territory
FICGS - Search results for territory
There are 21 results for territory in the forum.
Lionel Vidal (2006-05-31 21:15:10)
Weiqi komi
Hello,
Thanks for that link: it is indeed a good reading. I would suggest also to read the chapter on the rules of Go in 'The go player's almanac' (Bozulich 2001), that gives much more details.
By reading these, you can see that half a point komi is indeed quite uncommon :-)
But an important point is that it should probably depend on the chosen rule, or more precisely on the counting mode, area or territory.
BTW, what is the counting rules here in FICGS ?
Note that this rule question may be quite critical on some life-and-death situation and may change the result of a game! And some of the simplest cases (like bent four in the corner) can arise not too uncommonly.
Lionel
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-02 12:24:54)
Weiqi : FICGS rules
Thanks for your explanations Lionel. (forum bug is fixed)
I've changed the rules. I would like some opinions before I announce it :
First, now you can pass, just entering 'pass'... Special rules in FICGS are : Suicide of more than one stone is authorized, and infinite repetition means a win (full point) for White. Both players must play until one resign, both players pass (then call referee) or game is adjudicated. Scoring method is area scoring with chinese counting. Eyes in seki count as territory.
Thanks in advance !
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-02 16:28:11)
Go rules
It's me again :-)
What is the point of the special cases you chose? Why not simply follow the chinese rule? I reread it yesterday and
compared to what you say:
- reappearance of the same board position is forbidden (note that should be easy to check by computer with hash keys associated to positions)
- Seki is not really a special case in chinese rule (it is only in territory scoring): you count stones and enclosed vacant points; others vacant points are share equally.
- Winner is determined by comparing one's score to 180 1/2 (half number of points of the board).
- Komi: 2 3/4 points are deducted from black's score and added to white's.
- After both sides have agreed to end the game (that is after a double pass), if any unsettled positions remain on the board, both sides' stones are treated as alive (that is neat and solve most drawing problems)
- Basically a player that makes an illegal move loses his turn (i.e. in effect passes): that includes repeating the same position (why should white win in such a case?).
That sounds much cleaner IMO.
The only possible draw may be some very complex round robin kos, where the position keeps changing, but I guess we can forget it (and it should eventually been resoved by double pass anyway, even if one side is unhappy: see the preceding neat point).
BTW you can probably find the full text on the Web (I have only a paper version from the 1988 official rules of Chinese Weiqi Association).
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-21 16:17:50)
Chinese counting
Hello Lazaro !
Maybe I did not understand some things yet :) .. It seems to me, as we use Chinese rules with Chinese counting, that the numbers of prisoners is completely useless... It is a question of territory (you may use the Go scorer - link Score - before to play your moves to evaluate the board), right ?
Best regards.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-30 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 well 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 its 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.
Mikhail Ruzin (2007-05-30 13:08:42)
White win the game
Hi Phil.
And what is question about game 9752?
White win the game. Its clear.
There are not any groups with unknown (questionable) status.
Use MultiGo (for example) to count result of game. (M19 stil not defended)
"Chinese Rule:
White: 191.25 = 186 (Points) + 3 (Shared) / 2 + 7.5 (Komi) / 2
Black: 169.75 = 172 (Points) + 3 (Shared) / 2 - 7.5 (Komi) / 2
W + 10.75
Japanese Rule:
White: 119.5 = 100 (Territory) + 12 (Black's Dead) + 7.5 (Komi)
Black: 98 = 98 (Territory) + 0 (White's Dead)
W + 21.5"
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-06 20:03:40)
Prisoners
Actually there is no need to see the prisoners (chinese counting is used - territory is all). Is it important ?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-28 03:35:14)
Svante Carl wins FICGS Go WCH (again)
Congratulations to Svante Carl von Erichsen who keeps the FICGS Go champion title by beating Ke Lu 5d on an impressive 5-0 score, also reaching a rating of 2653 !
A rematch just started between our two top Go players, as Ke Lu convincingly won the 3rd FICGS Go WCH preliminary tournament by 7/7
You can follow the games here :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000003
Svante Carl kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match :
FICGS - Hello Svante Carl, first of all congratulations for your win in the FICGS
correspondence Go championship final. Your opponent was Ke Lu 5 dan, you
won 4 games out of 5 already (the last game is not finished yet), how do
you explain such a result?
Svante Carl -
Hello! Thank you very much! It is certainly astonishing for me that I
was able to hold my own in these games. I believe that the main factor
that helped me in getting on even terms with such a strong player was
that I could spend much more time analyzing each move than in a
face-to-face or online direct playing situation.
FICGS - Did you have a particular preparation or plan before to start the games?
Svante Carl - The only things I planned beforehand was to really give my best, and to
make the games as distinct as possible.
FICGS - The site will now try to attract more correspondence Go players from Asia
(with a few chinese, japanese or korean words on the home page already),
what do you think about the games format played at FICGS
(30 days + 1 day / move, chinese rules komi 7.5 points) and the championship rules?
Svante Carl - I like the format. I am also interested in the rules of Go as well as
the rules that surround Go, like tournament rules and time settings.
My current conviction is that the "real, pure" Go rules are area rules
with superko, and territory rules should be seen as a shortcut which
should give the same result. I have come to think that the "Taiwan
rule", i.e. White gets a point of compensation if Black got the last
play (before the first pass), is a sensible part of the rules. FICGS
has taken a very easy route by declaring the rule set and leaving
negotiation of the result to the players. While in the end, it is only
important who won, I think that showing a result as e.g. "White+3",
"Black+Resign" adds a lot of flavour.
As a time system, I think that bonus time (a.k.a. Fischer time), like on
FICGS, is a very general and sensible approach to timing a game like Go.
I think that many "real-world" tournaments and internet servers will
switch to that in the future, for all, blitz, speed, normal, slow, and
correspondence games.
The championship format is quite nice. I like the title
holder/challenger way of tournament series. The only thing I would like
to see is some sort of nigiri to determine the colours in the odd game.
Attracting players from Asia is really a worthwhile goal. I look
forward to playing players from all over the world.
FICGS - Does correspondence Go bring you something more than real time Go?
What is more addictive according to you?
Svante Carl - Since I think that analyzing is a forte of mine, I might be a bit
stronger at correspondence Go than at "real time" Go. I don't think
that one is more addictive than the other.
FICGS - Do you often play real time Go online? What servers do you prefer?
Svante Carl - I usually play on KGS, but not too much, perhaps one or two games per
week on average, often in "bursts". KGS is quite nice, but not perfect.
Sometimes I play at CyberOro, but there is much less communication; I
like to watch pro games there.
FICGS - Do you use softwares that assist you in your games (FICGS rules allow
this)? What do you think about computer Go in general nowadays?
Svante Carl - I only use a board or a simple SGF file viewer for analyzing. There are
no playing programs that could help me. The programs have advanced
quite much recently, but I think that it will still be a long time
before they can beat me in an even game. Currently, most tests of these
programs are against professional players with high handicaps, and I
think that this is a good situation for the bots, since they get
exponentially weaker the further the game is from the end -- high
handicap practically eliminates the opening, their weakest spot. I
would like to see more tests against amateur players at the bots' own level.
FICGS - Do you play other games (board games, video games...), what is your
favourite one?
Svante Carl - Go is certainly my absolute favourite. I also know chess, although I am
really weak at that. I also like "german board games", there are some
really nice pearls there. In video games, well, there are also some
pearls, but they get drowned by a mass of ... not so good games..., I
don't waste time looking at that scene any more. I also played some
online poker, but it wasn't able to keep me interested.
FICGS - Will you defend your title again against Ke Lu who also won
the 3rd wch tournament?
Svante Carl - Of course, I am looking forward to that!
FICGS - Could you give us your impressions on the games, how it
went from the beginning to the end, do you think that
time pressure were a non-negligible factor in the result
(the clocks of Ke Lu were quickly near 1 or 2 days left)?
Svante Carl - I was a bit surprised that he let his time drop to such a low level
right at the beginning, perhaps he was not familiar yet with the vacancy
feature at FICGS. I can't see his reasons for this, or how much time he
actually could spend on his games. I was ahead in each game when it
timed out, though.
I think that game 2 was quite even from the start. The skirmish in the
lower left resulted in me capturing a little group, but he got a nice
framework on the lower side. My prospects of reducing this were a bit
hampered by the fact that my right side group was not completely
settled. I found a way to sacrifice some stones to settle my group
while fixing the framework's extent and keeping sente to secure my top
side, at which time, the game was still almost even, but I think that I
was a few points ahead then. Later, I could seal the top side with some
extra points through some rather blunt forcing moves.
In game 3, my opponent made an approach with White 24 that is usually
regarded as bad in this situation, because the pincer Black 25 works out
very well in conjunction with the stone on the left side. He tried to
settle with White 26, but I refused to make things so easy, even though
the result from the usual joseki would not have been bad. He resisted
Black 27, but I think that White 28 is an overplay. The resulting fight
left me with nice profit in that corner and sente, while he made some
centre thickness. I then tried to carefully neutralize this thickness,
but I may have played some slack moves in the course. Later, I was able
to keep a little moyo in the lower right centre, and then I poked into
his right-side territory where he had left a serious weakness earlier.
Game 1 started out with an interesting fight in the upper right. After
White 42, both the three captured black and the two almost captured
white stones retain some serious aji, which I came back to fix on my
side a few moves later. When I could set up a splitting attack with
Black 77, he was able to connect his two weak groups, but in bad shape.
I continued to keep this dragon separated from the top, planning to
invade the top side afterwards. However, with White 110, instead of
connecting by playing B6, he saved some centre stones, and I proceeded
to separate and kill the dragon. He may have overlooked that my upper
left side group was still able to live after 110 and 111.
In game 4, after White 22, Black's stones on the left side have a
strange relation. The three stones in the corner are a bit far from
C10, but putting another move here is way too slow. He tried to remedy
this situation with the following moves. After Black 27, there are
weaknesses left in both sides' shape. When I entered with White 32, I
thought that his weakness at F13 would let me settle easily, but he
attacked very hard. After White 60, there are some weaknesses in my
shape, but he also has a weakish group in the centre. Playing at K10
with White 76 before taking the two stones with H2 felt very important
to me. At move 94, I couldn't find a good move to complete my moyo at
the top, but I thought that I had found a good point to invade. This
was much harder than I thought, since after Black 95, the 3-3 point
fails to live. With 96 and 98, I thought that I would get a ko, but he
played a line that I had excluded earlier on account of too many cuts in
Black's outside shape. However, with Black 107, he made things very
difficult for me, since cutting at P16 doesn't work out too well -- my
inside group doesn't have enough liberties. I cut at Q14 instead with
the hope to at least get some outside forcing opportunities that might
have been able to keep me in the game. I think that Black 115 should
have been at R12, because after White 116, R12 and N16 have become miai.
Black 117 just doesn't work at all. I really got lucky in the end here.
These impressions are naturally one-sided, and I would be really
interested what stronger players might say about these games.
FICGS - Thank you very much and have good games !
Svante Carl - Thank you!
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-04 00:23:27)
On chess openings...
That's an interesting point of view, for sure. My opinion is that this point (e4 vs. d4 and others) quite looks like the openings in the game of Go !
When improving one's play at Go, one change of mind on the complete theory of the game very often... will I play "territory" or will I play "influence", and how... every thing one learn at Go may change one's mind about this because one must manage territory and influence at the same time.
I changed my mind several times about e4 and d4 these last years, in my opinion if a player still change his mind, it may only mean he just improved his play... again :)
Most of us will probably change our mind again & again... fortunately !
Normajean Yates (2009-06-15 00:47:48)
Wilhelm, there is a rating bar...
There is a rating bar [relative to the last modifier] So I am not allowed to contribute to many lines either! And it makes eminent sense! I *don't* want to be allowed to erase a 2600+'s opinion and substitute mine!
But uncharted territory is always open - just try: you *can* contribute in uncharted territory! That is, you an always create a new wikichess entry. And the *creator* of an entry can always modify it later: creators are exempted from the rating bar.
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.
Svante Carl von Erichsen (2010-01-29 23:03:44)
Go chinese rules: should pass count?
Lazaro Munoz, the pass stones do not "penalize" anyone, they just make the score of AGA territory scoring always equal to the score of AGA area scoring. Under area scoring, failing to occupy even a "neutral" point instead of passing costs a point (unless no neutrals or an even count of neutrals is left), and this has to be reflected in the territory scoring. AGA rules thus have two exactly equivalent scoring methods.
A better explanation might be this: Under area scoring, each move is worth exactly one point more than under territory scoring, viz. the point that it occupies. Under the assumption that both players make the same number of moves (that is the reason for the rule that White always has to move last), this precisely cancels out. Since a pass is worth 0 points under area scoring, it has to be -1 points under territory scoring, which is represented by the pass stone.
Svante Carl von Erichsen (2010-02-03 18:25:37)
Go chinese rules: should pass count?
Pass stones are irrelevant for area counting, so I think that you should not even mention them. It would only cause confusion.
Pass stones and last move compensation are methods to reconcile area and territory scoring. Last move compensation has another merit: in area scoring, the usually possible results always differ by two points, because when a point changes ownership, it is a loss of one point for one and a gain of one point for the other player. Last move compensation "sharpens" the possible results, and makes scoring very similar to territory scoring.
However, this also is not necessary, so, at least as long as you don't fully understand this yourself, I would advise to keep simple area scoring and not mention anything else.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-17 00:29:38)
Svante Carl von Erichsen on Go WCH #4
As you probably read in the news, Svante Carl von Erichsen won the 4th FICGS Go WCH, beating his challenger Huayong Yang 3-2, Svante Carl wins the Go championship for the 4th time in a row!
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000004
Svante Carl kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match & computer Go:
FICGS - Hello Svante Carl, congratulations once again for winning
this match against a surprising challenger who started here a few
months ago with a 10 kyu rank, Huayong Yang, now rated 2438 after
scoring 2 points in your 5 games match (which is a great achievement
for sure). What did you think about his play & yours in these games?
Svante Carl - I think that he greatly underestimated his rank initially. As far as
I know, he had not played for a long time and believed that his
ability had therefore deteriorated. I do not think that you can drop
more than one or at most two stones, though -- it is like cycling or
swimming, you never unlearn it. I had the impression that we were
quite evenly matched in summa, but our strengths are in different
aspects of the game; I cannot really put my finger on the difference,
though.
FICGS - After a previous win, you said that you spend a quite long
time to analyze, which probably helps you to reach a higher level
than 2 dan (your EGF rating) compared to OTB play... It looks
obvious to me that correspondence chess moves generally ask for much
more time than Go moves at a high level but I may be wrong, how much
time did you spend on your longest analysis during the match? Do
you remember for which move?
Svante Carl - I usually spend at least a few minutes on each move, except when the
continuation is obvious. I often use more, and if I do not find a
satisfactory move then, I will even postpone the move to another
day, so that I can sleep over it and let my subconcious work on it.
FICGS - Do you watch other games played by your future opponent
before starting your match? Do you think that this is really important
in preparation like it can be in Correspondence chess?
Svante Carl - I sometimes glance over the games in the championship qualification tournament, but I do not try to prepare this way. I do not think that such preparation has any value in Go, especially in correspondence Go,
since you have time during the game to do deep analysis. I usually
try to take each game out of standard fuseki patterns pretty quickly,
anyway. Of course, I know that my opponents in these title matches
are always very tough and demand my utmost respect.
FICGS - Do you still follow the recent developments in computer Go?
What do you think about the latest Go engines? How much time do we
have yet before the best Go players are caught by computers according to you?
Svante Carl - I have the impression that the currently most promising technology
(Monte Carlo/UCT) has the potential to achieve a rank of about 2 or 3
dan (EGF/KGS). I think that the next fundamentally new idea or
breakthrough might add 2 stones, to get to 4 or 5 dan. I do not have
any idea where it might go from that, but I think that it gets always
harder.
What I would find interesting is having more intermediate board sizes.
The best bots are almost on par with the best professionals on 9x9
now. I would propose to try to achieve a similar level on 11x11, then
13x13, then 15x15 etc.. Regarding 9x9, I think that the currently
predominant komi of 7.5 points is too big, and that this has a
negative impact on the experiments because the bots do not play in a
balanced environment. It might be worthwhile to introduce the Taiwan
rule (last move compensation) to get more fine-grained scores.
FICGS - What programs did you use this year to analyze? (just trying, of course it may be part of your secrets ;))
Svante Carl - It is not a secret. I just use an editor, usually EidoGo or CGoban3, to visualize the variations I imagine.
FICGS - Finally, what thoughts would you like to share on your 5
games, that could help us not to miss the best times or to help us to understand the most complex moves...
Svante Carl - I cannot give a detailed commentary, but I can try to summarize my impressions.
I think that Game 5 was quite balanced until move 21, but I think that
the white invasion was a bit ambitious then. Of course, White did not
need to die there, but after moves 32-33 I think that Black had a good
result anyway (move 32 should go out faster in my opinion; note how
E14 helps Black in enclosing White).
In Game 3, I think things got quite difficult for White in the lower
left, but I let him take the initiative by backing off at move 35 (I
should have simply closed off F10 then). White gained control of the
centre as a result, and in the large endgame, I lost too many points there.
In Game 4, I fell behind in the opening through some slow moves (there
was some discussion on the Life-in-19x19 forum about this, see the
link in the comments of that game). In the endgame, Black then lost some points in the centre, so that I was a bit ahead when the game timed out.
In Game 1, I made some bad decisions on the left side, and never
managed to turn things around. I think I was behind by about 5 points in the end.
In Game 2, I think that Black should not have ignored move 24. After
I got quite some territory from my moyo and also reduced his top side, I could play it safe.
I look forward to the games with Olivier Drouot that recently started,
but I also hope that Yang Huayong will re-enter the championship cycle.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-12 04:18:32)
WBCCC Round 1 Update
This is the first update for the WBCCC, I guess some of you have been following some of the games there. There have been a lot of interesting games and some surprises a lot the way. As I'm reporting on the FICGS forum I will make most of this about the FICGS side. Here are some results so far and starting at the top boards.
B2 Uly(Vytron) vs Gino Figlio- Gino does a good job of defending a ..2.e6 line of the Sicilian. And both players agree to a draw after 34 moves.
B4 Daniel Parmet vs Sebastian Boehme- This was a Poison Pawn line of the Sicilian. The game ended before it even got out of book. A short draw, I think both people agreed that it was a good result for each player.
B6- Matt O'Brein vs Omprakash- A surprise if only for how short the game was. Matt shows his tactual muscles when his higher rated opponent much of had and oversight in this defense. As 23.g6! h6 24.Bxh6! and it looks like black has burned his bridges in this game.
B8-Stephanie vs Ruben Comes- This maybe the biggest surprise in round at least in terms of the bigger name on the FICGS side. Stephanie what looks to be a prefect opening all of the B90 lines and everyone agrees 32.Bc3! to be a new novelty and a very good one at that. Stephanie went on to grind Ruben down to a lost endgame. I very interesting game that has be to be seen to believe, I guess this going to show, that not all B90 lines lend to draws.
B13-Scott Nichols vs indrajit_sg- This was a long fought draw. When looking at the game early I thought white may have some chance to take advantage of his open g-file. But not a lot materialize later in the endgame(form the engines point of view).
B14-donkasand vs David Evans- David enter into dangerous territory with this B90 line. At move 19 he played ..Rb8 which looks to be a move to get out of book, because the other moves didn't look so good. Credit to David for finding a draw line in this game. Its another game with a look.
Kamesh Nookala vs Jimmy Huggins- What can I say I played an experimental opening and it backfired :) A well played game by Kamesh. Thanks for the chance to have a good fight with you.
Now on the 2nd set of games(Each player has 2 games in each round)
B3 Ramil Germanes vs Moz- Ramil here played a safe line in the B90 form the white side. So this looked like and easy draw.
B4 Sebastian Boehme vs Uly(Vytron)- Vytron plays and interesting side line of the Crao-Kann and play was very shape, but I got the feeling black played to ambitiously and had the worse of the position. He found a good defensive sacrifice and the good was hold to a draw. I think Sebi had winning chances, but I will have to look over the game to come up with an idea on that one. Anyway a great game to look over.
Ruben Comes vs Matthew O'Berin- Maybe the sharpest and most ambitious game in round 1. This goes in the the B97 lines, but Ruben goes for the Qf3 side line and produces a complex position after Rd3. I love this game so much I want to post the link again for everyone to please watch this game and post a comment about it.
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20213
B13 Fulcrum2000 vs Scott Nichols- Scott tries his luck to be ambitious and backfires with his Bh4 idea. Even when looking at the game. I was thinking it to be a good idea, but as it turns out. It goes as just losing a tempo. I thought this was one of the more instructive games of the round. I liked the way white played the endgame.
And the last result I have for the round for the FICGS players is
B17-indrajit_sg vs Kamesh Nookala- This was an interesting draw were white plays and early sideline in the Sicilian that tends to be drawish unless black forces the play. Another well played game by both sides.
I just want to say there are a lot of games one should look at. As more results come in on the FICGS side I will posted. In my opinion one should follow Wayne's games I have enjoyed his play so far. He had to comeback some in his wild game with black vs deka, but I get the feeling this game will ended in a draw. I would also follow the underrated Matt O'Berin in games to come. He has proven to be a great player so far.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-24 15:36:57)
5th Go WCH, analysis by SC. von Erichsen
Svante Carl von Erichsen is FICGS Go champion... for the 5th time! After his win in the match that opposed him to Olivier Drouot, here are his analysis on the games:
_______________________
- Congratulations for this 5th win in the FICGS Go championship! By seeing the score you give less and less chances to your opponents who seem stronger each time though... Several games may look quite mysterious to weaker players. What happened during these games?
- Svante Carl von Erichsen:
Hi!
I do not have the impression that my opponents have less and less
chances. I also make many mistakes, and was in a clearly bad position
in at least one game. Olivier made many very unusual moves in the
opening, which were difficult to handle in a calm manner.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47578
In game 3 (47578), this is apparent at move 18. White has gone for a
very centre-oriented game, while Black has made more direct profit.
It is difficult to say who got the better deal. Move 18 itself is
very unusual, and I am not sure whether the result was satisfactory
for me. I think that moves 41 and 43 were important, as stabilizing
the group in the centre takes priority when the centre is dominated by
White like this. At move 53, it is clear that Black needs to stabilize
the top group, but D18 seems more important in retrospect. Move 62 is
a bit odd---I think that living with S16 instead would be better. I
think that Black got a territorial advantage here. Since White got
additional central strength, Black turned to make his central group
safe again, which should be enough to win now. White 94 tries to
shake up things again, but getting separated on the lower side makes
it very hard for him.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47580
In game 5 (47580), Olivier chose a very unusual move again at move 8.
I think that the outcome until move 17 favours Black, however. At
move 36, it looks like Black will have to live in the corner, but the
white enclosure does have its holes. Alas, White's response to the
forcing move at P10 was a severe blunder, as Black can take back the
right side. Move 55 was big, but I had not anticipated that the fight
after move 56 would be so hard for me. I think that after move 93,
White put too much emphasis on hollowing out what once seemed like
prospective black territory. The ponnuki in the centre was worth much
more than what White made on the second line. With that strength,
reducing the white framework on the left was no question. I think
that White then tried too hard in the centre.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47576
Game 1 (47576) was characterized by a big fight starting from the
joseki in the lower right corner. I guess that a stronger player
could point out several mistakes by both sides. It resulted in a big
exchange, where quite some aji remained in both positions. Move 90 is
an unusual idea, it would be more normal to extend on the side. 91
and 95 were intended as forcing moves to give some support to the top
side. I think that Black has good prospects after move 99 and
especially after 113. White started an interesting invasion on the
left then, which was however stopped by the blunder at 138.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47579
Game 4 (47579) again featured some unusual moves in the opening,
namely moves 7 and 9. I think that immediately plunging through at 10
was not good. It was quite difficult for me to keep territorial
balance afterwards. I think that my invasion at the top was
premature, but it seemed like I could not keep up without it. The
attack at L13 was severe. I got lucky that Black kept back a bit, so
that I could get the cut at E7, which was more important than the six
stones around N13. It would have been possible to save them at move
98, but at the cost of letting Black break through L10. Sacrificing
them allowed me to cement the centre to put me comfortably ahead. L9
was then the start of a desperate attempt to reduce the centre. I was
quite sure that I could capture it, even though simply connecting
would most likely have been enough. I then made a big blunder again
with move 130 (I had to double hane), allowing a game-deciding ko.
Black had a lot of threats against the lower right corner, and I think
that this exchange would have put him ahead. However, he thought he
had an internal threat at D10, which I think was not one, as there was
no additional eye in the centre yet.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47577
In game 2 (47577), he got me in the opening with another of his
experiments (move 7). I think that I could have been satisfied if I
simply played the keima to P2 at move 14. However, I activated the
central stone instead, which led to Black getting solid positions on
both sides, while I lived small in the corner and struggled in the
centre. I then succeeded in making him overconcentrated on the lower
side, but at the expense of a quite large corner and not making many
points myself. Move 80 tries to stir things up more. I think that if
Black had secured O13 with move 97, the game would have been over.
However, things only began to look good for White after move 127,
which had to be played at R8 (it is sente against the middle group
then, so Black can live with S5). It is still not over, however, as
White has two weak groups to take care of. The lower side group can
live locally with a ko at G1, but the other group has to struggle---it
would be nice to find a clean sacrifice plan here, because it is hard
for the two groups not to compete for eye space. This was the last
game to end, and my opponent seems to have chosen to resign all when
he did not see a way to win the overall match anymore.
All in all, these were very interesting games where I think I learnt a
lot. I wish to thank my opponent, who played very well.
Thanks!
Svante
Scott Nichols (2012-07-28 01:29:58)
FICGS IS BACK !!!!!!!!!
This brings up the quote, "you never know what you've got till its gone." Been wandering aimlessly to other chess sites, into unfamiliar territory, and sometimes unfriendly. Now again we have a homebase, a place to park our cars! :)
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.
Vadrya Pokshtya (2023-11-17 21:07:20)
Battle of Kings
AlphaZero is a really good example because this variant of chess is more like a game of struggle for territory, just like in Go.
That would be really interesting.
Juri Eintalu (2023-11-18 03:57:22)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations
to Thibault de Vassal:
"Recently, Hamas chose to attack civilians instead of Israel (this is a war crime, no ambiguity there), Israel now does everything to destroy Hamas, making many victims among civilians. But this may not be war crimes according to definition. Nothing obvious there, we'll see."
The 07 October attack is quite recent, and I would not say that all the circumstances are clear. For example, I am not sure that Hamas "chose" to kill civilians.
The only thing that is sure is that some number of civilians were killed by Hamas. It is sure, because Israel accuses Hamas of killing the civilians, and one of Hamas leaders has publicly admitted, that during that attack, Hamas killed some civilians "accidentally".
Killing civilians may make it a war crime. Intentionally killing civilians may make it an act of terrorism.
After the 07 October attack, Israel has killed awfully many civilians in the Gaza Strip. I totally agree with those experts who say that such a bombing of the sieged territory is not self-defence and it is a war crime - at the very least.
Note that during the 07 October attack, approximately 1200 people were killed, some of them were soldiers, and the others were civilians, many of them unarmed civilians.
Under Israel's bombs, in the Gaza Strip, during one month, more than 10,000 unarmed civilians were killed. Most of them were women and children. And it has not yet ended.
As of now, no one of the participants in the present discussion has said anything at all about the content of my Public Appeal. It seems that no one has even read it, despite I inserted the link into my initial post. I did not try to present the text directly here, on the Forum, as it was perhaps too lengthy for the Forum.
I shall provide the link to my Public Appeal again:
https://medium.com/@eintalu/a-public-appeal-to-chess-organisations-on-the-bombing-of-the-gaza-strip-be56afd3f5ca
Concerning civilian causalities of the Gaza bombing, and the comparison of the Ukraine war and the Israel war, I provided the following information in my Public Appeal:
<International organisations confirm that Israel has managed to kill more children in the Gaza Strip in one month in 2023 than were killed in all the war zones on the planet in the whole of 2022. In fact, significantly more children have been killed by Israeli bombs in one month than in two years of war in Ukraine. See also, e.g.:
“GAZA: 3,195 CHILDREN KILLED IN THREE WEEKS SURPASSES ANNUAL NUMBER OF CHILDREN KILLED IN CONFLICT ZONES SINCE 2019”
Save the Children, 29 October 2023
https://www.savethechildren.net/news/gaza-3195-children-killed-three-weeks-surpasses-annual-number-children-killed-conflict-zones# >
Now, while talking about the attacks on civilians, you (as other participants of the discussion) simply ignore my Public Appeal.
Concerning your political views about the real intentions of Russia when starting a war against Ukraine, what you present dogmatically and without evidence - the only sober reply is that dogmatically and without evidence, one could as well assert whatever about the Israeli real intentions concerning the Gaza war.
However, we have direct evidence from the public speeches of Israel's leadership, that the intentions of the Gaza war are genocidal.
I conclude that you are trying to whitewash Israeli large-scale war crimes and crimes against humanity while ignoring the text of my Public Appeal.
There are 0 results for territory in wikichess.
FICGS : territory , Wikipedia : territory , Dmoz : territory , Google : territory , Yahoo : territory
You sit at the board and suddenly your heart leaps. Your hand trembles to pick up the piece and move it. But what Chess teaches you is that you must sit there calmly and think about whether it's really a good idea and whether there are other better ideas. (Stanley Kubrick)
The hardest game to win is a won game. (Emanuel Lasker)
In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else, for whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame. (Jose Raul Capablanca)
Back to FICGS , Wikichess