU. I figure it'd require playing into a position where the 15 million node strategy blunders but where Stockfish 17 at high depth does not notice it so you play the losing move instead of taking over the game.
Of course such a discussion would be against your interests and against mine in a future conflict, but I'm looking forward to it.
Scott Ligon (2025-04-23 02:27:39)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
At this point all of my games are safely past the point where they could transpose into the winning line I found against the Stockfish 17 @ 15 million nodes strategy, so I will post it now. At the end of the line Stockfish found mate in 15 for white.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 h6 8. Bh4 Be7 9. Qf3 Nbd7 10. O-O-O Qc7 11. Bd3 g5 12. fxg5 Ne5 13. Qe2 Nfg4 14. Bg3 hxg5 15. Kb1 b5 16. Rdf1 Bb7 17. a3 Nf6 18. Nf3 Nh5 19. Bxe5 dxe5 20. g3 f6 21. Na2 Bc6 22. Nc1 b4 23. axb4 Bxb4 24. c3 Be7 25. Nd2 a5 26. Bc4 Bd7 27. Rfg1 Kf7 28. Rg2 Rag8 29. Nd3 Bc5 30. Rd1 Ba7 31. Qg4 Ke7 32. Bb3 a4 33. Ba2 Ng7 34. Nc4 Be8 35. Qe2 a3 36. Nxa3 Ba4 37. Rf1 Bc6 38. Qg4 Rd8 39. Bc4 Be8 40. Qf3 Rf8 41. g4 Bg6 42. b3 Bb8 43. h4 gxh4 44. Kb2 Ne8 45. g5 f5 46. Qh3 Qc6 47. Re2 Ng7 48. Qxh4 f4 49. Nb4 Qb6 50. Bb5 Rh8 51. Nc6+ Qxc6 52. Qxh8 Qxc3+ 53. Kxc3 Rxh8 54. Rd2 Rc8+ 55. Kb2 Kf7 56. Rfd1 Bxe4 57. Rd8 Rxd8 58. Rxd8 Kg6 59. Rxb8 Kxg5 60. Nc4 Nf5 61. Nxe5 Nd6 62. Rb6 Kf6 63. Rxd6 Kxe5 64. Rd7 Bg2 65. Kc3 Be4 66. b4 Ba8 67. Bc4 f3 68. b5
Scott Ligon (2025-04-23 15:21:53)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
My goal is to find the minimal setting where Stockfish can't be beaten, or close to the minimal setting anyway. The title of the thread shows my point of view on this issue. I think currently available versions of Stockfish with relatively modest computing power are already good enough to be unbeatable, regardless of how much money an opponent is being offered or how many supercomputers and grandmasters they have at their disposal when devising a strategy. From the starting position of a game of chess, it simply isn't that hard for modern engines to hold the draw with black. The draw rate on this very site is evidence.
I could make the task easier by generating a small opening book to keep Stockfish out of trouble in the opening, so in the case of Stockfish 17 @ 15 million nodes it might be good enough to simply dictate that it play e5 in response to e4 (I don't know if that specific example is true but it might be - I never found any trouble spots for that strategy with black outside of the Sicilian). But I want to do this with no opening book and also no access to endgame tablebases, just the engine's recommendation using a set number of nodes for the search. The settings I've tried so far fell short, but I think they weren't far off, so I'm taking only small steps forward. Stockfish 17.1 @ 10 million nodes seems like a good next step to me. If somebody finds a winning line against it, then I'll take the next step, either increasing the node count or if enough time has passed I'll move on to the next version of Stockfish.
Scott Ligon (2025-04-24 16:36:24)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
Yeah you found a line that beat the 10 million node strategy which I hadn't analyzed. Congratulations! I'm not interested in arguing with you about the next strategy I choose to play. You might find a winning line against Stockfish 17.1 @ 10 million nodes, or maybe I'll find it first, or somebody else will. Or maybe nobody will find it because it doesn't exist (this is the possibility you completely discount). I've got nothing more to say to you and I can't imagine how many stupid fights you probably pick with people for no good reason in your day to day life, but your attitude is hilarious.
Scott Ligon (2025-05-01 04:14:23)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
After the harsh words of my previous post, I must now give Pineda some credit. He did exactly what he said he was going to do against Stockfish 17.1 @ 10 million nodes so now I can't use that strategy in any of my future games, it is retired. Since none of my opponents in the games I have running now with this strategy are playing the same opening that Pineda used (the Italian Game), I can post a winning line for white immediately. Our game followed the first 43 moves of this line, and as black I had to deviate from this strategy on move 43 to avoid certain defeat. So here is a winning line for white against Stockfish 17.1 @ 10 million nodes. At the end of the line, Stockfish found mate in 22.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. c3 a6 6. O-O d6 7. a4 O-O 8. b4 Ba7 9. Re1 Ne7 10. Nbd2 Be6 11. Bxe6 fxe6 12. Ra2 Ng6 13. h3 Qe8 14. Nf1 h6 15. N1h2 a5 16. b5 Bc5 17. Bd2 Rd8 18. Qb3 Qf7 19. g3 d5 20. Kg2 b6 21. Bc1 Rc8 22. exd5 Nxd5 23. h4 Bd6 24. h5 Nge7 25. Nxe5 Qxh5 26. Nef3 c5 27. c4 Nb4 28. Rd2 Ng6 29. Qd1 Nf4+ 30. Kh1 Rcd8 31. Re3 Qh3 32. Ne1 Ng6 33. Qe2 Ne7 34. Nf3 Bxg3 35. fxg3 Nf5 36. Qf2 Nxg3+ 37. Kg1 Nf5 38. Bb2 Rf7 39. Bc3 Nxe3 40. Qxe3 Qg3+ 41. Kh1 Qh3 42. Qe4 Qf5 43. Qxf5 exf5 44. Ne5 Rf6 45. Nhf3 g5 46. d4 cxd4 47. Rxd4 Rfd6 48. Rxd6 Rxd6 49. Bxb4 Rd1+ 50. Kg2 axb4 51. c5 b3 52. Nc4 bxc5 53. b6 g4 54. b7 gxf3+ 55. Kxf3
Scott Ligon (2025-06-14 02:43:46)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
While analyzing the game I'm currently playing as black against Pineda, I found a winning line for white against Stockfish 17.1 @ 20 million nodes. It follows the first 41 moves of that game, and white made a different 42nd move. Which may also lead to a winning line for all I know, but I will just post the one I found. At the end of this line Stockfish found mate in 23.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. c3 d6 6. O-O a6 7. a4 O-O 8. b4 Ba7 9. Re1 Ne7 10. Nbd2 Be6 11. Bxe6 fxe6 12. Nf1 Ng6 13. h3 h6 14. N1h2 Qe8 15. Ra2 a5 16. b5 Bc5 17. Bd2 Rd8 18. Qb3 Qf7 19. g3 d5 20. Kg2 b6 21. Bc1 Bd6 22. Rae2 Bc5 23. Rc2 Rde8 24. Ra2 Bd6 25. Ba3 Rc8 26. c4 Kh7 27. Raa1 Kg8 28. Bb2 c6 29. Rac1 Bb4 30. Re2 d4 31. h4 Qc7 32. bxc6 Bc5 33. Rg1 Rf7 34. Qd1 Qxc6 35. Bc1 Rcf8 36. Rf1 Qd6 37. Rd2 Qc7 38. Ra2 Bb4 39. Rc2 Qb7 40. Rb2 Qd7 41. Bd2 Bc5 42. Qe2 Qc6 43. Rbb1 Nd7 44. h5 Nh8 45. Rb5 Bd6 46. Qd1 Qc7 47. Nh4 Nc5 48. Ng6 Nxg6 49. hxg6 Rf6 50. Qh5 Nxd3 51. Ng4 Qc6 52. Kg1 Qxe4 53. Nxf6+ Rxf6 54. Rxb6 Bf8 55. f3 Qe2 56. Qh2 Qxh2+ 57. Kxh2 e4 58. Bxa5 e3 59. Kg2 Ne5 60. c5 Rxg6 61. c6 Bd6 62. Bb4 Bc7 63. f4 e2 64. Rb1 Bxb6 65. fxe5 d3 66. a5 Rg4 67. Be1 Bxa5 68. Bxa5 Rc4 69. Rb6 Rc5 70. Bb4 Rc4 71. Kf2 Kf7 72. Rb7+ Ke8 73. Re7+ Kd8 74. c7+ Rxc7 75. Rxc7 Kxc7 76. Ke3 Kc6 77. Kxd3 e1=Q 78. Bxe1 Kd5 79. Bc3 Kc5 80. Ke4
Therefore I will be retiring the Stockfish 17.1 @ 20 million nodes strategy. For future games I will be using Stockfish 17.1 @ 50 million nodes.
Scott Ligon (2025-07-05 18:11:53)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
For anyone looking for a quick draw with black against the 17.1 @ 50 million nodes strategy, I recommend the following line:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 Ng4 7. Bc1 Nf6
A repeat of the position after move 5, and since white's strategy is deterministic it is going to keep repeating. So as long as I'm on the 17.1 @ 50 million nodes strategy, play this line as black and you'll get a draw.
Scott Ligon (2025-07-08 12:59:43)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
You might still find a winning line as the game progresses. But if you think you have better things to do with your time than trying to refute these strategies, I won't disagree. And you're right, if you refute 17.1 @ 50 million nodes, I'll just double the node count next time.
The whole point of the exercise from my point of view is to find an unbeatable deterministic strategy, keeping node count to a minimum. With Stockfish 17.1, 20 million nodes didn't get the job done and 50 million might, I just don't know yet. Either way, I'm confident that unbeatable configurations exist, and I don't think they're far off if I haven't found one already.
Yeturu Aahlad (2025-11-25 23:27:25)
Poker ELO
Proposal: re-examine Poker ELO
Why? ELO is a heuristic designed for full information games involving no element of chance. In that space, it has stood the test of time. For games incorporating an element of chance, such as Poker, it is not ideal. As a data point, my evidence from FICGS is that a Poker player who goes all-in on every hand converges to an ELO of slightly over 2000. My last observation is from a long time ago, and one of these players (the much better one) has abandoned this strategy since then. There are many earnest players who deserve to out-rank such a simplistic strategy but don't.
Action: This subject has been studied, and the emerging recommendation is a simple change to the heuristic for games which incorporate elements of chance.
Research: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZXdehn029SaV6a5mxsn7WAMsxYNZPGHzZHKiBbeaxrw/edit?usp=sharing
There are 5 results for strategy in wikichess.
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)
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
Larry Wolfley (2133)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 b5 cxb5 a6 b6
White declines the gambit pawn. One strategy for White against routine development by Black (i.e. d6/g6/Bg7); is to maneuver the King knight to c4, bishop to f4 and prepare e5.
============
Contributors : Larry Wolfley
Telmo Escobar (2107)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 f3 O-O Qd2 Nc6 Bc4 Bd7 O-O-O Rc8 Bb3 Ne5 Kb1 Nc4 Bxc4 Rxc4 g4 b5 b3
Refutation of the whole of Black strategy?
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Graham Cridland (1406)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Be7 Qf3 Qc7 O-O-O Nbd7 g4 b5 Bxf6 Nxf6 g5 Nd7 f5 Bxg5+
The currently approved method. This strategy isn't always enjoyable for Black, as there is no way to maintain the central light squares, and White gets the g-file for his king's rook.
============
Contributors : Graham Cridland
FICGS : strategy , Wikipedia : strategy , Dmoz : strategy , Google : strategy , Yahoo : strategy
The stomach is an essential part of the Chess master. (Bent Larsen)
A bad day of Chess is better than any good day at work. (Anonymous)
The laws of Chess do not permit a free choice: you have to move whether you like it or not. (Emanuel Lasker)
Back to FICGS , Wikichess