tournament
FICGS - Search results for tournament
There are 2556 results for tournament in the forum.
Hannes Rada (2006-04-08 13:20:52)
Thank you !
Thank you Thibault for this great job of creating a chessfriend clone.
Chessfriend had definitely the best and most convenient user-interface for server play.
I Hope many chessfriend-players will migrate to this server.
Once again thank you for your work and support of the correspondence
chess community !
Furthermore
-There is an overlap in the class tournaments concerning the minimun elo requirement.
Can you clarify this ?
- No holiday entitlement is mentioned in the terms and conditions
hannes
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-08 13:37:17)
Class tournaments overlap
Hello Hannes. Thank you for support :)
The overlap offers the possibility for players to register to several class tournaments, at least to choose. I think it won't be used a lot, but it could be something more for the stronger players who will choose to register to "under-class" tournament as well as other players who may play sometimes with stronger players.
Feel free to tell me what you think.
Thibault
Hannes Rada (2006-04-08 13:58:53)
Elo Overlap
Thibaut,
I think this "feature" is okay.
I just was a little bit confused about it and could not decide which tournament to choose.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-08 17:02:06)
First tournament started !
A small bug delayed (1 hour) the start of the first FICGS tournament (class A) ! Sorry to the players. It's fixed now.
Have good games :)
Hannes Rada (2006-04-08 19:06:49)
Vacations
The most important issue to be implemented is imho the vacation.
I think otherwise many potential players (me included) will be prevented from joining a tournament.
How many days a year would you allow ?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-08 19:18:26)
Vacations
I think 40 days for vacations is right. What do you think about ? (it may depend on tournament category, ie. rapid tournament shouldn't allow vacations)
Hannes Rada (2006-04-08 19:32:44)
vacations
40 days is fine for me.
I've 31 days leave in a year and I ususaly use them all for travelling and visiting foreign countries.
I had no experience with rapid tournaments on the cfc - server.
However they also allowed 40 days in a year.
Maybe otherwise many player would not participate.
I for one had to go several times on business trips for a few days and in this case it would risk losing games in a rapid tournament if there is no possibility for taking leave.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-08 19:59:22)
Hannes
CFC rapid tournaments didn't allow vacation (and start clock was 10 days, not 30). Anyway, you have 2 months to play a single move (if your clock is over 2 months, of course)
Hannes Rada (2006-04-09 23:21:02)
games overview
> and just go away - to Vanuatu
>(wherever that mey be)
Between the Australian East Coast and the Fiji Islands :-)
And I agree with Per's proposal to have only a short line with the most important game data, instead of the whole pgn-data (under my games and under tournaments)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-10 12:26:52)
To low rated players...
A second CLASS M tournament (category 4) already started ! I suppose once FICGS will be sumitted correctly to search engines, more low rated players will join us. Be patient :)
Patrice Verdier (2006-04-10 22:19:36)
Possibility Job
I have been club chess president. I can organize tournaments, proceed rating calculator, write rules, doing relation with others organisation (ICCF, IECG,...). I have some ideas also for tournament with fee and prizes
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-11 05:18:57)
FICGS council / staff
About job specification, as I said, I would like FICGS to be a place that fits to the most, and not under a dictatorship (even mine :)), so the idea to create a council with all members who want to be part of it, voting all decisions relating server rules, tournaments, wch cycles, titles... (or simply opinion poll on the website ? or both...)
The FICGS staff should be able to manage the server (registering new members, moderating the forum, referees...) Nothing difficult, just needs motivation. Most important is that it could completely work without me. Of course, if developers want to help, making a drag & drop interface ie. or improving whatelse..) About "go", we'll see later, Hannes :) (it's a fine game, you should learn !)
Anyway I'll send an email to all players responding in this thread soon. We will discuss about that.
Best wishes & thank you !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-12 09:14:24)
Tournament formulas
Hello to all.
What do you think about the idea to create a SLOW tournament category ? Clocks could be 60 days + 10 days / move or 100 days + 100 days / 10 moves (very slow) ?
Any idea or opinion ?
Dinesh De Silva (2006-04-12 09:42:18)
Tournament formulas
I personally think such tournaments are too slow..... a real drag.
10 moves per 40 days seems exactly right for standard tournaments.
Kind regards,
Dinesh.
Patrice Verdier (2006-04-12 09:47:09)
Tournaments formulas
I am agree with De Silva. I think that already tournaments are slow. 10 moves for 40 days or 30 days is a good formula. Perhaps it will be interesting to create blitz tournament for players who like this (example : 1 move by day)
Also it will be interesting to create tournament with Cup System.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-12 09:53:48)
Rapid tournaments
Formula for rapid tournaments is 30 days (because players could be in vacation while the tournament starts) + 1 day / move
Marc Lacrosse (2006-04-12 09:57:10)
Tournament formulas : not too many .
Personally I do prefer playing a small number of games simultaneously at a relatively rapid pace instead of a larger number at slower pace.
But I can understand that some prefer the opposite. So why not.
One caveat : I think you should wait a little bit before multiplying categories.
As long as we are not a larger number of active players there is a risk that there will be a small number of players waiting for long before a sufficient number of players will join for starting a tournament in a given category.
Marc
Paul-Iosif Guralivu (2006-04-13 15:19:03)
New Titles!
To make FICGS more atractive and original I propose to make new titles for every category of players:
Candidate for Master(FCM) - 2000-2200
First category (FI) - 1800-2000
Secound category (FII) - 1200-1800
Third category (FIII) - 800-1200
Every of this category could be obtain if a player plays more than 12 games in tournaments with tha same ELO.
What do you think about it ?
P.S.:Don't be mad on me...It's just a proposition.
Dinesh De Silva (2006-04-15 06:19:08)
Money Tournaments
How much is 1 EURO compared to a US $ ?!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-15 06:31:33)
Depends on rates...
... and rates are constantly changing. I'll have to clarify things about that. Money tournaments won't begin before 2 months from now.
http://finance.yahoo.com/currency?u
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-04-15 16:46:29)
Vacation
I agree with Hannes. And I would like to take a leave in one or another but not necessarily in all of my tournaments.
Hannes Rada (2006-04-16 09:52:16)
time and vacation
>There's objectively no difference >between "vacation" & time for move... >Rules on other servers
There is a difference.
If the player does not have the time on the clock, because he is involved in many tournaments ....
I think we should start a poll about this issue.
Glen D. Shields (2006-04-16 12:33:44)
Comparisons
Hello Thibault - first thanks for creating this server. I'm happy to see so many members joined up so quickly.
I just started on Ortwin's server (IECG) yesterday. Too early to compare, though one initial item I like better on Ortwin's server is that I can
easily change board colors and chess pieces there. Would like the board a little larger (or maybe be adjustable) on both sites. Easier for old eyes!
Two items I like much better here than at ICCF are the time rules (ICCF's are much too long) and the tournament sign-up procedure. I can not sign up for an ICCF tournament on-line. I have to do so by printing a form and mailing a check to my NF. A old process for a modern method of play!
Henri Muller (2006-04-16 18:11:51)
tournament formules
personnellement je préfère de loin 10 coups/40 jours.
Ne changez rien, c'est parfait....sinon certaines parties (perdues ) "trainent" lamentablement !!
Glen D. Shields (2006-04-17 19:01:10)
Thanks for the Comments Guys
Dinesh - since computer use is allowed I have no problem if someone uses a "script" to automate moves. I don't think that would be fradulent. Actually I think it would be clever :)
The point I was trying to ask is anyone concerned (besides me) that we created a chess medium (server chess) where it's so easy to make moves that the games move too fast? I dread the start of a new section, particularly large sections with 10+ players. It's impossible to keep one's inbox empty for even a minute. I know I should show more discipline and walk away, but it's almost like an illness "just one more move then I'll stop" and I don't! One practice I've been using lately is to make a move in a notebook and sit on the move for a day or two before sending it. That helps slow things down. I wonder if a delay send option on the server would make any sense? One could make a move and then click a delay send button for 24 or 48 hours. One would be charged time during the delay, but it would automate the slow down and make tournament startups a little less hectic. Maybe I'm the only one who sees this as an issue> If so, then label this just one crazy man's thoughts :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-17 19:25:06)
New features...
Coordinates & last move have been implemented... Now the "live games" concept of the site extends to the home page :)
Also, player informations are 5 successive pages (informations, elo history, title norms, tournaments, games), reachable just by clicking on "ELO" (to improve yet) after clicking the magnifying glass.
Patrice Verdier (2006-04-17 23:09:08)
Holidays
I inform all my opponents in my tournament CLASS - M - 00002 that I am in holidays from 17/04 to 22/04
Thanks
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-18 13:25:56)
Time limit per move
If a player has 60 days and more on his clock, the deadline for one move is 60 days ! This is a provisional (quite good, I think) solution before question of vacation be answered. Many players can't play every day and correspondence chess games usually last several months, often more than 1 year.
It seems server games go much faster than email games, but rules 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves are the same.
Time limit per move in IECG is 30 days. Here, a 60 days limit (a rating period) don't seem too much to me. Players won't feel oppressed (Glen, turn email notification off :)) and I think they won't use it often.
RAPID TOURNAMENTS are an alternative solution.
Thibault
Graham Cridland (2006-04-19 21:04:34)
Crosstable?
Any chance of adding a crosstable in place of the current results page under a tournament?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-19 21:09:11)
After the tournament name...
Hello Graham.
When you are on the tournament page, please try to click the magnifying glass just after the tournament name. A window (popup) will appear with the crosstable.
Best wishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-20 15:12:34)
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_B__000002
All games played against Daniel Grecu (forfeit) won't be rated in this tournament. Sorry about that.
Graham Cridland (2006-04-21 16:55:55)
Waiting lists
An option to remove oneself from the waiting list for a tournament might be useful. No immediate need on my part at present, but people's schedules change, etc.
Karlheinz Weber (2006-04-23 11:13:11)
Download of games
I still think the possibility to download my own tournament, or at least my own games in pgn files would be very, very helpfull. For example many chessplayers handle their games with ChessBase.
Ciao! Karlheinz
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-24 13:20:05)
Looking for 3 more players...
... to complete the first Fischer Random Chess tournament ! (Special tournaments category)
Have good games...
Stefano Ghisi (2006-04-24 16:18:59)
Quad tourn
Do you think it's possible in future to have quad tournaments? (4 players 6 match each one)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-24 16:24:14)
Quad tourn
Nothing easier :) I'm just waiting for more players to offer other tournament categories. Maybe next month.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-25 23:47:35)
Waiting lists / Delay
Usually, the delay before a tournament start is at least one week in other big organizations... Be patient, tournaments will start more often as time passes and players join us. (the next month could be "surprising") Anyway this is correspondence chess after all :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-26 01:33:22)
Finally...
Less than 2 hours later, the second Class C tournament started :)
I hope the first CHESS 960 tournament will begin soon. (Special tournaments category) See the Help section to see the start position. More about Chess 960 / Fischer Random on Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess
Quad tournaments and other categories will appear later, but feel free if you have any idea for special events (teams from countries, other clubs or websites etc...)
Daniel De Noose (2006-04-26 15:57:55)
How to join ?
How can I join the chess 960 tournament ? I don't see it !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-26 16:07:15)
Special tournaments
Hello Daniel. Chess 960 & Thematic tournaments (actual is king's gambit) are in category :
Ficgs__Chess__Special__Tournaments
Glen D. Shields (2006-04-28 01:35:12)
Congratulations FICGS!
Congratulations FICG!
The rating list now has over 200 members. 200 members in about 1 month of operation. Outstanding :) The more players we can attract, the quicker tournaments will fill.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-29 15:04:10)
Finally...
The first Chess 960 tournament just started ! :)
Now you can follow the games with the javascript viewer too.
Jose Carrillo (2006-05-01 01:34:24)
Other Chess960 opening positions
Thibault,
When will other Chess960 openings be available?
In FRCEC, we prefer to run tournaments where every game in the tournament begins with a different opening position.
It avoids repetition.
Let see how this tournament develops.
Cheers,
Jose
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-01 14:27:08)
"Repetition"
Thinking about it... I like the idea where all start positions are the same in the whole tournament.
David Angeli (2006-05-01 18:42:19)
Tournament class
Hi thibault
About the "tounaments" topic (je sais pas comment on dit rubrique en anglois ! ;o) )
One thing not very clear for a newcomer like me is the difference between the different classes of tournaments : A, M, etc...it is certainly explained somewhere but i'm a bit lazy and it would be easier if it was explained on the same page .
Thanks to your site i'm back to correspondence chess :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-01 19:01:58)
Class tournaments
Salut David !
About standard & rapid "class" tournaments, they are open to players with ELO rating included into a range, specified just below the tournament name. (ie. CLASS M : 2200 to 2600 , CLASS A : 2000 to 2400 , CLASS B : 1800 to 2200 etc...)
J'espère que tu nous feras profiter de ton gambit favori ;) Bonnes parties !
Jose Carrillo (2006-05-03 00:19:03)
Repetition???
Why? It defeats the purpose of Chess960. Everyone in the tournament is just playing a Chess960 game, not the same opening position. Using the same opening position simulates a regular chess tournament (i.e. repetition). Anyway, at least it should be an option to have differnt opening position per game in the same tournament. It's more in line with the "purpose" of Fischerandom Chess.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-03 04:41:09)
Start positions
It seems to me that changing the start position from classical chess is "sufficient"... The purpose was, according to Fischer, to avoid databases and to favour creativity.. The same positions in the whole tournament allows to compare & analyze a bit deeper, maybe understand better the position. The start position will be different for the next tournament (working on). There are "only" 960 positions, there will be repetitions anyway... And what do you think about the Fischer rules ? Seems strange to me. I wonder if everyone knows how to castle in other start positions (king or rooks at different places)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-04 01:03:58)
Update - Chess 960
The start position for Chess 960 tournaments will change each time a tournament starts ! The start position for the next tournament is the Chess 960 board in the Help section.
Have good games...
Jose Carrillo (2006-05-05 00:25:09)
Start positions
In FRECC santioned events, we rather have each board be different within the same tournament. It favours even more creativity when each board is different, and no one can look at another board for ideas. Look at a sample FRCEC tournament: http://frcec.chess960.info/FischerCup.htm
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-05 15:19:03)
FICGS world championship
Hello to all.
Please post here all your questions / suggestions about the FICGS world championship rules.
There are many answers to bring yet : about the building of groups, who exactly will play which stage, etc...
It seems that many players like this scheme : knockout / round-robin tournament, that is more fair and much more interesting than a pure round-robin cycle. The final match rules are particularly hard (24 games, 30 days + 1 day / move), but I think it's a good way to make it different and give value to the title. Rules are not far from the old classical world championship, the champion will only play the next final match against the challenger...
FICGS WCH Rules :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#tournament
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-05 16:35:18)
Question...
... from a player :
Who (how many players from each tournament) will play the next stages of the wch ?
Indeed, rules are not clear enough yet, I'll bring changes soon. About "how many players", from ie. a 11 players round-robin tournament : It's stated only one, the player with the highest rating in case of equality. Maybe that's not fair enough, I have to simulate other possibilities.
As June is very near already (too short delay), if there are no players enough at this time, we could pass the first stage but I think it would be better to wait, postponing (one month or two) could be considered...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-05 15:36:17)
2 players matches
Hello Jose ! That is not possible yet. There's no players enough to create other tournament categories.. The delay before tournament start could increase significantly.
Jose Carrillo (2006-05-05 18:37:09)
Re: 2 players matches
Don't we need only 2 players for a two-game match? Why do we need to create a whole tournament? I'm only interested in playing one other player. Are all the games in FICGS tournament based? Are there no individual matches?
Jose Carrillo (2006-05-05 18:51:43)
Tournament reccomendation
Try a round robin + Page system playoffs.
Round 1:
Round Robin (as many players as you want)
Final Round:
Page System Playoffs:
Top 4 players in the Round Robin qualify for the quaterfinals:
1st place vs 2nd place
3rd place vs 4th place
Winner of 1st-2nd gets bye in semi-finals, and moves on to the finals.
Loser of 1st-2nd plays in semi-final round
Winner of 3rd-4th playes in semi-final
Loser of 3rd-4th gets eliminated.
Winner of semi-final plays in the final.
Henrik Dinesen (2006-05-07 16:35:13)
I'm lost here...
I log in, but I can't find a way to start a game, or enter a tournament.
Should I leave imidiatly becaurse stupity or "blindness"?
"Anything" I see seem to indicate the first, but ??
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-07 21:14:00)
"Help"
Hello Henrik. Sorry if this is not clear enough. Maybe try first to read help section, then take a look at the waiting lists : choose a tournament category, ie. "class tournaments", then click on a tournament name and follow the instructions. (you enter a waiting list after 4 clicks)
Have good games...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-09 16:46:25)
Qualifying
I didn't know this system !? Is it really efficient ? How to designate the (4) winners of the round-robin cycle ? Then the semi-final (players bye :/) seems to be a stage more... Means at least 6 months more to end the cycle.
I think the combined round-robin / knockout cycle is fast and fair enough... The 2 first players (designated by the highest ratings in case of equality) of each round-robin tournament will be qualified for the next stage.
The rules for world championship have been updated.
Jose Carrillo (2006-05-11 00:09:47)
Re: Qualifying
The top 4 players in the round robin qualify for the quarterfinals.
The beauty of this system is that the #1 and #2 players in the round robin have a 50% chance of going to the final (they deserve it too! as they finished top 2 in the round robin).
The loser of the 1st-2nd match still has a chance to go to the finals if he wins the semi-finals.
This system prevents lower ranked 3rd and 4th players in the round robin to knock out in one round the top players of the round robin.
If you play the round robin to win (and finish 1st or 2nd) you are rewarded for the finals.
There is still the possibility of the 1st and 2nd place in the round robin to play in the final match.
If you just play to finish 3rd or 4th, you have to fight your way to the final.
There will never be a 3rd vs 4th final match, something very well possible in a knock out tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-12 07:39:04)
Re: Qualifying + Banned players
Hello Jose. You said : "There is still the possibility of the 1st and 2nd place in the round robin to play in the final match."
Actually this is the case, 1st and 2nd qualify for the next stage. How your system works for a 3 stages round-robin tournament cycle ? We can't add 2 extra-stages to designate who qualify from each round-robin tournament...
Hello Trent. There are 3 players who unregistered (not banned), they still appear in the WCH waiting list but they will be automatically removed when building groups.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-12 07:49:43)
Building groups
I suppose the following method is quite reasonable... (if you have a better idea...)
So, building WCH round-robin tournaments groups : Grading all players by elo. Starting from the middle of the list. The first 2 players, one above the middle, one below, play in the first group, the next 2 players in the second group, the next 2 in the third group etc.. Finally, elo average for each group shouldn't be far from each other. What do you think ?
Jose Carrillo (2006-05-13 00:28:45)
Re: Qualifying
In a Knock out you can have 3rd vs 4th in the final. In the Page system you can't.
It's just a matter of whether you want to acknowledge the top players in the round robin.
In the page system ONLY the top four players in the round robin qualify for the playoffs.
Look at the Page system in practice in the Gligoric Cup tournament that we are running in FRCEC at:
http://frcec.chess960.info/GligoricCup.htm
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-05-13 17:58:51)
Swiss
Hello Thibault,
Chessfriend.com has started the Championship as a 3 rounds Swiss tournament. Why don't we try this form under the name FICGS-CUP? I have liked the mode.
Heinz-Georg
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-05-14 00:47:20)
Swiss
Hello Thibault
these are the "rules" (see at http://www.chessfriend.com/ and then Tournaments-CFC World-Championship-CFC Championship 2003)
Modus: 3 rounds Swiss à 10 games each. ... Every player is allowed to participate in all 3 rounds. Pairings of the 1st round are based on rating. We will build equal groups where possible. In the second round we will do the pairings so that be build at first 3 groups depending on score and rating. Among this three groups we will build new tournaments which should be of about equal rating.. Third round will be paired in the same way with the exception that the first group will be the strongest (score and rating).
Normally two players should play during a championship cycle only one game. If it will be necessary in a following round that two players play a second game, this game should be played with revised colours.
I will send you more information.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-14 16:07:16)
"Blitz" cup...
Thank you Heinz Georg, for the files you sent to me.
Now I understand better the work and ideas of Reimund Lutzenberger in Chessfriend.com, a great experimentation field for sure...
I first concluded some things not to do in FICGS WCH. In example, a player rated 2500 (even provisional rating from fide) shouldn't have to play in the first stage against a low-rated player in a world championship [but that could be possible in a cup tournament cycle]. So I'll add special rules for high rated players (who are not qualified for the WCH knockout tournament) to begin directly in a 2nd stage tournament...
I agree with Dinesh, the aim is not to use the same formulas, even good ones. Anyway I think we can find new interesting (better :)) ones. But as the WCH is already a rapid tournament cycle, the CUP could be an unrated "blitz" (30 days per game with no increment, or even 10 days + 1 hour / move) knockout (2 games / match + playoffs) !! Something quite "brutal" and unfair between correspondence chess & classical rythms. What do you think ?
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-05-14 17:29:59)
Swiss and Blitz Cup
Hello Thibault
Swiss tournament was only a suggestion. I don't like knockout tournaments - too many rounds (7 if 128 players want to play), great problems, if not the right number of players is available or players withdraw. If you have only 30 days for the whole game, it is much better to live on the "right" continent relative to your opponent.
Wilhelm Schuett (2015-11-05 01:24:27)
Thematic tournaments?
Sicilian Labourdonnais or French McCutcheon
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-15 08:33:32)
Team Championship
In brief : The idea of a team championship is very good, but of course it's too early... Such a championship could be a 2 stages round-robin tournament with teams of 6 or 7 players.
Bonjour Sébastien. Pourquoi discorde ? :) Au contraire...
Pour le moment j'envisageais des matchs par équipe occasionnels (FICGS vs. fédération ou autre serveur de jeu).
Le problème d'un championnat est qu'il soit représentatif, il serait donc souhaitable (dans le cas par pays) de pouvoir monter des équipes complètes (6 ou 7 joueurs) et que les plus forts joueurs trouvent un "intérêt" à défendre leurs couleurs (dépend de la popularité du serveur). L'idée est de toutes manières des plus intéressantes, mais le serveur doit gagner en confiance et en expérience sur la durée, il est encore tôt. Par contre je me demande comment se déroulerait un tel championnat... Un tournoi toutes ronde (round-robin) entre 5 à 9 pays, divisés par groupes, puis une phase finale ?!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-15 11:05:57)
Blitz cup
Yes, time is the main problem. Correspondence chess don't give a large choice, it's difficult to vary rhythms.
10 days + 1 day per 4 moves (6 extra hours / move) could be more fair and we can avoid playoffs with the sudden death (similar to WCH knockout tournament). I like the idea of a violent, rapid and quite unfair (unrated) tournament. It could be quite popular. An advantage in a knockout (with 2 rounds) is that a few games will have to be played : 7 rounds means at most 14 games... If the number of players doesn't fit, the highest rated players could enter at stage 2. The winner could be qualified for the third stage of the WCH round-robin cycle.
But there are potential problems. I don't find a good & fair algorithm to distribute players in a big knockout (chance is not a good idea, I think), and it could be a big work to organize such a tournament (& start games regularly) with 256 players or more...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-15 13:48:57)
Building groups / Qualifying
Update for the method building round-robin tournaments groups :
1) Grading players by rating
2) Filling the groups. If there are 4 groups, #1 -> group 1, #2 -> group 2, #3 -> group 3, #4 -> group 4, #5 -> group 4, #6 -> group 3, #7 -> group 2, #8 -> group 1, #9 -> group 2 and so on... A clearest way.
Finally, I came back to my first idea, in round-robin tournaments only one player should qualify for next stage (in case of equality, the highest rated). Not sure it's less fair, it's more logical and it rewards the rating obtained before... After all, even ICCF WCH final tournament designate a unique winner. Wch page has been updated.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-17 20:44:05)
Delay before adjudication request
About the game you request for adjudication, Wayne... I see you played your last move 2 days ago. It's a bit early... Please wait about a ten days before calling referee, even if your opponent takes 5 days for each move... This is correspondence chess... and we have time :) In email games (with the same time) such situations may take much more time... Be patient ! It doesn't prevent you to enter a new tournament, and next rating calculation won't occur before july.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-05-19 00:50:31)
It is not nonsense
He resigned i believe cause of opinion of those here.
It is not nonsence. The fact that this site is correspondence has nothing to do with it. absolutley nothing !
You go to any club tournament and you will not be welcome back with such over the board conduct. It is rude, spitefull and counter productive to good chess and fair play. You will change this rule my friend. There is NO justification for a player to drag out a forced mate loss if he sees it. and believe me in the case of my game 205 you must admit it is obvious. In fact he should have resigned many moves earlier, I would
have 4 sure. do not like your weak argument justifying the mate implementation....
Here is to a nice cite for corresponse chess.
Respexctfully
Wayne
Trent Parker (2006-05-19 08:04:48)
My Overall evaluation of this new site
I really like this site. I like the format of the tournaments, I like the fact that the number of games one can play are not limited.
I like the idea of the best game function, however i do not think it is properly utilised (I have aired my ideas on this elsewhere....)
I personally think the resign for checkmate rule is ok, although none of my games have gotten that far yet. After all a) this does not limit the amount of games that you can play on this site and b) your opponent will run out of time anyhow. So what is the difference? You are going to get the point anyhow.
I have the following criticisms:
I am on Dial up. This site is very slow to play on, very time consuming with the amount of games that i am up to. would it be possible to... I dunno... make it like a javascript or something, just to speed it up a bit. Or perhaps even make the submit button further up the page a bit? Often i have gone out of a game thinking that i have made the move when i have forgotten to click the submit button. (By the way this site would be excellent if i had broadband but i don't.)
I may have some more comments later on but at the moment i've said enough.
Thanks for this site Thibault!
Trent Parker
Daniel De Noose (2006-05-20 17:55:10)
:-(
I'm not sure in case of equality we have to give the first place to the best rated.
Because if a 1800 player and a 2300 player have the same score we can think the 1800 player makes a performance over his rating (good tournament) and the 2300 player a performance under his own rating (bad tournament).
I think it's not correct to give the first position to the player making a bad tournament result and not to the player making a good tournament result.
;-)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-20 18:39:06)
Equality rule
Hello Daniel.
If the 2300 player scores 5.5 at this tournament, and the 1800 player scores 5, we can imagine the 2300 player makes a bad performance as well (possibly lower than the 1800 player), so the 1800 player should win ?
There's no perfect system, only conditions, but this rule prevents from 'accidents' and grants the rating that is the best players strength indicator. I think this is a way to ensure that the best players will reach the final stages. Because this is a world championship...
Dave Grobler (2006-05-20 21:09:49)
team championship
Hello
This is my first post....so I apologise for any mistakes.
A team tournament should be organised as soon as possible . It is an excellant way of building up friendships.I think at the moment we have too few members to start . But this site grows quickly ! Teams should start to form now !
Karlheinz Weber (2006-05-21 08:27:52)
tables
Please change tournament-tables, so we can see, who finished against whom!
Ciao! Karlheinz
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-21 12:51:03)
Crosstables
Hello Karlheinz.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=158
Just click on the magnifying glass near the name of the tournament to see the crosstable.
Phil Cook (2006-05-25 12:18:34)
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_G__000001
Have I entered the above tournament?I dont see my name anywhere.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-25 12:22:25)
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_G__000001
Did you confirm your registration at this tournament ?
(please don't post your messages several times ;))
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-26 11:04:11)
Go (weiqi) world championship
Hello to all.
I've updated the rules for go world championship and go tournaments. Now the results in go tournaments qualify for the wch first stage round-robin tournament. See the rules.
It's more logical, as there's no rating system here for Go, and I think more people will play soon...
Have good games !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-26 12:23:16)
First go tournament started
The first go tournament just started !
If you want to discover this famous game (also called 'Weiqi' in mandarin chinese or 'Baduk' in korean), you may see this article in wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_board_game
Ryaad Aabid (2006-05-26 22:46:10)
Go Tournament (forfeit)
I have applied to this tournament without reading its rule,that I unfortunately have no idea.I am an old player :-)
Therefor I should say SORRY to all players in this tournament - not my interest ! I thought it is some chess tournament with different system !
Please remove my name if it is possible , otherwise I should resign all my games in this tournament.
Kind regards
Ryaad Aabid
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-27 03:30:57)
Ok.
Hello Ryaad. I'll replace you by another player soon.
Go tournaments are unrated but count for the FICGS championship qualifications, so I'll replace forfeiting players as much as possible.
David Grosdemange (2006-05-28 15:06:54)
go 9*9 ?
is it possible to organize some 9*9 go tournaments ?
games in 19*19 are sometimes very long ...
David Grosdemange (2006-05-28 16:53:39)
real ?
on this server we don't play only "real chess" , so why play only "real go" ?
if a lot players wan't to play this "go variant" , why not to organize 9*9 go tournament ?
(we must see if other players want to play 9*9 go)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-28 17:17:21)
Chess & go variants.
Ok David... But Chess 960 isn't chess 'training', as Go 9x9 could be. I think unrated chess tournaments wouldn't have much success.
Let's see if other players want to play go 9x9 ... I think the point is about rating and championship. As there is no rating system and only a title for 19x19, players couldn't be attracted by go 9x9 if there isn't the same challenge. I changed the rules in this way, now more players will play continuously Go tournaments and compete to have a chance to play the Go world championship tournament.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-05-29 13:51:27)
Remaining time
Hello Thibault!
What a pity! Everything I would like is a short overview of my running games - with the remaining time(s). I don't need the start date of the tournament at this page. You can delete it to get more space.
My messages doesn't contain further information which I need.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-30 01:19:41)
Depends...
... obviously more in big chess :)
Actually I already love this game... very exciting ! So many strategies... Just look at this position - http://www.ficgs.com/game_1.html
Now I have to work on the board (size / coordinates) and tournament formula before to offer it here.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-30 13:23:44)
1st SM chess tournament, elo 2443
The first FICGS CHESS SM tournament just started !
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_SM__000001.html
3 ICCF titled players, 1 FIDE GM, 1 IECG titled player, and 2 'newbies'.. :)
FEM norm : 3 points, FIM norm : 3.5 points, FSM norm : 4 points, FGM norm : 4.5 points...
Have good games !
Wayne Lowrance (2006-05-31 02:11:25)
tournament winner
any "attaboy" awards for winning a tournament....has anyone one a tourney yet...i see no place to announce tourney winners etc.....wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-31 11:36:44)
Hall of fame
Hello Wayne. That's true... I was thinking about that but no quite good idea yet. We could list all tournament winners at the bottom of 'Hall of fame' page.
It would be difficult to apply a 'ticket' system so that tournament winners can entry a higher class tournament. (and there's no obligation to copy other organizations rules...)
Anyway, finished tournaments will be announced regularly.
If you have another idea...
Wayne Lowrance (2006-05-31 21:22:00)
Tournament winners
Nah, no biggie...Wayne
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-01 15:08:53)
A missing link to the rules
Hello,
Would it be possible to have a direct link to the rules on the menu list of your home page in FICGS?
I would find useful to be able to access the rules at the same level of waiting lists, tournaments, forum and so on.
Or maybe there is an easy way I did not see?
(This is nitpicking, the site is already great :-))
Best wishes.
Ryaad Aabid (2006-06-01 15:30:25)
Go Tournament # 1
Hello all players - GO tournaments
I have applied to this new started tournament by mistake , I will be thankful if any player can replace me to reply here or e-mail to FICGS.
*I never done moves yet.
Kind regards
Ryaad/Norway
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-01 15:47:28)
Replacement
I did not forget you, Ryaad. (time sometimes misses, sorry to your opponents..)
Does anyone would accept to replace Ryaad in the first Go tournament that started a few days ago ? Thanks in advance.
Reminder : If players wish to qualify for the FICGS Go championship, they must be among the 11 players who obtained the best results in Go tournaments (see rules).
I think 2 (maybe 3 if the number of players increase quickly) victories in tournaments should assure a place in the WCH tournament.
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-01 15:56:41)
Replacement
I will be glad to play in that tournament: first time I will not play go face to face... I forsee an nice new experience!
Best wishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-01 21:25:04)
Discrepancies
It is very clear Lionel.
In another hand, each tournament rules and generally each situation influence the strategy at chess (so other games). And FICGS chess wch rules are special ones in the knockout tournament that should avoid draws. Actually, only a "one game match" can have no influence on 'the game'. (not perfectly true, as the player's strength is another factor)
Rules are flexible, particularly for the game of Go, so I think we can use even uncommom ones, if it is balanced enough (= there's still a challenge). Do you have an idea about this rule avoiding repetition, how many stones or komi it could be worth ?
Another question : Are there situations that look like zugzwang in Go (where the best move could be 'passing') ?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-02 17:48:34)
Go rules
Hello Lionel. I just read the 1988 version of the official rules of the Chinese Weiqi Association.
The point here is to play with the most interesting & fair rules, not 'official' ones or others if it could be improved...
Note that FICGS chess rules have a peculiarity : 50 moves rules isn't applied if the mate can be forced. FICGS chess world championship rules are not (of course) the rules used by FIDE. I spent much time thinking about rules which are IMO the best thing in this server and I think most players will appreciate these points.
I think avoiding draws in Go is interesting because energy consuming could be too different in some games and lead to unfair situations in tournaments.
Hash keys don't solve all problems, 'superko' situations could remain as draw, furthermore these special rules could avoid any ambiguity. It is clear, it brokes 'symmetry' and I feel it is fair enough.
Then, rules exist to be enforced ! :) .. More seriously, I'm not convinced these new rules don't make sense, even if it needs adjustments. Still inquiring, but unless I find (or you convince me :)) a solid argument in another way, I think I'll apply them.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-02 20:39:25)
FICGS : Chinese rules !
You convinced me :)
(sorry, I didn't understand well some concepts before)
Good news : I have implemented the non-repetition rules with hash keys...
Now the rules are exactly CHINESE RULES with a 6.5 komi, which is the value which tends to be used in tournaments.
Thank you Lionel :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-05 14:11:42)
Rules : Forfeiting / Replacement
Hello to all.
As a few players stopped to play (forfeit) in their games, I answer here to questions from their opponents.
- Rated games lost on time / forfeited are not calculated for the winner's (only) rating if less than 10 moves have been played and position is equal.
- If a player forfeits in a rated tournament without having played a single move, his games will be lost and he will be replaced, ie. FICGS CHESS CLASS B 000003 ... furthermore, his account will be closed. (obvious cheating)
Best wishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-07 00:38:57)
Go / Chess
Hello Tommie.
I chose not to implement a Go rating system for several reasons, first and main is: a quite true correspondence Go rating may be very (!) long to achieve, maybe even impossible. It seems to me that the challenge could be elsewhere ie. tournament results, to qualify for the FICGS championship tournament.
About the rating list, so far all new players appear in a unique rating list, soon there will be an established rating list, a provisional rating list and a new player rating list.
About this rating for Ion (2600), where did you see it exactly ?
... at last what happens with the Go applet ? You have to click on 'game description'. If it doesn't work, feel free to tell me what game you try to watch and what happens... Thanks in advance :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-07 00:33:53)
To be or not to be...
Hello Marc.
That's an interesting point of view ! The first reason such a championship could be interesting IMO is, as Dinesh said, it may be a good way of building relationship and camaraderie between players... I don't think this tournament will be a kind of stake for countries (so nationalism is probably very far from here, if it changes I'll reconsider this point), it's not very important and has positive points, so I just say "why not ?"
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-07 12:13:32)
Countries tournament
Another solution consists in naming the teams in another way, of course... So, any player could enter any team. (only depending on the leader)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-09 14:34:14)
Email webmaster, 2 players matches
Bonjour Julien, merci :)
My email is displayed (just replace the symbol by @) on the 'About' page.
As I explained in another (old) thread, priorities are to reduce the delay for tournaments to start and to make it as simple as possible. As this server offers all games live, I think it to be 'competition oriented' is the best choice. It would be easy to offer many sorts of tournaments, rated/unrated, different time controls, quad/round-robin/ko etc... but it would loose his interest.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-09 14:50:52)
Olympiad...
Hi Trent and Marc.
I must say what Marc says makes sense for me. Actually, if olympiad is a way to know the countries 'chess level', I don't think it would be significant enough in correspondence chess, first because of computers. And regions (asia, oceania, europe...) wouldn't be significative enough.
Anyway, this question is to be solved by players, as there are too few captains to build teams so far. I'll wait a few days more, then I'll withdraw the tournament if no more requests.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-13 11:58:41)
2 players matches
Hello Amir.
Sorry, this is not possible yet to invite players for a 2-games match.
Nevertheless, you can start a game with Nigel instantly just entering the FICGS CHESS CLASS M 000005 tournament waiting list. One player more, and the tournament will start !
Another way, as it would be an interesting match for sure, I can create a special match if Nigel agrees to play.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-13 18:02:00)
Chess tournament
FICGS CHESS CLASS M 000005 just started. Another strong tournament I'll follow with interest :)
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000005.html
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-13 18:28:54)
FICGS chess world championship 1 & 2
Hello to all.
FICGS chess world championship deadline (2006 june 15) is 2 days far from now ! Here is the scheme, allowing all players who registered to start playing at the same time, without loosing the opportunity for new players to register at a later date :
As 2300+ players will enter the cycle at stage 2, the idea is to start 1st (from stage 2) and 2nd (from stage 1) world championship at the same time. Thus, all tournaments will begin at the fixed date for all players who already registered, then a new deadline will be fixed (probably in august/september), and all players registering late for chess wch would begin a tournament each time there's enough new players in the waiting list, with the condition that the ELO average of these new tournaments be equal or superior (as few as possible) to the tournaments that began on June 15.
And good luck to all... :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-14 13:15:33)
FICGS 1st chess world championship
Hello Heinz-Georg !
It's only a logical extension to the rule that divide the championship in a round-robin and a knockout (for the 8 best rated players) tournament. Of course, there's no rule that fit to everyone, only choices... I hope to make the most balanced ones for the whole site.
By this rule, high rated players have a stage less to play (that they would probably win) and it limits the rating gaps (otherwise it would be more like a cup). In most wch competitions, winners and high rated players/teams are qualified for an advanced stage in the tournament.. A quite common and logical system, used everywhere from football world cup [winner qualified for quarter final] to Roland-Garros [qualifications stage], FIDE world championship etc... 2300 rule is a statistical choice, used in IECG too with more parameters. (nevertheless at IECG high rated players can choose to play the first stage too, but IMO it's quite complicate)
I hope to make it as simple and attractive as possible, believe me ;) Of course (and it is mentioned in the rules- preliminaries) rules could still evolve if improvements are decided by the [future] council.
The only negative point is, indeed, only 2300+ players can play the 1st wch, that is in a way not a "complete" championship. But compared to all other positive points (first, everyone can play now), and as 2nd wch starts at the same time, I think this choice is best.
What I think to do is to send all tournament tables to players who registered on 2006 june 16. If finally there are players who don't want to play it, they'll just have to tell me within days, responding by email. It should avoid any forfeit.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-06-14 14:40:34)
FICGS 1st chess world championship
Hello Thibault!
Thank you for your answer.
Two points:
It isn't sure at all that a player with a rating > 2400 will win his group if he had to play a 1st stage group. The CFC-Ch 2003 has shown, that less than 50 percent of the best rating players (even players with rating > 2600) have won their qualification groups.
In the moment we have about 100 players with a rating < 2300 who have registered themselves for the wch. Their rating avarage is about 1720 (!). Is that right? This means (if I understand your rules) the wch groups of the 1st stage will have this rating (+ or - some points). In these groups for a 2200 player it is nearly impossible (even as winner of a group) to get a tournament performance > 2050 (I suspect that this is the reason that players with rating > 2300 not have to play this stage). After the first stage the distance to 2300 will be greater than before.
I have registered myself and I will play. But I'm not really satisfied with that situation.
Dorel Oltean (2006-06-15 13:14:09)
Criteria
In round-robin qualifing criteria is first number of points and then rating?
In round-robin tournaments one can choose other criteria, after points, like Soneborn, number of wins, .., related to the performance one made.
In rating list there are a lot of "provisional" ratings , which will become much too important.
Daniel De Noose (2006-06-15 15:17:03)
Not very satisfy too...
Like Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff, when I registered the tournament it was announced as 1st championship and open to everyone. I don't like when rules change after the registration.
Secundo, if you only reserve this 1st tournament to players with rating over 2300, you can change my rating : on the "correspondence" chess site chess-mail I'm over 2370. But as I said to you when I began here I want to improve my real rating beginning like an unrated. But if now the rating is so important to play the 1st championship, I prefer to be correctly rated.
Hoping you'll change all this and play really the 1st championship with everybody.
My actual rating in "correspondence chess" :
- chess-mail : kasapov (2370)
- echecsemail : danideno (2280)
- echecsnet : danideno (2271; but it is the highest rating of this site)
Daniel
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-15 16:36:17)
Criteria
Hello Dorel and Daniel.
As you noticed, rating is quite important in FICGS world championship cycle (particularly established ratings, obtained from IECG / ICCF or after 9 games finished in FICGS) !
I think these rules are really the best choice in order to designate a world champion. It's more logical IMO to favour players who obtained previously the best results in FICGS and recognized organizations, and consequently a high rating. It takes time, of course. Even very strong players starting with a 1700 rating won't achieve a 2300 established rating before months !
Criterias in FICGS wch are (from most important to least) :
1) Winner of the previous cycle (qualify for the final match)
2) The eight best established ratings (play the KO tournament)
3) Points obtained in the wch tournaments
4) The tournament entry rating (TER)
Of course, there are some provisional ratings that will increase a lot, but it is not possible to grant a 2300 rating to any player saying so. It's already a lot of time gained that ratings from FIDE, ICCF, IECG be recognized.
Finally it is the same in IECG / ICCF : it's very hard to achieve a high rating, it's very hard to directly qualify for a 2nd stage too, it takes months, probably years in email chess...
Now, please consider this, if we start 1st wch at stage 1 : It won't change anything for your play, as the 1st stage of the 2nd wch is exactly the same... 2300+ players won't play before months... and if the rule is changed about 2300 mark and everyone playing 1st stage, probably all games for 2300+ players won't be rated with a 100% result... and at last it will be harder for you to qualify for 2nd stage...
It is a hard work to write rules as fair, balanced and interesting as possible. Rules can't satisfy everyone, sorry about that.
Daniel De Noose (2006-06-15 17:23:38)
It is not the same !
Playing 1st or 2nd Championship is not the same because if you play only the second you can't be the first FICGS champion !
;-)
Secundo, as you explained it at the start of the site, everybody can use databases, computers, ... In that case a 1600 can beat a 2300 if he enters correctly parameters in his chess engine.
Because the tournament is not again started you can correct this. After the beginning it will be harder.
And what's my rating now ? ;-)
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-16 13:08:59)
thibault
thank you for your advice as you probaly saw I have registered for a tournament ( i think I am the only one...) I would be grateful if you could contact Nigel and let him know that i would be interested in playing him.
Regards
Amir
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-16 13:19:00)
the GM class tournament...
I was interested to see that a tourney dedicated to the GMs of this site was available. So I tried to enrol, but my rating is too low :-) but yet I am a GM :-) I think it would be a great thing if we could enrol in it.
Merci d'avance thibault
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-16 13:28:21)
FICGS CHESS CLASS M 000005
well apparently I cannot enter the tournament due to rating retrictions
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-16 13:39:02)
GM - SM - M tournaments
Hello Amir.
I don't think a GM tournament begin before a while ;) Actually, not only granmasters can register for this tournament, but players with a rating > 2600 (means who probably have a GM level or title). So far, there's only one player with such a rating. The same for SM tournaments (rating > 2400).
If you liked to play against most probably titled players, you could have registered for a SM tournament (I can change that - exceptionnaly) that should begin in about 3 weeks...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-17 12:39:45)
Correspondence chess
Hello Wayne.
Correspondence chess is definitely a game of patience...
Note : When you register, you can enter your rating ! The rules state a rating not from FIDE / IECG / ICCF gives at most a 1700 rating... So you could have started with a 1700 rating ! Anyway in july (after the next rating calculation) you can play stronger tournaments... and so on..
Tim Bredernitz (2006-06-18 16:35:30)
Confused...
I understand the rules of the tournament fairly well, but I'm still having trouble figuring out when the games will start. The last post says that the deadline is June 15, but when I check the waiting list it says the deadline is July 1st. I'd just like to know when the games will start being played.
Thank you.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-18 23:20:14)
Deadline / Start date
Hello Tim.
FICGS 1st wch will start on 2006 july 1st. A new deadline will be fixed, so that players can begin other tournaments lately, but all players who entered the waiting list already will begin their games on july 1st.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-06-19 15:45:34)
FICGS 1st wch
Hello Thibault!
It seems that I haven't really understood what will happen on July 1st. You write "Thus 1st wch is a complete cycle". Does this mean, that the knock-out tournaments of the 8 players with the highest established rating also will start (stage 1)? If not it is not a complete cycle according to FICGS (your) rules - in my opinion.
What happens if a player has a rating > 2300 at the beginning of stage 1 and a rating < 2300 at the beginning of stage 2? May he play stage 2?
What happens if a player has a rating < 2300 at the beginning of stage 1 and a rating > 2300 at the beginning of stage 2? May he play stage 2 even if he hasn't won his round robin group?
The rating at which time is essential?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-19 16:34:56)
GM special match
Hello to all.
From time to time, special events will take place on FICGS.
A 4-games match just started between GM Nigel Davies (GBR) and GM Amir Bagheri (FRA).
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__MATCH_EVENT__000001.html
I think we'll watch these games with interest :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-19 18:42:16)
FICGS 1st world championship
Hello Heinz-Georg.
While watching the wch waiting list, I realized that there could be an improvement more about this "extra-group". So here is the 1st wch scheme (and next ones, without the special group in the first stage), according to the rules.
Stage 1 :
-- Knockout tournament --
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_1__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_2__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_3__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_4__000001
with John Anderson, Petr Makovsky, Daniel Cinca and 5 other players...
-- Round-robin tournaments --
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_1__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_2__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_3__000001
(...)
And at last, a special and one-time group :
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_M__000001
This will be a high rated group, with GM Nigel Davies, GM Amir Bagheri and the ~10 players 2300+ who won't play the knockout tournament according to the rules. The winner of this group will directly qualify for stage 3 round-robin final tournament (a one-time rule). The others can play stage 2 as specified in the rules.
Thus, only the 1st wch will start on july 1st. I think it's fair enough and finally everyone can play...
Stage 2 :
-- Knockout tournament --
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_SEMI_FINAL_1__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_SEMI_FINAL_2__000001
-- Round-robin tournaments --
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_1__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_2__000001
(...)
Stage 3 :
-- Knockout tournament --
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_KNOCKOUT_FINAL__000001
-- Round-robin tournament --
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_ROUND_ROBIN_FINAL__000001
Stage 4 :
-- Candidates match --
FICGS__CHESS__CANDIDATES_FINAL__000001
Stage 5 :
-- Title match --
FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000001
... if there's a world champion and if he defends his title. Consequently we won't have a stage 5 this time, but as it could happen again in the future...
That's all folks !
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-06-19 20:29:55)
FICGS 1st world championship
Hello Thibault,
thank you for your answer. Even I have understood this now. I have always missed the knock-out tournaments in the postings. It wasn't clear to me (and I was probably the only one ...) whether these tournaments take place also.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-24 14:31:15)
Chess Samizdat
I just read many Chess Samizdat articles (some from chess players around here)... Really funny and interesting. I particularly liked this quote from CJS Purdy : "The only valid excuse for withdrawal from a chess tournament is death, and then only with a death certificate" :)
From the new chess dictionary by John C. Knudsen.
http://www.correspondencechess.com/syndication/articles/0003.htm
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-27 16:58:03)
FICGS world chess championship
A minor update in the rules that fixes many problems for future wch cycles... Nothing has changed in the rules for the 1st cycle that begins in 4 days, changes only concern next cycles, with the extension of the one-time rule mentioned above.
The equation was :
- No confusion with the cycles when entering the waiting list (2300+ players qualified for 2nd stage of the previous cycle is too confusing).
- Avoiding tournaments with too big rating gaps (and encourage high rated players to participate)
- The formula combining knockout tournament, round-robin cycle (so that everyone can play wch, with no more than 5 stages), and the final 2 players matches in the last stages.
- Making it as understable as possible...
It is now mentioned in the rules that 2300+ players will play 1st stage in high rated groups (ratings superior or equal to 2300). Winners of such groups (same criterias) will be qualified for the 3rd stage round-robin tournament, the others will play 2nd stage.
As all games are played with rapid time controls, a new cycle will probably begin every 6 months !
Wayne Lowrance (2006-06-28 19:31:18)
Ficgs chess world championship 1&2
here is easy qurestion. I a 1800 + player at july 1 (2250+ at other correspondence cites). Now the easy question. If I should win all my rounds, will I or will I not be overall world champion. Not likely, but a nice goal to think about. I am not used to losing tournaments, never have yet, anywhere
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-30 12:50:53)
Games lost on time
Hello Paul-Iosif.
When a game is lost on time you just have to wait a few hours and the game is adjudicated automatically.
I'll try to make a replacement in the tournament soon. You may have noticed that the game has been rated as a loss for your opponent, but not as a win for you, according to the rules cause less than 10 moves have been played.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-30 13:23:48)
Replacement
Two players (who played no move for 30 days) have just been replaced in tournaments :
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_C__000002
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_B__000006
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-01 17:20:35)
1st FICGS chess championship started !
Hello to all.
As you may have noticed, 23 new tournaments just started :
http://www.ficgs.com/category__ficgs__chess__wch.html
4 matchs (quarter final) started in the knockout tournament
QF 1 : John Anderson (SM) - Farit Balabaev (GM)
QF 2 : Daniel Cinca - Peter Schuster (SM)
QF 3 : Gilles Hervet (SM) - Gino Figlio (IM)
QF 4 : Petr Makovsky (SM) - John Knudsen (SM)
19 tournaments (groups) started in the round-robin cycle, 17 tournaments with an elo average between 1672 and 1732 (16 tournaments of 17 are in a 32 points range), and 2 "group M" with an elo average about 2390.
All round-robin tournaments are groups of 7 players as it was the best way to make it fair.
I wish you all good games and have fun :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-01 17:44:41)
Format For Championship
Hello John.
After all, if it wasn't unusual, the interest would be lower for sure... :)
So you noticed, the 8 players with the highest established correspondence chess ratings play a pure knockout tournament.
I thought about this format a long time ago (and a long time). Combining a knockout tournament (more "spectacular") and a round-robin cycle (everyone can play, no more than 5 cycles) gather together the advantages of both. It is one of the reasons I made FICGS... I think pure knockout or pure round-robin wch cycle is not efficient enough for chess championships.
The other thing you'll notice in the rules : "The special rule is that in case of equality (4-4), the winner is the player with the strongest tournament entry rating if all games are draw, the player with the lowest tournament entry rating if not all games are draw. The winner is qualified for the next stage."
This rule (in case of equality in the round-robin tournaments, the player with the strongest TER is qualified too) is another way to avoid short draws... It may sound strange at a first sight, but I really think it's fair enough and a good way to find most probably the really strongest players in the last stages. Anyway, it's amazing for sure :)
The FICGS chess wch rules :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#tournament
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-02 12:52:15)
rules & ratings
Hello Peter.
Indeed, you were one of the very first registered players. I have fixed the rules since this time, though it seems to me this point was the same already.
Anyway, ratings of course are not only informative (like in life :)), as it allows to play class tournaments. Now, there must be a way to choose a winner in certain cases, even if there's no "perfect" way. But if you win the tournament, there's no discussion. It only lights the battle a little more... When a player register he can ask for a >1700 rating only if he has got an "official" rating already, so the influence of choice is not so important at registration.
Your reference to 1789 is amazing, but actually we ARE equal before the law (rules). Doesn't mean the law is perfectly fair, that's impossible, of course. Like in life... The rules slightly favourize the best players. Je t'embrasse itou :)
David Grosdemange (2006-07-02 18:53:50)
qualification for 2nd round ?
how many players will be qualified for the 2nd round of the round robin tournaments ???
that's not written in the rules .....
how many groups of how many players for the 2nd round ??
and 17 is a prime number ... so there won't be the same number of qualified players in each group (or the groups of the 2nd group won't have same number of players) ......
there's a lot of not ansered questions ...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-02 19:26:07)
qualification for 2nd round
Bonjour David !
Maybe it wasn't clear enough yet. The winner and only the winner of each tournament will be qualified for the next stage. As there can't be several, only 1 player per group will be qualified.
"Round-robin tournaments are groups of 7, 9, 11 or 13 players. The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage."
Consequently, there will be at least 17 players from the groups ("at least" : if new groups are created) + players rated >2300 from the high rated groups (but winners).
I expect about 40 to 50 players in stage 2 round-robin tournaments. If the numbers don't fit, there will be an invitation to players 2300+ until it solve the problem.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-04 12:17:36)
Symmetrical games
Playing the same opening until move 20 is not a problem IMO, particularly in correspondence chess nowadays...
John, about the format, that's interesting discussing... Why wouldn't it be "normal" in your opinion ? Not usual for sure, as round-robin tournaments are used everywhere in correspondence chess. So it will be a surprise for hardened CC players, but will it be for OTB players ? Why the "match format" couldn't be an acceptable alternative ?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-04 16:55:10)
Symmetrical games
I don't understand how it could be a problem. If one consider a critical position at the end of the opening (ie. clear advantage for White), who plays White first knows the position is bad for Black... Why would he play the same opening with Black ? It's a wrong question IMO, there are very few cases where there's only a "good" move until the end of the game.
Anyway, this question is even more relevant when playing different tournaments in different organizations (a player may respond moves played by an opponent in a game at IECG in another game at ICCF....) than in two players matches. Nothing can prevent that, but what a shame and where's the satisfaction ? I think it's not a problem there.
Gino Figlio (2006-07-04 18:54:07)
Difficult to prove
If it's difficult to prove who is "cheating" in a match like this, it's practically impossible to prove foul play when the incident occurs in 2 different tournaments, against 2 different opponents. I'm sure this has happened in ICCF but unfortunately there is no way to detect it. I remember chessfriend claimed to have this figured out, but it was just one person's opinion. Players need to be aware of this problem and avoid it, nothing worse than being forced to play against yourself.
Gino Figlio (2006-07-04 19:08:38)
8-game matches
Just to clarify my position about this format, I think it's just fine if the players are alert and avoid playing symmetrical lines/games. I actually think it's a good idea to play a simultaneous 8-game match to see who's better. It's just a bit different than your normal round-robin tournament, perhaps that makes your site unique!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-04 20:15:35)
8-game matches
John... ??? :)
Vladimir Kramnik - Peter Leko (match for WCH classical title)
Vladimir Kramnik - Deep Fritz...
Of course it is desired... Who will remember the names of the players in the last ICCF final tournament ? Even if ICCF doesn't use this format, and (as you say) serious CC players didn't have the opportunity to play such tournament, knockout format is still desired.
My first idea was a pure enormous knockout tournament, but it's obviously not possible (too much rounds, a time problem), that's why I thought about this combined system.
Now look at the chess world : Many players don't understand why FIDE progressively reduces the number of games and time controls in WCH matches. It is the main reason why FIDE world champion title looses value. Not hard / accurate, not spectacular enough !! ..
What many players (me, at least :)) expect is a classical world championship with a big final match. You may have noticed that FICGS champion will have the opportunity to defend his title in a... 24 games match against his challenger... (!!) That's real fight, that's real challenge and that's what I expect to see from a championship, a big opposition between 2 players, and not a round-robin more or less aleatory, with too much names, not understandable for the most.
Now, as we said on TCCMB : FICGS is not "official" matter, chess is for fun here, but chess must be a show and I'm convinced it is relevant in correspondence chess too. We'll see that ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-07 17:06:28)
Game 1006
Hello Ryaad.
Your opponent's clock in the other games of the tournament, the logs and the tournament page cached by Google, all confirm the clock is right. Maybe another of your (numerous :)) games.
Marc Lacrosse (2006-07-08 11:08:51)
Modifying "rapid" tournament rules ?
Hello all,
Hello Thibault
As I already said in an earlyer thread, one of the reasons why I joined FICGS was the possibility to play fewer games simultaneously at a faster pace than in other corr. chess associations.
So I enrolled in a first rapid tournament where I find two things unpleasant for a so-called "rapid" category:
1. some of my opponents (and myself also) accumulated reflection time "reserves" of 40 or even 50 days in some cases, which is not appropriate for a "rapid" tournament IMHO.
2. my last unfinished game is completely won for more than ten moves now (it's K+pawns against K+pawns with an unstoppable passed pawn for me where computers announce forced mate in ... max 40 moves). My 2200+ opponent continues to play at a very slow pace. It's pretty annoying : I bet I could win my game at blitz tempo against Kasparov analysing for three days per move but I suppose I will have to play for weeks until his king is mated!
So I propose :
1. To have an absolute limitation of the time reserve a player can accumulate in rapid tournaments (30 ?)
2. To have a procedure allowing to call for external adjudication when a player refuses to resign a forcefully lost game.
Your opinion ?
Marc
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-08 21:05:41)
Thibault You Have a Golden Opportunity
Thibault - one of the reasons that FICGS has grown so quickly is that you've welcomed input and implented the things the players have asked for. John is right on this issue. I urge you to listen to him. Take this opportunity and make FICGS the chess server that leads the way in establishing logical time rules.
Here are some suggestions for regular tournaments. You and others can build on these:
- 30 days start +2 days added per move
- 100 days maximum accumulated time
- 30 days maximum limit for one move
- 4 weeks (28 days) annual leave
- no time lost or added during leaves
- no moves made during leaves
- all time calculated by a running clock in hours and minutes
My recommendation for rapid tournaments are:
- 14 days start +1 day added per move
- 30 days maximum accumulated time
- 10 days maximum limit for one move
- 2 weeks (14 days) annual leave
- no time added or lost during leaves
- no moves made during leaves
- all time calculated by a running clock in hours and minutes
I recommend you let the server automatically handle time limit oversteps and make no exceptions. The only exception I would offer is if someone is ill or injured and needs to take an extended medical leave (these things happen). Let there be an option for that player to file an approved leave with you.
Thibault love your server and the hard work you put into it. You and others feel free to critique my suggestions. I strongly urge you to use this opportunity to lead the world in logical time rules. You don't have federations or tempermental world champions to appease. You are the boss. Do it RIGHT. Good luck.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-07-09 00:46:13)
Leave/Reflection Time
Dear chessfriends!
In my dreams a perfect server has the following time rules.
Normal tournaments:
- 30 days with an increment of 30 days/ 10 moves
- 100 days maximum accumulated time
- 30 days maximum limit for one move
- 4 weeks leave per tournament (!) for every year since the start of the tournament
- no time lost or added during leaves
- a move in a tournament during a leave stops the leave in all games of this tournament
- all time calculated by a running clock in hours and minutes
Rapid tournaments
- 30 days start +1 day added per move
- 45 days maximum accumulated time
- 30 days maximum limit for one move
- no leave
- all time calculated by a running clock in hours and minutes
By the way, the world championship should not be a rapid tournament.
But how I said these are my dreams ...
Alarich Lenz (2006-07-09 15:40:32)
Leave/Reflection Time
whats the maximum limit for one move in the FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1 tournament?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-10 02:04:36)
Vacation and reflection time
Hi John, Glen & Heinz-Georg. Thanks for all suggestions... ;)
Some responses, particularly about vacation (towards a compromise ?) :
* 30 days + 2 days/move : Not "beautiful" (not a joke, it is design matter)
* 30 days max for one move : Not convinced it can really bring something... if a player want to last a CC game, I think no reasonable rule (without human factor) can prevent him to do so.
* 14 days + 1 day/move (rapid) : As players don't know exactly when tournaments will start, I think 30 days at start (ie. compared : email tournaments often start before the real date) is a good choice to avoid accidental forfeits during holidays !
* 2 weeks annual leave : Even for different time controls, I'm not favourable to make too many different rules.. 30 days (for all games per year) is a balanced choice IMO.
* Vacation : Ok, I make note of this. I was not favourable to any leave system, cause it's obviously a way to have days more in time trouble, even if time is frozen ! .. That's why I made it "hard" to use.. If players can stop their leave when they want, just by playing a move, it becomes easier to manage time trouble situations. The 60 days rule for 1 move was a solution avoiding vacation IMO but we discussed it already... Now I'm to decide to change the vacation rule, as John (& you) urged me. I thought it was a good thing not to prevent players to make moves during the leave... Maybe most think different, ok... However I have a problem yet with vacation as it's really a way to get more reflection time... Here is what I suggest, simply a harder rule : Players who take days leave CAN'T play during their vacation and CAN'T take days back (stopping their leave by playing a move) ! Then 2 options, players must wait their vacation end date to play again, or they can play, but provoking the cancellation of their leave (loosing the days leave taken and not used yet).. Maybe it won't be appreciated in some particular cases if players have to modify their plans, but the aim is clearly to reduce the vacation effect on the game... What do you think ?
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-07-10 20:06:15)
Vacation and reflection time
Hi Thibault
Vacation seems to be a great problem on all chess servers. The way you manage it is very special. I don't think, that your way is "hard to use". Of course you can always abuse vacation to have more time in time trouble. But your way is very easy. Take 10 days of vacation and play on. And at the end of a year add the not consumed vacation to the reflection time of all of your games.
Now you suggest that a player can not play during his vacation. That is ok. But if the player starts playing during his vacation "loosing the days leave taken and not used yet" is not ok. "Maybe it won't be appreciated in some particular cases". Too much and unnecessary administration. Let the server work.
You don't want to give up your concept (adding vacation time to the reflection time), am I right? You already have announced the corrections on "My messages". If you must change your concept, you would have to rewrite parts of the software.
Nevertheless I would like to say how I imagine the vacation rules on my "perfect server".
I can make the following things with my 4 weeks of holiday:
- If I'm on holiday far away from home or don't like to play chess for a while, I can take a leave in all tournaments.
- If I have much work (sorry - I had to earn money and my employer doesn't take it into consideration, that I would like to play more chess) and can't take care of all tournaments for a while, I take a leave in single tournaments. If the overload is past, I play on without losing the vacation which I perhaps haven't taken.
- I cannot take a leave in a rapid tournament. That is ok - rapid means rapid. There shouldn't be any way to get more time for reflection in this kind of tournament.
It's a pity that no more players express their opinion on this topic in this forum.
Rodrigo Jaroszewski (2006-07-11 22:14:16)
A question
Thibault wrote concerning rapid clock:
"* 14 days + 1 day/move (rapid) : As players don't know exactly when tournaments will start, I think 30 days at start (ie. compared : email tournaments often start before the real date) is a good choice to avoid accidental forfeits during holidays !"
Since your concern is with the first moves, how about using the 14 days + 1 move/day suggestion, but on the first two plies (e.g.: 1.e4 c5) you add a second clock that would give a period of 10 days for White and Black (separately) to know the game is on, before they make their first moves?
It'd go like this:
White has 10 days on this "grace period" + 14 days. Two possibilities:
1) He makes his first move. The time he had remaining on his "grace period" is removed, and he would have the 14 days. He would not get an additional day for it.
2) He does not make the move on the "grace period" and his 14 days clock starts running down. When he does move, one day will be added, as it normally would.
When White moves (if White ever moves), then:
3) Black makes his first move. The remaining of his "grace period" is removed, his 14 days remain, no days are added. Or,
4) Black does not make a move in the "grace period", his 14 days clock begins to run. If he makes a move, he'll gain the day, as he normally would.
In both cases, no more "grace periods" would be added for the rest of the game, and White's clock would start running with 14 days or less, depending if (1) or (2) happened.
I'm not sure if I was clear, neither if it is actually possible to do so. It's just a suggestion. I also hope that the forum does not clutter my message. :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-12 23:12:46)
Delay before tournament start
Hello Rodrigo.
I think your idea looks like very much the system used in email chess. I just wanted to make it easier to understand. Quite strange to make moves and have no days added to the clock. "Official" and "non-official" start for a tournament is a thing we can avoid. That's the main reason of this time control 30 days + 1 day/move.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-07-12 20:12:40)
Tournament entry rating
Hello Thibault!
Am I right that my TER (tournament entry rating) is not essential for the calculation of my new FIGCS - ELO - rating. If I'm not right, in which variable can I find it?
I thought the difference of my opponents and my own rating at the beginning of the tournament would be of importance.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-12 22:54:50)
Tournament entry rating
Hello Heinz-Georg.
Your TER is not taken in account when a rating calculation occurs (your opponent's one is, of course).
But your previous ELO has a weight in the formula...
Don Groves (2006-07-14 02:59:50)
Time limit per move
I feel there should be a firm limit (I would like to see 10 days) and a penalty for exceeding it:
(1) Subtract one day from offending player's clock for each day over the limit.
(2) If limit is exceeded more than double, game is forfeited.
If player cannot abide by these time constraints, they should take leave (or perhaps play in fewer games ;-)
Also, I agree with the idea of no moves at all during leave. Leave is leave from FICGS, not just from one game or tournament.
Regards to all,
Don
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-15 13:21:58)
Time limit per move
The idea is interesting, however it could be difficult to display the remaining days (confusing)...
About the 60 days limit, I think there are clear advantages, and the bad effects are not so important if you consider there's no real way to prevent a player to last a game and the rating period of 2 months. The point that makes it difficult to compare to other organizations is some FICGS rules are harder : All lost games are rated, forfeits or not... I think this rules takes off some pressure. And many players can't assume regular play. Players who think 60 days per move is too long may play only rapid tournaments...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-19 18:05:41)
FICGS championship : new groups
A new group just started in the 1st FICGS wch :
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_18__000001
Waiting for another player with a ~1700 rating and a new one will start.
As the rating average of new players significantly decreases, I can't guarantee all players (most with a 1200 rating and below) who entered the waiting list after the start of the tournaments will play this first WCH (late groups rating average should be equal or superior to other groups).
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-21 11:24:02)
Mise a jour classement ELO
Bonjour Eric.
Tout est là (11.7) : http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#general
"The rating period is 2 months. The first period of a year starts on January 1st. For ratings calculations, the opponents' Tournament Entry Rating (TER), which are valid on the day of the rating run, are used."
La prochaine mise à jour sera donc pour le 1er septembre.
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-22 19:50:51)
Interesting Discussion Topic
Thibault - this is a interesting discussion topic. Of course, no one knows the future with certainty, but we can all offer an opinion :)
I'm nearing my 40th year of correspondence play. Sometime later this year I will complete my 1000th tournament game. All my games were played by postcard until the mid 90's. E-mail dominated my CC schedule from about 1998 until 2002. Now I only play server chess. I've played on the FICGS, IECG, GameKnot, ChessFriend, Schemingmind and ICCF servers.
Contrary to many people who've played as long as I have, I do NOT see chess engines as a threat to the game. I think they've changed the game, but not hurt the game. I believe they've increasd CC's popularity and game quality. The same is true for opening and ending databases.
Some of the changes that will occur in CC the next ten years:
- Servers will improve functionality and ease of use.
- Due to engine use we will grow to accept 2200 as an "average" rating rather than "Master."
- Tournaments will be re-structured to include fewer players per section and shorter tournament durations. This particularly applies to ICCF where 15 player sections and slow time rules to simulate postal chess are used.
- New server functionality will be added to allow players the option to SLOW down the game. It's too easy to get caught in a mindless "server flurry."
- New chess software will be developed to analyze games. This analysis tool will give proability estimates on what engine one's opponent is using. That information will allow one to counter and plan against one's opponent.
- There will be more anti-computer books written and theories developed. We will use these techniques to beat our opponent and and improve our chess planning skills.
Bottomline ... I am excited by the new technology. I see continued advances in the way we manage our gameload, the way we send moves, the way we play, plan and analyze our moves. The way we play in the future will be different and will still be fun for those who embrace new technology. My disappointment is I am an old man and unlikely to enjoy all the advantages the future brings. I hope those who follow me enjoy what I will miss :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-23 19:54:58)
Chess thematic tournaments
Hello to all.
The 7th chess thematic tournament (waiting list is open) may be a very interesting challenge...
The opening : 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 Ng8 3.e4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Ng8
Is it a lost position or not, you can try to respond ! (it is at least very hypermodern style, but is there a name for such a manoeuvre ? :))
There are many other ideas of openings, but you can make suggestions for future thematic tournaments.
Previous ones :
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000001
King's gambit (winner : Josef riha)
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000002
Wing's gambit
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000003
Benko gambit
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000004
Orang-utan
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000005
Danish gambit
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000006
Scotch gambit
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-24 17:04:52)
Thanks Thibault
Thanks Thibault for the response.
I definitely concur that today's correspondence chess is different than 40 years ago. The two biggest things I miss about today's CC are the 1) blunders and 2) open tournaments. I remember the excitement of getting a postcard and rushing to check my opponent's move. Blunders weren't common, but they occured. Now they're non-existant. Blunders made for great lore!
Why no more open tournaments? Took me 40 years to get my rating where it's at. I'm not a top player, but what I've earned, I've earned mostly the "old fashioned" way. I avoid open tournaments to avoid losing to low rated players who just learned the moves, but because they have a a high powered muti-processor running Deep Fritz they can knock me down a hundred points. I miss chatting with beginners, teaching them the ins and outs of CC. Oh well :)
You mentioned the top CC players winning and then not sticking with the game because winning is too hard due to chess engines. Is the drop out rate at the WC level any different than it was in the past? Berliner won and dropped out 40 years ago. Palciauskas won 30 years ago and then he dropped out. Chess engines were not a factor when they won. I don't think top players drop out because of engines, but because it is too hard to keep a competitive edge to play at a top level for any length of time. Good results are a combination of talent, hard work and good fortune. Keeping all three together for any length of time is a HUGE endeavor.
Personally I think a bigger threat to CC burn-out is not chess engines, but chess servers. Servers make CC too easy. Today's CC today is like Bill Murray in "Ground Hog Day." You wake up to an inbox full of chess moves. You work all day/night replying. Then you wake up the following day to moves from the same people and do it all again. There are no week long breaks breaks between games like in the postcard days. Server chess is burning out everyone, not just the top players. The progressive server owners will need to address this issue someday.
Sooooo ... what's the bottomline for me? I liked the old days better, but the old days are gone. Chess engines are here to stay. Progress is part of life. I embrace progress and am determined to enjoy it. I get my thrills by learning about chess engines and their weaknesses. That gives me an edge and keeps the game fresh. But then that's me :)
Dinesh De Silva (2006-08-02 16:10:49)
Inactive Rating List
Thibault,
I see that some players don't seem to be playing in any of the tournaments! though they are listed in the Rating List.
Any future plans to list them under an Inactive Rating List perhaps?! Just a suggestion.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-02 20:36:00)
Chess WCH waiting list
Hello José Antonio.
Players who had not entered chess wch waiting list before July 1st (start of the 1st wch) can do it before August 15, in order to start more tournaments (july was a bit early to start). Most players who entered it lately already play in new groups or have replaced players who didn't make a single move in their games (and lost on time). If this is the point you're talking about, it's difficult to consider a game without a move has been really played. Replacements (particularly players rated 1200: beginners) allow to low rated players to enter this 1st WCH tournaments cycle, otherwise new groups wouldn't have the necessary rating average.
Finally, everyone play a 6-games tournament in this first round. So, why 12 games ? Maybe I did not understand well... :/
Marc Lacrosse (2006-08-02 22:14:10)
Request for adjudication & rules
In game *** my opponent has a completely lost position for more than 2 months by now and refuses to resign.
How long will he require that I play child-level uninteresting moves?
I announce mate in 8 moves and request adjudication against this completely disgraceful way of playing.
I am evidently able to prove the win.
I already said how I felt this kind of proceeding to be completely disgusting.
If my requirement is not fulfilled I will leave this site being the first master-class tournament winner.
Nice...
Marc
Marc Lacrosse (2006-08-02 23:52:15)
Adjudication
Thanks Thibault.
I was not aware of the 11.5 rule which is very good IMHO and I am very glad that you agreed to apply it in my game.
I think this is a good rule "as is" and it does not need to be changed.
To Graham :
Sure you are right.
But it's the same in OTB play : almost nobody waits until the final mate move.
However when one disgracefully requires you go until mate has effectively been done, you just have to wait for less than a few hours at most.
In my case the win was evident for more than two months and my opponent still meticulously waited until he only had a few hours left...
Did he wish to wait for a new rating,did he wish to have won other games to take the lead in the tournament : I really don't know (and I truly cannot fully understand)...
In any case the rules were respected...
Maybe this could be an additional argument for limiting the maximum amount of accumulated thinking time ?
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-03 10:49:34)
Special cases (health..) & server rules
Hello Roger !
I hope you are fine now...
I'm afraid that health problems have no reasonable solution, as many people expect from server rules to avoid human factor as much as possible...
A high rated player, also one of the very first registered player on FICGS had this problem too, and I did not find a solution to save his games. We both "resigned".
Anyway, I see that only your games in 1st WCH have been lost on time, and you have been replaced already in the tournament. Even if you are in the waiting list again, you probably couldn't play this WCH, cause several 1200 players are waiting already. Sorry about that :(
Best wishes.
Thibault
Marc Lacrosse (2006-08-04 17:05:33)
WCH tournaments
In the 7-players qualification tournaments for the Wch there are usually two 2100+ players together with five players with a much lower rating.
As there is only one player qualified for the next step, isn't there an enormous advantage for the one of the two better rated players who happens to be white in the game with the other higher rated player (assuming that both can hope for very good results against lower-rated players)?
This is probably unavoidable ...
Marc
PS what does happen if two players finish 1st ex aequo with a draw in their mutual encounter and similar results against all others?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-04 17:47:56)
WCH tournaments
Hello Marc.
The new group you're playing in (probably the last built before august 15) has a bigger gap ("écart-type") than others.. It was not possible to build it in another way.
The advantage is given by the rating to the 'best' player in all stages (knockout or round-robin), but that's the challenge, and the way of these WCH rules.. (see previous threads about WCH)
However, it's not obvious that top players win all other games... A single draw should decide.
Dinesh De Silva (2006-08-08 09:49:06)
Re:
Hi, Brian!
Just FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD. Haha!
Click on "Waiting lists", then click on "FICGS Go Tournaments. It's that simple.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-08 12:09:40)
Suggestion (sponsors)
Hi Dinesh.
I'm looking at everything of course, it would be great to get sponsors and prizes for free tournaments ie. WCH... The more success, the more chances, so still working. It will take time anyway...
In a near future : Tournaments with entry fees & money prizes should start in October, I have many new ideas to make it attractive for the most, titled players as beginners, and it should bring something to the whole site.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-13 15:09:54)
WCH waiting list closed
Hello to all.
It won't be possible to start new WCH tournaments for this first stage.
Total : 21 groups, 2 groups M, 4 knockout quarter final, 169 players playing, about 190 entered the waiting list (replacements, forfeits...)
The waiting list will be closed during a few months.
Marc Lacrosse (2006-08-13 20:30:15)
List unfinished games
A suggestion :
When you are browsing the games of a tournament, it could be nice to have a button with "list only unfinished games" action.
So you could have a quick glance on how are going all unfinished games of the tournament.
In the present state of the interface this is a bit difficult to do "manually"
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-13 20:39:42)
List unfinished games
I was just thinking about a link to see all boards of the tournament on one page (quite heavy)... It could be interesting combined with your idea.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-08-15 17:32:04)
Statistics
Some suggestions:
- all winners of a tournament (including the number of won tournaments)
- the player which plays or has ended most games
- the player which has obtained most points
Wayne Lowrance (2006-08-16 02:08:03)
Resign rule
I am informed via email that F. Diego resigned for a loss, in a game he was gonna loose in my opinion. less than 10 moves). That rule is very bad.
T
hat win has not showed up as a win for me or a loss for him in the tournament standings.
Not fair, I sure think this stinks. whats happening here
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-16 03:20:49)
Resign rule
Hello Wayne.
Quote : "That win has not showed up as a win for me or a loss for him in the tournament standings."
The win is shown in the tournament standings, but game is not rated if it's an early forfeit (less than 10 moves)...
Benjamin Aldag (2006-08-18 07:28:04)
Tournaments with "normal" starting-fee
Just a question:
Tournaments with money-prices sounds good, but a starting-fee of min. 100$ is in my opinion a little bit to high.
What about tournaments with a starting-fee between 10 - 20 bucks ?
Benny
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-19 00:06:35)
Tournaments with money prices
Hello Benjamin...
Many new tournament categories will be created when entry fees and prices will be available. Some will be designed for granmasters, others for special challenges. We'll have the opportunity to discuss about it in a few months.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-20 21:59:53)
TCCMB exhibition match
Game over, John did it well !
http://www.ficgs.com/game_2222.html
I hoped a miracle until the end. The trap did not work, 28.Qd8+ and it was probably a draw... After 28.Qf8+ ! .. I only can resign. Lots of fun :)
I'll look at the next chess thematic tournament (same opening) with interest...
Thanks to John Knudsen for this nice game !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-22 16:48:47)
Thematic Blackmar : 1 day !
Obviously, you were interested in playing Blackmar thematic tournament. The waiting list has been completed in only 1 day :)
I'll try to find more openings like this one...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-22 19:52:28)
Thematic tournaments & King's gambit
Danish gambit and scotch gambit have been played already. (not far)
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000005
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000006
I'll keep the idea...
Where did you see that king's gambit is not playable ??? Disproved doesn't mean anything IMO... (& this is probably the most known chess 'troll' :))
Dinesh De Silva (2006-08-24 14:01:52)
Re: Premove (conditional moves).....
I think such issues as CONDITIONAL MOVES & VACATION TIME ALLOWED are sure to be debated in the future too. Some sites allow conditional moves , some don't. Some sites allow vacation time of 30 or 30+ days per year per tournament (and sometimes even special leave), some sites don't. These issues are sure to be hotly debated for a long time.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-31 03:16:24)
New best game...
Finally, we have a new "best game", after about 2 months of clear domination by chess game 342...
Game 2198, from the scotch gambit chess thematic tournament, is a funny King's hunt :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-01 17:11:46)
Go / Weiqi tournaments : New categories
Hello to all.
New Go tournament categories have been created.
PRO category, for players ranked 1 dan and above (Go elo > 2099)
DAN category, for players ranked 10 kyu and above (Go elo > 1099).
KYU category, for all Go players, whatever their rating...
Rules have been updated for the rating calculation and Go championship (a win in a KYU tournament = 1 point, a win in a DAN tournament = 2 points, a win in a PRO tournament = 3 points).
Feel free to post here any suggestion to improve this site for Go game...
(& don't forget this is not a chess variant ;))
Kind regards.
Joachim Nettelbeck (2006-09-03 16:33:42)
First mover loses
I think that besides the entry fees there is areason, why nobody seems to enter these tournaments: First mover loses!
When I see someone with, let's say, a rating of 2000 has entered a tournament, and I'm below that, I will never enter it, too. Not if it's about money. So only people with higher ratings will enter, and the first mover is likely to lose his money. Thus nobody enters first. There is a procedure needed which guarantees that the opponents in this kind of tournaments are close to each other in their rating. Or at least the ones who enter will need to be invisible...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-03 16:45:33)
Re: First mover loses
Hello Joachim.
"why nobody seems to enter these tournaments" : first because they are not open yet :)
As I said, this is only an example. New categories will be created, with formulas as simple and fair as possible, and other ones that could allow to low-rated players to meet strong titled players...
Anyway, all suggestions are welcome.
Ulrich Imbeck (2006-09-05 01:04:27)
How many moves within 40 days?
Hello,
im playing my first tournament.
I can't see anywhere in this domain how many moves I have to make within 40 days.
Dirk Ghysens (2006-09-05 12:16:53)
Time control in thematics
How about time controls in thematic tournaments? Suppose the first 12 moves are "given": are there still 40 days for the first 10 moves then?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-05 12:42:18)
Time control in thematics + Winning time
Hello Dirk & Ulrich
That's a good remark ! .. The program wouldn't add these first 40 days in thematic tournaments, as move 10 has already been played. Anyway that's fair IMO and not so important with this slow time control.
Ulrich, the answer is yes, the faster you play, the more time you save for the rest of the game...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-05 16:21:34)
Tournament winners & leaders displayed !
Hello to all.
Tournament winners & leaders (2 at most) are now displayed in all tournament categories. Just click 'Tournaments' and see...
These informations are not displayed in real time, but will be updated at least every 2 months (while chess rating calculation)
All comments welcome.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-05 16:27:10)
All tournament boards on a single page
A new update (test)... All boards for each tournament are displayed on a single page, when you're connected only. Click on a tournament, then click the "photo" icon at the right of the name of the tournament : All boards, moves and public comments are displayed on the same page.
I'm interested to know how much time it takes to your browser to display it.
Thanks.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-06 03:41:02)
Time to display all informations
It seems complications did not begin yet... :)
Heinz-Georg, could you try a last time to load the tournament (with boards) page ? It should run 'a bit' faster now... Thanks !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-06 15:43:12)
FIDE WCH : Kramnik vs. Topalov
Do you believe it ? .. now it's most probably almost sure :-)
We'll have a new FIDE-Classical world champion in a few weeks !
A reminder : This will be a 12-games match, taking place from September 21 to October 13 in the capital of Kalmykia (whose president is FIDE president : Kirsan Ilyumzhinov himself), Elista. In case of equality, four rapid games will be played, if equality again two blitz games will be played and finally a sudden death blitz game. The prize fund of one million US dollars will be equally divided between Vladimir Kramnik and Veselin Topalov, whatever the result. The looser won't play the next world championship tournament (quite strange).
Anyway, that's a great thing for chess, even if I'm not very optimistic for the next FIDE world championship cycles, particularly if the world champion has to play a knockout tournament, instead of a classical 12 or 24 games match...
My favourite in this match is still Kramnik because of his style, but Topalov is really getting stronger IMO... It will be a hard match !
Any predictions about the result & games ? .. Will Vladimir Kramnik play his Berlin defense in the Ruy Lopez again...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-08 18:10:52)
Chess tournament : Zero-sum or not ?
While discussing about Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", and the question "Is the best player always the champion ?" (of course not IMO) , I was argued that any chess tournament "was" (actually could be "reduced to") a zero-sum game :
"In 1944 John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern proved that any zero-sum game involving n players is in fact a generalised form of a zero-sum game for two persons, and that any non-zero-sum game for n players can be reduced to a zero-sum game for n + 1 players; the (n + 1) player representing the global profit or loss. This suggests that the zero-sum game for two players forms the essential core of mathematical game theory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_sum_game
It seems to me that it's out of topic, but I couldn't say exactly why... In my opinion, a tournament is nearer life than game, at least quite far from it. Much more rules, often complex ones, and results that depend on many parameters you couldn't influence...
The word "champion" depends on accurate rules (the best player could finish 2nd, even if he wins all games ie. in an open tournament..), the "best player" depends on general opinion (most commonly through ratings), ie. Topalov vs. Kasparov ...
What do you think ? :-)
Where the discussion started from :
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060907/sirlin_01.shtml
I agree with many points about how to win, but the use of some words seems to be dubious...
I like much this quote :
"I was surprised to see that Capablanca did not initiate any active maneuvers and instead adopted a waiting game. In the end, his opponent made an imprecise move; the Cuban won a second pawn and soon the game. “Why didn’t you try to convert your material advantage straight away?” I ventured to ask the great chess virtuoso. He smiled indulgently. “It was more practical to wait.” "
—Mikhail Botvinnik, 6th World Chess Champion
Dinesh De Silva (2006-09-10 13:02:14)
Suggestion: A best game prize in future
I suggest there should be a BEST GAME PRIZE in the future (if Money Tournaments are a success in the future, which I'm sure it will be. That itself might generate some extra cash needed for this). A prize of.... say....US $ 100+ would be nice! Contenders for best game should be judged by a competent panel appointed by FICGS. Best Game could be selected once every month or once every two months. I think only one game should be submitted per each player, so that there's time enough for the panel to make a proper evaluation of the submitted games.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-10 14:13:09)
Re: Best game prize
Hi Dinesh !
Of course, there are many things like this to envisage.. ie. Wch prizes. It will all depend on money tournaments (working on) & eventual sponsors.
However, I'm not so favourable to such suggestive results... We'll see. If the idea is plebiscited in the future, I just say why not...
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-09-10 14:41:52)
Money torunaments
Hi Dinesh !
I doubt that more money tournaments as free tournaments will take place. And in the moment the waiting lists aren't filling very fast. The period of the first registration up to the start of a tournament gets only even longer by the additional money tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-10 15:53:02)
Money tournaments
I agree with that. It will take a long time (maybe one year) before all waiting lists are filled in a reasonable short period. But it slowly improves. I'm quite optimistic...
Dinesh De Silva (2006-09-10 16:19:37)
Re: Money Tournaments.......
I'm optimistic! Probably double-player matches might be more popular than multi-player tournaments in Money Tournaments category, as it gives a better chance to win. Some players might play it for fun too, if GMs could be challenged for a fee. Many possibilities why it'll be a success.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-11 00:26:57)
1.b4
Hello Ulrich.
1.b4 is not bad enough :) The idea is to organize ie. money matches (with only 1 game) & tournaments where draws can't happen. So it's important to have about 50% chances at a high level.
Just an idea.
Maybe normal start positions with a pawn less could work...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-11 13:38:25)
Openings
It could be fair in tournament cases (but without any interest, just a thematic tournament more). But it couldn't have any sense in a 1 game match. That's the problem...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-11 14:28:51)
Gambits + Time controls
Ulrich : There's no line without a major mistake, even in these gambits, that really offers 50% chances to both sides this way (win & win OR draw) in my opinion. That's why I thought about these mad lines...
Dinesh : As I responded to Gino, time can't be an acceptable compromise. I thought about it already in order to find the best way to decide between players who tie in the WCH tournaments. It depends too much on personal parameters. There will probably be a kind of "infinite challenge", where the game starts again until one looses.. but it may be long in some cases :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-11 14:40:57)
Chance & casino games
Hi Dinesh.
Problem is FICGS shouldn't become a casino.. (with stud poker, blackjack, roulette or whatever chancy game like this :)) It's legally difficult already to organize tournaments with prizes for "mental sports"... Adding confusion may create some problems.
Ron Keyston (2006-09-12 00:01:50)
Thematic Suggestion: Traxler
I think a Thematic Tournament based on the Traxler Counterattack would be interesting:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-12 01:08:25)
Traxler Counterattack
Hello Ron.
That's an interesting opening... Ok, we'll use it for the next thematic tournament...
Thematic tournaments waiting lists are filled quickly now.. but often by the same players. Maybe we should propose some boring openings too, to help them to have a rest & slow down the rhythm... :)
Ulrich Imbeck (2006-09-12 01:09:41)
!?
I had a lost as White a tournament game with it.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-14 12:12:22)
Re: Latvian Gambit
Hey Benny !
That's ok ! .. Maybe you should try not to register for another thematic tournament (that's not the reason why waiting list is closed right now ;)) before to kill Latvian gambit... :> You're definitely a fanatic ! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-16 12:24:20)
2-games matches
Well, why not such a thematic tournament soon (after Traxler)... The one with opening :
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 Ng8 3.e4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Ng8
.. is 100% wins for White so far !
Elmer Valderrama (2006-09-16 15:14:06)
5 moves in fact
..just checked the thematic tournament 0007 on this sequence, and in fact White has 5(!) extra moves at the starting position
(as it's his turn after 4.Ng8).
No surprise most of the games are 1-0
(there are a couple of 0-1 too)
So 5 moves are too much; same would be for 4, or 3,..to me 2 moves it's a reasonable deal for Black (i.e. if draw Black "wins")
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-09-19 16:21:14)
Thematic tournament 14
IMO - after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 white has easy win: Nxf7 and Nxh8. Exchange and pawn more.
May be it is possible to put 4.. d5 instead of 4.. Bc5?! No one is in the waiting list yet.
Cirulis
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-19 18:42:49)
Really?
Waiting for your reply : 12.Qb3 O-O-O
You entered so many lines I don't know which one to play :) .. but you can see it's not so easy. I think this thematic tournament will be interesting.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-19 20:43:18)
Traxler Counterattack
HAHAHA :=)
I see you're to solve the Traxler counterattack in Wikichess ! (at least this line 5.Nxf7)
http://www.ficgs.com/wikichess_611.html
I don't think I'll play this tournament :/ .. I've already too many running games, and a lot of work, yes... That's a pity, this opening is really interesting !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-20 02:07:42)
Traxler thematic tournament
The waiting list is filled already for this 14th thematic tournament ! .. The last player who entered is Benjamin Aldag :) (Benny, this is not reasonable ;))
This opening was definitely a good idea :) Thanks, Ron.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-22 22:16:08)
Unrelated ?
Hello Nigel.
Why unrelated ? .. You can leave a comment in any of your finished game, through 'My tournaments' in example.
Another way is to change the game number in the url : user_page.php?page=viewer&game=1
Elmer Valderrama (2006-09-26 09:15:06)
..f5?? > ...f5!!
..100% agreed.. they are (especially Topalov) playing variations
which make sense to enter only in engine-assisted chess (CC)...
(as a result they are tired after calculating the first set
of 8 variations with 18 non-forced plies each ;)
Regarding the match, fingers crossed Topo will pull a Phoenix
as in other tournaments when he was -2 after the first round...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-26 15:29:42)
Thematic : Beefeater defense
The new waiting list for next - 16th - thematic tournament is open...
Beefeater defense : 1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c5 4.d5 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 f5
Lines with 6.e4 are particularly interesting...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-28 17:28:04)
Re: Offering duel (go)
Hello Ismail.
2 players Go matches are not available right now, sorry... The next Go tournament (FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU__000004) will begin soon... Be patient ;)
(but feel free to offer games played out of the server, of course)
Best wishes.
Daniel Brunsteins (2006-09-29 01:09:31)
Request to play a SMTournament
Hello, I m very interesting in playing a SM tournament but my Elo is 20 point under.Is it possible to join conditional.
Thank you !!!
Daniel Brunsteins
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-29 02:21:57)
Request to play a SMTournament
Hello Daniel.
Ok, I arrange that.
CLASS SM tournament waiting list is quite long to fill yet, but this should be exceptionnal.
Best wishes.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-09-29 04:56:57)
Tournaments winners list updated
Where is this, how u find it
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-29 13:07:02)
Tournaments winners list updated
Hello Wayne.
Tournament winners are displayed when you browse the tournaments lists in 'Tournaments' or 'My tournaments'.
This link gives all results so far in all tournaments played on FICGS :
http://www.ficgs.com/category__all.html
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-30 03:39:05)
Vladimir Kramnik - Open letter
Open Letter To
FIDE President
Kirsan Iljumshinov
Russian Chess Federation
Elista, 29. September 2006
Requests of Vladimir Kramnik
• To proceed with GAME 5
Clause 3.17.1., Schedule 2 of the contract:
“All protests must be submitted in writing to the Appeals Committee not more than 2 hours after the relevant playing session.”
The protest made by the Topalov Team were not made within this window after game 4 (27 September 2006) but only hit the FIDE Office and the Appeals Committee on the rest day (28 September 2006). Therefore the protests are not even relevant and should have been rejected by the Appeals Committee immediately.
Clause 3.18.3., Schedule 2 of the contract:
“After the World Chess Championship Committee agrees with the Organizers on the arrangements in respect of the tournament hall, facilities etc. etc. etc……., no objections from the participants shall be acceptable as long as the conditions are in accordance with the rights of the players granted in their agreements.”
This clause clearly underlines the statement made in today’s Open letter: “By starting the match both participants agreed all the playing conditions de facto and de jure and the conditions are therefore legally binding. Any change of the playing conditions without a good reason would in our understanding request the approval of both players which is not the case here.”
Therefore it is clear that the Appeals Committee took a completely wrong decision and was obviously not even aware of the Rules and Regulations. The decision of Chief Arbiter Mr. Gijssen to forfeit game 5 was clearly based on a wrong decision of the Appeals Committee and shall be nullified.
Mr. Kramnik is ready to continue the match and to play the 5th game (with a leading score of 3:1) on the conditions that were accepted prior to the start of the match.
• Toilet issue
The toilets connected to the restrooms shall be opened again. This request is in accordance with clauses 3.17.1. and 3.18.3 (see above) and in the general understanding that by starting of the match both participants agreed to all the playing conditions. Any change of the playing conditions without a good reason would require the approval of both players which is not the case here.
Mr. Kramnik is ready to accept even stricter controls by sealing the toilets before and after inspections. Inspections shall be done before and after each game.
• Exchange of members of the Appeals Committee
We repeat that the Kramnik team does not trust the objectivity of the Appeals Committee anymore. It is evident from this letter and our first Open Letter today that the existing Appeals Committee is biased and incompetent. Mr. Kramnik strongly insists once again that the members of the Appeals Committee will be exchanged immediately.
• Access to Recordings
As Mr. Kramnik in the press conference stated he did not sign a contract for acting in a reality show. The recordings shall be observed by the arbiters. Neither Team Topalov nor Team Kramnik shall have access to the recordings. Investigations shall be in the sole responsibility of the Arbiters.
• Requested Apology
Last but not least Mr. Kramnik believes that Mr. Danailov should apologize to Mr. Kramnik in writing. Remarks such as:
“If the match were to continue, the World Champion will refrain from shaking hands with Mr. Kramnik before the games and will not take part in joint press conferences with him.” and “Veselin Topalov is disturbed by the suspicious behavior of his opponent Mr. Vladimir Kramnik who takes his most significant decisions in the bathroom.” are clearly insulting.
On behalf of Vladimir Kramnik
Yours sincerely,
Carsten Hensel
(Manager to Vladimir Kramnik, Classical World Chess Champion)
Benjamin Aldag (2006-09-30 15:57:58)
e4-Line !
The e4-Line is the only line, which gives white the possibility of an clear advantage. All other lines are really bad for white. The point of this opening is, to have with the black color good knights versus a bad bishop-pair of white. Roman Dzindzihasvili is the founder of this Defense and i think, "Beefeater" is not the right name. I call it "Dzindzi-Indian-Defense". There are many interesting lines and some of them, transpose the game to other openings (Pirc, Sicilian-Dragon, Kings-Indian etc.). The move 5...f5 was played to prevent black of 6.e4, but 6.e4! is the best move, white can play. I've played last year in Litomysl in a Simultan versus GM Sergey Movsesian this "Dzindzi-Indian-Defense". Sergey played 6.h4?! and after 15 moves, we draw the game. The Dzindzi-Indian-Defense is an easy to learn opening and i've got good results with it in many tourneys. Last time i've saw this Defense at the Chess-Olympic, played by players around 2400-2500. 6.e4! is the best move, but many many players don't know it and the possibility for black, to get a good result in a game is very high. I can say, i know all variations about this opening and this thematic tournament will be my first tourney here, where i will not use computer-assistence. Its funny to see, that an Engine (Rybka,Fritz etc.) dont understand the ideas behind this defense and without an opening-book, engines dont see that 6.e4! is the only way, to get an advantage.
I luv Dzindzi-Indian-Defense
Benny
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-02 17:46:46)
Re:
"the one true champion" .. until next FIDE wch cycles, where Kramnik will most probably loose his title, simply because he'll have to play a 4 rounds / 16 players knockout tournament (if I understood well, not sure.. :/) that he could even refuse to play ! :)
Let's say he will be the last one true champion. Maybe that's a reason enough to continue the match after all :)
Anthony Bingham (2006-10-03 15:47:07)
Introduction
Hello all, my name is Tony, aka (DEwillget8 @ Gameknot).
I am looking forward to our upcoming tournament and would like to give a big thank you to all involved.
I do have one question. How do I challenge a player here to a match so I can get used to the layout of your site?
Thanks, Tony
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-03 16:07:34)
Tournaments
Hello Tony & welcome...
You'll notice FICGS is quite different from GameKnot... You can play tournaments here, just follow the 'Waiting lists' link and choose the tournament (according to you provisional elo) you want to play...
Feel free to read Help - http://www.ficgs.com/help.html
James Stripes (2006-10-03 16:13:13)
curious
I have approximately 64 chess engines, including the beta version of Rybka 1 (the free version). In engine tournaments on my box, it has prevailed against my strongest commercial engines.
However, the centaur play that is the norm here presents Rybka with an entirely different sort of playing environment than those in which it has demonstrated its superiority. As I am new to this type of play, I don't yet know how Rybka measures up to the likes of Junior, Shredder, and Hiarcs.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-03 17:10:08)
Delay / Slow down the games ?
An interesting idea had been submitted here a few months ago to "decrease the pressure" for all players and to slow down the games... (correspondence chess & Go are quite addictive :))
It would consist in delaying the transmission of moves or at least avoiding one can respond to a move immediately after being played.
The server works very well, but I feel there could be irregular peaks of charge in future... More and more tournaments start, faster and faster and that's probably only the beginning.
So what do you think about the "delay" idea ? .. 1 hour would be probably enough to spread out charge over time, but players may expect more or no delay at all !?
Glen D. Shields (2006-10-04 17:52:20)
Yes Thibault - Thanks for Asking
Thibault -
I see a need to offer player defined delays. My desire would be that when a move is sent, I have the option to post the move immediately or 1, 2 or 3 days later (using my reflection time during the delay). This option allows players to stagger their games and better manage the pace particularly at the beginning of a tournament.
Servers like FICGS have become the meeting place for postal players, e-mail players, correspondence server players and real time server players. It's a diverse and interesting group. Server chess is nothing like postal chess, but it shouldn't be a substitute for OTB chess either.
Starting a server tournament is like a ping pong match. You send a move and ten minutes later you have a reply. One can't ever keep their inbox empty.
Once the opening is over, the match then moves into "Groundhog Day" mode. You wake up to an inbox full of moves, you work all day on them and then wake up the following day to an inbox of moves from the same players. It's tiring.
I'd like the option to send a move, forget about it and then chose whether it should be visible to my opponent immediately, 24 hours, 48 hours or 72 hours later. The delay allows me to manage my game load better and gives me some flexibility how fast I want to play.
Server chess has grown rapidly the last five years. Its benefits are fantastic. Curiously, however, this year is the first year since e-mail chess was officially introduced that ICCF is reportedly (unoffical source) seeing an increase in postal chess. One of the biggest reasons talked about for this change is players are worn out from the fast server pace. I can relate to that. I'd hate to give up server chess because it makes so much sense. I know no one twists my arm to move fast, but why not give me server tools to help me manage my game load? I let the server count my time, keep my game score, chase my opponent when he forgets to move and report my results. Why can't it also help me manage my game load and slow down the pace when it needs to be slowed?
You asked ... so here are my two cents :)
Marc Lacrosse (2006-10-04 18:44:46)
no slow down by force please !
Nobody urges you to answer immediately.
Why should the one who likes playing fast sometimes be forced to wait for sending his own moves?
I cannot really understand this.
His opponent has always the choice to wait before answering if _he_ prefers to do so.
As i already said in another thread I prefer a small number of games going fast than a large number of ones going slowly.
I analyse most of my very few games everyday. So when one of my opponents reply I am often already ready to answer immediately. Why should I have to wait?
I even wish that a rule for maximum accumulated thinking time be implemented.
Those who prefer slow chess just have to refrain from taking too much games simultaneously and from enrolling in "rapid" tournaments.
Marc
Wayne Lowrance (2006-10-04 18:48:59)
Delay/Slow down games
Thibault, I see no reason to slow down play, I would be dead set against any such change.
The current format is sufficient. I am playing in six tournaments,just signed up for a seventh, which I expect will open up soon. I have had no trouble keeping up and my site clock is in no danger.
That is the way I feel.
Wayne
Elmer Valderrama (2006-10-04 21:44:39)
Danailov accuses Kramnik of using Fritz9
In my view, the best proof of computer use is the number of missed oportunities
rather than the number of coincidences, which can be manipulated as pointed
by Thibault.
Thus, an average player misses 80 to 90% (99% in the worst cases )
a Master - 30-40%, a GM 10 to 20%. With the extreme -no missed oportunities
we have those reported cases of cheating in Tournaments by average players
So the suspictions would be worth something if they are accompanied
by the report of (not)missed oportunities, otherwise the moves are in the usual
coincidence range.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-10-05 04:22:20)
Delay/slow down games
I dont make a move and wait 3 days or whatever to enter it in the server.
Games will be slowed down if a player has an extra delay time allowed with his pondering decisions.
Heck, I look at the tournaments and see no player in time jepardy. A day added to each move provides more than ample time for coorespondence play.
This a bad suggestion in my opinion. I am very very much not in favour.
Wayne
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-10-08 02:40:55)
Thibault
12 of my 13 are ready. If my player ritt doesn't register with you within 48 hours, I propose to simply drop him from the match, as I don't have a fair match for Charlie Neil (I do have many higher rated players if he really wants to play). Let me know, and please explain to me the format here on FICGS as you guys only play tournament style - are you going to set up a tourney especially for our match? Get with me tonight or tomorrow, as we hope to start the match Monday:) Thanks - Thomas
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-08 13:24:25)
FICGS vs. GameKnot tournament
Hi Thomas.
The games here will be played under the tournament name :
FICGS__CHESS__FICGS_VS_GAMEKNOT_MATCH
I just sent an email about pairings.
Best wishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-10 10:42:53)
Thomas
Hi Thomas.
I'll create the games and tournament as soon as all pairings and names / nicknames are ok. I send my list in a few hours. Players will just have to connect and see their running games in 'My games' or 'My messages'...
Best wishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-12 15:41:13)
FICGS chess championship #1
Pairings for the semi-finals in the first FICGS WCH knockout tournament are known :
GM Farit Balabaev / SM Peter Schuster
-
IM Gino Figlio / SM Petr Makovský
FICGS WCH round-robin tournaments (stage 1) are still running, next round should begin in 2007 january.
This time control, 30 days + 1 day / move, is definitely hard ! .. but definitely challenging :)
Dinesh De Silva (2006-10-12 17:15:04)
Re:
Thibault, what has been the rapid playing form of Kram. & Top. in previous tournaments?!?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-12 21:33:52)
Cyrano
Oops, I meant 'cyrano'...
Anyway I'd like to create Glen & Miguel's games first so that it's easier to follow on the tournament page - games ordered by ratings... We're late (sorry to all players), but it's probably better that most games start at the same time !?
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-10-13 16:32:42)
Re: Game of time ?!?!
Hello Thibault,
please have a look on the behavior of one of the players in our common tournament #002. I find no other way as shaking my head on it!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-13 18:13:05)
Re: Game of time ?!?!
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_SM__000002.html
I must say this is a quite strange strategy, if it is... Several 2300+ players continuously are in zeitnot (and finally loose some games on time). I don't think it can influence 'much' the play at correspondence chess time controls so that's probably their only way to manage time. Some can't play faster, obviously... Some also play at IECG, ICCF and so on. Anyway nothing can prevent that...
Dinesh De Silva (2006-10-14 07:16:49)
Re:
Hi, chess friend Utesch!
I have no leave time left, as FICGS only allows 30 days leave, and I had to use it up in the early part of this year. So, there's not a single day of leave for this year. (If you check with Thibault, you'll see that I haven't entered for any new tournaments since more than two months).
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-17 12:56:02)
Games started / TIME CONTROL
Hello Miguel.
It seems that time controls can't be the same on GameKnot...
Games just started ! .. (there will be a replacement soon in the last 2 games)
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__FICGS_VS_GAMEKNOT_MATCH.html
Scott Prestwood (2006-10-20 19:56:46)
Time Controls
Thank you, it sounds good for a 6 game tournament. From my calculations it has an average of 5 days per move(40 move basis). Are their any other forum readers that are interested in a 7 day(weekly) time control?
Scott Prestwood (2006-10-21 03:15:11)
Full Disclosure
Perhaps tournaments should be labled as permiting engines and not permiting engines. Coorespondence chess has tradionally had only the rules of chess and the time control limiting it. And the early masters that used and believed in coorespondence chess as a method to improve ones game did not have access to computers, nice to know I could get killed in the tourney I am in just because I'm playing 6 computers. The initial allowance of databases and books to aid ones choice of moves as well as playing the game through allowed improvement of ones chess abilities. Computers will have a greater tendency to be the one playing the game because they only prescribe one line of action from a position. That line is very strong and likewise tends to be the operators choice of the next move. If the allowance of computers is posted for the games it will allow for the players to chose which type of game they prefer.
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-10-21 11:31:16)
Some strange tactics with server chess
Server chess is allowing to see all parallel games in the same tournament. So some players hope to get an advantage by playing their first moves very slow. Perhaps they can learn (so they hope) by the other more progressed games of their opponents. It's legal but not so funny - neither for their opponents nor for themselves! Playing your own style will give you the most satisfaction! Wolfgang
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-21 12:11:22)
Tactics / server chess
You just have to be a bit more creative or to play different openings in your 3 games as White & Black in a tournament... Anyway, with online databases it's quite easy to know any player style & opening book.
There are many psychological tactics with server chess & CC time controls IMO, ie. it may be quite important to manage your unlucky opponent spirit during a tournament :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-24 13:06:31)
Anatoly Karpov, world champion...
... signing 1951 copies of the book (written by David Llada) "Karpov, el camino de una voluntad" - record of most books autographed by a celebrity.. previous holder was Bill Cullen, who signed 1848 copies of his book "Golden Apples" in april 2005.
Quite funny & great performance :) .. this chess festival in Mexico city obviously was a nice event : Simultaneous exhibition with 14,000 participants (world record), rapid chess tournament with Korchnoi, Kosteniuk, Karjakin & Hernandez...
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3446
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-25 11:47:22)
Once upon a time in Kalmykia
An interesting interview of FIDE president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov about future of chess, reunification match and other things...
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3448
I can't resist this quote :
Misha Savinov : Bearing in mind successful unification, do you see a chance of Kasparov returning to chess?
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov :
In my opinion, Garry will not return. His age will not permit him returning, chess advanced too far. But, of course, we would all be happy if he returns. Actually, I would be happy if not only Kasparov, but also Spassky and Fischer come back. If they do, I am ready to organize a supermatch of FIDE champions. A good idea, by the way! We’ll invite Vassily Vassilyevich Smyslov, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Khalifman, Kasimdzhanov, Topalov, Anand, Ponomariov… It is going to be a good supertournament!
Misha Savinov : In Elista?
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov : In Elista. And, probably, it will be 25-minute games, double round-robin. I wonder if Fischer accepts the invitation, what do you think? We will announce the winner a superabsolute champion (laughs)!
Misha Savinov :
One can call it an open championship of Kalmykia…
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov :
Are you suggesting inviting the Kalmyk champion of 1978? I think I could play 25-minute games…
.....
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-25 13:37:13)
Rating / 8-game match
Anyway this result is quite unusual in correspondence chess... :)
Conditions were best to realize such an increase of rating, and a part of the forfeit reasons are probably out of the match (a flag gate)... 6 games out of 8 were rated as a win in this match between Farit & John, with no other result for Farit when the rating calculation occured. It happened, it can happen, I think it won't happen often (I would be surprised if such a case occurs in semi-finals) but in all ways : That's great ! .. IMO :)
There's a part of "injustice" in all most watched sports and games, it's an essential element ! .. The biggest one 'strangely' is in soccer. At another level, chess stars choose their tournaments and manage their FIDE rating, remember ie. this match Etienne Bacrot (2470) vs. Vassily Smyslov (2510, wch) in Albert, with this result 5-1
An obvious, topical and nearer example : FIDE classical (old) world championship system is deeply unfair (for the challenger) but it MUST be kept !
As I said above, the concept (added to fast time control) may create some - rare - rating peaks, but effects are limited and I'm convinced it's interesting enough to try it.
To be continued... in a few years ? ;)
Glen D. Shields (2006-10-26 16:21:03)
It's Been Awhile ....
This tournament is the first time in awhile since I played on the Gameknot server. A lot has changed in server chess during my absence, but not at GameKnot.
There are two GK annoyances. I point them out NOT to trash GK, it's a well designed chess server, but hope that someone from GK who is following this match can instigate appropriate modifications.
I REALLY wish the e-mail notification indicating my opponent has moved would show his move. I have a lot of on-going games and don't have the time to make an extra log-on to GK just to get my opponent's move.
Also for those who use Opera, take note GK does not work (at least not for me). The board consistently shows up minus half the pieces. Refreshing the screen helps sometimes, but not always.
An extra log-in with my non-favorite browsers is not particularly endearing :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-28 17:43:05)
Match FICGS vs. GameKnot , the games
Hello to all.
It would be great to follow how the match evolve in this thread. As far as I know GameKnot leads by 1-0 (Ilmars blundered :))
http://gameknot.com/anbd.pl?bd=5966999&rnd=0.9197820842414586
It seems that's possible to link to all games (that started) on GameKnot, so feel free to post the links & results here.
Reminder, you can follow games played on FICGS there :
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__FICGS_VS_GAMEKNOT_MATCH.html
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-30 18:13:36)
Big chess "birthday" tournament !
FICGS now counts more than 1000 members :)
The display of Big Chess games has just been improved : Last move marked, coordinates, speed, bugs fixed... So it may be funny to see more games !!
A special tournament will start soon, if you want to enter it, just post "I'm in." (or something like that :)) in this thread. The first 7 players will be in.
The tournament will be there :
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__BIG_CHESS__THOUSAND_MEMBERS_EVENT.html
Games unrated, time control is 30 days + 1 day / move... 7 players -> 6 games per player (big challenge).
Reminder : To see what Big Chess is, see the Inaugural match game...
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__BIG_CHESS__INAUGURAL_MATCH.html
100% human chess guaranteed, no chess engines & databases :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-30 18:30:02)
Big chess birthday tournament !
I'm in... :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-30 20:20:03)
2nd FICGS chess WCH waiting list is open
Hello to all.
The waiting list for the 2nd FICGS chess world championship is open !
The 2nd stage of the first cycle may begin before the end of 2006. Thus, a new WCH cycle should begin every 6 months !
A small update in the rules : "A player can't be involved in two consecutive knockout tournaments." (of course, the 8 players involved in the quarter finals during the last cycle can enter the round-robin tournaments cycle)
Several logical reasons to this change : More fun & more chances for more high-rated players, decreasing the risk of rating peaks & to see a world champion involved in several knockout tournaments & candidates finals... to play the final match against himself :)
[edit : this rule is no more effective, simulations show the results wouldn't be interesting enough, and as it will be hard to start a new WCH cycle every 6 months, it's simply better to see the highest rated players in the knockout tournament, whatever the consequences]
Good luck & best wishes to all...
John Acre (2006-10-30 22:09:15)
lowball
I absolutely use an engine. The permitted use of engines is the only reason I'm at this site to begin with..... ........... ........... ........... ............. .............. ...........
Engine assisted games can be a great study tool, if used correctly. I analyze each position to the best of my ability, record my candidate moves. Select one, record it, and then feed the position into Fritz to see how it evaluates the position......... ........... ............ ............. ........... ............. ............... .............
If my move is in the same ballpark, I make my selected move, I feel fricking great, and I await my opponent's reply. If my move is substantially inferior to Fritz's selection, I try to figure out why, and then I play Fritz's move. This way, not only do I get to understand the positions rising out of my chosen opening in a depth I could otherwise never approach without professional guidance, but each step of the way, I learn to play the next move's position as if the strongest move had been played............. ............ ........... ............. ............ ........... ........... .......... ..........
If an opponent blunders in a big way, I mostly let Fritz finish him off, because the game is of no study value to me beyond that point. I don't care what my rating is, except that it be at a number where I can join a variety of rated tournaments (to face a variety of opposition). I don't play at this site to win, or to lose. I play here to get as close as a ~1600 OTB player like me can get to understanding the objective truth of the game............ ........... ........... ........... ........... ............. ............ ........
Sorry if that upsets anybody, but that's the whole reason I'm here. The community isn't big enough to have much independent value as a non-engine-assisted place to play correspondence matches. And why would one bother? There are a million of those places on the web. This place, however, is a one-of-a-kind goldmine. If engine play were to dry up or be outlawed here, what would be the point?....... ........... .......... ........ ........... ......... ........ ........... ............ ..........
Anyway, to answer, from my viewpoint, another question asked in this thread, I'm currently self-rated at 1500 for this site. I'm playing in tournaments at about that level, and am admittedly using Fritz 9. My record, out of 20 or so games, looks like it's going to be about 4 wins, 6 losses, and 10 draws......... ............ ........... ............ ............ ............ ........... ............. ......
Only two of those wins are going to be miniatures, and both of those against the same guy. So playing with engine-assisted strength of around 2500 on my slow-ish machine, I'm going to score around 45%, with about 17 out of 18 opponents playing at or above my machine-enhanced strength............... ........... ............. ............ ........ ............ ...........
People guessing 50% of users here use engines are lowballing, bigtime. I estimate around 95%. And I have no problem saying that I'm one of them.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-31 09:58:18)
2nd FICGS chess WCH waiting list is open
Hello Wayne.
I can do this tomorrow. If the issue is about rating, please note that ratings taken in account at the start of the tournaments (TER : Tournament Entry Rating) are current ones at this time - november rating if this cycle starts ie. on december 15) - so ratings will be automatically updated in the waiting list...
Kind regards.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-31 10:54:18)
Go : pro game videos on Youtube
An incredible mistake in a Go game by a professional 9p player. Pressure is high too :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj58O_qHBAU
"The player of the Black stones was Nakano Hironari 9p and the White stones were played by Ishida Yoshio 9p of joseki dictionary fame. This is part of a broadcast of a game from a TV tournament in Japan. The announcer who comes on in the middle says that there isn't time in the program to show the whole game so they are skipping to the end."
From GoDiscussions forum :
http://www.godiscussions.com/forum/showthread.php?t=732
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-31 11:23:33)
Weiqi / Go videos
Not many videos on Youtube about Go, but some are funny :)
Baduk (Go) game on Korean TV (10 min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOgcuYNIXII
Hero movie (9x9 game)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M98aG3SeZI
Whazza ? ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7_hv1OJJbI
Mission impossible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVG33ZgbCGI
Hikaru No Go (manga)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENwLKE3kFSw
Masters at work (looks like chess heh :))
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_URs__lmMo4
Go tournament (chinese)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmrQhtdr4ZM
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-31 20:49:57)
Time overstopping
Yes, that's a pity players give up games (particularly in thematic tournaments) like this... It can happen, but not so much games are given up in comparison to other chess servers. Just wait a few days more and it will disappear from your games list...
Kind regards.
Saksham Wal (2006-10-31 22:53:03)
Help For New Members
I tried to check all existing post, but could not find what i Needed.
Can someone Please Help me out in Few Things
1. How do i Start a Single Game Here ? Or playing Tournaments is the only way?
How do i find out which Tournaments are Open to join and which ones are already closed?
2. Are all moves played by e-mail(if yes, how?) or is there on site-java based Interface or something of the sort (eg: like features on GameKnot )
I understand that my Questions Might happen to be silly but well... i-need-to-know...
Hope this topic does not annoy anyone.
Regards
Saksham Wal (2006-10-31 23:00:23)
Thanks
Yes it did.
But, how do i find how Which all Tournaments are Open to Join and which all are already closed?
Regards
Saksham Wal (2006-11-01 01:25:44)
A Small Suggestion
Hello Thibault de Vassal
The Names were Bit confusing.
Maybe instead of "Waiting Lists"
it would have been, "Open Tournaments" or tournament open for entry or something like that, i would have been more easy
Regards
P.S: This Site is Great!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-03 18:19:26)
Rating change
TER (Tournament Entry Rating) is used for rating calculation, not current rating !
Dinesh De Silva (2006-11-06 05:59:08)
Re:
What was the last tournament Fischer played in?!...... the rematch with Spassky in the 1990s?!?
Charlie Neil (2006-11-07 15:06:33)
Fischer's last tournament
would've been the 1971 Interzonal. After that all his games with , Taimanov, Larsen, Petrosian and Spassky were all matches. How's that for being pedantic?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-07 16:14:47)
Match of the century
Revenge match of the 20th century happened in 1992 in Yugoslavia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Revenge_Match_of_the_20th_Century
About his last tournament, I've no idea...
Dorel Oltean (2006-11-10 22:00:27)
retire, come back. What's next ?
I’m playing in two tournaments with Mr Marez : class M02 and WCH M01.
Mr Marez had practically retired from the FICGS tournaments because he did not play for a very long period (one-two month). He lost on time 4 of 5 remaining games in each tournament. Now he comes back to continue the games he did not lose on time. By proceeding like that he is not fair to all the participants in the given tournaments, ruins the results and gives a not serious character, an amateur-like flavor to the tournaments.
On top of that he is now registered for other tournaments.
I think someone must do something about that.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-11 05:47:37)
All tournament boards on a single page
A new update...
Reminder : When browsing a tournament page, if you click the "photo" icon at the right of the name of the tournament, all boards, moves and public comments will be displayed on the same page.
It may take more than 30 seconds the very first time (these days, because of the update), but then it should be much.. much faster...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-11 06:16:23)
@ Sebastien Marez
Hello Sebastien.
That's always interesting to compare IECG and FICGS... Several players asked me about your forfeit in the previous tournaments, so I'm curious : Can I ask you why you finally came back to play some games at FICGS (after loosing about 240 points - future rating : 2204) ?? I suppose the time controls here are too slow for you (as Henri), do you have an idea about a "perfect" formula ?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-11 06:44:05)
@ Dorel Oltean - generalized forfeit ?
Hello Dorel.
That's quite true :/ .. It can happen, and it just happened. I think this case retire-comeback won't happen often at this level. As far as I know, it happened already (at other levels) for other reasons, main health. But anyway I think a generalized forfeit rule in tournaments would be fair. But it may be hard to apply in practice, some particular cases may happen... What do you think ?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-11 14:13:54)
temps de reflexion
I don't understand why it is a problem !? ..
Many players like the 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves time control, it is even - much - faster than the same time control played by email (ie. IECG) !
Finally, why didn't you prefer to enter the RAPID M tournament waiting list ??
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-11 19:27:15)
Chess tournaments : Performances
Hello to all.
Performances are now displayed for chess tournaments in the tournament crosstable pages.. (click the picture near the tournament name)
It doesn't mean anything for the rating calculation as games taken in account depend on tournament entry ratings (TER). Informative only :)
Wayne Lowrance (2006-11-16 01:26:09)
Players needed
Hello all. We need 4 more players to fill out the Class A 000009 tournament
rating range is 2000-2400.
It should be a nice tourney.
Wayne Lowrance
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-16 01:56:57)
Something to be changed
Hmmm... Dinesh has his fans :) ... (just a joke)
This has been discussed before : Server chess has clear time rules, some players may "play" with the slow time controls, sometimes for a good reason, sometimes not... It can't be totally prevented (or feel free make suggestions).
Looking at your clocks, that all reached 100 days, I suggest you to play rapid tournaments. This problem won't happen often this way !
Best regards.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-11-17 17:53:24)
Need one more player
Correction, sorry. Rating for tournament is 2000-2400.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-17 18:59:02)
Tournaments with money prizes
Hello to all.
Finally, Chess & Go tournaments with money prizes will begin in 2007 january !
"Money chess" is an all times controversy, many players play for fun only (even at the highest levels), others like much more this way of play. I think it's simply the most challenging, finally it quite looks like classical tournaments.
About Go, things are quite different, as software & particularly engines are a negligible factor in the play. The best players will probably always win, but weak players may be interested in a lesson.
You may have noticed some changes in the waiting list categories for money tournaments :
Two formats for 2-players matches will be available, 8 games matches (time control 30 days + 1 day / move) and 2 games duels (time control 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves) renewed in case of a draw.
Simultaneous games will be also organized with international masters for both games, with prizes shared if some players could beat the masters.
Of course, it won't change anything to the free tournaments & championships, it will be optional only. I hope it will help to provide prizes for the FICGS chess & Go world championships (sponsors are welcome :)) ...
The membership page - Terms and Conditions - has also been updated.
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
Some major changes (as in money tournaments pages) might happen until 2007 january.
Feel free to post here if you have any comment or suggestion.
Best wishes.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-11-18 00:52:42)
Player needed
A challenge your invited to the Class A 000009 2000-2400 tournament. There are six players now, top rated is 2300+. Room for one more player.
Cmon and enjoy a nice tourney.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-18 10:46:06)
Tournament started !
Well done, Wayne.. :)
Have a good tournament.
Mikhail Ruzin (2006-11-19 09:22:47)
Rating change (Go)
Hello Thibault.
It is not normal!
My initial raring was 1800.
Then I lost the rated game in FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT__000008 against a player rated 1900 and my rating changed to 1780. It is normal.
But then I win the rated game in FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_DAN__000001 against a player rated 1600 and my rating changed to 1752. It is not normal.
Mikhail Ruzin (2006-11-18 21:05:44)
Rating change
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_DAN__000001
Ruzin, Mikhail TER=1780 Rating=1752 Points=1/1
How can be such?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-18 22:38:06)
Rating change (Go)
Hello Mikhail.
Looks quite normal :
You won a rated game in FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_DAN__000001 against a player rated (TER) 1600 and you lost a rated game in FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT__000008 against a player rated 1900... The rating average of your opponents is inferior to your initial rating (1800).
Marc Lacrosse (2006-11-19 13:33:40)
Where else do/did you play corr. chess ?
I just wondered where else did some of us play before coming on FICGS (and do some of us still play elsewhere ?).
Thibault I could not find you on AJEC or ICCF listings although I see you are a regular poster on ICCF's forum (TCCMB): where did you play before ?
For what regards myself I played in ICCF tournaments in 2000-2003 than switched to playchess.de and then here. And now I just began with ICCF play at new : I had one half master norm there and thought it could be nice try to get the other half :-)
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-19 15:35:57)
Where else do/did you play corr. chess ?
:)))
Hello Marc.
That's funny you ask me... Hard to find correspondence chess info about me & indeed I did not play at AJEC & ICCF yet. That's not a secret, many of you already know that I made several movies, some (last one was a kind of parody of Stanley Kubrick's "A clockwork orange") under my name, others - english speaking ones - under my "real" director's name that I used on most chess servers & in another correspondence chess organization, where I achieved about the same rating. (damn, I may be disqualified for the WC final :))
Of course I tried a lot of correspondence chess places before, but none was interesting or challenging enough to me, that's why FICGS and its tournament & WCH rules.
Dorel Oltean (2006-11-19 15:51:50)
retire, come back. What's next ?
Is allowed to retire from FICGS tournaments (loosing around 10 games on time) and then come back to resume unfinished games and start new ones?
The answer is YES , it happened and , after more then a week from my previous message, it seems it can happen again.
The soft reaction of the administrator of the site and the totally (surprising for me) lack of reaction from any FICGS member showed it’s only me who has a problem. (Maybe, by changing the subject, my message was hidden behind the discussions about ‘the 60 days rule’).
I cannot accept that ! For me chess is a serious thing. I consider chess a sport where the equality of chances and the respect for the competition must be the first rules.
So I decided to retire from all FICGS tournaments . In M02 group I didn’t finished any game so my retiring will not affect the final standing. In WCH M01 I have only one unfinished game and my opponent will finish second last anyway. So my withdraw will only permit someone else to finish first and qualify instead of me. In my last group, A02 I wish to finish my remaining game (if I am allowed) than I will leave, with real sorrow, FICGS for good.
Whishing you nice games
Dorel Oltean
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-19 17:56:13)
Retire and come back.
Hello Dorel.
I'm very sorry about that, but actually Charlie just said everything.
"It is just one of the drawbacks of having a free site on the internet."
This was only an obvious example, but the problem is quite more complex... What about a player who just looses a game on time and continue his other games. Farther, why a player should draw to another one and win to a third. Any result in any round-robin tournament is partly 'aleatory' and depends on many other factors than chess, particularly rules.
It also happens in over the board tournaments to get prizes, it can happen everywhere and at ICCF too... That's why I prefer knockout system. Of course, I'd like to solve all problems, but no rules are perfect. (by the way all suggestions are welcome)
The original post was in 'temps de réflexion' thread :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=1453
Best wishes.
Marius Zubac (2006-11-19 19:21:59)
A penalty system is needed
Hello Thibault. I think that time has come for you to add new rules to FICGS and a penalty system (using penalty points) to discourage players from retire-comeback behavior. Loosing some games on time unless provoked by some unforeseen event should be also penalized although less severe. Upon reaching a certain number of penalty points the player should be prevented to register for new FICGS tournaments (let's say a half a year) and on resuming the penalized player should be only allowed to play a limited number of games until the lesson is learned.
If you would compare FICGS list with the server-based IECG list you should notice that FICGS is less populated in the strong players section (2200+) than IECG and this has an impact on the quality of high-end tournaments, norms and titles and of course ratings. If we want to improve FICGS some action in this regard must be taken.
I sympathize with Mr. Oltean and wish he reconsiders his decision.
Marius
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-19 21:40:49)
Re: A penalty system is needed
Hello Marius, thanks for suggestions.
My problem is : How to deal with ie. a player who can't play (personal or any good reasons) during a while and looses only one or two games on time in a tournament ? .. How to prove a 'retirement' ? .. Above all, we have to avoid cases that could be undecided by the rules.
Of course, IECG server is more populated in the strong player section ! .. But there is no link with this in my opinion, IECG - International Email Chess Group - exists for more than 10 years, it's a long way. I regularly read IECG forum but I did not try IECG server yet.
I only know that IECG & FICGS servers started about the same time (FICGS started one or two weeks before IECG server), as Ortwin gave me some advices about the server before it started...
Marius Zubac (2006-11-20 00:25:05)
The penalty system - a proposal
A player that for a (good) reason is not able to continue his games should have two choices: A) Let some games get lost on time and then he would be treated under the penalty system. B) Ask for a retirement and in this case no penalties should be applied. Once a player asks for retirement the following actions should be taken: 1. His status in the rating list should be flagged to retired; perhaps a retired player should not be able to register a new tournament; 2. A retired player could get re-instated by applying directly to the FICGS adjudication commission; 3. All the retired player’s running games should then be frozen and dealt with on a by tournament basis: 3a) if in a tournament the retired player has finished games that are not lost the remaining games should be adjudicated by FICGS for rating purposes. However all the retired player’s games should not be counted for qualification purposes (if the tournament provides qualification to a next stage); how the games are to be considered for norms is a matter to be discussed. 3b) if in a tournament the retired player has finished games that are all lost the tournament director can act as in 3a) or has the option of canceling all the retired player’s games.
This proposal is far from perfect but shows that we are not helpless and some action can be taken.
The reason I mentioned IECG is because probably on the server the population is roughly equivalent with the FICGS’s one but in IECG’s case the distributed is more favorable in the upper section. This is the reason why there is enough active population at any given time for new tournaments and severe rules are not needed as much as in FICGS’s case in order to maintain a meaningful activity.
My belief is that the centaur mode will prove in time to generate stronger games, stronger chess and FICGS will have chances to become in time the most relevant correspondence chess server. The technical conditions are already met.
Marius
Lawrence Nesko (2006-11-20 00:52:58)
Perhaps a silly question, but...
Hello, all. I'm new to the world of correspondence chess. So if my question is naive, or has been answered at some point in the past, I apologize.
It seems that there are no single-elimination tournaments available on FICGS. Why is this? Please don't take this question as a form of comlaint. I'm merely curious. Have I overlooked something? Or is it simply not the norm in the chess world, correspondence or otherwise?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-20 01:03:54)
Re: Perhaps a silly question, but...
Hello Lawrence.
Do you mean "knockout tournament" ?
Reason is simple, it doesn't make sense in correspondence chess, as time controls are too slow and rounds can't be played at the same time. On the contrary, in round-robin tournaments all rounds can be played at the same time...
But knockout system is great and it remains in FICGS chess WCH, which is a multi-stages tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-20 01:33:29)
Re: The penalty system - a proposal
Ok, I say why not... But once again the problem is : What to do if a player looses only one game on time (after 12 moves, very small advantage for his opponent) in a tournament ? .. How to be sure he has bad or good reasons ? How to prove a 'retirement' ? .. My opinion is you can't prevent all cheating attempts (obvious or agreements between players), but we have to discourage them as much as possible. At IECG, there are many tournament directors but a player can withdraw from a tournament without loosing a single point, and there are consequences on the result in all ways.
CJS Purdy : "The only valid excuse for withdrawal from a chess tournament is death, and then only with a death certificate" :)
I think FICGS rules are quite hard already. Most important is to follow clear rules, with no human decision as much as possible. Still looking for improvements.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-20 15:59:46)
Go : Komi
Komi 7.5 points is the 'estimated' fair value while playing perfect (at least pro)...
Since we use elo rating system for Go, I think any handicap (stones or komi) is nonsense, but maybe we could create an unrated category of tournaments, simultaneous games or matches with a handicap... Could be fun & more interesting in some cases.
Lawrence Nesko (2006-11-20 19:42:00)
Thanks, Thibault
I appreciate the response. In many of the books I have read (particularly Seirawan's series), I have almost always seen e.p. as the notation for an en passant capture. Perhaps my source materials are older, or perhaps they are not using tournament conventions?
Either way, I'll keep this in mind for future reference. Thanks again!
Lionel Vidal (2006-11-20 21:57:03)
Go handicap and rating
Is handicap Go really nonsensical in rated tournaments?
While it seems so in a world championship, where the aim is to determine the stronger player in an absolute sense, why should it be so in a tournament, where the aim is to determine the best player in a relative sense... hum, not a very clean or clear sentence, but I hope you got the idea :-)
In face to face Go, in most amateur tournaments, it is not a problem, and you can win or loose a tournament, win or loose points, playing with an handicap (some tournaments set a limit lower than 9 in the number of handicap stones). I do not know the formulae used to compute the knew ratings, but in practice it works well. (and the same thing works also in Shogi tournaments)
Before WWII, even pros played with handicap (one or two stones at most, more commonly with a fixed color and no komi) and that *for money*!! Nowadays this is not the case anymore: maybe the increase of pro-tournament prizes change the noble way to be the best of two players fighting *their best* at their *respective* level!
Anyway, I think such an idea may be interresting to motivate players: when weaker, I will fight my best because I have a chance to win, and when stronger, I *have* to fight well :-)
We could think of a rating system where you play your first, say, 20 games without handicap to get a starting rating, and then to receive or give handicaps automatically in tournaments. We could then consider a rating as fixed after a bunch of 20 more games...
Or any other system that will always generate tense and dangerous games! That will be, at least for me, a great motivation to play more :-)
(but then I do not care much for my rating :-))
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-21 11:32:39)
Go: Komi
Stones handicap or Komi handicap is handicap anyway... I'm not sure it makes sense to change the Komi (Lionel would agree, I think).
As I just said in another thread, if we add a handicap system which gives chances enough to weak players against strong players, I'm afraid results & ratings / ranks don't mean anything anymore then, at least more aleatory. This is another game... (and such 'strange' rules might frighten beginners).
I think it could be ok (as another challenge) in an unrated tournaments category.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-21 11:42:59)
Players needed
All in subject :)
Come in, lots of fun ! Or frightened ? ;) .. ok, only 1 player more and we'll start a 5 players tournament !
Lionel Vidal (2006-11-21 14:12:35)
Komi 7.5
Well, in France too, it is officially 7.5 in tournaments, with counting based on the chinese method (and you have to ensure that both players played the same number of stones), but with no provision for complex cases (multi-kos, complex sekis...). In practice, it works!
I wonder if the japanese way of counting makes a difference in komi value... I'll check that...
Barry Bell (2006-11-22 04:42:46)
Introduction - Anyone4chess.com
My name is Barry and after corresponding with Thibault on my website (www.anyone4chess.com) for the last few days, Thibault suggested I drop by and post something about our website.
Anyone 4 Chess is not a correspondence chess, we call our system an online a turn based chess system (Association – A4C). The site works on a 7 day cycle for moves and you receive no emails that a move has been made however, if you are entered into one of our free tournaments (all tournaments are free and their will never be any cost to play chess on our system) an email is sent to each player in any tournament that the next round is about to begin.
Anyone 4 Chess is an online turn based chess system however, it also hosts the Association dedicated to promoting, supporting and developing an association for webmasters / players who support this type of chess. We believe there is a place for this type of chess (different from correspondence, OTB and real time chess) and the association will work to promote this type of chess following the example of FIDE and other organization to work towards our mandate and goals.
Thanks
Lionel Vidal (2006-11-22 14:17:20)
Scrabble
Duplicate scrabble is a form a competitive scrabble where each player (more than 500 in some big tournaments!) has his own set and play the same letters, chosen at random by a referee. The goal is to score the maximum at each move. The referee, in case of multiple max scores, chooses the possibility that opens the grid more, then all players play that move and the play goes. The very best players end usually with very few points under the theorical top score!
Note that a computer always gets the top score (obviously!) in that form a competition, and so cannot loose. But in a duell, because of the strategic aspects, the best humans may still beat silicon monsters :-)
Barry Bell (2006-11-23 06:20:08)
Re:
Hi - There is a section under Help that deals with Computer Play, so to answer your question no computers are not banned. The TD (tournament director) has the ability to create whatever type of tournament he wants as long as he follows A4C rules. The normal tournaments are swiss, the team tournaments are a combination of swiss and round robin. Example: A TD creates a 5 round swiss and states this tournament will be a computer assisted tournament, he states the rules etc etc. as long has it does not break any A4C rules then this type of tournament is accepted. So far we have not had a tournament like this, but provision to allow this type of tournament are already in place.
Barry Bell (2006-11-23 06:35:18)
Re:
I also want to mention that our system is very fexiable, with tournament play and normal game play. Example re tournaments: You start the tournament, you get choose whether it is open or closed, you make decisions on pairings if you want or just let the computer decide. You deal with complaints, withdraw or return players in the tournament, declare a winner, draw etc. In other words you cant just set the tournament on auto pilot and forget about it (well I can no else can...grin). Normal play, you find 7 days is not enough time, if the other player agree you baiscly can set your own time frames. Yes an option to claim a win will appear if your opponent does not move in 7 days but you dont have to accept it! I hope this is not to much information. - Thanks
Glen D. Shields (2006-11-23 06:38:17)
No Thanks
Why in the world would I want to play on a site that sounds as disorganized as yours? There are tens of places to play like FICGS that are well organized and aren't shrouded in mystery. When you figure out what you want to be, want kind of tournaments you want to offer (turn based doesn't mean anything sorry), and you offer folks the opportunity to evaluate your site without harvesting their personal information, I'll take a look and re-consider.
Good luck.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-23 11:07:34)
Tal-Memorial photos
Many photos from Tal-Memorial tournaments. Some are really funny :)
Tal-Memorial blitz
http://www.64.ru/?/ru/articles/item=1394
Tal-Memorial
http://www.64.ru/?/ru/articles/item=1391
http://www.64.ru/?/ru/articles/item=1389
http://www.64.ru/?/ru/articles/item=1384
http://www.64.ru/?/ru/articles/item=1383
http://www.64.ru/?/ru/articles/item=1381
http://www.64.ru/?/ru/articles/item=1375
http://www.64.ru/?/ru/articles/item=1367
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-01 11:19:43)
Deep Fritz, Rybka & future
The Chess Challenge 2006 in Bonn between classical world champion Vladimir Kramnik and chess engine Deep Fritz 10 confirms (who ignored ?) the best chess programs can rivalize with the world champion in a match, but it first shows us these calculating monsters still have weaknesses.
Question is : What are the real improvements in Fritz 10 compared to Fritz 9 (engine speaking only) ?
Here is what I think about chess engines nowadays (Fritz 10, Shredder, 10, Junior 10, Hiarcs 10 and particularly Rybka 2.2) :
The way of think to play correspondence chess is (or should be) mostly human one combined with a chess engine algorithm. We follow the tree of moves like a program with our selective algorithm (much better than chess engines), applying our judgement of the position when necessary only. The point is we evaluate moves and we almost never evaluate a position twice.
Chess engines are very good analysis tools but are surprisingly not designed to be very good chess players. I think a major improvement in chess engines should be recognition of 'sufficient moves' : ie. it is no worth to always find the best move at a particular point of the tree, this reflection time could be used later... It depends on the evaluation of the position, on the clocks... Iterative model is quite basic (in a game at least !).
Another point is recognition of traps. This is the start of psychology in chess engines, and basics of the art of war. It first depends on who your opponent is, and on the clocks too. Finally, at the end of the tree, chess engines evaluate positions, but how many evaluate moves ? .. Speculative moves were a step, but it first shew chess engines were not able yet to see what move is worth to be analysed really deeper, consequently creating a 'human' weakness, particularly against some other chess engines.
I don't know how Rybka works, but as far as I read about this one that calculates much less positions (about 10 times) than Fritz, I wouldn't be surprised that Vasik Rajlich had implemented a better approach of human way of think, which is undoubtly the future of chess engines.
A good 'centaur' in ie. Playchess rapid tournaments is first a good choice between Chessbase engines according to the position and clocks. Fritz qualities probably apply best in standard games, where clocks are really designed for him. Among Chessbase engines, Hiarcs is probably the best Blitz player and could be the best correspondence chess player (even if it isn't the best CC tool for humans). Rybka is probably a kind of centaur itself (sorry, herself ;)), knowing when to use (in the tree !) brute force and more selective approachs - not to be compared to Hydra or Deep Blue which, on contrary, use most brute force.
My conclusion is chess engines have much to learn from humans yet, we'll see a Rybka 5 and Fritz 13, with much better results against other chess engines, but their results shouldn't increase a lot against the best humans in future. Finally, it will never be a good correspondence chess player :)
My two cents.
If I find time, I'll continue to implement my own chess engine..... but it's a lot of work :/
Lionel Vidal (2006-12-02 09:54:32)
A lone engine in CC :-)
Suppose I make the following test (it has certainily be proposed before, but let's do it again, for the fun of the argument):
- I buy a recent engine (say the new Fritz10)
- I play in some CC tournaments (I do not want to pay fees, so let's say, here at FICGS of course :-), and at iecg)
- I choose the first moves of all my games based on some statistics made on a CC base (just to avoid some openings statistically bad in CC)
- starting from a few moves before the engine goes out of its opening book (to be defined, maybe 4 moves) I let my average computer run 10 hours by move (around one night per move... I know, I sleep too much :-)
- I *always* play the very move the engine finds as best
- I play as many tournaments as I can, considering the time constraint that limits the number of games (just to get a meaningful rating as fast as possible)
Now, what rating do you think I can reach at most, strictly following these guidelines?
(note that if I know some basic maths to do the stats, I do not even have to know chess rules... although a basic knowledge is assumed to ease the play in practice)
Are you ready to bet on your guess ? :-)
In pratice, the test does not work, because the tester dies from boredom long before he gets any rating :-))
Elmer Valderrama (2006-12-04 14:18:02)
intuition
I disagree, chess knowledge can't be equated to intuition, here
is my long post about it
(why am I writing about the same things all over and over and at the
same time of year, I dunno ;)
1. Players without any intuition whatsoever but great working
capabilitites (as Botvinnik, Fischer, Kasparov, ..engines..)
-they never relie on intuition (they dont have any at all after all)
so everything must be subject to calculation, they have the
"hardware" (perfect body and mental conditions, rigorous training,
perfect visual/realistic representation of positions and a great
chess knowledge which must be kept fresh in mind -if not, they wouldn't
have reference points to judge/evaluate resulting positions.
When on top form they can beat anybody and I mean ANY body: human,
extraterrestial,
ultragalactic, trans-natural, hyper-divine,etc, and for an overwhelming
score, like 6-0 ;)..well you know what I mean.
The drawback well you already know it, it last a mig, except for
the engines, no-one can keep up with this regime
(GK could for a long time, but resorting
to short breaks (not playing for WC, choosing carefully where to play
etc,) But most important it's impossible to implement for long if the
"hardware" -see above- starts to "leak oil" then it's all over..
This can be brought up to an art, like Kasparov or Fischer, it is more
powerful than understanding chess as a natural tongue (as intuitive
players) because the "top-form" competitive element is always
present and the "hardware" works in pristine conditions.
From the above it follows of course that engines are the ultimate
chess warrior over the board at least (and only there, not in CC)
2. Those who have strategical intuition. (Capablanca, Petrosian, Karpov
maybe Anand..)The general impression is that
they are simply lazy people: not need to work out any thing as they
just "know" where pieces should go and what the point is of their
moves, usually there is no need for deep calculations, just two or three
moves (4 to 6 plies) to corroborate the "feeling" and the game is won.
The "feeling" is hard to express in words, and usually is lost if
expressed in words ;). It goes beyond a simply pattern recognition,
or a full database of chess knowledge, it is about predicting the
future possibilities (not having real positions in mind, just the
"possibilities" or general lines of play in future positions which
may or may not happen to appear for real in the game.
They can play for long long time and win a lot of tournaments
(Karpov I believe have the record of won tournaments)
3. Those who have special understanding in unbalanced positions
(Alekhine, Tal, Korchnoi..) They are dynamic players who love
to calculate but not for the sake of finding the best of the best of
the best of the moves (as those in group 1 would do), they
calculate SOME variations, those who have meaning to them
I see them as players of group 2 with a more or less working
"hardware" i.e they are not going to trust 2 or 3 moves variations
neither they are going to speculate on the future possibilities
without any ground/basic calculation under it. Their "feeling" is
again hard to express in words, but I believe it is something like
calculating a 10-12 plies variation with every position in-between
being subconciously excrutinated for crushing unexpected turning moves
(this is not done by players of group 1, they would calculate
"normal replies" in that 10-12 plies variation and would have to
go deeper (like 20-30 plies to see the point ;)
So that "feeling" is what enable us to compose music, create
art etc but also it is something that enable us to err like fools :(
Whether it can be mimicked by software or not it's an open question
but as I said a calculation 40-50 plies deep it's practically
equal to using intuition...
Obviously the above classification of G Kasparov it's a bit
rough in the sense that there are very few "pure intuitive"
players (of either group 2 or 3) as mentioned by Don in his post
most of the players is a mix of talent I believe, if I had to
choose a pure intuitive player from those groups I would point
Capablanca and Korchnoi, and of course Kasparov of group 1
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-12-04 21:39:34)
Too late
Hello Thibault!
now I have seen that you have restricted the number of participants of this great tournament to 5 - and I'm too late.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-04 22:05:27)
One player more ?
Hello Heinz-Georg !
I was waiting for you :)
Ok, it was firstly a 7-players tournament, so let's try to find a seventh player. Come in, this is a mad experience. Trust me :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-05 12:52:08)
Tournament just started !
Have good games :)
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__BIG_CHESS__THOUSAND_MEMBERS_EVENT.html
Mladen Jankovic (2006-12-07 14:02:00)
The reason
I'm currently entertaining the idea of signing up for yet another waiting list. With the Big Chess tournament in progress and being signed up for the WCH, I belive it would be too much if I signed up for another one.
Maybe something like a waiting list vacation.
Sorry about giving you more work.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-10 16:20:16)
FIDE's world championship format
Quite good news...
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3530
Ok, we'll have a final match between a challenger and the world champion, this is great !
(the worst is avoided)
In future, the challenger should be designated after a multi-stages round-robin tournaments cycle, then a candidates match (original :))
Will it be enough to attract sponsors... In my opinion the candidates match should be played in 6 games at least, and the knockout tournament should be at least 2 or 3 rounds long. Several round-robin tournaments, this looks like correspondence chess format and this is useful when you have many players and few time. I'm not sure it's a good choice for OTB world chess championship... :/
What do you think ?
Dinesh De Silva (2006-12-10 17:37:05)
Re:
I fully agree with the view that the candidates match should be played in 6 games at least, and the knockout tournament should be at least 2 or 3 rounds long.
Miguel Pires (2006-12-11 11:29:45)
Portuguese Oppening
I've a lot of cc games with this oppening. Some very hard. I'm (i hoppe) finishing the investigation of the line with Qe2.
"I added better (IMO) answer to 1.e4 e5 2.Bb5 c6 3.Ba4 Nf6 4.Qe2
It's 4.. d5 5.exd5 Bd6" I've a game with this line in ICCF. When i find the solution to that line i tell you.
If you wana, create a tournament with this oppening to us play.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-11 17:32:37)
Portuguese Oppening
Ok, we'll have this thematic tournament :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-16 03:37:22)
Thematic tournament : Portuguese op.
Waiting list is open :)
Best wishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-16 04:05:26)
Topalov vs. Kramnik v2, is it worth ?
Responding to myself, according to FIDE rules there could be a match about every 6 months (WCH tournament or Prize funded)...
Obviously good for world champion (and for FIDE), but maybe that's also good for chess after all. What disturbs me more is last result against Deep Fritz :/
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-16 13:06:09)
Correspondence chess time controls
Hello Lennart.
Sorry about that, it's been discussed a lot, as in all other correspondence chess sites: correspondence chess time controls are the source of many problems, I'm afraid without a solution. I can only say that's the better solution anyway.
If 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves is too long for you, feel free to play rapid tournaments at 30 days + 1 day / move time control.
My best, Thibault.
James Stripes (2006-12-16 16:19:10)
bad timing, but
World Championships should be decided by matches, nit by a tournament such as that planned in Mexico. Topalov was never a legitimate champion, but he is perhaps now a legitimate champion (and FIDE finally recognizes the legitimate champion again). If this challenge by Topalov succeeds in derailing Mexico, it will have accomplished a useful purpose.
Of course I'm lookin forward to watching the games in Mexico, and would be wholehearted in support if it were a qualifying tournament. Thus Topalov should be playing, rather than Kramnik; the winner should then challnge Kramnik with the full backing of FIDE.
Austin Ferrell (2006-12-17 05:01:40)
Accedental waiting list sign-up
I was looking at the waiting lists and I accedentally signed up for a GO Tournament... unfortunatley... I do not play GO...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-17 05:09:41)
Accedental waiting list sign-up
Hello Austin.
You've been removed from Go tournament waiting list.
Steve Sabean (2006-12-23 16:58:08)
Traxler/Wilkes-Barre
I have heard from many players of a wide range of strength that the Traxler is busted for Black. The trouble is, none of them appear to have proof. A few years ago, I played in a Traxler thematic in IECG. I had a great time, learned a lot, and managed second place overall. My own assessment is: unclear, but Black is probably OK.
So, why not have a Traxler thematic tournament here on FICGS, to settle the matter once and for all. :D Maybe it could be a double round robin, to be fair to those who feel that one side or the other has the advantage. I would sign on for such a tournament.
Nice Latvian, btw.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-24 11:57:24)
Traxler/Wilkes-Barre
Hello Steve.
We had 2 Traxler thematic tournaments already :)
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000014.html
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000015.html
Maybe we'll have another one (or double round-robin, why not) :)
Miguel Pires (2006-12-26 21:20:05)
Thematicall Tournaments
Thibault de Vassal i think in the thematical tournaments you should put an double round robin, not only one round. I've played some thematical tournaments and that is what append.
Just my opinion
Regard's
Miguel Pires
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-26 22:40:28)
Double round robin
In 'theory', that's fully right... I finally chose single round robin because double round robin means 6 games more per tournament, meaning less tournaments, less opponents and so on. As thematic tournaments are friendly - not rated - score is not so important, it's more interesting to play different openings IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-28 11:30:57)
Amazing
That's funny to see how this thematic tournament (portuguese opening) attracted players from Portugal.
I wonder if french players would fight for french defense the same... :-)
A high-rated one with a very strong correspondence chess player !
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000020.html
Dinesh De Silva (2006-12-28 14:04:04)
Re:
There'll obviously be sound detectors, metal detectors etc. in major chess tournaments in the near future to catch cheaters. So, I think that though the bluetooth case is a setback to the integrity of the sport right now, such cases can be detected successfully most of the time.
Don Groves (2006-12-29 04:47:56)
Cheating
Chess tournament organizers need only to contact casino owners who have been dealing with these problems for a long time and likely are experts at detecting all forms of cheating.
Elmer Valderrama (2006-12-30 12:11:08)
Quad_Silver?
Would it be a money 4-game tournament? if so, what's the money prize?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-30 13:31:14)
Quad Silver?
Tournaments with money prizes will begin in january... By the way there will be changes in these tournament categories (it will be also possible to play "blitz" games, at probably 10 moves / 1 hour time control)
However I think this challenge should stay friendly... (at least 'on FICGS')
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-31 14:53:21)
Blitz correspondence chess
Hello Charlie & Elmer.
Still thinking about it, I don't think it should look like standard OTB time control, some points are :
- How many games played at the same time (2-game match or tournament) ?
- Entries in waiting list will have a life period (someone agrees the challenge in the next hour, if not it's canceled)
- Adjournment is a big issue... It could cause many problems :/
- Too many time controls is not good IMO.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-12-31 22:59:37)
Strong players needed
Class A 000012 Tournament needs two more strong player near 2200 to complete the field. Will be nice strong tournament to start 07
Thank you Wayne
Wayne Lowrance (2007-01-01 05:06:43)
strong players needed
welcome aboard our tournament Miguel, with you in it's going to be very good.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-02 15:13:01)
Re: No winner?
Hello Francesco.
It's a design issue... Winner(s) / Leader(s) are displayed if no more than 2 players have the best score in the tournament. In this tournament, 3 players scored 5 out of 6 points.
Anyway, FICGS WCH rules state there's only one winner in WCH tournaments (according to tournament entry rating), so the result displayed may be not accurate in some cases.
Elmer Valderrama (2007-01-02 18:41:01)
Blitz correspondence chess
Do the games have to be played at the same time?
I mean if the time format is 4-6 hours per game, a 2-game match will be over in two days (weekend?), and a tournament of 6 rounds -in a week (or two weekends)..
Wayne Lowrance (2007-01-02 19:47:51)
Tournament Winners update ?
Have they been updated to current ? I dont think so.
Regards Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-03 00:16:08)
Tournament Winners
Hi Wayne. It's been updated again !
Elmer Valderrama (2007-01-03 11:00:42)
Blitz correspondence chess
Well, as long as it's an unrated chess game, you can call it
Silver Thematic and virtually any variation would qualify as a real
chess game..
The way the winner is chosen in a 1-game (or 2-game for that matter)
match is what is debatable, it's a little advantage to have White that's
why having Black would be good if the color decides.
I think that players would agree to enter a tournament under
some conditions (e.g. as playing on Satuday 3pm & Sunday 3pm),
people were/are happy to enter the Chessbase "marathon"
(freestyle with 3 rounds per day) and most here hang around making
several moves per day in their CC games every day, so it's
a matter of agreement about the appropiate time (easier to achieve
with just two players (2-game match) than a tournament of course)
Maybe a poll would help although the players who would
enter these events may not be even registered to FICGS yet, lol
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-03 12:04:10)
Blitz correspondence chess
Actually I'm thinking about 1-game match in the classical way, there will be draws, hard to avoid it. "Silver thematic" is a good idea for another category (ie. with no draws). About tournaments with several rounds / several days, well, why not... maybe later :)
Miguel Pires (2007-01-03 14:20:29)
Elo Question
Hello,
For elo calculation what elo the system use, the current or the elo from the start of the tournament?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-03 14:25:14)
Elo Question
Hi Miguel.
TER (tournament entry rating) is used for chess, while the current rating is used for Go... Ratings are updated after each game for Go.
Charlie Neil (2007-01-03 23:04:06)
Blitz Chess on Ficgs
Hello Thibault and New Year greetings to you and your team. Blitz on ficgs. I've beeen thinking, would it be possible to have "real time" games? The human element is the difficult one there. As for the tournament set-up, how about a six round swiss system? Speaking as one down in the ratings basement, single pairings with a rapid time limit in the swiss pairing set-up would be fun. Setting games between opponents on a real time basis I imagine will be very difficult so, what about a really rapid time limit tourney 10 days plus a day a move. I'm sure there lots of options available. Well it's just a thought. No one likes drawing in a Swiss tourney, you have to play for the win!
Miguel Pires (2007-01-04 14:35:29)
Blitz Chess
I think the best is 2h/40 moves
One more thing, you can create tournament's/match with the help of engines (Freestyle) and without engines. what you think?
Karsten Fyhn (2007-01-07 13:54:27)
Please remove me from the waiting list
Please remove me from the waiting list for FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000002.
I am starting two other tournaments elswhere in mid January, so I dont have time for this one. Sorry.
Lawrence Nesko (2007-01-07 14:10:17)
Quick Draw?
Hello, all. In one of the tournaments in which I am playing, a game has been agreed drawn on the third move. I'm not saying that there's anything underhanded about it. But I am trying to understand what would lead to such a situation. I'd appreciate if someone could enlighten me. Are certain openings recognized as nearly certain draws? Could drawng situations be recognized so early in a game? Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-13 13:31:40)
Wikichess, javascript with comments?
Nice idea, as well as a commented PGN file... and many other things :) .. so much to do yet.
Ok, I'll think about that after money tournaments start.
Sandor Marton-Bardocz (2007-01-16 18:29:21)
Conditional Move
Hi there!
I noticed that there was a topic regarding conditional moves but it is closed. I think that conditional moves, aren't a bad thing after all..it should be implemented..Just think about the first moves of a game....for now, even the weakest players play theory ( fritz database or something)and this implies that the first moves will be played rather fast...Then why spend time clicking around to get to the games on a starting tournament over&over again, just to play the well known moves? U can overcome the "irritation" issue by limitating the use of conditional moves. Let's say every player has the right to use for example ...10 conditional moves in the begining of the game (in the first 15 moves for example). After that in 10 to 10 moves have let's say 2 possibilities to use conditional moves...This way it's erradicated the annoyance of countless use of premoves. Btw. I think that the example of those players who might use Fritz or whatever chessprogram to play, and then premove the lines indicated by the engine isn't really good..Only if the opponnent against whom they use it ...playes using the same lines indicated by ....an engine :-) Otherwise I can't realise how on earth the replied moves can be the same and matching with....or those lines are really forced..and if that is the case then the use of premoves is normal. Thank You.
Peter Schuster (2007-01-17 04:56:27)
First FICGS WCH
Hello,
when starts the semi-finals in the first FICGS WCH knockout tournament?
best wishes
Peter Schuster
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-17 10:58:24)
Knockout tournament
Hello Peter.
It should have started for a while, I agree...
Unfortunately there's one decisive game that lasts in round-robin tournaments.
http://www.ficgs.com/game_1755.html
Knockout tournament games could start anyway, but it's better to start all games at the same time. Patience...
Best wishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-17 17:59:25)
2nd FICGS chess world championship
Hello to all.
2nd FICGS chess WCH just started only 6 months after the first one and with about 75% players more.
24 tournaments with an elo average from 1620 to 1698, 1 group M (elo average 2363) and 4 quarter final matches in the knockout tournament :
GM Farit Balabaev (2569) - FEM Wolfgang Riemer (2415)
Thibault de Vassal (2514) - FEM Wolgang Utesch (2460)
SM Peter Schuster (2537) - FIM Harry Ingersol (2456)
Wolfgang Kund (2557) - SM Wladyslav Krol (2423)
By seeing the first moves, I predict the 4th quarter final will be a very exciting match with risky games :)
Thanks to all for enjoying these tournaments, I wish you good games and may the best player win !
http://www.ficgs.com/category__ficgs__chess__wch.html
WCH waiting list will stay open during next months for eventual replacements.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-17 19:01:46)
Wch Stage 2
Hi, Wayne. Good games ;)
Stage 2 should begin in a few days/weeks. Only 1 decisive game to finish before I can make pairings. It will quite look like stage 1 : Round-robin tournaments involving winners of previous stage & semi-final matches in the knockout tournament.
Wayne Lowrance (2007-01-18 01:19:11)
Chess engines rating
Very nice information. A great big word of caution. We play coorespondence games here. Those engine-engine tournaments do not indicate directly which program is best suited for correspondence deep analysis, I do not have enough experience with the engines except earlier versions of Fritz, shredder, Hiarc, Junior and of course Dr Robert Hyatts Various versions of Crafty and Rybka.
Rybka is top rated eng-eng program for fast time controls. But not sure that it is best for deep analysis. My guess is that Latest Fritz is at least as well suited for deep analysis and perhaps better.
Then their is Shredder another top eng-eng program that is very very good at deep analysis.
From what I read and for what it is worth those are the best engines. But if you want the strongest program for 40/120 time control down to bullet chess,then the clear winner is Rybka by Vas.
Hope this is of interest.
Wayne
Hossein Dabbaghyan (2007-01-18 02:10:52)
how can I play in the "class tournament"
Hi
I would like to play in the class tournament here on Ficgs....how can I enter this tournament and start playing? I appreciate any help....
Don Groves (2007-01-18 07:29:24)
Entering a class tournament
Click on "Waiting lists" then "FICGS Chess Class Tournaments." Click on the tournament that fits your rating and confirm your entry.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-21 13:48:44)
Go and chess, IGN Goama newsletter
From IGN Goama newsletter by Alexander Dinerchtein - http://www.gogame.info
Go and Chess Two Games, Shared Experiences
Chess and go show are similar in many ways, yet it's always strange to see how the masters of each game try to "invent the wheel", instead of benefiting from the knowledge of their colleagues.
Let's consider sharing experiences!
These ideas can be useful even for strong Asian Go professionals:
1. Currently, only a few pros use Go databases and programs for studying. It is easy to find commentaries, written by 9-dan masters, which state that a move is new and has never been played before. Yet if one checks such moves in Go databases, one can sometimes find up to 100 examples from professional games. How can they cheat the readers who study these commentaries?
Once in Korea, I showed the Bigo Assistant program (similar to GoGod, MoyoGo and SmartGo) to Lee Sedol's brother Lee Sanghun, 5-dan, who is the director of a large children's Go school. He was surprised and said that the program looked very useful, and he added that he had never met this kind of program before. He even suggested deleting all amateur games and games played on Go servers, because of their low quality. I promised to order the programs and to install them on the school's computers if he liked this idea, but he did not follow up. Lee Sanghun, 5-dan was not able to break the traditions of his forefathers …
2. Even such top chess players as Kasparov, Kramnik and Topalov enlist the support of trainers during important tournaments and matches. During the Communist era, almost every Russian grandmaster worked on behalf of world championship candidates. Our government forced them to help, to show them new moves and ideas. Those who refused to help were punished severely: for example, sometimes a player would be prohibited from playing in tournaments abroad and would be refused foreign visas.
We do not see this in Go. Everyone thinks only about his or her own self. Do you know who is currently assisting Lee Changho? I don't know, either!
3. I would like to say a few words about playing technique. Chess players often used to write the move on paper first and then make it on the board. This helps to avoid impulsive moves and to prevent blunders. Go masters record the game afterwards, and so one can often find terrible mistakes, such as overlooking ataris and recapturing ko without playing a ko threat first. As an example you may see Black's move number 271 from this game:
http://www.go4go.net/v2/modules/collection/sgfview.php?id=10828
I am sure that if a player looked at their move at least twice before they write it on paper and after they would not make such mistakes.
4. Even top Go tournaments are usually run by the knock-out system so we often see sensational results. Mightn’t it be reasonable to think about increasing the number of games in each round? If rounds were best-of-three (in case of time constraints, it would be possible to use blitz time controls for the third game), it would help to minimize sensations.
How about organising a definitive World Go Championship? Chess players have contested one for more than 100 years, and competitions for this World Championship have revealed the very best players of each generation. In Go it's harder to tell which player is true champion. In 2006, for instance, one international tournament was won by Lee Changho and another one by Lee Sedol, while Cho U won the largest amount of prize money. Whom can we call the World Champion? Who can say which tournament is the most important : LG, Samsung, Fujitsu, Chunlan or another? We don't even have a unified rating system …
If we determined a single World Go Champion, he might earn the same degree of popularity as Garry Kasparov achieved in chess, and this could have a very positive influence on Go popularity around the world!
Lionel Vidal (2007-01-21 17:49:41)
Go and Chess
About your point number 3... A chess world champion could very well note its moves before playing and yet be mated in one move :-)
In Go pro-matches, the moves are usually recorded during play by another (younger :-) pro, who has also to deal with time keeping: it makes sense not to disturb gods at play by basic housekeepings :-). I remember an article on the WEB counting the numbers of obvious blunders in go pro-games, and it was *very* low compared to chess.
Concerning your point 2, it is not quite true AFAIK: most top pros run a school of younger pros or wanabe pros who play and analyse numerous games on the Master supervision (He does rarely play with students and then it is a great honour!). So a master does not not really analyse alone, but discuss many ideas with others.
Concerning your point 4, I think that increasing the number of games would change the playing calendar too much and a pro cannot play many more games by year without consequences on his results... even at my very low level, I find a go game *much* more tiring than a chess one (here I mean a face to face game, not correspondence or server go... something I still don't manage to get used to :-)
BTW, I also find that recovering from a loss in go is much more difficult (again I mean face to face Go) than in chess: maybe because of a higher involment, maybe it is just me. What do others players think?
Another point is that a pro is paid by the federation (a fixed amount depending on its rank, not linked with his gains in tournaments that are much more important), and have to give some services to the community: lessons, conferences, teaching games... and so on... and this is more true for the lowest ranked pros!
Dan Rotaru (2007-01-22 22:13:20)
WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP Waiting list
Hello. I registered on the waiting list for FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000002 on January 17 so I assume I am on for replacements during next month. However there are quite a few people before me on the waiting list so I am not sure what my chances to play are. Would it be possible to predict if I can play? I would like to start another tournament by I don’t want to have the surprise to have too many games at once. Or will it be wise to wait? Thank you!
BTW. I really enjoy this site :-).
Dan Rotaru (2007-01-24 16:42:19)
Suggestion for rating period
I would suggest that the rating period to be monthly instead of every 2 months. I understand the reason for longer periods between calculation being to avoid big differences but 2 months seems a little bit too long for me. I have noticed that some players with high provisional ratings or who started with high provisional ratings still have a much higher rate after they lost all or almost all their games, and players which started with, let’s say, standard 1400 still have lower ratings even they won all the games. And there is no such a difference between the Elo average of the opponents.
My point is that a monthly period will increase the dynamic of the ratings and eventually will lead to a much realistic overall ratings and why not to a more challenging environment.. Of course the number of games played will have the biggest impact on re-adjusting the ratings based on results, but a month period will help for example a player to obtain a higher TER sooner and eventually play on a higher ELO bracket tournament.
The other reason is that I believe many players will want to see how their rating evolves and a month seems more reasonable. As I said it is just a suggestion, others may not agree with me.
Thanks, Dan
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-25 11:54:20)
Rating period
2 months is definitely a good rating period IMO.
The dynamic of the ratings is quite high already, higher than ie. at IECG. "More challenging environment", quite true but it would lead to more lasting games for sure... About your last points, you're right but I'm convinced it would have some bad consequences too.
World championship tournaments also help to find quicker your rating.
Anyway, waiting for other feedback about this point.
Correspondence chess is definitely a game of patience :)
Mladen Jankovic (2007-01-25 15:58:46)
Horrible players wanted ;)
Horrible players wanted to start the Class G tournament no. 10.
We'll also take anyone whose rating currently sucks, n00bs, and generaly just anyone who has ELO rating 1200 or less.
Mladen Jankovic (2007-01-25 15:59:21)
direct link
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=entry_tournament&tournament=ficgs_chess_class_g
Miguel Pires (2007-01-26 21:36:21)
Scandinavian defense
Hi,
I wana sugest a new thematical tournament:
1. e4 d5; 2. exd5 Nf6
I think is called the Portuguese atack in the scandinavian defense.
What you think?
Jaimie Wilson (2007-01-27 01:44:28)
Scandy
I thought the Portuguese attack referred specifically to the line 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 Bg4!? which would certainly make for an interesting thematic tournament.
Miguel Pires (2007-01-27 11:09:59)
Thibault de Vassal
I can't say if the portuguese attack start's with Nf6 or after d4 Bg4, because i never study this.
Like you say i find a new line that was "invented" by portugueses:
1.d4 d6; 2. c4 e5; 3. dxe5 Nc6!?
IS called (in Portugal) The Gambit of Barreiro.
when you wana you can start a new thematicall tournament
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-28 14:01:35)
IGN Goama
Lionel, your answer has been published in 41st IGN Goama newsletter... :)
Another answer :
"Also we got a letter from Benjamin Schooley:
Dear Alex,
I have been having these very same thoughts. I think after awhile I started
to accept the way things were done in the East and tried to see the positive
side of it. Maybe three world champions are better than one. And really
isn't it better that people don't have endless helpers and seconds, then it
almost becomes a matter of who has the most help and the most money to hire
that help and not the most skill on an individual basis. But I do get the
sense there is more of a community in Go. Go players are more apt to share
their ideas and puzzles with each other and not prepare secret variations in
some unscrupulous plot. I would be more curious if the Korean paper at
least acknowledges your thoughts, I highly doubt they will try to change
anything though.
Still I do lament the absence of a broader tournament format. Not all are
knockout but they all tend to have the knockout "flavor." I think some
players who are really talented get overlooked (Hane Naoki) because their
playing style doesn't mesh as well with a knockout tournament. On the other
hand people who have novel playing styles like Cho U and Takao Shinji do
pretty well in the KO format. They benefit from a smaller sample size,
harder to get a read on their strengths and weaknesses."
Anton Schellen (2007-01-28 19:02:46)
holiday
Hi,
I thought, the max. holiday for a year is 30 days???
How can a player to take holiday more as 30 days (see tournament E 0000014) !!!!
A. Schellen
Benjamin Aldag (2007-01-29 11:51:07)
Without computer !
Hi,
it would be nice, to have some tournaments, where it is not allowed, to use computer-assistence. And it would be great, to have list of players, which dont use computer-assistence.
Since my comeback here, i dont use an engine for my games and i can say, it makes more fun ! ;-)
yk
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-31 18:21:40)
1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.Nf3
This is the line for the next chess thematic tournament :
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000023.html
A line played several times here already by SM Wladyslav Krol, and a really interesting opening that produced the current 'best game' :
http://www.ficgs.com/game_864.html
Does anyone know a name for this opening, or may I call it "Krol attack" :)
Anyway, it should be a spectacular tournament !
Richard Core (2007-02-03 03:20:17)
Computer free chess
Hi Benjamin Aldag, I agree with you. I really don't see the reason for playing with a computers help. What have you accomplished with the help of a machine? I have no idea. When I come up with a great combo, I get the satisfaction that the answer came from me, not the machine or any other source. It is alot more fun. A lot more fun. I think most people I have played are not ussing computer help. I haven't won a tournament yet, but I think I have had a respectable performance.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-09 12:33:11)
Illya Nyzhnyk
For sure... It's said the teddy bear is called "Deep Rybka on Dual Xeon" or something :)
Teddy bears should be forbidden during chess tournaments, particularly world championships !
This is a message of the committee against teddy bears.
Marc Lacrosse (2007-02-09 18:29:27)
and next ...
and next ...
....Teddy bears tournaments !
(some allowed to take a human advisor on their knees)
:-)
Dinesh De Silva (2007-02-10 08:36:07)
Re:
Do you think Illya Nyzhnyk's feelings would be hurt if chess officials ban him from carrying a teddy bear in future tournaments?! Or will they scan/ monitor or even interrogate the teddy bear?! Will Illya lodge a complaint citing cruelty to kids & teddies?! Will this divide the chess world in two?! Lastly, will there be a sizeable increase in sales for similar teddy bears by chess players who might think that these teddies might make them very strong players?!?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-10 15:58:56)
King's indian
Radjabov's good score in Corus 2007 tournament (Wijk aan Zee) gave a second youth to King's indian after Kasparov dropped it about ten years ago. Chessbase now sells a dvd by ex-FIDE world champion Kasimdhzanov.
I still consider this opening as a good OTB weapon, but what do you think about it in modern correspondence chess, particularly after the nice victories by Christophe Léotard during last ICCF world championship.
I think it could be interesting to discuss this opening, why not in Wikichess... What would you play after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 e5 7.O-O Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 (9.Ne1 and 9.b4) ?
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=wikichess&article=4156
Nicola Lupinacci (2007-02-14 09:57:32)
engine-free area
I completely agree with Benjamin Aldag. there are many players that do not use comp. ass. becouse they are pure chess players. and there are also players who cannot use a pc ass. becouse they do not have a chess engine or they play from work or from the office.
but if comp. ass. is allowed i cannot tell nodoby "DO NOT USE A CHESS PROGRAM".
i think a great idea is to make a "place" or special tournaments where computer is not allowed or a special symbol after the name of players who use pc ass. so you know if your opponent is using a chess engine and you will play differently.
this is the best free corrispondence chess server i found on the web and making a "not-pc-assistence-zone" will be the cherry on the cake!
sorry for my bad english
Marc Lacrosse (2007-02-15 22:55:30)
Why such a shouting ?
@Benjamin Aldag
"The discussion is not about to change something. It is about to build a new feature here"
You are completely illogical.
Evidently you may play without computer as you wish here.
You may also try to find other members who prefer to play this way and register together with them in a tournament.
So what you wish to do is already possible.
But what you request is not that.
You request to play here against opponents for whom computer use will be forbidden.
This is simply not the rule here. It's even one of the fundamental originalities of this site.
The rules of the site are that everything is allowed
If you and friends of yours manage to play without computers this is up to you
But asking for special rules supposes that you intend to request that Thibault or someone will check that YOUR rule is enforced.
IMHO this is purely not working. You won't find any organisation that wil be able to ensure that no player cheats regarding this kind of rule.
So let me repeat (and it is MY RIGHT not to agree with your opinions) : if you find opponents with which you have an agreement for playing without comps here this is perfectly fine for everybody and it's up to you to see wether you are happy with the way your partners do or do not respect the agreement.
If you wish to change radically the rules so as to have tournaments where something like a police dept will check that no comp is used than GO AWAY and simply do register in one of the numerous sites where these rules do exist and where almost everybody cheats.
By the way : no need for shouting to tell what you wish.
Shouting will not make your opinions more valuable in any way.
Marc
Wayne Lowrance (2007-02-15 23:05:38)
more chess engine talk.
Thibault, you miss the boat on Hydra futre expectations in my opinion. Its advantage over pc engines was dedicated hardware (no necessarily speed) and ease of making program modifications.
However you perhaps neglect to consider the tremendous improvement in PC performance multiple cores, processors and et all. My thought is that the pc programs already are superior to Hydra. Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that Rybka has finished ahead of it in tournament play.
As far as other programs, you did not mention Zap. You best keep an eye on this one. It is very very strong and improving. Right now it is the only engine that has a chance of catching Rybka in eng-eng matches. I think it will be number two on the computer rankings. I will try to look further into Zap for a top CC engine. we see.
again, my thoughts
Wayne
Pablo Schmid (2007-02-15 23:32:13)
A solution?
For players like Aldag, it might be possible to host a tournament "without computers", so Thibault would not have to change something in his system, rules or rating..
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-16 00:00:43)
A solution?
Hi Pablo.
The real point is here (quote from Benjamin) : "The discussion is not about to change something. It is about to build a new feature here"
Such a new feature is not only something more, it would completely change the challenge's nature offered here. I don't think it's a good idea. A special tournament would have no sense here IMO. If you want to play without computer assistance and be sure your opponents do the same, the only solution is... play big chess :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-16 00:11:12)
Stage 2 tournaments started
Hello to all.
Finally, WCH 1 stage 2 tournaments started !
I hope we'll see interesting games in the knockout semi finals :
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__WCH_SEMI_FINAL_1__000001.html
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__WCH_SEMI_FINAL_2__000001.html
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-16 01:14:10)
Active player list
Hello Dan.
I don't think it's a good idea to have several rating lists (many reasons to this), but I can easily add in statistics the numbers of active players. Now, after which period of time a player should be considered as inactive at correspondence time controls... 3 months is not enough IMO, some players regularly connect and ie. wait for WCH tournaments to start, 1 year is still more than the age of FICGS.
Elmer Valderrama (2007-02-17 10:59:30)
like a no-smoking zone?
I believe what Aldag want is a place with a sign "computer-free chess"
just like those pubs, restaurants, trains, etc use a "no-smoking zone" sign.
It will be visible so that it will deter smokers/engine-users to enter that
zone.
To make it less attractive to engine assistance, these games
should be unrated, with player automatically losing their current ELO
(that ELO rating could have been "won" using engines previously anyway)
so just their names will suffice, and there should not be no tournaments
--so that there is no "winners" as this will trigger the use of engines--
The players will only challenge each other and the winner will not be
known to anybody except the players, and the games will not be recorded
in the general database
and they will not be shown live: all this will for certain deter any need to
use an engine i.e. 'winning' means nothing literally and it will look as if it never happened
This way chess without engines will be as if doing something clever
when actually it is a loss of time -can't remember who said this about chess 8-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-17 18:07:31)
Gameknot vs. FICGS, other challenges
It seems GameKnot leads 5-4 in the games played here... Not bad :)
Any news about the games played at GameKnot ?
It could be interesting to discuss about other team challenges... A team tournament, matches against other servers or forums (which ones ?), maybe at different time controls or playing chess variants (chess 960) or other games (could be fun to play chess & Go, poker or anything against the same players).. with or without computer assistance and so on... It should be easier to build teams now thanks to the chat bar.
It seems there was no problem of cheating with chess engines during the match against GameKnot, that's encouraging to organize other ones.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-18 00:05:00)
Morelia Linares 2007
Super-GM tournament of Morelia-Linares starts... with Topalov, Ivanchuk, Leko, Morozevich, Svidler, Carlsen, Anand and Aronian.
Will Topalov be affected by rumors ?
Let's see who will make the best predictions ? :)
My final standings :
1. Aronian, 2. Topalov, 3. Leko, 4. Anand, 5. Svidler, 6. Morozevich, 7. Ivanchuk, 8. Carlsen
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-18 19:14:30)
ICCF champions league
Hello to all.
While looking for interesting challenges that could take place here at FICGS (ie. simultaneous games at standard time control by a FIDE / ICCF IM-GM, or team challenges against other servers), Valer Eugen Demian (ICCF) suggested we build a team that could play in the next ICCF champions league... If we can build a team, why not ?
Rules of the event (taking place on ICCF server) are here :
http://tables.iccf.com/email/ChLeague/2004/season1faq.htm
What do you think ? .. Did anyone play this tournament already ?
Catalin Ionescu (2007-02-18 23:58:41)
Topalov or Leko ?
1. Topalov 2. Leko 3. Svidler 4. Aronian 5. Carlsen 6. Anand 7. Ivanchuk 8. Morozevich
(right now the round 2 is playing)
I think Carlsen will be the surprise of this tournament :)
Nicola Lupinacci (2007-02-21 16:04:25)
Standing suggestion
It's possible to see standings with winner of tournament in first position followed by the second, the third, etc etc? It will be great! thanks thibault for this beautifull chess server! and sorry for my bad english :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-21 16:23:04)
Tournament winners
Hello Nicola.
Tournament leaders or winners are displayed while browsing tournaments listings (click Tournaments, then select a category).. If at least 3 players obtain the best score, no winner is displayed. It takes care about the points only. But in some tournaments - ie. world championship - the winner may be defined by more rules... Does this answer ?
Best regards.
Marcus Miranda (2007-02-21 18:01:11)
Unrelated suggestion
This probably has nothing to do with this topic, but one suggestion I would like to make is to put the tournaments won by the player in the player profile. For me it would be kind of cool since I am a bit far from titles or norms. Anyways it's just a thought. And by the way, this site is great, thanks thibault.
Nicola Lupinacci (2007-02-21 18:51:49)
standing suggestion
the thing i try to explain is the follow:
if you are the last player that enter in a tournament, your name in the standing is the last, also if you win or for example arrive third.
Now the question is:
is possible to see the tournament standing with the leader in the first position of the standing, the player who arrived second in the second place of the standing, etc etc?
for example, if you see FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_C__000001, the winner is in the last position of the standing.
Is possible to see this standing with this order?:
Unger 5.5/6
Muller 4.5/6
Holes 4/6
Ghisi 3/6
Baron 2/6
Guralivu 1/6
Rattay 1/6
sorry for my bad english and thanks thibault for your time :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-21 18:52:58)
Unrelated suggestion
Thanks Marcus. As I said before, it may be quite hard to make it automatic, as rules may differ according to the tournaments. And it will be more true with the new tournaments to come...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-21 18:57:21)
Building teams...
Hello to all.
Here is the list of the teams that played in previous ICCF champions league :
http://tables.iccf.com/email/ChLeague/2004/teams.htm
I still don't know what's the cost to build a team, it seems all players just have to be a member of ICCF (through their federation or direct entry) and pay an entry fee for each tournament... Maybe someone can confirm ?
So the question : Who would like to play in our teams (and what name for these mad teams ? :))
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-22 17:34:01)
Zap! Chess Zanzibar
Nice results for Zap!Chess Zanzibar chess engine, that now appears 2nd (Rybka 1st, of course) on all CEGT (Chess Engines Grand Tournament) rating lists.
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn
Definitely, that's a pity Anthony Cozzie can't give more time to computer chess.
Nicola Lupinacci (2007-02-23 09:13:39)
Magnus Carlsen is now at the top
After round 5 Carlsen lead with 3.5/5, winning against Topalov, while Anand lose against Aronian.
This is a great tournament, with leaders that can lose a game also against the last player. Really interesting :-D
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-23 11:54:47)
Kasparov
I wonder how Garry Kasparov would do in this tournament without any more preparation :)
This round 5 was full of surprises... I think Topalov will have a better 2nd part again, like Aronian. But Carlsen could make my predictions false :/
Nicola Lupinacci (2007-02-23 13:19:20)
kasparov
In my opinion the best kasparov certainly could win all tournaments (also Morelia-Linares 2007) without any preparation
he is the best chess player of all time
he is the game of chess! :-D
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-25 13:23:18)
Big Chess
Finally, Big Chess tournaments waiting list is open !
If you like to play without chess engines and against human players only, you may try this really interesting variant of chess. (unrated games)
Have a look at these Big Chess events by clicking 'Tournaments', then 'FICGS__CHESS__SPECIAL_EVENTS' :
FICGS__BIG_CHESS__THOUSAND_MEMBERS_EVENT
FICGS__BIG_CHESS__INAUGURAL_MATCH
Have good big chess games :)
Samy Ould Ahmed (2007-03-03 19:40:48)
5th Freestyle tournament
I'm playing in this tournament in the chessbase server, very difficult tournament with a fast time controle 1h+15 for the game.
After 4 rounds I scored 2 points.
5th round at 8 p.m. today.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-04 12:34:09)
Playchess Freestyle Tournaments
A hard one for sure... It looks like Advanced Chess more. As for me, I can't play it because of my internet connection :(
Anyway that's interesting, feel free to tell us about the results and your impressions !
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-05 09:59:16)
Vishy Anand
Vishy Anand now leads Morelia-Linares tournament by one full point... I thought this tournament wouldn't be his peak of form, but he's always surprising :)
Nice game Leko-Topalov, indeed... and a 84 moves draw.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-05 10:19:11)
Playchess Freestyle Tournament
Thanks for info, Samy...
What a crosstable, no less than 17 players finishing with 5,5 / 8
Petr, I understand your frustration, anyway that's why I play correspondence chess only over the internet. Losing a game thanks to a connection lost or strange rules is not interesting much :/
Several remarks while looking at the final crosstable :
The winner uses Rybka 2.3 mp, the others too :) .. Rybka's author (Rajlich) scores 5 out of 8 (pos. 18)
With Rybka getting stronger and stronger at fast time controls, Advanced Chess will probably become Computer Chess and finally Rybka Chess very soon. 1 hour + 15 sec is no more interesting.
I recognize some famous 'names' used on the defunct KasparovChess.com, King Crusher (5 / 8), Deep Thunder (3,5 / 8)... Correspondence Chess GM Mikhail Umansky scores 2,5 / 8... and last but not least, french forums superstar Olivier Evan scores 2,5 / 7 :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-07 22:16:28)
round 12
Peter Svidler beats Peter Leko (now last in the standings), Alexander Morozevich beats Vassily Ivanchuk... Anand still leads, Carlsen second. Really explosive tournament, waiting for some statistics, numbers of draws/win and so on.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-09 15:11:18)
Kingston Defense !
While looking at links poiting to FICGS.com, I found this Wikipedia article and realized that one of the Kingston Defense's fathers was among us :)
http://www.ficgs.com/wikichess_3670.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Defence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Wilson
"Crack the Frutch : How to play the Kingston Defense"
.. by Gavin Wilson. ISBN 0-9514103-0-X
The opening is fully commented in Wikichess by Gavin... Quite funny :)
By the way, this opening looks interesting ! .. I just launched a thematic tournament. Thanks for all your comments in Wikichess, Gavin :)
Elmer Valderrama (2007-03-10 15:27:33)
Playchess Freestyle Tournaments
Interesting and true observation, Thibault.
What about the format 2h/40moves displayed under Money Tournaments in
Waiting Lists?
Maybe this is equally harder (in order to beat Rybka) that at 1h+15sec (!?)
And second question is why do you think Black needs so many moves to have
winning chances in the proposed Silver/Gold Thematic game, or a better
question could be: Do you think White can get a draw after that sequence:
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ng1 d5 3.Nf3 c5 4.Ng1 Black to move.
-->assuming the idea is that if the game is drawn White would win the
1-game match--.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-10 15:43:17)
Playchess Freestyle Tournaments
Hi Elmer.
1h+15 is worth 1h10/40 moves... 2h/40 moves is the longest time control before correspondence chess (games that don't finish the same day it started) and I think it's long enough so that human can do something else than operate Rybka :)
About Silver/Gold Thematic game, if White/Black obtains much more than 50%, I'll change the opening until to find one that give about 50% chances. What do you think ? .. About this opening, I think chances are about 50%, I would play it with both colors :)
Elmer Valderrama (2007-03-10 15:56:59)
Playchess Freestyle Tournaments
..Well, I would play only Black there, so I guess I know who could be my opponent in the first Gold thematic -isn't there a Platinum with 1000 EUR at stake?! ;)
Elmer Valderrama (2007-03-10 16:17:33)
Playchess Freestyle Tournaments
1hour+15sec per player makes 2hours and 20 min for 40 moves overall which is significantly worse than 4hours for 40 moves overall, so I guess yes you are right (there is enough time to beat Rybka)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-10 16:54:39)
Playchess Freestyle Tournaments
.. enough time to beat Rybka, I don't know, but enough time to bring a bit of human brain chess for sure :)
About another Platin (or whatever) category with 1000 EUR at stake, I'll see it later as it could bring some more difficulties regarding laws.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-10 22:40:51)
Final standings
Morozevich beats Topalov in a dead draw ending at round 13, Morozevich beats Svidler with Black in the next & last round... In the final standings, after a horrible start, Morozevich is second with Carlsen ! (who lost to Peter Leko in the last round). Topalov is last with Leko. Really incredible tournament, very hard to predict all long.
Vishy Anand wins the tournament by one full point !
Final standings :
1/ Anand : 8,5
2/ Morozevich : 7,5
3/ Carlsen : 7,5
4/ Aronian : 7
5/ Svidler : 7
6/ Ivanchuk : 6,5
7/ Topalov : 6
8/ Leko : 6
... even harder that lottery :)))
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-10 22:51:55)
Anand virtually ranked #1
After Morelia-Linares 2007 tournament, Viswanathan is virtually ranked #1 on the next FIDE rating list (2007, April). Great achievement :)
Quite funny to see the separated results of Morelia & Linares tournament, particularly performances for Alexander Morozevich (!)
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3722
Elmer Valderrama (2007-03-11 10:40:27)
Playchess Freestyle Tournaments
I'm not that concerned about just bringing a bit of human brain into the game,
I'm most concerned about bringing a bit of human brain into the game
*successfully* :) i.e. for a start, real chances to beat operated Rybka at this time
control. Hope you are right, I am just rather being optimist on your
proposed time control.
--The 'money' prizes are now listed as Epoints not Euros, but what's the
equivalence between them?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-11 13:30:46)
Money Tournaments
I'll come back in a few weeks on this subject with full explanations... The idea may evolve yet, until to find the more attractive system.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-12 15:31:09)
Major update : SSL encryption forms
Hello to all.
This is the last major update before money tournaments can start...
Now you can login through SSL encryption forms, meaning the best security to prevent hacking.
You should use SSL encryption forms only to browse the whole site with HTTPS, particularly if you wish to enter money tournaments later... It is also strongly recommended to change your password regularly (at least 8 characters, numbers & letters is best).
Thus you should always see HTTPS:// before the url after you login.
Feel free to follow this link for more advices about security & phishing :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#security
FICGS now uses SSL data encryption, hash functions and a bunch of other security features...
4 login forms is a lot but thus anyone can connect, even with browsers that doesn't support HTTPS and Javascript.
Also a few minor bug fixes and improvements, komi updated in .SGF files, reinforced hash functions, last connection date displayed in profile and so on...
All feedbacks are welcome :)
Dagh Nielsen (2007-03-12 03:20:43)
5th Freestyle tournament
Just a short comment on the use of computers in these Freestyle tournaments:
There are two groups of participants:
1) Pure engines (with a book).
2) A somewhat larger group of "centaurs" who play the moves themselves, and use computers to analyse the moves actively.
Please note first, that the engine names behind some of the nicks in the crosstable do not necessarily mean that that participant played as pure engine (it's just an irrelevant effect of the server software somehow, decided by whether the participant had an engine uploaded during registration).
In fact, only two of those 10 who made it to the final (after the playoffs Saturday) are playing as pure engines. All the rest played as centaurs, including Cato the Younger.
This was also the case in the 4th Freestyle tournament: Only two pure engines made it to the final.
However, the pure engines surely made up more than 20% of the starting fields. What is more, these engines are usually operated by engine-chess freaks who have very strong hardware (Hercules01, who made it to the final after the play-offs, is allegedly running a 16-core system).
So my conclusion is: Centaurs perform significantly better than pure engines still. Even at this relatively short time control.
In other words: The human aspect is very much alive and kicking in this kind of chess :-)
I can only recommend interested people to try it out next time. It really is quite a bit of fun!
PS. I was lucky to qualify for the final, playing with nick "Flying Saucers". Also in the final is Corr. GM Arno Nickel (=Ciron) and FIDE GM Yuri Solodovnichenko (2585) (=Engineer). Several finalists have not yet revealed their identities :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-13 00:37:20)
FIDE about time controls
This topic, very discussed in Correspondence Chess forums (see TCCMB), is also debated in FIDE. We may play games with 1 hour + 10 seconds time control in future open tournaments...
http://www.fide.com/news.asp?id=1288
Any opinion ?
Elmer Valderrama (2007-03-13 18:05:55)
5th Freestyle tournament
Thanks for the input, Dagh, I think this makes everything clear to everyone ;)
Elmer Valderrama (2007-03-13 18:43:31)
Why isn't there a Chessbase forum?!
..any ideas?
The best I can think of is...they would definitely benefit from one..or maybe not -and that's why there isn't any ;)
Example, we could learn about CB freestyle tournaments impressions there, or about performance of programs, or about recommended books, DVDs, etc, oh well thanks God there are other forums ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-15 13:59:35)
Lightning chess games
Hello to all.
A new update, you may have seen a new category in money tournaments :
Lightning (correspondence) chess games, time control 30 minutes + 1 minute / move
I think it's a quite interesting time control for chess, it should attract more advanced chess players (or simply strong computers).. Really faster than "blitz correspondence chess".
I updated the server so that it is really easier to play fastly in these games. When you send your move, a new option will appear next to (Flip) and (Next). The link (Wait) will redirect you to the viewer page that will be auto-refreshed every 10 seconds. When your opponent play his move, you'll be automatically redirected to the "move" page to play your move and a pop-up window will appear to warn you (if Javascript is activated)...
Read more about in Time rules - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#time
Money tournaments will start on April, 2
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-18 02:00:14)
FIDE time controls
I agree, actually this is "1h ko" with no loss on time... (less stress and more Fischer clocks, indeed)
That's a pity, I very like 2 hours / 40 moves. Maybe it's useless in some open tournaments, but in others the quality of the games will be affected undoubtly. I hope it will attract more new chess players, I suppose it is the main goal...
Sandor Marton-Bardocz (2007-03-19 15:43:51)
Leader update inacurracy
In the FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_M__000005 tournament..
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-19 18:30:34)
Tournament performance
Perf in crosstable is the tournament performance. It is calculated exactly the same way chess ratings are calculated every 2 months. It uses your TER (tournament entry rating) and TER of your opponents.
Marc Lacrosse (2007-03-20 11:50:17)
Droppers ...
Too many droppers in my running tournament (M007)
This is not funny ...
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-20 11:59:58)
Droppers
Indeed, this tournament was a kind of rendez-vous :/
Lionel Vidal (2007-03-27 19:42:35)
Xiangqi
The fact that xiangqi is the most played game in china (much more played than Go!) is enough to make it the most played game in the world :-)
But apart from asian countries, you can find many players in the USA, and even in France, where the 2005 world championship was held!
Computers are quite good at xiangqi (the best program is french!) but not good enough yet for the very best players: the game-tree complexity of xiangqi is half way between chess and shogi, but the evaluation functions in xiangqi have specific problems (roughly speaking, the relative values of the pieces evolve much more than in chess during a game). Anyway I agree than in a few years, humans will probably loose in tournament time.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-28 04:11:59)
Class GM : 2500+ players needed
Hello to all.
Even if the number of very strong players should increase significantly during next months, it may be interesting to reduce the limitation for GM class tournaments from 2600 to 2500... It could return to 2600+ later if there are players enough of this level to fill such a waiting list.
Until this moment, players rated 2500+ are welcome for a bloody tournament :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-28 04:21:32)
100 games per player
With the last update, a new "limitation" appeared on the server : It is not possible anymore to enter a waiting list (but money tournament) if you have more than 100 running games...
Of course, a hundred games is enormous already, actually the aim is not to reduce the number of running games on the server but only to prevent some cases of massive forfeits. Also a few players asked to prevent them to enter too many tournaments at the same time... This site may be too addictive :)
Marc Lacrosse (2007-03-28 15:16:58)
Droppers kill the fun !
... And this tournament (M 007)is now finished with two additional aborted games through dropping out...
I congratulate the well-deserved winner of the tournament (Karsten Fyhn)
I am sure he must be a little frustrated like I am : both his final game and mine were very interesting ones for which we both got the full point through dropping-out of our opponents ...
This is not funny at all !
I hate analysing a game for months and seeing it aborted because my opponent withdraws without resigning and lets his clock runs for months without a single word of explanation
I suppose i cannot ask for banning such impolite persons ...
But one thing is clear for me : I don't wish to enroll any more in tournaments with droppers.
So for what regards myself either Thibault creates a new kind of tournaments into which former droppers are not allowed to suscribe or I stop playing here
A very disappointed player ...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-28 15:46:28)
Droppers
I feel that for at least 3 players in this tournament the problem is they had too many games at the same time ! (FICGS + IECG + ICCF ;))
What is strange is they all came back a few months later and registered for new tournaments. This is a real problem... The best answer to this in my opinion is rating that can decrease quite quickly, some will have to fight hard to enter a class M tournament again. In some cases of course there are personal reasons, it is hard to know and that's a pity to ban such players... :/
So it wasn't a good tournament, sorry about that. Still thinking about a new rule.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-29 05:28:00)
Droppers : New rule
Hello to all.
I'm to add a new rule to minimize the effects of silent withdrawals & forfeits without an explanation. The aim is first to guarantee to players they will not play again with droppers before a while... Rule is : "Any player who forfeits (by resignation or silent withdrawal) his games without giving an explanation to referee in a rated chess tournament will get an instant rating penalty of 200 points."
Thus, players go at least one category down. Of course it could be easier to ban players for a while, but just trying to avoid this.
All comments and suggestions are welcome.
Marc Lacrosse (2007-03-29 06:26:52)
good new rule !
I agree with Don on the fact that silent withdrawal is much more worrying.
Maybe the rule could be split in two parts:
one rule against any silent withdrawal
one rule against general forfeit in a tournament
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-29 14:48:46)
Another try
Of course there's always a bad part to a rule : finding the way to go round it.. and of course only serial droppers will, so to divide it in 2 parts may be useless :/
Another try : "Any player who forfeits (by resignation or silent withdrawal) his games without giving an explanation to referee in a rated chess tournament could get a limited access to the server and couldn't enter waiting lists anymore during a period of 2 months, at the referee's discretion."
Thus, when a dropper returns (after the next rating calculation), his rating will probably prevent him to enter the same category of tournaments - which is the initial aim.
Marc Lacrosse (2007-03-29 19:00:16)
Double RR tournaments ?
Seven players in a tournament is a good number
A larger number would lead to longer waiting time before a tournament actually begins.
But with such a small number of players being white or black against a given opponent may be decisive for tournament win.
So my suggestion : double round robin tournaments with a smaller number of players (five ?).
At five players, completing the full list of players is faster than for a seven-players single RR one and everybody plays 8 games with the advantage that no colour advantage/disadvantage exists against any opponent.
Your opinion ?
Charlie Neil (2007-03-29 19:32:56)
Double RR tournaments
I prefer single pairings. I know double pairings are the norm in postal clubs. 6 games with 6 others as opposed to 8 games with 4 people can make a difference. I'm sure the waiting time for tournaments to start will drop. But...... What about class tourneys being double paring 5 players and rapid tourneys being 7 players single pairing?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-29 19:51:24)
Double round-robin tournaments
Single round-robin tournaments with 7 players remains the very best option in my opinion. Shorter waiting time, more opponents... Playing White or Black against a particular opponent have consequences particularly in WCH tournaments, that is a choice but as there's no perfect system, the idea was to organize more cycles (about one every 6 months) for more chances. This way I'm convinced the best player will reach the final quite quickly :)
Double round robin tournaments with five players will be organized for special events (by the way this formula will not decrease the waiting time before a tournament starts... the more games in a tournament, the longer waiting time to begin another one, it doesn't depend on the number of players only)
Finally I think the idea of double round-robin tournaments with 5 players could be a good one for a new category, with a different time control (maybe longer ?!) .. What do you think ?
Nicola Lupinacci (2007-03-29 21:01:14)
Double round-robin tournaments
I think it is a good idea.
Playing 2 times against an opponent (whit White and Black) is more exiting, specially in WCH tournaments
Marc Lacrosse (2007-03-29 23:44:48)
Fast double RR at five players
"Finally I think the idea of double round-robin tournaments with 5 players could be a good one for a new category, with a different time control (maybe longer ?!) .. What do you think ?"
Or why not testing it with faster time controls (5 days initial + 1 day per move, maximum accumulated time 20 days) for example.
Sure I would immediately enroll for a 2200+ tournament on this basis.
:-)
Strongly limiting maximum accumulated time is also a project I would support wholeheartedly !
Anyone for a test ?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-30 00:00:10)
Fast double RR at five players
My prediction for such tournaments : More droppers / silent withdrawals (what difference with losing on time then) after the 10 first moves... More unfair rating changes. This is no more correspondence chess IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-30 17:17:32)
Correspondence Chess time controls
Correspondence Chess means quite long time controls, traditionnally... You must always have time to analyze well your moves. By the way, rated games with too different time controls would lead to quite strange ratings. 30 days + 1 day per move (60 days limit per move) is fast enough IMO.
I understand your feeling about the simulatneous games :) .. But faster time controls (longer than real-time chess, ie. money tournaments time controls) would lead to many forfeits, quite sure about it.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-03-30 17:56:11)
Rules
Where can I find the rules of different chess tournaments?
Charlie Neil (2007-03-30 21:13:10)
Time Controls
I think Marc has a point about a cummulative time limit in some time controls. in the class tournaments you could amass a huge ammount of time, if you were a fast player, and then use the clock and play really slowly and upset the rythym of your opponent. I like both time controls available, in Class and Rapid events, but if there is a demand for 5days +1day with a maximum of 20 days should we give it a try. as for drop-outs and silent withdrawals.....that's all in the game. (At least I get 1 point!) I am still dubious about double round robin tournaments but maybe you could try them in the Rapid events first. 5 player double pairings say every second tournament, and back to 7 player single pairing in the other......just a suggestion.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-30 23:13:42)
Rules
Hi Wolfgang.
You can find the rules at the end of this page :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
... or just browse the waiting lists pages for a particular tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-30 23:23:32)
Time Controls
Reminder : There's also a rule that limit the accumulated time to 100 days !
I think rules and time controls are well balanced... Definitely, a faster time control would bring confusion, this is another game.
There will be (as a test) double round-robin tournaments for the forthcoming "biathlon" chess & Go tournament :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-31 16:14:34)
Grand prix attack sac. against Caro Kann
I always look with interest the games played by Wladyslav Krol :)
We discussed last month this explosive variant with 3.Nf3!? in Grand Prix attack, now Wladyslav used the same opening against Caro Kann !
1.e4 c6 2.f4 d5 3.Nf3 ...
I found 3 results on Google about this opening, 2 come from FICGS :
http://www.ficgs.com/game_6886.html
http://www.ficgs.com/game_8263.html
http://www.chesspublishing.com/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1160671893;start=all
It would be interesting to have comments from the players for this interesting opening, out of the books at move 3... Could be a new thematic tournament very soon :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-01 00:35:38)
WCH prize fund - EUR 30,000
Hello to all.
A great news ! .. This is now confirmed just before the start of money tournaments, a german bank joined FICGS to guarantee a prize fund that just increased from EUR 2,000 to EUR 30.000 for the winner of the 2nd FICGS chess world championship !
Ads for both current sponsors will be displayed permanently in a few days on the site, thanks again to them, it will give a new dimension to this chess competition for sure ! .. Still looking for a second sponsor for the FICGS world Go championship, at the moment a japanese firm offers a prize fund of $1,500
Best wishes and have good WCH games !
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-01 19:00:23)
Internet Go vs. Masters
From Goama newsletter - http://gogame.info
How strong are Tygem ( http://tygem.com/ ) stars?
Korean Tygem Go server announced a tournament between top 3 Tygem players and Korean Dream team: Cho Hunnyun, Lee Changho and Yoo Changhyuk.
The results are:
First game: Cho Hunhyun, 9-dan lost by resignation to "spiderman1"
Second game: Lee Changho, 9-dan lost his game by resignation to "GoldHammer"
Third game: Yoo Changhyuk, 9-dan lost by 6.5 points to "gurenarukl"
It's hard to believe it, but they played without any handicap! Each game gathered more than 5000 observers.
It seems, that Tygem has lot of other good players, considering that these 3 masters are not undefeatable. Their scores:
Spiderman1 , 9-dan on Tygem, W113-L51
GoldHammer, 9-dan on Tygem, W275-L60
gurenarukl, 9-dan on Tygem, W893-L360
Maybe the online Go is far from the offline Go, or do we need a special experience for playing Go on servers?
How strong are Tygem star players? Do we know them in real life? There are so many questions.
Chess players will also ask about the possibilities of computer help.
Unfortunately they don't have English client available.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-05 01:58:22)
Big Chess championship
Hello to all.
You may have seen in the chat bar the idea to organize a Big Chess championship at FICGS is in the air.
It could be interesting for several reasons, the first one of course is there's no engine to help players :) .. by the way, it may be really hard to program a good Big Chess engine, it should use some Go concepts combined to a powerful chess engine (with quite different parameters).
Now there are some questions :
- What rules for a Big Chess championship ?
- What about a Big Chess rating ?
In my opinion, there shouldn't be a Big Chess rating. That's a pity, but "simple" chess should remain the main rated game here. Actually, the nature of this game (and time control) makes me think it should remain a friendly game first. However there could a championship for fun...
About the rules for such a championship, it could look like the Go championship : A two-stages tournament, first stage would be a single round-robin tournament with the 7 players who won most Big Chess tournaments (will help to promote tournaments ;)), second stage would be a 6 games match against current champion (if the final score is a draw, the current champion will keep his title).
What do you think ?
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2007-04-05 16:06:36)
BigChess Championship
Hello to all.
BigChess is a great game. No books, no engines, and no ratings!
A BigChess Championship is an excellent idea. I think that everyone should be able to take part in this tournament. And - if possible - it should start as soon as possible. If we must wait until 7 different players (not seven times Thibault :-) ) have won a tournament, then the Championship probably starts only in 2009.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-05 18:37:17)
Go : Games with handicap !
True ;-) .. but as this "tournament" would consist in one (or several) experimented player against many others, it's a bit different from regular tournaments, so I don't know how to name it... Also depends on the number of opponents.
Would you play this challenge ? :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-05 18:42:04)
Big Chess championship
Actually the problem with a multi-stages (4 rounds or more) tournament is it would finish in 2009 as well :)
With my system, Big Chess tournaments would be a continuous championship. Not perfect for sure, but it may be enough. What do you think ?
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2007-04-06 00:07:27)
BigChess Championship
Ok, but perhaps you can change the condition to select the seven players. Maybe you can give points for place 1 to 4 (1. = 7 pts, 2. = 5 pts, 3. = 3 pts, 4. = 1 point) in every tournament, which wasn't finished at the start of the last Championship. The seven players with the most points are qualified for your single round-robin tournament.
Or is this too complicated?
Jason Repa (2007-04-07 04:23:38)
Big Chess
This is an excellent idea! I'm looking forward to playing in the next Big Chess tournament!
Jason Repa (2007-04-07 04:45:25)
Double RR Tournaments
Double RR tournaments are a good idea and makes things fair. It is a big advantage to have the White pieces in a Corr. game.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-07 04:50:03)
Double RR Tournaments
It doesn't influence much the result in class tournaments IMO, it does in WCH tournaments only... Anyway single round-robin is more fun !
Jason Repa (2007-04-07 05:57:23)
Double RR tournaments
I disagree. I think that it has a very significant influence on the result. If you get Whites against the stronger players and Blacks against the weaker ones, you are getting a big advantage over someone who is not. IMO, it greatly adds to the luck factor. I have the most fun from fair competitions where things are balanced.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-07 06:11:03)
Double RR tournaments
The point is there shouldn't have stronger (I mean really) players in class tournaments... Anyway, several players already asked not to change current formula & single round-robin tournaments.
But I'll organize more special events and / or I'll create a new category using double round-robin.
Mikhail Ruzin (2007-04-09 19:24:34)
Go : Pro vs Amateur on Japanese Agon Cup
Mace Li on go4go wrote:
"A contributor sent me quite a few game records from Japanese Agon Cup, the only tournament that reserve some seats for amateur players. The amaturs are doing extremely well!"
...
The game records:
http://www.go4go.net/v2/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=217&forum=6&post_id=864#forumpost864
Marc Lacrosse (2007-04-09 23:43:22)
Thematic tournaments suggestion
A small and hopefully interesting suggestion :
When we go to the list of running and/or finished thematic tournaments we just see "tournament 001", tournament 002" and so on.
It would be nice to have the start position (as a PGN line) immediately under each tournament title so as to see at a glance which opening was played.
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-10 02:04:50)
Thematic tournaments suggestion
Quite true... I did not think about "comments" for tournaments, but it would be useful for thematic ones :/
Christophe Czekaj (2007-04-11 13:20:54)
Big chess
I agree with Heinz Georg. First place = 7 points, second 6 for example, etc.
We could take the ratio (total of points scored / number of tournament) to qualify 7 players for the championship (double round ?)
Christophe Czekaj (2007-04-11 13:26:38)
Free Lightning chess ?
What about lightning chess for free ? Is it possible for two player to play for example 10 min or 15 min KO online. Is it possible to play a tournament like this ? The players will take dates to play their game for example.
Volker Koslowski (2007-04-12 22:02:56)
Big Chess Championship
I think that a system based up on points suggested by Heinz-Georg is a good idea for a BC Championship. It is not very complex and maybe we must not wait until 2009 for the first final round robin tournament :)
Scott Prestwood (2007-04-16 16:26:22)
correspondence simul
Lightning (correspondence) chess games are more like a 6 way simul, with the RR style tournaments here. Different, but I still prefer to have time to analyze.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-16 16:43:15)
correspondence simul
Actually, it won't be lightning 7-players tournaments, but 2 players 1 game matches. See chess money tournament waiting lists.
Achim Mueller (2007-04-21 09:39:24)
WCH Stage 1 rules
Hi all,
a few words regarding the rules for WCH Stage 1. As far as I know now one player (out of 7) qualifies for the 2nd stage. In case of having 2 or more players with the same points at the top the player with the highest rating will qualify.
This is already difficult enough for newbies (with lower raing) because their opponents will have an advantage of 0.5 points in these 6 games. It's getting nearly impossible if you play in a group, where three players lost all their games on time within 10 moves (so they didn't play a single game seriously).
You can't afford a single draw in the remaining three games then, because in reality you play a tournament with only four players, where at least one player has a nominell advantage of nearly 20%!
I for myself now decided not to play future tournaments having this exceptionell ruling. Sorry to say so, but I don't see a realistic chance of winning all three games in correspondence chess nowadays, but what is needed to have a chance.
Ciao
acepoint
Achim Mueller (2007-04-21 09:59:26)
One additional thought
Take this sample of group 12, where we actually play a tournament with 4 participants. A player with the nominell highest rating can easily play on draw (using todays computer programs) in the one or two important games.
You all probably know how difficult it is to win against such a blocking guy, no matter whether your "realistic" rating would be equal to his or 200 ELO points better.
Ciao
acepoint
Jason Repa (2007-04-21 10:35:27)
WCH Rules
Achim Mueller wrote: "In case of having 2 or more players with the same points at the top the player with the highest rating will qualify."
This is completely logical. The higher rated player will tend to be the stronger of the group, especially if he isn't outscored by the lower rated player, so it's obvious that if you have to choose between two that are equal in points, you take the one that is more likely to be stronger. Can you think of a better and more fair way to choose between the two?
Also, I disagree with your comments about how someone "can easily play on draw". This is completely wrong. Even with the Black pieces, games can be and are won all the time, even at the very highest level of chess. Top GM's constantly are winning with black, and what is arguably considered the top computer in the world "Hydra" was defeated more than once by a garden-variety GM who had the black pieces. Regardless of color and regardless of rating, chess is a game of skill and if you need a win against a certain opponent, the onus is on you to draw on all of your resources, including choosing the type of oppening that will not lend itself to an easy draw. A weak player who doesn't understand these concepts will have no chance in subsequent rounds in a tournament anyway and shouldn't worry about advancing.
My experience is proof also. I had the black pieces against a significantly higher rated opponent in my WCH group and I beat him to secure my advancement.
Jason Repa (2007-04-21 12:16:39)
WCH Rules
I honestly can't see a more logical way to deal with a tie. My only complaint, as has been discussed in a previous thread, is that I prefer double RR's. But that's been mentioned already. Baring that I can't see a more fair way to proceed. Are you supposed to advance the lower rated opponent and punish players for doing well and getting a high rating?
Alternatively, if you advance all the high scoring players in a group, too many will advance and the tournaments will take too long. What else can be done?
Achim Mueller (2007-04-21 14:50:38)
Some answers
1) If the "higher rating" rule is best practise, as some players here do state, why isn't it used at _any_ FIDE tournaments? They have everything from SB, direct result, more wins, more wins with black pieces, but never ever used rating.
2) Even if it may not that easy to play for a draw ... I guess besides the fact that you get half a point as a gift it's also undoubtfull an advantage at least in correspondence chess to _know_ that a draw will help you, if you are the better rated player.
And this is definitely true in a tournament with only 4 players where there is only one qualifier.
Nonetheless you have all the right to use every rule you like. And as long as a player participates he "accepts" theses rules. That's what I also do, though I didn't know before that we are only 4 players and though I wasn't aware of this certain rule before.
But I also have all the rights to make future decisions regarding playing a qualifier here depending on the rules.
Ciao
acepoint
Don Burden (2007-04-21 16:56:18)
WCH Rules
In the first WCH tournament, I had a tied high score (5.5 out of 6), but didn't advance because of my lower rating. With only 7 players in each group, the chance seems to be very high that we will have matching high scores, especially if some players drop out. It makes sense (in my opinion) that the chance could be lowered significantly if the number of players are increased to 11 or 13.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-21 19:46:04)
Rules
Why FIDE didn't use such rules... Interesting question : IMO because OTB (over the board) chess is simply so different ! .. It is quite logical to use SB in open tournaments because it helps the player who is probably best "at this particular moment", meaning the best player of the event. In correspondence chess, it is quite different, I think using SB makes less sense here.
About draws, I think there's a real trap :) .. A player who thinks 'I must draw' will have difficulties against a good CC player IMO. And you probably noticed the players ratings in 7-players groups.. Even if all players fight, in most groups only 2 or 3 players probably really hope to win the tournament, the others have (at least) an opportunity to play stronger players and win some points... And you may be right (Don), 11 players groups may be more interesting. Maybe the next one...
Achim Mueller (2007-04-22 00:42:15)
Some more answers ;-)
@Don Burden
Full ack! If the rules stay as they are now it definitely makes sense to have groups of 11 or 13 players with e.g. 2 qualifiers.
@Mikhail Ruzin
Believe it or not, I would have been glad to play in group 02! There are seven "life" players and I bet a score of 4.5 or maybe even 4 points may be enough to qualify. In group 12 it's only 4 life players, and a result of 5 points (maybe 5.5 points) won't be enough for one player. There are only two remaining games, and all three strong life players have 4.5(one game to play), 4.5(1) and 4(2).
In this special situation exactly three games will decide who will quailify if you take a deeper look at the results and the contents of the games.
@Thibault
I never said it's easy for a 2300 ELO player if he plays for a draw only. But it's a big advantage for a player in a region between 2200 and 2500 if is aware that a draw will have the same quality as a victory against a certain competitor. Take a look at the world class cc players. There is a ~70% draw rate in the big tournaments, so the probability will be more than 70% if a player seriously tries to force a draw by choosing a certain opening and avoiding complicated variations.
Ciao
acepoint
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-22 12:32:08)
win against Anand :-)
Great & congrats ! :) .. such a thing does not happen every day. It's a real honor to beat a top class player, even in a simul - and with Black. (would have been even more pleasant in "real life" for sure)
Do you still play some FIDE events / tournaments, Marc ?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-23 01:05:39)
Performance / Rating
Achim, you just pointed it : "Regarding the rating as a decision maker I have one questions: Who showed the better performance if two players have the same number of points at the end? The player with the higher or the player with the lower rating?" .. of course the player with the lower rating :)
Once more, the aim of these rules is to find the very best player, NOT the best 'performer' in a group, tournament, match or whatever... ICCF & IECG do it well already and I thought this system could be more exciting. Maybe there could be some improvements in the rules yet, but the idea makes sense IMO. Does it really make sense to speak of performance in correspondence chess ? .. It makes sense in OTB chess because it reflects the level of players at a particular moment. But you can play a good CC tournament and a bad one at the same time...
Best wishes, Thibault
Jason Repa (2007-04-23 10:04:00)
Cheating Accusations
My advice is to take the accusations with a grain of salt. I'm a very good blitz/bullet player and years ago before I found out about ICC and Playchess.com I used to play at the crappy free sites such as yahoo and pogo. I would often be the strongest and highest rated player in the room and would get constantly accused of being a "prog". I would say take it as a compliment but these people are too stupid to understand what a good move or good technique is. They make the accusation based on successful results only.
As for your game with Anand. I think it's ridiculous to accuse you of program assistance. For starters, the game isn't very important. It's just an unrated simul game with no prize whatsoever. It seems to me you should have received some sort of award, not necessarily cash, but something chess related and of value. I understand it's for charity, but I can't see who in their right mind would pay money to play in a simul when there is no incentive to win. You might as well just write a check to send directly to the handicapped children of India.
When Chapters bookstore hired me to do a chess simul it was a fundraiser for our chess club. I didn't lose any games, but the sole person to merely draw me (28-0-1) in the 29 games I played received a free tournament entry ($30 value) to one of our local monthly events. I thought this was a great idea and had the benefit of bringing a new player into our club.
Sandor Marton-Bardocz (2007-04-30 11:54:47)
WCH Stage 1 rules
Hi everyone!
Let me introduce my self :-) I'm the highest rated player in the Wch stage 1 group 12 "the blocking guy" how Achim described me...whatever that means..
1. there is no dead draw in my opinion likewise there is no absolute winning lines, openings in a chess game...And this is most true in our "centaur, human-engine tandem" era where lines are very "unstable" to say the least..so I
don't believe that one can play for a absolute draw without any risk..avoiding complicated variations...the variations complexity is very relativ...line can be "cristal clear" for one and most complicated for other..In my opinion high rates of draws among world class cc player isn't because they all play for draws ...It's a tendency..like it was in otb chess among super gm-s...not long ago...until the "no draw alowed" rules were aplied...i don't want to speculate why this happens..
2. If someone really want to win...then should play for a win ...no matter what regulations are applied for that particular tournament
3. I think that if someone might want to take a look to the game that I played against mister Deeb in the same tournament ...starting from the move 17 of mine...hardly can to argue that I wanted to play for draws just to achieve equal points to advance. I think that none of the engines can even "smell" the outcome of the game in that position after 17..d5!?...so...saying that nowdays it's easier to achieve draws because of engines....it's a little bit
exaggerated The plan started with the move 17 ...d5!? that I have played it was an absolute rejection of a drawish (by repetation) position...and it was played just because i wanted to ...play.. not to advance in a higher stage of the tournament or something...even though the final outcome ( just in my opinion! and this isn't an absolute true by far) is probably ...still a draw.
4. The regulations regarding the advance in the higher stages of the tournament..now this are definitly arguable!there are pro's and con's...and always be. We don't have plausible answers for this kind of issues...because it's is a subjectiv matter. I'm not convinced too that "higher rated player advance"is the right regulation..few examples...just look for example ...Kramnik - Leko WCH .
a. ..challenger and his fans can say.."hey he didn't beat him...why should remain WChampion?! He didn't proved that he is better!"
b. ..Wchampion and his fans can say.."hey u want my crown?! than beat me, and take it! draw isn't enough!"
The line of examples doesn't stops here ..i don't want to prolong this subject...No rule can satisfy both sides...polemics, flame are always present :-)
5. None can predict what will be the process in a group...If 2-3 or even 4 players changes they mind and doesn't
really play..that's it, and none can't do a thing about that ...maybe some sanctions later...i don't believe it will do any good anyway...
6. In the game betwen me and Achim...I don't think that I choosed a draw line...I think that I had the initiative but probably it wasn't enough for a win, Achim overforced it ....which isn't a bad thing but probably not with the plan he had preferred.
good day for everyone!
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-04-30 17:32:08)
Rules and morals
Rules just have to be clear before a tournament starts – whether this rules are bad or good will be defined by the individual sight of everyone, so never mind because the rules are known and accepted by all members. Just a bad looser is searching his lost by the rules!
Another thing is the abuse of rules – you can play in accordance with the rules and nevertheless break moral fundamentals. I.e. definitely lost or drawn games (known by both opponents) will not finished (by resign or draw offer/accept) because of the hope that the opponent will have a heart attack before the time control is coming. Or taking care of your rating, it will be done in next rating period later on.
Perhaps it is purely a matter of taste!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-30 18:45:25)
Cochrane Gambit
Thanks ! .. By the way, the waiting list for the next chess thematic tournament is open (Cochrane gambit, of course ;))
Best wishes, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-30 22:34:37)
WCH rules
Thanks Sandor & Wolfgang for sharing your views.
As you said, there's no perfect rule for everyone, particularly in a correspondence chess championship, where time is a predominant factor. As for me, I like much FICGS rules so far because of these major points :
1) The best players have the best chances.
2) A new cycle can start every 6 months.
3) There's no external influence in a knockout tournament.
I think the lowest rated player has to prove he's stronger than the highest rated player or champion, so it's coherent in round-robin and knockout tournaments. I particularly like the special rule in the knockout tournament (stage 1, 2 & 3). I'm now playing an exciting quarter final against Wolfgang, that I'm to lose because of this rule - the winner is the player with the strongest TER is all games are draw, the player with the lowest TER if not all games are draw - even if it finishes with a 4-4 score. Simply because I'll lose most probably at least one game. I think it's fair ! .. I knew the rule (of course, I made it :)), I knew I had to draw all games or to win by one point at least. Rules are the game ! .. It's not more unfair than to draw a game with one or two pawns more ;)
However I agree that WCH round-robin tournaments should be 9, 11 or 13 players groups to give more place to chess. I'll take care of this in the next cycle.
Finally, not only rules are to be taken in consideration... To attract players, there must be a real challenge ! .. To take the title to the champion will be really hard for sure :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-01 00:57:44)
Achim's answer
Achim Mueller asked to close his account, but he wanted to respond to Wolfgang & Sandor, here's his answer :
"A last clarification:
@Wolfgang Utesch:
I wasn't aware of the "ELO-prefering" rule and I still don't find it
here on the webpage. I opened a thread here in this forum and
besides "then win all your games" or "in this case we ensure that
the better player will qualify" there were no substantial arguments
for this pretty unused and unknown rule (not that I agree with these
two "arguments"!). Nonetheless I accepted the rule for this
tournament.
My decision to give up and leave this server is based on an easy
calculation how many games I have to play here to get a - what I
call - competitive rating that somehow equals the advantage, players
with a nominal rating of 2200 - 2500 will have in every tournament
where this rule exists. Because my time is limited my decision was
to leave the server, that's all. I don't complain, I don't take
anything as an excuse. It's simple as it is: I gave it a try here,
became aware of the rule and decided this is the wrong place for me,
ok?
@Sandor Marton-Bardocz :
I didn't say with any word that you are a blocking guy. This was a
_general_ thesis how the player with the best rating can take an
overwhelming advantage at this ruling. All good players (ask anyone
in the region of 2400up at remoteschach, dbf, iecg or iccf) will
confirm that it is most difficult to get 3.5 point out of 4 if at
least 2 players know how to use computers and choose certain
openings.
Finally ... ficgs is a nice place to play, the interface is good and
I assume Thibault put a lot of work into it. So, enjoy your games
here, but also accept that from time to time there might be
players that will leave because of certain issues.
Ciao
Achim"
Rules (and chess WCH rules) - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
Thanks Achim. Best wishes & have good games :)
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-05-01 08:28:28)
Rules
@Achim: It is just your failure to start in a tournament without knowing the rules!
@Thibault: I think, in our match we need not the use of the special rule. :-)
A problem in corresponding game is, that rating is showing the right strongness seldom.
By the way, you should put the rules on the home page!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-01 21:12:25)
Rules
... you can't enter a waiting list without seeing the rules for the tournament. It is visible even when the waiting list is closed. But anyway Wolfgang may be right, "Rules" could probably be displayed in the menu.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-02 19:10:02)
sb tie breaks
... it will be discussed every 6 months for sure ;)
While writing WCH rules, the main goal was not only (or firstly) to make it fair. It should be a spectacular and exciting challenge first ! .. Nothing was more unfair than the old FIDE WCH cycle and that was great. Once more these rules have not be designed to 'choose' the best player in the tournament, but more probably the best player. Another advantage of rating preference is you know the challenge when each group starts, result is not decided during the tournament, according to the games of your opponents with the same number of points.
At last, I just wanted to make it different. So you may play in the ICCF & IECG world championship tournaments if you prefer the classical round-robin system :)
Dan Rotaru (2007-05-03 00:32:46)
sb tie breaks
I believe that Garvin’s idea regarding the tie break makes sense. The higher rated player in a group is not always the best player, especially in correspondence chess where it takes time to achieve one’s real rating or players can get an established equal rating from ICCF or IECG. I also believe that games will be spectacular and exciting even with new rules. I played to win in both my games against the highest rated players in my group and wouldn’t have played different no matter the rules. In the end the rules are rules and equal for everybody so we must obey. However from the number of replies it seems that the topic is hot and maybe it is worth debating for the next WCH. I don’t want to play in the ICCF & IECG world championship tournaments because I enjoy FICGS too much :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-03 01:17:03)
sb tie breaks
"The higher rated player in a group is not always the best player"... I agree of course, no rule can say surely who is the best player at a particular moment or period (in this case I meant during a quite long period), it's a question of probability only !
Ok... In my opinion these WCH rules are great, different and shouldn't be changed. However there should be a Cup multi-stage tournament with different rules to give equal chances to everyone, also a new section for double round-robin tournaments. I must 'finish to' launch money tournaments, attract more players after that, then it could be done...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-03 02:13:44)
Go championship cycle
1st FICGS go WCH will start in a few months, but I'm still not really satisfied with current rules :
"FICGS world Go championship is first a round-robin tournament, involving 11 players including the 6 players who won or lead most Go tournaments started during the previous year and the 5 highest rated players, among players who entered the waiting list. If more than 2 players win (or lead) a tournament with equal score, no win is granted. A win in a "pro" tournament is worth 9 "kyu" wins. A win in a "dan" tournament is worth 3 "kyu" wins. In case of equality, the next places will be taken in account.
The winner of this tournament is the challenger for FICGS world champion title. In case of equality, the winner is the player with the highest tournament entry rating (TER), If this rule can't designate a unique challenger, current ratings will be considered. If current world champion defends his title, they will play a 6 games match. In case of equality (3-3), the winner is the former world champion.
All games are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. Komi is 7.5 points. Rules for Go are chinese rules, as defined by the Chinese Weiqi Association."
Not clear enough, quite complicate and strange, even if I like the idea of a 2-stages tournament (round-robin tournament then challenger vs. champion match) and to give the opportunity to the best rated Go players to enter it without playing tournaments before... Other questions, double round-robin or not, should it be open to all players.. Feel free to suggest your ideas for a nice Go WCH cycle ! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-05 15:43:46)
Go championship cycle
Finally ratings could be enough to give the best chances to the best players... Consequently the 9 highest rated players who entered the waiting list would play the round-robin tournament. That's a pity everyone can't play with this formula, but anyway chances to see 'surprises' is much lower in Go than in correspondence chess.
Dinesh De Silva (2007-05-07 11:44:31)
Re:
Hi, IDA
Click on "Waiting lists" & choose a tournament that fits your rating. Once you get used to it, it's easy.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-08 23:03:28)
Herrstroem gambit, 1.Nf3 g5
What do you think about this gambit (new thematic tournament) ? .. Very critical. Is it lost for Black already ?
Nicola Lupinacci (2007-05-09 10:04:10)
suggestion
What about Dory defense?
1. d4 Nf6, 2. c4 e6, 3. Nf3 Ne4
or (in italian language) Attacco Aculeo?
1. g4 d5, 2. Bg2 c6; 3 g5 (I don't know if Black can make the first move in thematic tournament)
Nicola Lupinacci (2007-05-09 17:54:04)
Re: Re: Suggestion
Becuose same gambits or critical openings start whit a white move,
i.e. King gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.f4
and now black can play 2. ... exf4 or 2. ... d6 or 2. ... Nc6 ecc. ecc.
I think that in certain thematic tournament whit opening like this 1st move would be made by black...
but i don't know how thematic tournaments work... :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-10 03:21:12)
Thematic tournaments
Nicola, there's no rule for thematic tournaments.. every mad opening is welcome :)
Nick, what are these famous openings played by Mike Surtees !?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-12 15:44:08)
Money chess and Go tournaments
FICGS money chess & Go tournaments will be open today !
At last, after the next update (in a few hours) including legal informations (home page / rules) and the 'My account' page, the money chess & Go games can start.
Players interested are invited to read rules (updated) in its entirety, particularly 04. Entry fees, 05. Prize money, 06. Warranties, 07. Money transfer ...
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
Feel free to discuss rules for entry fees and prizes in this thread, some points may have to be clarified yet. It's a long time I think about these rules to make them most interesting at the same time for the players and the server, according to french taxes & laws.
Of course, all free tournaments will remain free. As FICGS becomes a commercial server, the more players will enter money tournaments, the more ads on the internet so the more players :)
Time controls for money chess games & tournaments are 30 minutes + 1 minute / move (lightning), 2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves (blitz), 30 days + 1 day / move (rapid), 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves (standard). Thematic chess money games will be played at blitz time control.
Time controls for money Go games & tournaments are 30 minutes + 1 minute / move (lightning) and 30 days + 1 day / move (standard).
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-12 23:16:53)
rake
Actually, ie. for a Gold blitz game (chess) the rake is 3 E-Points for White and 0 E-Points for Black !
There are 2 different rakes, a one-time rake on money entry fees (or money prizes) and another one, much lower, on E-Points entry fees : If you play only one game (a win) and ask for a money prize, the rake is the money prize one, 25 Euros (let's call it 'money prize rake') but the more games you play before asking money prizes, so applying the E-Points rake, the more the global rake will tend to the 'E-Points rake' which is much lower.
"Money prizes have to be compared to E-Points prizes that are much higher : A win in a Gold blitz game is worth 197 E-Points, meaning the more games you play before to ask for a money prize, the less charged games are. In example, if you buy 3 Gold tickets (3 x 100 Euros), you'll get 300 E-Points, then you play 30 Gold blitz chess games (15 as White and 15 as Black) : 29 draws and 2 wins with White. Finally you have 300 - (30 x 100) + (15 x 100) + (13 x 97) + (2 x 197) = 455 E-Points. At the end, if you ask for a money prize for the last game you won, you'll get a 150 Euros money prize and your E-Points account will be 455 - 197 = 258 E-Points"
Quite complicate to visualize but as FICGS is not a casino, there's a normal value added tax on money entry fees in Europe (that's why money prizes for gold tournaments can't exceed 150 euros). This way, I think the rule is quite interesting for players who play at least 10 games... Trying to write it in a clearer way.
Albert H. Alberts (2007-05-13 09:45:39)
shesnikov
ALL:
Here is a possible novelty in the Shesnikov:1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cd4 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Bf6 gf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.0-0 Bd5 13.ed5 Ne7 and now tournament lines go say Re1 to respond e4 with Bf1 and win over Nc2/a4 in the endgame.
TRY 14. c3 Bg7 15. g4!? e4 16.Bc2 b4 17.cb4!? Bb2 18. Kh1 and now I was able to win for white after both Ba1 or Ba3 having gf5/Be4 or Ba4 and an open g-( and c and b)-file for white.Suppose g4 is healthy no black tournament player will engage in Shesnikov for a while? www.howtofoolfritz.com updated late april. Albert H.Alberts
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-13 14:04:07)
Thematic tournaments
Hi Ilmars :)
Yes, you can now transfer money to FICGS account. (see "My account")
It is not possible to choose your opening in the money thematic tournaments in waiting lists, but I can create the games handly. If you don't find an opponent, I'll play it.
Best wishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-13 23:04:03)
Traxler counter attack
Congrats for a well prepared line against Traxler :)
Thanks for inauguring money tournaments...
Garvin Gray (2007-05-14 15:25:46)
suggestion
I have had an opponent say to me that if you want to be a certain colour against another opponent who is already in the waiting list for a tournament, then you have to join the tournament in a specific position.
If this is the case, perhaps having drr's will speed up the nomination process because some players will not be picking and choosing which colour to they want against a certain opponent.
They will just enter because they will be both white and black :P
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-14 18:48:52)
:-)
That's a fine argument ;) .. Indeed, the first player in the waiting list will play White against the second, then colors are alternated. But I can't believe many players take a look at the order before to enter the waiting lists. Anyway, no players enough yet to create a new section for DRR tournaments. Patience !
Don Groves (2007-05-15 07:21:17)
Double RR Go tournaments
I'd be open to trying this -- maybe with four players, so it would still be six games.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-15 15:16:41)
Double RR Go tournaments
Does it make sense to organize double round-robin Go tournaments ? .. or is the Komi fair enough ?!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-21 20:27:04)
Topalov wins M-Tel Masters
... incredible outcome, Topalov takes sole victory in M-Tel Masters with a surprising 5,5 / 10 !
Also his performance is 2751 while his rating is 2772, so he'll lose some points because of this tournament...
Marc Lacrosse (2007-05-22 22:20:20)
Any 2200+ for a rapid double round ?
Hi all, hi Thibault
Would you agree for a five players rated double round robin tournament at rapid timing (30 days + 1 day per move) if four other 2200+ players declare in this thread that they are ready to join ?
I am ready to play...
Marc
Marc Lacrosse (2007-05-22 22:22:35)
Any 2200+ for a rapid double round ?
I also suggest maximum 50 days accumulated time for this tournament.
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-22 22:58:02)
Rapid double round-robin
Hello Marc.
Of course, why not for special tournaments like this one...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-27 19:13:09)
Candidates Matches 2007
I just read the Chessbase news :
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3886
I was first surprised to learn that Etienne Bacrot (after Grischuk) turned to poker also...
Levon Aronian (ARM) - Magnus Carlsen (NOR)
Alexei Shirov (ESP) - Michael Adams (GBR)
Ruslan Ponomariov (UKR) - Sergei Rublevsky (RUS)
Alexander Grischuk (RUS) - Vladimir Malakhov (RUS)
Peter Leko (HUN) - Mikhail Gurevich (TUR)
Judith Polgar (HUN) -
Evgeny Bareev (RUS)
Boris Gelfand (ISR) - Rustam Kasimjanov (UZB)
Etienne Bacrot (FRA) - Gata Kamsky (USA)
In this round my favourites are : Carlsen, Shirov, Ponomariov, Grischuk, Leko, Polgar, Kasimjanov, Kamsky.
Hard to say who will win this knockout tournament...
Graham Cridland (2007-05-29 18:21:09)
M-Tel
Weird tournament. Topalov failed to impress against a weak field, when you would have expected a really strong performance. He needs to study a bit I think. Very surprised by Adams' result, that's just not acceptable to him I'm sure...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-01 17:56:58)
Final match
Hello Svante Carl, thanks for sharing your views !
I agree about the round-robin tournament, it could evolve according to the rating list...
About the final match, I have good reasons for not introducing any chancy factor in tournaments (anyway I think it's better this way), I finally agreed with players about the 5-games match but it was hard for me to consider this non symmetrical schedule... Making it different is not a problem IMO, a (2xn)-games final match with equality favourable to former champion - like FICGS chess WCH - was ok for me but 6 games may be too few, giving a too big advantage to the former winner of the tournament.
Anyway, there will be no final match in this 1st championship, it will be probably discussed again & again :)
Garvin Gray (2007-06-02 06:42:49)
Wch 3 rules
Time for a new thread since start of a new tournament.
I would like to see each round robin group have more people in each group. This way there is less chance of two or more people tying for first and having to be tie-breaked by TER.
Also it means more games, which I assume is a good thing :)
Marc Lacrosse (2007-06-02 11:17:26)
Wch older qualification
I once qualified in WCH preliminary by winning tournament FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_20__000001 .
I then could not enroll for stage 2 due to personal reasons.
May I go directly to stage 2 of a subsequent cycle or do I have to go through qualifications at new ?
Thanks.
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-02 14:57:49)
Wch older qualification
Hello Marc,
Well sorry, nothing in the rules about that :/ .. Anyway, if you enter the 3rd championship, you would play in a M Group (2300+), so you'll be qualified for the next round or 3rd round if you win the tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-06 05:51:55)
E-Points + 25% , affiliate links
Hello to all, now trying to promote tournaments with entry fees & money prizes :)
You may have seen in rules that there are 2 'rakes' for money tournaments, a one-time 25% and a 'rake' per tournament which is very low... From now and until september 31, you'll be given 25% E-Points more when buying E-Points through Moneybookers or Paypal (see "My account" page), which nearly cancels the main rake !
Also it is now possible to win E-Points by becoming an affiliate & helping to promote FICGS... All details in "My account" page : For each new member refered by your link on the web, you'll be given E-Points (now 0,5 per member)... Of course urls and new members are verified, but anyway it is quite easy to reach the 10 E-Points silver ticket !
There could be E-Points prizes for free tournaments (class SM & class M) soon...
It is also possible to post your websites in FICGS directory :
http://www.ficgs.com/directory.html
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-12 19:11:21)
More rating lists ?
What about more rating lists at FICGS ?
- Correspondence chess active & inactive players lists
- Blitz & lightning rating list
- Big chess rating list (class tournaments !?)
- Go rating list
Also there could be casual blitz & lightning chess tournaments with entry fee & prizes, blitz & lightning games with a tiny entry fee (no prize) and more ways to win E-Points...
Feel free if you have any comment or idea...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-14 02:43:48)
Go with handicap
Well, it is possible to organize casual matches or simultaneous games with a strong player (any volunteer ? :)) .. but it looks quite hard to organize such tournaments automatically.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-14 22:45:22)
Figlio - Schuster
Have a look into the WCH tournament rules: "The knockout tournament is played into 8 games matches. The special rule (avoiding short draws) is that in case of equality (4-4), the winner is the player with the strongest tournament entry rating if all games are draw, the player with the lowest tournament entry rating if not all games are draw. The winner is qualified for the next stage."
Any questions?
Hannes Rada (2007-06-14 23:18:43)
Figlio - Schuster
Oh, Thank you Wolfgang.
Very complicated ... :-)
Or let's say unusual..
.
I would prefer a 3 stage round robin tournament based on the famous swiss-system. For me that seems to be a more fair competition.
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
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-16 02:26:35)
WCH rules
Hannes, any tournament, any championship, any game (!) is a contract that players accept before to play. As Kramnik said, the same for Topalov about FIDE WCH in Mexico... Peter made it. That is fair ! .. IMHO
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-16 15:45:46)
FICGS 3.0 , novelties & advanced chess
Dear chessfriends, the new FICGS version is installed :) ... Improvements :
- New random design (see preferences) after each login, great IMO :)
- Correspondence chess established, preliminary & complete rating lists (user mode)
- Big chess rating list
- http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_big_chess
- Rated big chess tournaments (no more unrated)
- Advanced ches rating list
- http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_advanced_chess
- Rated advanced chess tournaments (money blitz & lightning games)
- New advanced chess games category : CHESS MONEY BRONZE (entry fee 0,2 E-Point)
Advanced chess games are chess games played at Lightning (30 minutes + 1 minute / move) or Blitz (2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves) time control. Computer assistance is encouraged. See rating rules for advanced chess, everyone gets a rating (first estimated from your correspondence chess rating) after you played your first game.
Every member now has 2 free E-Points to play 10 free CHESS MONEY BRONZE (advanced chess) games. Consequently the FICGS advanced chess server is not free of charge after this free trial.
This is a major improvement, so there will be some adjustments during the next days, particularly to reorganize money tournaments.
Feel free if you have any comment or suggestion...
Have good games :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-16 15:56:50)
Chess tournaments with an entry fee
All chess tournaments with an entry fee are now RATED (also 2 games matches), but thematic tournaments.
Dan Rotaru (2007-06-17 13:47:10)
New tournaments
Hi Thibault,
What about organizing some Swiss tournaments? I think that a Swiss for Money tournaments would generate a lot of interest because the more players participate the bigger the prize fund would be. I would also enjoy playing a Correspondence chess Swiss tournament let's say: “FICGS Annual Open Tournament”. Therefore players from different rating brackets can play against each other, apart from the WCH. Right now in the class tournaments I keep playing against few players again and again.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-17 15:34:20)
Swiss tournaments
Hi Dan, I think I'll add an active players list soon...
About the swiss tournaments, I'm thinking about such advanced chess tournaments, but it would be hard to organize a correspondence chess tourney with the swiss system... (the rounds can't be played at the same time)
I'm to completely change the waiting lists structure for big chess & money tournaments.
Dan Rotaru (2007-06-17 19:31:49)
Swiss tournaments
That is very true, you can't play more than one game at the time and one single unfinished game can delay the next round for very long time. But maybe once a year, a 5 round tourney played at fast time controls: 30 days / 0.5 day per move, or even faster? I wonder what kind of interest this type of tourney would generate.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-17 19:40:04)
Swiss tournaments
It would be quite risky IMO :)
Wayne Lowrance (2007-06-18 03:53:01)
World Computer Chess Championship (wccc)
Thibault, I dont care for your notion here. It is WCCC and should not be downgraded because ChessBase and program authors of Hiarcs, junior & fritz did not enter. Those programs have the big rep';s, but in actuality you should check out all of the rating sites. Zappa ranks Higher that those three programs for example.
There is a thing called GridChess, which is very strong, beat shreddar. Oh I dunno, I could go on. Mostly I object to chesbase direct or indirect control of the chess engine tournaments. And to make things worse you and others posts nonsense as this.
My two cents my friend.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-18 05:32:40)
WCCC
Hi Wayne.
I mean, WCCC is a tournament like any other (no federations or whatever...), it is a big event and program authors come to play, that's great. But the format with so few interesting games can't provide accurate results :/
I agree that Deep Fritz & Junior are not the strongest chess engines today, but they are a good test for other ones and a way to improve the results of a tournament. IMO a World Computer Chess Champion should be ie. the SSDF 1st ranked program, which is continuous tournament with many games played, or maybe the games played at SSDF should be organized like a continuous swiss tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-18 05:41:30)
New update !
"Tournaments" page and waiting lists have been completely re-organized by time control ! (more coherent and clear IMO)
Also a new rating list : Active players list.
- Active players list displays players who connected during the last 2 months... Right now almost 700 of 2100 which is quite good IMO :)
- Preliminary rating list now displays players who finished at least 1 rated game, less than 9 rated games and who connected during the last 2 years. (which is much more interesting)
At last, the rating rules for advanced chess (blitz & lightning) have been improved. Now a fair performance bonus for Black, see rules :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_advanced_chess
And now, I'm going to sleep... Good night everyone :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-18 20:50:23)
Big chess theory : "Queens opening"
The first rated Big Chess tournament started a few days ago... I like this game more and more, no theory, no databases, no chess engines, many strategies & many queens captured already ;)
Every opening seems ok, we still don't know if taking pawns with the queen during the first moves is worth something or not, the value of the pieces is quite unpredictable... Many players now play 1.Nh4 to threaten 2.Qo7 then 3.Qc7 if needed, winning a pawn. What is the best response if you want to keep the same material ? .. Anyway that's very interesting to see a side with 1 or 2 pawns more, giving some rooks activity to the opponent.. Still looks like a draw theorically.
My main line is : 1.Nh4 Nh13 2.Qo7 No14 3.Qc7 Ql13
Any other suggestion ?
See Big Chess waiting list in Chess Special Tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-18 21:48:26)
Lightning and Blitz Time Controls
Well, as these tournaments are not popular yet, you'll have to wait for an opponent, but you may use the chat bar to announce you entered the waiting list or to find an opponent before to enter it. The game starts as soon as another player signs up.
The point is you can retire from the waiting list when you want, just by clicking on the arrow next to your name in the waiting list (you can try it by entering a Lightning bronze game).
It will take time but it will work :)
Also I'm to organize some "freestyle" advanced chess tournaments at lightning time controls, that should happen from time to time on saturday & sunday.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-18 22:09:02)
Shredder is world champion... too !
It seems Shredder won the blitz tournament (few games also) ahead of Rybka !
http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/tournament.php?id=177
Well, why not :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-19 07:29:28)
Chatter robot
The robot works... You may try it by entering a CHESS LIGHTNING BRONZE tournament (1 game match). It should be a bit easier to find an opponent now...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-19 17:57:07)
GM_FICGS__CHESS__RAPID
Hello Viktor.
Well, it would be great to organize such a tournament :) .. But GM Atalik did not connect for at least 1 year.
See active players list - http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=rating_lists
Anyway, if the other players agree, why not (prize would be inf. to 800 E-Points with 8 players)... Also I'm sure that many players would be interested to play a 2, 4 or 8-games match with an entry fee / prize with you.
Marc Lacrosse (2007-06-19 18:28:48)
May I join ?
If my modest rating is enough, I surely would be glad to join such a high-level rapid tournament.
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-19 18:50:56)
Rated or not rated ?
... which brings a question : Should (all) money tournaments be rated !?
Maybe there should be class tournaments also, but it's a bit early. I'm not sure yet. Any opinion ?
Albert Popov (2007-06-20 12:40:06)
We are in need of a good challenge!
I don't think Rybka could win in the same overwhelming manner, if Deep Junior the Horrible took part in the tournament. Why, it might be a well-thought move on the Junior team's part. Aren't we in for another Rybka - Junior thrilling match challenge soon? I would bet on Junior in that chess brain war as Junior's long-standing loyal customer.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-20 22:54:33)
Internet chess
Well, the discussion with Tryfon Gavriel continues at TCCMB. As I had to explain the way I make FICGS, I copy my responses here :
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=109.15
Hello again Tryfon !
That's a very interesting discussion...
Actually I have to explain FICGS in its whole to respond :) .. To be continued for sure..
While registering a new member wrote to me a few months ago "Thanks for creating this ultimate chess challenge" or so... That's exactly what I try to do, mostly with the FICGS championship knockout & round-robin rules... Players just want challenge, that's the only assumption I start with, so I try to create interesting challenges. About the intellectual part, you're right but I'm quite sure that top level correspondence chess players still consider their game as an intellectual challenge, much more than a brute force or computer skills one. That's not the case for Advanced chess with fast time controls.
Let's take a look at the bicycle races again... The "Tour de France" is dying IMO.. because everyone understood we "don't know" if the champion is ok.. If doping was allowed (it would be a scandal for health of course), I'm sure the interest would raise again ! I think it is the same for chess & for everything else... The "Tour de France" syndrom happened in Elista with the match Kramnik vs. Topalov... It will have consequences. We need champions and we want true champions, every means are ok for this ! .. So the "engines allowed" rule is the only one possible or reasonable in my opinion.
Of course, chess & correspondence chess are changing, because these "walls" are nearer & nearer... maybe chess will die, maybe not.. The main problem is that in 1997, a super computer became World Champion... this year a "simple" computer Deep Fritz became world champion, soon Rybka on a cellular phone... :) Who is really interested to be a champion in "human category" ? FIDE world chess championship will continue to progressively lose its interest IMO...
Correspondence chess is just starting to grow in popularity and is told to be dying already. Surely correspondence chess will ask more & more time at a high level to win a few points, but it is possible to create more challenge by ie. changing the rating rules (the "design" of Elo rating system will become a problem).. Then, if it is not enough, we'll look for other challenges... It's told for years that Go (Weiqi) will replace chess in western countries... why not Big chess as the "brain only" game if there can't be doping in it.. just trying, as there's no other solution :)
A word about Poker of course, as it's probably the fastest growing game in popularity : IMO this game is at a stade like chess in year 1900, but the same problem will happen, even quicker. At a high level the game will be just more and more boring (if you wish to win real money) or chancy (in a wch tournament), or you'll have to always find weak players (well, not very challenging).
About the simultaneous exhibition against Alekhine or Capablanca, I'm not sure at all they would crush everyone at our chess servers, they are undoubtly more talented than all of us, but I feel it wouldn't be enough in all cases to win against correspondence chess style of play & knowledge accumulated for 50 years... A few players rated OTB 2000-2200 could draw against them IMO...
At last, yes I'm a fan of Sun Tzu's "The art of war" :) .. I strongly believe that correspondence chess will not die in the next few years because players will follow its principles more and more, as the only way to win ! .. Big chess follows the same principles... and Go is the most challenging game because of it too !
Tryfon, I'm not sure that we're opposite in our vision of chess ! .. Our servers have obviousy different goals, nothing more.. I do enjoy playing mad blitz games without chess engines... I just believe that the future of internet chess is "serious (engines allowed, rated) correspondence chess" on one hand and "human chess for fun (no engines, unrated)" on the other hand... The other ways look like nonsense to me.
I hope it responds.
Best wishes, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-22 01:51:23)
Lightning and Blitz Time Controls
That's an idea, but I'm making some changes to help to find opponents more easily. I hope it will help...
First, experience shows that rating rules are still too hard IMO : A player winning or drawing against another one rated 350 points more most often means the lower rated player should be rated higher, not the contrary... A few games only are concerned, but with provisional ratings such results are still not fair, and many players rated 2100 to 2300 fear to lose points in the chess WCH, even if they win their groups. This rule should allow strong players not to fear (too much :)) to play against anyone in rated tournaments without rating restrictions, like blitz & lightning ones.
Consequently, the rule "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 350 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 350" will be changed to "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 200" in a few hours.
The entry fees & prizes (E-Points) will change also, most important is to attract more players to start more advanced chess games.
Glen D. Shields (2007-06-23 00:14:24)
Chess Engine Strength
Thibault - I've been following the TCCMB discussion. I think it's impossible to answer the question what rating Rybka can achieve under the uncontrolled circumstances we play. If Rybka were playing only against humans, it would achieve a 2600+ rating. Since it plays mostly against itself and other top engines (with little human intervention), the typical results are win a few games, lose a few games and draw a lot.
Since tournaments are mostly set up so that players face opponents with similar ratings, a 2220 rated player using Rybka enters a tournament against other 2200 players. That player wins a few games, loses a few, draws a lot and leaves the tournament at approximately 2200. We conclude from that pattern that Rybka can achieve a 2200 rating.
Conversely, a player (like Uri Blass) who enters tournaments at 2600 and plays other 2600 rated opponents using Rybka wins a few games, loses a few games and draws a lot. He leaves the tournament rated approximately 2600. We conclude for that situation Rybka is rated 2600.
IMHO, it is impossible to answer the Rybka rating question under our typical tournament circumstances.
I think an even better question than worrying about Rybka's strength is "does anyone REALLY enjoy CC anymore?" Today's CC's is a race to buy the fastest hardware and make sure SSDF's top rated programs are installed. I'm playing beginners who can't explain what "en passant" is, but by parroting Rybka they compete in top tournaments and claim to hold titles that once upon a time had to be earned through hard work. After passing through the opening, it doesn't take much effort to figure out what program your opponent is using. At that point one can predict with high probablitlty every move your opponent will make for the rest of the game. Rarely do I see a move that I can can beat. The games are boring and pedictable. Those blunders and surprises that we once wrote funny stories about are long gone. IMO so is the fun.
Sorry to sound so "pessimistic," but until these problems are addressed and the fun is restored I find it just as easy to play against my computer. I can play at my pace, chose the engine I want to play, and unless my computer crashes I no longer have to worry about DMD :-)
Thanks for such a well run place to play chess. You do a great job maintaining it.
My best,
Glen
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-23 18:12:34)
FICGS freestyle cup
Hello to all.
You may have noticed new changes in the waiting lists & tournaments pages. Trying to create more interesting tournaments with entry fee & prize, with different time controls.
The FICGS chess freestyle cup (I did not find a better name yet :)) will be a 6 rounds swiss tournament played from time to time (every month would be great) at a very fast time control : 10 minutes + 20 seconds / move, see the rules in the tournament page in waiting lists. All rounds will be played the same day, about 1 round per hour.
Blitz tournaments have been gathered with lightning ones under the category advanced chess lightning tournaments.
Feel free if you have any idea or suggestion !
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-23 18:35:15)
Rating rules update
Hello to all.
As I said in another thread, experience shows that rating rules were still too hard IMO : A player winning or drawing against another one rated 350 points more most often means the lower rated player should be rated higher, not the contrary... A few games only are concerned, but with provisional ratings such results are still not fair, and many players rated 2100 to 2300 fear to lose points in the chess WCH, even if they win their groups. The new rule should allow strong players not to fear (too much :)) to play against anyone in rated tournaments without rating restrictions, like wch, blitz & lightning ones.
Consequently, the rule "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 350 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 350" has been changed to "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 200"
All correspondence chess results of these last 2 months & in the future will be affected, as well as future advanced chess & big chess results.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-23 19:46:32)
Dortmund 2007
The Dortmund 2007 tournament just started, a category 20 event with Vladimir Kramnik (recovering from illness), Viswanathan Anand, Shakhriyar Mamedyarov, Peter Leko, Boris Gelfand and Magnus Carlsen...
Who is the man of the moment, able to win such a tourney in your opinion ?
... well, and where is Veselin Topalov ?!
Garvin Gray (2007-06-24 08:16:23)
suggestion
I believe that everyone has been credited with 2 e-points.
Perhaps an idea to get people more interested in the 'money games' would be to make the tournament entry fee 2 e-points on a one time trial basis.
Those that arent interested after the trial basis will probably never be interested and so have no need to have any e-points. Those that are interested will add more e-points to their account.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-24 14:39:20)
suggestion
Thanks for suggestion Garvin. A problem is the swiss tournament will occur on a particular day and will take about 6 hours.
I think it will take some time before players be interested to play fast time controls anyway, and I'll probably have to improve some things yet.
Reminder : Everyone starts with 2 E-Points and can play 20 bronze lightning games for free.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-25 04:32:14)
Recently Completed Games
Hi Thomas. It is quite easy to order finished games (by date, by tournament or anything), but I'm not sure it's a good idea to have too many options... It is possible to find old finished games in "My tournaments". What's the aim exactly ?!
Albert H. Alberts (2007-06-25 14:36:49)
World Computer Chess Championship (WCCC)
All:
JUNIOR has won over Fritz in Elista.RYBKA wins Olympiade Amsterdam.
It got me thinking: instead of being an 'engine-to-engine contest can it be that the whole thing is a book-to-book contest? The program that has the best opening book with novelties will come out on top, invariant from the engine.
Is that why RYBKA is so good? IM V.Rajlich?
The future WC will be the program with the best book. The future WC tournament chess will be the one who knows this book. Maybe they will be one and the same person? Great news for the sport I think.
Greetings Albert H. Alberts,Amsterdam www.howtofoolfritz.com
Albert H. Alberts (2007-06-25 14:48:57)
Deep Fritz vs. Deep Junior
FICGS: Junior won over Fritz Elista 2007. Very sharp but correct remark by M.Aigner: people that bought Fritz will now want to have Junior too the FIDE-approved champ by K. Ilyumzinov= ICGA=FIDE=CHESSBASE=FRITZ(=Junior?).
However: he future champ will be the program with the best BOOK with sharp novelties. The future world tournament champ will be the one who knows/WROTE this book. It is like in cycling: you can have a great "bike" (chess engine) but to win the Tour the France you still have to peddle. That champ/novelty finder/writer/head player can be one and the same person. Great news for the sport I think.The new "Fischer" will come.
Albert H.Alberts, www.howtofoolfritz.com
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-25 17:48:40)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU
Let me explain – I don’t want to have any exception rules for me! It’s a principle thing: about 35 years ago I played some few correspondence chess tournaments by postcard (naturally with my real name). After a long period of abstinence (since 1999) I played correspondence chess by Email (IECG/Playchess-Server and ICCF/ICCF-Webserver) – new transport medium but with old real name.
So everybody can see my chess history: I’m standing (with my real name) to all my many bad or neutral games as same as to my some very good chess performances. I’ve always used tools (first just books and later also engines), but I’ve always played my games alone (without help by any other person).
I think there are many other players with FICGS (i.e. Peter Schuster, Hannes Rada, Harry Ingersol or others more) who have done it similar like me.
In contrast, if DONALD DUCK wins and has played a very good game, he likes it to say his real name, if he loses or has played poorly, he is just staying DONALD DUCK. He wouldn’t have to fear to disgrace himself, but there is a real chance for him to gleam!
Sorry, but this is not my idea from a friendly match between two serious teams.
Thomas Tamayo (2007-06-26 03:07:27)
Recently Completed Games
If it isn't currently possible, how can I find my completed games? If looking at my tournament history, it is hard to find my own games and harder to find completed ones.
The idea is that I would like to read any final comments posted by my opponent and analyze the final position (reason for resignation, etc).
Mladen Jankovic (2007-06-26 15:40:42)
Ctrl-F
If you want to see the positions just go to the tournament page with boards and use your browsers search function for your name (Ctrl-F in Firefox). Might not be the best way, but it might be more of what your'e looking for.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-26 16:06:08)
Ratings
The discussion of ratings is very problematic. Ratings on different sites are depending on different premises. What entry level was accepted? How long did you playing there – how often? How much thinking time did you spent per move? Is the basic rating you earned over years to be caused by old tournaments with postcards (maybe without any help of engines – and your opponents did it the same way)? How much care did you spent ratings (i.e. Norm tournaments?!)? Are you a member of the exclusive cycle of an organisation, getting invitations to closed high-level rating tournaments?
Engines (also Rybka) are playing own styles and it depends on whether you can play better or worse against their special styles (knowing their potencies and weaknesses). Old fashioned players (independent from their ratings) will have much more problems to win or to hold draw against engines than players which have positioning themselves at actual situation. In my opinion today Rybka alone with one week thinking time per every move without any other help will reach a rating of about 2.400 at FICGS SM-tournament with an average rating of 2.450.
In an ICCF anniversary tournament (average rating of about 2.600) same Rybka under same conditions will reach a rating about 2.550.
I for myself wouldn’t play longer correspondence chess, if I would have the feeling that any engine is playing better without my command. How long will it still take?
My engine handling is not in this way, that I am waiting for longer times which move is offer by the engine. I have own ideas and I’m trying their possibilities, investigating positions in depth over many moves in all directions. But sometimes engines have the better ideas and I have to accept this!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-26 16:28:41)
Ratings
Fully agreed ! .. By the way, what performance could achieve Rybka (mp) in a CLASS M or CLASS A tournament. Finally, in average about 2200-2300 IMO.
Miguel Pires (2007-06-26 18:23:36)
Vacation
Hi,
I ask to Thibault to discuss this in the forum because, like Dinesh De Silva have sayed, you can have a some sort of (i don't have a better word) problems that make you postpone your games. In ICCF at any tournament you have 30 days/vacation for ich tournament. My problem is not with the tournaments with 10/40 Days are in the 30+1. In this first 6 months i've a lot of issues to solve (professional and personal thing's) that i've to postpone a lot. Now thing's are more or less calm, but if we have more time or the rules are equal to ICCF my new tournaments can have 30 days, and if i need to postpone now i can't postpone the oldest and the new tournaments because i've not more days.
I now that is the rules but i think more time (Like Gamknot) or the same rule like ICCF can help a lot.
Another idia is do like (i think) IECG or IECC, that if you need a special live they can give you that (i think if you have someone in the hospital, important biseness to a long period can feet in the "special leave").
Is only my opinion.
Best Regard's
Miguel Pires
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-26 19:36:51)
Miguel Pires
Sorry, but for my understanding: You are playing actually in 10 tournaments (34 open games) in same time? You just booked in 2 Rapid (!!) tounaments (12 open games) recently? And now you have problems with your time - really amazing.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2007-06-26 21:41:21)
30 days / year is enough
I think 30 days / year is enough.
If you fear that you could get time problems don't play too many and avoid Rapid tournaments. Nobody forces you to enter every waiting list.
And according to Murphy's Law "such things as computers breaking down, computers hit with viruses, business travel commitments, planning a holiday etc." always happen if you have no more vacation.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-26 22:04:29)
Rapid tournaments
I agree that rapid tournaments (30 days + 1 day / move) may be quite hard for some players, but as Heinz-Georg and Wolfgang said, it's up to you to choose the tournaments that fit to your available time.
WCH tournaments are quite hard to play the same way, but that's a condition to start a new cycle every 6 months and adding days of vacation may last important games and force some adjudications. That's why I'm not favourable to this change.
But I agree, that's quite hard not to enter certain waiting lists too... (it's a fight of every day) :))
Miguel Pires (2007-06-27 02:53:26)
Heinz-Georg and Wolfgang and thibault
First I only give my opinion.
Second I can't control the start date of the tournements soo i've 2 tournaments that start almost at the same time
Third, the point is not if i've to many games, but, in my opinion, if we should have little more time (like in GK) or have the same thing like in ICCF.
That's what we are talking in this pool, not any choice of any particular player that gives an opinion, and you don't agree with that and criticises is whay of seeing or conduct thing's
Best Regard'
Miguel Pires
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-27 06:19:40)
Bullet games & prizes
Hello to all.
A few new changes and one more time control in lightning tournaments category :
- Bullet games (available for chess & Go), 10 minutes + 20 seconds / move.
- Bronze bullet Go games are available... Everyone can test it for free.
- Bullet & lightning Go games are now rated (same rating list).
Glen D. Shields (2007-06-27 12:52:12)
Keep it at 30 Days
I've been in the situation many times of too many games and too little time to keep up. Admittedly very stressful, but I have no one to blame for getting into that situation but myself.
My preference is to keep vacation at 30 days per year. Today's fast pace requires players to be diligent about managing their game load. Giving players more vacation time adds to the time it takes to finish tournaments and makes it even harder for players to manage game loads.
My personal belief is that when I sign up for a tournamnet I'm making a commitment to play my games at a regular and reasonable pace. If I am regularly finding myself with too many games and often wishing for more vacation time, then I think it is my responsibility to plan better and make better personal choices rather than inconvenince everyone else.
Just my opinion :-)
Miguel Pires (2007-06-27 13:24:11)
Glen D. Shields
"rather than inconvenince everyone else"? Is it for me? If is, i'm going to try to explain to you whay i ask to dicusse the vacation time. Is not because i've to many games (if i've 2 or 3 i syaed the same thing) is because i fell that 30 days is short. In Gameknot i've 120 days, in ICCF i've 30 days per tournament, soo if i enter in a new tournament and i need to postpone i can chose what tournament to postpone. In my opinion is a short time but if the comunity don't whant to change, men ask don't cost anithing, correct?
If this is "inconvenince" for you men sorry but for me is not.
Regard's
Miguel Pires
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-27 21:18:36)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU, the games
Hello to all.
The friendly match between FICGS & IGAME.RU teams just started :)
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__FICGS_VS_IGAME_RU_MATCH.html
I'd like to thank Sergey Pligin for organizing this match and all players who registered to play. I apologize to the players who couldn't play :/ .. 25 boards was not enough this time. To build FICGS team I selected players with the highest ratings but one cause his rating should be clearly >2000 already. Also IM Mark Noble plays at table 6 because his opponent is another FIDE IM.
I wish good games to everyone, this is a great opportunity for us to meet russian chessfriends.
Amici Sumus !
... quote of the day : "Top boards make the show, last ones win matches." :-)
Here are the complete teams :
FICGS :
1. Thibault de Vassal # 1
2. Michael Aigner # 139
3. Peter Schuster SM # 323
4. Janos Helmer # 47
5. Miguel Pires # 83
6. Mark Noble IM # 1991
7. Leszek Tymcio # 2151
8. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff # 142
9. Silviu Nenciulescu # 1319
10. William Taylor # 1232
11. Poulerik Jorgensen # 940
12. Wayne Lowrance # 135
13. Edward Kotlyansky # 1140
14. Christophe Czekaj # 1193
15. Konstantin Dudulec # 1329
16. Robert Mueller # 1233
17. Josef Riha # 157
18. Dan Rotaru # 1394
19. Garvin Gray # 1363
20. Nick Burrows # 1643
21. Vadim Khachaturov # 1078
22. Daniel Khayman # 1032
23. Gaetano Laghetti # 138
24. Alexander Nent # 1411
25. Ilmars Cirulis # 533
IGAME.RU :
1. Sumets Andrey, Member # 2137, GM
2. Pljusnin Ivan, Member # 2147
3. Pligin Sergey, Member # 2189
4. Doinikov Owl, Member # 2191
5. Romitsin Nikolay Sergeevich, Member # 2159
6. Vovk Andrey, Member # 2144, IM
7. Yunusov Adkham, Member # 2124
8. Pavlikov Andrey Nikolayevich, Member # 2157
9. Leskiv Miroslav, Member # 2133
10. Domanov Dmitry, Member # 2130
11. Kragujevcanin Stole, Member # 2148
12. Silkin Aleksey, Member # 2198
13. Orlov Sergei, Member # 2207
14. Kim Vladimir, Member # 2139
15. Gerasimov Vladimir, Member # 2190
16. Larin Igor, Member # 2193
17. Zarullin Ivan, Member # 2203
18. Filimonov Evgeny, Member # 2176
19. Pezikov Evgeny, Member # 2174
20. Stork Denis, Member # 2180
21. Mancubov Boris, Member # 2156
22. Ilyuschenko Yury, Member # 2168
23. Prokopenko Alex, Member # 2182
24. Basiliev Iouri, Member # 2205
25. Shpakovsky Alexander, Member # 2185
Edit : There was a mistake while building the games, I had to make a replacement at board 23.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-28 03:22:02)
Round 4
Beautiful game (so clear) by Vladimir Kramnik, who beats Magnus Carlsen to take the lead in the tournament...
Kramnik,V (2772) - Carlsen,M (2693) [E06]
Sparkassen Chess Meeting, Dortmund GER (4), 27.06.2007
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.d4 Be7 5.Bg2 0–0 6.0–0 dxc4 7.Qc2 a6 8.Qxc4 b5 9.Qc2 Bb7 10.Bd2 Nc6 11.e3 Nb4 12.Bxb4 Bxb4 13.a3 Be7 14.Nbd2 Rc8 15.b4 a5 16.Ne5 Nd5 17.Nb3 axb4 18.Na5 Ba8 19.Nac6 Bxc6 20.Nxc6 Qd7 21.Bxd5 exd5 22.axb4 Rfe8 23.Ra5 Bf8 24.Ne5 Qe6 25.Rxb5 Rb8 26.Rxb8 Rxb8 27.Qxc7 Bd6 28.Qa5 Bxb4 29.Rb1 Qd6 30.Qa4 1–0
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-28 04:49:33)
Joop van Oosterom, ICCF world champion
Oops, he did it again :)
Dutch GM Joop van Oosterom won the 21st ICCF final ! .. In three participations in ICCF world championship final tournaments, he came 2nd in Final 15 (+8 -1 =6, after GM Timmerman), 1st in Final 18 (+8 =6), 1st in Final 21 (+7 -1 =6).
Joop van Oosterom is also ranked 1st on the ICCF elo list with 2770 (207 games), an enormous achievement for sure !
More about ICCF world championship Final XXI :
http://www.iccf-webchess.com/EventCrossTable.aspx?id=5952
Also congratulations to Arno Nickel for beating the world champion in this tournament (!) .. I'd like much to see the game (is it possible ?)... The "other one" in Final 15 where GM Timmerman beats GM van Oosterom to take the title was very impressive.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-28 13:40:40)
Thinking in decades of moves
There are many specialists here who are thinking in decades of moves. I mean not the extreme of this, Dinesh, but many other players do it in a moderate way. I accept in principle that it is more effective to use to full capacity of thinking time, because there is a chance, that some players will forfeit in that more time. I think in WCH-Cycle it is much better, because there is no period to control as every move. Perhaps it will be better, if this method can transfused to all other tournaments without changing the average total time for all different types of tournament we have. Just a question.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-28 13:56:08)
Thinking in decades of moves
You mean it would be great to have a 2400+ rapid tournament ?! :)
I think we should keep both formats (standard & rapid) anyway.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-29 18:31:28)
Thibault
If Dinesh is right, we've played already together in one tournament (IECG).
Charlie Neil (2007-06-30 09:26:19)
Cheering on Ficgs!
Hi, go to Tournaments, then Special Tournaments, then Ficgs Special Events and there is the Ficgs vs IGame match. There is one King's Gambit already! This is brave play in a strong match or not? Who needs sites covering matches and tournaments elsewhere when we can stay here and cheer on our own players against this strong team. "C'mon Ficgs! Check every move twice and again before sending. Take your time. Good luck!" Unfortunately we cannot pass comment of any kind on any of the games in progress. Rules forbid it...There must be somehow home advantage can count.
Dinesh De Silva (2007-06-30 14:18:41)
Re:
Amir! Best regards on the project. It's a long time since we last heard from you here. I guess you've been busy the last few months taking part in o.t.b. tournaments. Hope things are going well for you.
Garvin Gray (2007-07-02 12:31:01)
tie breaks
Just noticed for this swiss tournament that the announced tie break is Berger.
It is more normal in swiss events to have either Progressive or Buchholz as the first tie break, with the other being the second.
Berger is used as the first tie break in round robin events.
Is there a reason for Berger being chosen as the method of tie break (except for being different : ) ?
Marc Lacrosse (2007-07-02 18:22:50)
Too fast
10+20 is a timing where a strong engine playing alone with a good book is unbeatable.
No time left for creative human added value ...
That's the reason why Freestyle tournaments on Playchess recently evolved from an initial 45 min + 5 sec/move to a slower timing (60 min + 15 sec/move)
I am pretty convinced that at 10 min + 20 sec increment the one with the most powerful computer will win for sure...
Marc
PS for a mean 60 moves game, 10+20 is equivalent to 30 seconds per move.
Freestyle tempo (60+15) gives a mean 75 seconds per move.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-04 11:31:09)
tie breaks + time controls
Garvin, I'll look at this question deeperly soon... Thx !
Marc, I quite agree, on the other hand it takes some time to operate the computer, a good chess player may be "also" required in such games, that would be interesting. Anyway, it would be hard to use longer time controls in a 1-day tournament. Less than 20 seconds per move would be hard with the current interface... How many days a playchess freestyle tournament takes ?
Garvin Gray (2007-07-09 17:46:17)
Norms and titles
How do players achieve norms and titles at ficgs? What tournaments do players have to compete in to get norms and titles at ficgs?
Marcus Miranda (2007-07-09 18:12:25)
Norms and titles
My guess is that you can only achieve norms in the class M, SM, GM and rapid M tournaments. Once the tournament starts you know the number of points you have to win to get a norm.
Thomas Tamayo (2007-07-10 00:05:19)
I play Real Life games
I mostly play IRL at clubs and tournaments. I need to drive about an hour for a quarterly tournament in Boston.
I used to play on KGS, Dragon (PBM), and Little Golem (PBM)... they're all blocked at work now (no lunch playing) and I don't have a lot of free time at home. So I also play a lot at FICGS.
Dinesh De Silva (2007-07-13 14:31:34)
Re:
In my opinion, the best chess websites include FICGS, IECG & ICCF, all 3 which I enjoy playing in & where I've never had problems regarding tournaments. Lets hear from other players which good chess websites they enjoy playing in & can recommend.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-15 12:25:27)
Invitation in WCH 1 stage 3 round-robin
Hello to all.
As I've been asked, in WCH 1 round-robin final tournament there are 2 players from WCH 1 stage 2 group 3 because it was not possible (at least desirable) to adjudicate game 8029 in its current position (move 36)... So it is not possible to tell who wins the group yet. However if I had to adjudicate this game, it would be a draw so Alberto Gueci would win the tournament. As WCH 1 stage 3 must start now and as I needed one more player to fill the group, according to the rules Francois Caire (due to his position of possible -likely- winner in the tournament and his rating) was invited to solve game 8029 problem.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-15 13:47:31)
Wise decision
Thanks Wolfgang... "as always" may be too much, just doing my possible. I appreciate :)
I have no doubt that there will be some cases where any decision will be unfair when applying rules. Anyway, I'm glad with the current rules, very few problems... So many tournaments, only one TD (Tournament Director). But I'll come back on the issue of a council / board in a few months, I think it's a logical continuation.
William Taylor (2007-07-15 16:47:23)
Go ratings
At the moment only ELO ratings are shown beside players' names when viewing a go tournament. I would prefer dan/kyu rank to be shown than ELO rating (or both). Discuss.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-15 19:33:36)
Go ratings
Hello William.
Yes, quite hard to find a design with enough place to display all informations :)
The main problem is it wouldn't be coherent with other games tournaments.
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2007-07-19 06:43:54)
DMD / DMA
Imagine a DMA / DMD thematic tournament ...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-25 14:22:17)
Too early
Hi Garvin. Yes, an easier way to buy E-points should be available already (Moneybookers will remain the cheapest one anyway) but there's a new delay... Also I did not have time enough to promote this tournament, so I'll have to change the date :/ .. E-Points will be given back.
Andrey Vovk (2007-07-25 22:08:14)
WCH tournament GROUP M 01
I was not registered to play in this tournament!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-26 12:20:45)
FICGS chess WCH waiting list
Hello Andrey.
This is a WCH cycle tournament. You were registered, see the FICGS chess WCH waiting list.
Best wishes, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-26 12:27:10)
Changes
I suppose there could be another time control for this tournament, maybe 30 minutes + 15 seconds... 6 or 7 rounds to be played during a single day. Any idea ?
Garvin Gray (2007-07-28 03:58:25)
Rapid tournament games
I would like to propose a change to the rapid tournament time control.
Currently it is 30 days plus 1 day per move.
From the games I have been playing on here under this time control, I have noticed that as soon as you get to about 20 days left, it seems very difficult to get any higher than 20 days or so.
When you have a few games with this amount of time, it feels like not much time left at all.
I would like to propose that a new time control be made of 20 days plus 3 days per move. This still guarantees that a player will have 3 days to think of a move regardless of how many initial days they have used up.
Garvin Gray (2007-07-28 04:47:26)
a new time control perhaps
Well it could be for a new set of general tournaments with different rating bands than the current ones.
Perhaps a wider rating band to provide opportunities for more opportunities to play different people.
We shall see what Thibault says.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-28 15:12:08)
Rapid tournaments
It seems this time control is ok for most players who use it (sometimes even too slow yet)... If you feel it's difficult, more reasonable would be to play standard class tournaments.
Still thinking about a longer time control.
Garvin Gray (2007-07-29 07:40:12)
another idea
Thibault de Vassal- It seems this time control is ok for most players who use it (sometimes even too slow yet)... If you feel it's difficult, more reasonable would be to play standard class tournaments.
Another suggestion is that I make sure I play the opening moves of any rapid game rather quickly, so I dont get into time trouble early :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-30 23:19:04)
Rapid tournaments
:-)
Anyway this time control is quite difficult IMO.
About rating bands, unrated and WCH tournaments are a way for players with different ratings to meet themselves.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-31 00:02:27)
WCH tournament GROUP M 01
Hello Andrey.
Sorry, rated tournaments rules are quite hard (no withdrawals) but it applies to every player. It would be hard to keep this server free otherwise.
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#withdrawals
Best wishes, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-31 00:06:28)
September 9
The new date is september 9... I hope I'll have more time to prepare that tournament.
Sorry for the delay.
Garvin Gray (2007-07-31 06:38:35)
date change please
Can you please change the proposed date of the competition?
This date directly conflicts with the playchess freestyle tournament. Which is being held on 7/9 - 14/16 September.
I dont think it helps to have a clash of dates.
Charlie Neil (2007-08-10 19:06:19)
Real Names
"Play the board not the man!" Is that not an old proverb? I play on another site, (or two) under a nickname. Chess should be fun and then a serious sport/game/art/science, Morozevitch and those like him play on those sites for 'fun'. And they relish the anonymity. Every large tournament will see a corner occupied with players having 'fun' blitz games between rounds. Legends such as M Tal, Karpov even Fischer had their 'fun' games. (Sorry for calling Tolya a Legend, but he is a living legend.) We all come here for our own reasons but mostly to play chess, (and Go) We know when we sign up here it must be on our real names. What's the problem? Some Websites charge a Fee, ICC for example. Ficgs doesn't.
Marc Lacrosse (2007-08-13 11:53:27)
(Unfair) partial withdrawal
A few weeks ago IM Andrey Vovk had a discussion in the forum with Thibault regarding the fact that he did not wish to play in the new WCH although he had formerly enrolled on the waiting list.
As Thibault confirmed that he had to play in tournament FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_M_01__000003, IM Vovk announced that he would forfeit all his games in this tournament.
That's what he seemed to do for more or less 30 days as he let his clock run and so lost five games on time.
Then he seemed to change his mind and began to play in his three remaining games where his flag had not yet fallen.
Although I admit that anybody may decide to play or to resign whenever he wishes, this seems a bit problematic in a qualification tournament : five players got a full point whereas three have to fight one more opponent (and presumably a very strong one)...
For what regards myself I am very happy to play a game against IM Volk but I feel that three of us have not the same chances anymore as the five other ones for qualification ...
I think this situation calls for establishing new rules for qualification tournaments : if a player clearly forfeits a given number of games, then all his games in this tournament should be withdrawn.
Your opinion ?
Marc
Garvin Gray (2007-08-13 14:28:23)
bye bye
So if I understand the situation, he has failed to make a move in more than half his games, is this correct?
If so, then he should be thrown out of the whole tournament. He has forfeited more than half his games in the tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-13 15:05:19)
New rule ?
"If a player clearly forfeits a given number of games, then all his games in this tournament should be withdrawn."
I was to write a new rule to clarify this point but it will be always possible to turn around, and there may have some circumstances. All is in "clearly" but that's no more server decision but human one.. that we try to avoid as far as possible.
We have to make a choice or keep current rules... Any suggestions ?
Garvin Gray (2007-08-13 15:27:50)
new rule wording?
I will admit I didnt reply with the intention of wording a new rule. Was just showing what I thought of the claimed actions.
Current server policy is that any games under 10 moves are not rated. So that seems like a good place to start.
If a player fails to make ten moves in 50 per cent or more of their games in a tournament, they will be withdrawn from that tournament.
The tournament will continue as though the withdrawn player was never part of that tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-13 18:46:54)
General comments
Thanks for sharing your opinion about these issues, Wayne :)
About the partial withdrawals in WCH tournaments, a problem is to define what is really "unfair" or not, how to avoid possible cheating and how to avoid human decisions as far as possible. A big deal for sure...
Main thread - http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=3461
Garvin Gray (2007-08-13 20:51:16)
further information
Let me think about it and I will get back to you. I do think that I am on the right track though.
My train of thought had been that in most round robin competitions, if a person withdraws from the tournament before they have played 50% of their games, all their results are wiped for the tournament and the tournament is decided with one less participant.
Secondly, if a player does not appear at the board within one hour of the starting time, they lose (fide otb rule), so I had just extended that to a ficgs equivalent, which is timing out.
As has been said by Marc, Vovk did not play in any of the five games that he timed out in, so he did not 'appear at the board' so to speak.
Thirdly, ficgs does not rate games which last less than ten moves.
What I had done was combined these three areas into a quantifable rule that is 'easy' to enforce.
I was specific about saying 50% or more, instead of over 50%, because all the tournaments here have odd numbers, so each person potentially players an even number of games in each tournament.
This all being said, I think it really only applies to the World Champ sections and maybe to norm tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-14 03:22:05)
General comments
Hi Don.
I fully agree with this... The same problem may happen in OTB swiss tournaments when a few strong players agree results in advance to share the money prizes. That's probably very hard to avoid it, that's why I prefer knockout tournaments. And after all, according to the current rules, nothing prevents to ban systematic abusive players, which is probably enough...
Thomas Tamayo (2007-08-15 14:22:19)
Possible solution...?
What if a forfeit of all games occurs as soon as one game is lost (on time or resignation) without at least 2 moves (one by B, one by W).
It would be easy for an abusive player to get around this rule by playing a move before forfeit. The benefit would be that this offense is bannable (easier to find abuse).
It seems fair - players in a tournament should be prepared to play!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-15 22:28:39)
Mode d'emploi
Bonjour Daniel.
Il est possible de jouer pour le plaisir (pas d'enjeu, pas de classement) en participant aux tournois "unrated", notamment dans 'Waiting lists' puis 'Chess special tournaments' : les tournois thématiques et de chess 960 ne sont pas classés !
Tous les autres tournois sont joués pour les classements 'échecs par correspondance', 'advanced chess' ou le classement du 'Go'. Parmi ceux-ci, certains ont un droit d'entrée et des prix.
Pour le fonctionnement du site une fois qu'un tournoi a commencé, voir la section 'Help'.
Bonnes parties !
Ulrich Imbeck (2007-08-18 02:04:15)
Individual games possible?
Are here on ficgs.com individual games without a tournament possible?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-18 02:46:19)
Yes
Hello Ulrich, see 'Lightning tournaments' it is possible to play ie. chess blitz bronze (2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves), lightning bronze (30 minutes + 1 minute / move) or bullet bronze (10 minutes + 20 seconds / move) games.
You just have to find an opponent... (you may try the chat bar)
Philip Roe (2007-08-21 00:19:50)
Best game voting
It is a nice new feature to be able to see all the board positions in a tournament. This inspired me to look through the "20 best games". On average a mediocre bunch! Perhaps the problem is the link "vote for best game" You look at this and wonder "What happens if I click on this?" and then discover that you have voted for the game you happened to be examining. I suggest a less ambiguous wording "Endorse this game as a best game candidate"
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-27 02:27:07)
Go-Endgame at ficgs-GUI
Hello Ulrich.
This is the current message displayed before to enter a Go tournament :
"Rules for Go are chinese rules, as defined by the Chinese Weiqi Association. Both players must play until one resign, both players pass (then resign or call referee) or game is adjudicated. It's up to the players to discuss the score at the end of the game, so calling referee should be exceptional. Scoring method is area scoring with chinese counting. Positional superko rule apply, it's impossible to repeat a previous board position ('incorrect move' message would be displayed).
Please note that you can pass, just entering 'pass' [then push 'move' button and 'confirm' your move] but one player has to resign or call referee to end the game."
Best wishes, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-28 12:42:38)
Who is chess champion in your country ?
Maxime Vachier-Lagrave just won the France chess championships in Aix-Les-Bains, after a great tournament (other players in National A tournament were Vladislav Tkachiev, Andrei Sokolov, Christian Bauer, Josif Dorfman, Robert Fontaine, Laurent Fressinet, Jean-Marc Degraeve, Anatoly Vaisser, Igor Nataf, Olivier Renet, Laurent Guidarelli)... Thal Abergel won the National B tournament.
Now the question is :
Do you know who is champion in your country ? .. Not only to know who is champion, but to see if this information is well known or not...
Andrey Sumets (2007-08-29 09:46:38)
Ukraine
GM Zahar Efimenko
I'm sure because I played in this tournament:)
Christophe Czekaj (2007-08-29 13:42:09)
Correspondence Chess without computers ?
Is there anyone interested about this topic ?
Could we imagine a tournament in wich players agree to play without search engines ? For example, with a sort of gentlemen agreement to not use computer's help ?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-29 14:15:49)
Correspondence Chess without computers ?
Hi Christophe !
I still don't believe anymore in this human-only correspondence chess, maybe that's why we play Big Chess ;)
But we could create a new unrated category in Chess Special Tournaments : FICGS__CHESS__NO_ENGINES_TOURNAMENT__000001
I'm not sure... Anyone interested ?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-01 10:24:20)
private/public messages
Hello Phillip.
Yes, it is possible to leave a public comment for your own finished games (you can find it through 'My tournaments'). I'll work on the private message facility soon.
Christophe Czekaj (2007-09-01 12:43:09)
Free of chess engine
Thanks Thibault for reconducing me to this past forum. Very interesting. The part about "real" elo and correspondance elo is edifying. I know correspondence players could have a huge better elo than their real life one (if they have any) : more time to think, no stress, no pressure (or less) but I believe players who play without engines have a coorespondence rating approximately equal to their over the board one. Personnaly, I play coorespondence chess to try new opening, to train generally since I cannot play over the board so often since 2 years. I often play from the office, wtih sometimes a couple of minutes on a move, or sometimes I go home with the moves to think about my response in over the board conditions (30 minutes maximum on one move). My correspondence elo is around 2000 (with a good start with a peak to 2098, but declining since ;-D) and my over the board rating is now 1990 (with a peak to 2040 last year, and a rapid elo around 2100). So I sometimes feel a bit fed up with playing against chess engines, notably, but perhaps I'm wrong I have remarked that since I got an advantage, often opponents defend very very well, like computers in fact. Ok it's part of the game, and I know t could be a good training, fight hard to win a game, display a good technique, etc. but it could be disappointing to have the impression of play with a human opponent and have to finish with an another, i.e. the computer. Perhaps could we compare over the board elo, with correspondence elo to know if there is computer help or not ?
Anyway, a special category of tournament will be great, and I'm eager to play with other ficgs "OTB-correspondence" players.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-02 12:07:21)
Freestyle cup...
End of holidays, I'll make my possible in the next few days to promote this new tournament. Patience :)
Viktor Savinov (2007-09-03 12:27:34)
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000001
Two months tournament FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000001
is not formed. Perhaps, to lower a rating of the admission up to 2490-2470? To admit in tournament of GM FIDE & GM ICCF, having put them a conditional rating 2500? Perhaps, to dispatch players personal invitations?
Christophe Czekaj (2007-09-03 12:53:52)
no chess engines
Hello Thibault,
I play here without chess engine. Anyway, recently I tried to play "hippopotamus defence", (with no good result yet, I have to admit) so a computer is no use, it doesn't understand anything, but perhaps it's hippopotamus which is wrong, not the computer ;-D. Anyway a difficult defence in correspondence play).
I began on this site with 2000, and so my elo was too high to play against human only ?
I don't see how it's possible a sofware detect computer use ? Ok we see strange, computer-like moves sometimes, but...
Perhaps two players, at the beginning of the game can agree to not use computer.
Again about chess engine, I use a computer to record the moves (chessbase),to gain time, and replay fast the moves to get to the actual position, but my chess engines (an old fritz (5) and chess tiger (14) all that on a old PC) would certainly suffer a lot use against more recent chess engines ;-D
Like Philip, I like to play on ficgs and it would be nice to plmay against more human opponent. I play one tournament on itsyourturn since last year, and I saw a lot more human mistakes than on ficgs. So, how explain it, I sometimes feel more comfortable on itsyourturn, but still I do like the spirit of ficgs, match against RU, the tournaments, forum, nice people to meet on the board, and so on
Philip Roe (2007-09-03 18:59:27)
CC without engines
Thibault, Christophe, All I did was to pass on that ICC CLAIMS to be able detect computer use.
They dont say how they do it. Maybe they are just bluffing, or maybe they
have an algorithm that kind of works and they dont want people to work around it by knowing how it works.
The reason I dont use engines is because I want to take full credit for any wins I get. I can imagine using an engine and telling myself that I will just use it to prevent oversights.
But I cant control what the engine will tell me. It might recommend a move that tells me that I am planning
to attack the wrong target. If I then switch plans and win, what is left for me to feel proud of?
But I can understand that others may feel differently, and there is much to be said for a site where everything is allowed because it gets around the issue of making a rule that is certainly very hard to enforce.
But just because that rule does not exist on FICGS, it seems to me that
if somebody on FICGS says that they are not using an engine, then you can probably believe them. The problem with other sites is that if a player with an umimpressive rating fires back a series of accurate moves very quickly in a difficult situation then you suspect that he is using an engine (although he promised not to)
and there is not much you can do about it. If the same thing happens on FICGS
you are pretty sure that he is using an engine, but you have already agreed that he can, so it doesnt irritate you.
For that reason, I think that a computers-barred tournament might actually make sense on FICGS because those who want to use engines can legitimately do so. But for me, it would need to be chess that means something, with at least rating points at stake. Interestingly, Christophe and I are drawn in the same tournament, so we can declare at least that one game computer-free!
Viktor Savinov (2007-09-04 09:40:55)
2470+ Cool tournament-:)
ICCF have event "GMN tournaments" = 2450+
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-05 05:04:29)
Adjudication
Thibault I understand that to some players it might be unacceptable to have the game suddenly declared lost or drawn in a Q v Q+P ending or R+P v N+p ending. In my view these players should opt for the non computer tournaments you are going to set up. To cover the point raised: yes there can remain a need for a referee which should be human. Linking to table bases does not affect the beauty of an endgame Thibault its just a small range at the moment of 6 piece endings. There is no aesthetic value in following the moves advised by the tablebase the value is in getting there. Every strong player is consulting the tablebases when analysing positions leading to 6 piece situations so automating table base adjudications in say A M and WCC tournaments seems completely logical. Yes strong tournaments are played only for the sporting result Thibault I dont think anyone would choose an inferior move for the beauty they might try it to take a risk to win by complicating the game. I have seen 30+ moves games of yours of absolute poisened pawn Najdorf theory leading to a dead draw ..... I guess what I am trying to avoid is opponents dragging out games which are table base won. In the case of reasonable strong opponents 2100+ in my view this is because they just dont want to resign. by the way how do you call for the referee?
Garvin Gray (2007-09-05 06:38:59)
engine use
I find this thread and interesting and surprising.
I joined this site specifically because it allows engine use and that is what I was after.
I play in otb tournaments and dont really enjoy playing 'human only' chess on the net. I guess that is just me :)
Now I feel a little uncomfortable because the two main posters in this thread are opponents in a couple of my games.
On a different note, I wish posters would learn to separate their paragraphs :P
Christophe Czekaj (2007-09-05 12:44:49)
Engine use
Hello Garvin,
Sorry for the dense paragraphs of my previous posts. I'll try to make better!
And please, do not feel uncomfortable to use computer on our games together. It's up to me to be extra careful ;-D
I just thought it could be nice to have tournament totally computer free.
Glen D. Shields (2007-09-06 04:20:15)
Engine Use - My Take
The switch from postcard to server chess has been a wonderfully positive experience.
The transition from human chess to silicon chess on the otherhand has left me bored and wondering if there's still a purpose to the game.
Every tournament is the same. The tournament starts with 6 to 10 players. The moves transition out of the opening at lightning speed, then "Fritz and Rybka time" begins. Turn on your favorite engine and there's a >95% probablitity that your opponents' moves mimic the top engines. There are no surprises, nothing interesting, just boring repetition.
Only a few percent of the chess world can outplay the top engines on fast hardware. Human intervention is like adding a drop of water to a bucket of water and thinking you've made a difference. Most matches are one computer versus another computer and the results are predictable: 1-2 wins, 1-2 losses, most of the games drawn.
I don't oppose engine use. There's no way to enforce it, so there's hardly a reason to forbid it. I do question, however, its purpose. It's just as easy and entertaining for me to play against my computer as it is to play your computer ... and I can do it on my timeline not yours.
I played a friendly young man earlier this year in the ICCF. He was vocal and proud of his high rating and good reults. He'd been playing for less than a year. He eventually admitted through our friendly chat that he hardly knew the moves and rules. He had no idea what "en passant" was or the basic theory of the openings. It took everything I had to save my position and earn a draw from him. That game was "my epithany." I made up my mind to take a break and reconsider what CC is all about. Engine use has been a great technical accomplishment, but has it made CC more enjoyable? Not for me. I hope most of you feel differently.
Good luck and good chess to all :-)
Jason Repa (2007-09-06 08:15:18)
engine use
[moderator : partly deleted]
I explained quite clearly in my previous post that.... "you'll never be able to tell for certain if someone is consulting a program or not in corr. chess, so why fret about it?"
The truth is, there are no corr. sites that can satisfy a desire to play non computer-assisted chess because corr. chess doesn't work that way anymore. Anyone can simply say they aren't consulting a program but unless they are right in front of you as they are making the moves you'll never know for sure. (...) Just accept reality for what it is. Are you going to try to have a footrace with someone on a scooter? Of course not. So why complain about computer use on corr. chess? Re-read my previous post in this thread a few times until you understand.
There is something to be said for human only chess. It is my favourite form of the game. Really, the only form. All else is just study and analysis. You can call it "playing" if you want, but unless you're making the moves strictly on your own brainpower, it's not playing chess.
I play rated OTB tournaments at time controls ranging from 5 minutes to 6 hours. I also play hundreds of bullet games a week online where I am certain that there is no computer involvement. To me this makes allot more sense than whining and crying about the advent of Fritz (and other programs). It's called accepting realilty.
Garvin Gray (2007-09-06 17:35:00)
Playchess freestyle tournament
Am curious, how many of our members are playing in the playchess freestyle tournament, starting in about 24 hours:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4093
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-06 17:41:43)
Playchess freestyle tournament
Yes, it would be nice to follow them... I remember that at least 2 of us played in a previous playchess freestyle tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-06 21:00:47)
Rugby World Cup 2007
The Rugby World Cup 2007 starts these days in France... Who will be able to win this great tournament according to you ? .. All Blacks of New-Zealand, England, France, Australia... ?
France has a good chance IMO :)
Svante Carl von Erichsen (2007-09-06 22:04:56)
Norms
What is the exact definition of a "norm"?
When googling, I found something along the lines of "a tournament performance indicating that a certain level has been reached", but what does it mean? Winning more than half of the games? How does it depend on the opponents' strength?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-06 22:48:47)
Norms
Actually, title norms (ie. FICGS rated chess tournaments) depend on the number of points achieved in a tournament by a player and generally the elo average of the players in the tournament (that define the number of points required in the tournament for a title norm).
I have to update the rules to explain how it is calculated exactly.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-06 23:50:10)
Started
Thanks Viktor, same to you. Have a good tournament !
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-14 02:33:32)
FIDE World Championship 2007
The FIDE World Championship 2007 just started in Mexico. A double round-robin tournament with 8 players and a US $1.3 million prize fund. Players are Vladimir Kramnik, Peter Svidler, Alexander Morozevich, Levon Aronian, Viswanathan Anand, Boris Gelfand, Alexander Grischuk and Peter Leko.
Round 1, all games drawn... Any favourite ?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-07 13:52:30)
No engines tournaments
The waiting list for no-engines tournaments should be available in a few hours... (with the next update, with some novelties :))
Hannes Rada (2007-09-07 20:44:07)
Championnat de France
Huh, Maybe there are no national cc-championships in France, :-)
No, I am just kidding.
That's what I found:
Championnat de France 2005/2006
Winner: Thirion, Patrick (2425)
No Thibault found in this tournament
;-)
Johann Piek (2007-09-07 23:23:24)
Enrolment Cancellation
How do I cancel if I enrolled for a tournament, and I don't want to play in it anymore?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-08 03:45:44)
Enrolment Cancellation
If the tournament started already, this is not possible. If the tournament did not start yet, this is not possible also... theorically but just tell me the waiting list you want to be removed from and I'll do the necessary :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-08 11:36:52)
No engines tournaments
Anyway.. We'll see how the no-engines tournaments will evolve.
Jason Repa (2007-09-08 12:26:56)
"No engines" Tournaments
I suspect you'll get a whole new breed of forum posts where accusations will be disguised as compliments such as: "Johnny So and So really played an excellent game! He was accurate like a machine against me", etc.
You'll also hear allot of twisted soapbox rants about how "morally superior" the allegedly non engine consulting players are.
This is what the forums on second rate sits such as RedHotPawn, ChessHere, etc are filled with, in addition to absurd claims of so-called "engine detection technology", which is obviously impossible. On RHP in particular, the site admin are software developers with extremely modest uscf ratings in the C-class range, yet somehow they deem themselves qualified to make such difficult judgment calls, which are at best a probability guess, even for a strong chess player.
I thought it was precisely this kind of nonsense you were trying to avoid when you decided to make it an up front policy of "freestyle" chess at will at FICGS.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-08 12:56:34)
No engines tournaments
Jason, of course you may be right ! .. We'll see, but I think the experience may be interesting anyway. As Philip said, FICGS main tournaments are designed for centaurs, and basically these "no engines" unrated tournaments are really just for fun... Unlike some of the other sites you mentioned, where to be ranked 1st may incite to use chess engines, I feel that these tournaments (with no rating ranges) will not attract many centaurs, simply because there's no interest at all for them...
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2007-09-09 14:42:29)
re
The word centaurs may be insulting for some people. I propose to use "cyborg" instead, it is more accurate.
Also instead of
FICGS__CHESS__NO_ENGINES_TOURNAMENT__000001
We could use:
FICGS__CHESS__HUMANS_TOURNAMENT__000001
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-09 15:28:33)
FICGS update & wish list
Hello to all.
You probably noticed a new extension to the chat bar, it delivers some random messages and news (forum, problems, public comments, entries, login). It also automatically warns a player if he started an advanced tournament [bullet, lightning or blitz games], which is more convenient... As it refreshes every minute, you shouldn't log out automatically anymore until you close the chat bar.
Other changes :
- Serbia & Montenegro (SCG) has become Serbia (SRB) and Montenegro (MNE).
- New players will start with a 1800 chess rating.
- Lightning tournaments become Advanced tournaments (blitz, lightning, bullet)
- New quotes added from the forum :)
- Some Google optimizations...
- Waiting list for unrated no-engines tournaments is open !
- Minor bugs corrected.
I did not implement the private messages facility yet... I feel it could create some problems (not technically), I still have to think about it.
This is probably a good moment to open a wish list and discuss all changes you'd like to see on the site...
Best wishes, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-09 16:17:20)
Waiting list is open
The rules are : "FICGS chess no engines tournaments are unrated single round-robin tournaments, involving 7 players. The special rule for these tournaments is that chess engines, databases and opening books are strictly forbidden.
All games are played in 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves. Norms are not possible."
Garvin Gray (2007-09-09 17:36:29)
sharp as a tack.
This Thibault, never misses an opportunity to plug 100 e point tournaments :P
Garvin Gray (2007-09-09 18:10:04)
hmmmmmmmm!!
I must be missing something. I dont see silver standard or rapid tournaments. All I see are gold ones.
Hannes Rada (2007-09-09 21:26:43)
board diagrams + conditionals
Not for the imput of my own moves.
For scrolling down through whole tournaments it is in my opinion more logic to see first the notation and then the current position on the diagram.
I think it is quite hard or difficult to implement conditional moves.
The ICCF-Webserver has this feature, but it is disabled.
We had a perfect solution on the chessfriend server (silent conditional moves - great for saving reflection time and to speed up to game).
Somte openings like the Grunfeld or the Sveshnikov are 'pefect' for conditionals :-)
Mladen Jankovic (2007-09-10 01:54:09)
Confessions of a Magic 8 Ball ;)
Well, first off I started with the provisional rating of 1200, then I signed up for a bunch of tournaments and started playing 60+ games. Next, add irregular Internet access with no conditions to perform any reasonable analysis of games in progress and the pressing requirement to answer 40 moves in one go, only to go trough the same at the next soonest opportunity.
I "solved" the problem by not playing and forgetting about the server for about a month (needed that). For that reason I lost more than 250 points (254 to be exact).
Needless to say, the recovery of my rating to any decent level is slow, as, in the meantime I have gone trough periods when I played little chess here, or even none, with games in progress.
Your speculated reasons for my supposed intrusion here (it might be argued that your first post here is the real intrusion) are just plain wrong.
I also don't find ELO ratings to be a valid measure of a man. The real reason I "intrude" in the matter is that I like the general atmosphere here. I am also quiet aware that I am probably the lowest rated poster here, but, before few minutes ago, I was not aware of your rating (good job, while we're on the subject) or Garvin's, for that matter.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-10 13:32:41)
Netiquette (rules update)
11. General rules
11. 1. Netiquette
Computer assistance is authorized, as any other kind of help but in the "no-engines" tournaments.
It is possible to leave public comments for your games. No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and will lead to get a limited access to the server during one month a first time, two months the second one and so on. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-11 14:23:06)
Games
You mean ? .. Is there a problem to find the games ?
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000001
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-11 17:28:37)
Games
Ok, so you'd like a PGN file with only this tournament's games. Indeed, this option does not exist (yet). However it is possible to see all games boards on a single page :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000001&boards=1
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-13 06:35:12)
Ratings
Hi Phillip
I don't know what "an unsynchronised rating system" is. However at the rate of play 40/20 for example I am not sure I would be able to improve so much on the engines first choices. At the free style tournament stand alones do pretty well. If I needed 45 minutes to find one best move in the Topalov Kramnik line..... So yes a centaur can easily have a higher rating than the engine(s) he is using at cc time rates (on the same hardware). For one thing the centaur can use different engines and for another its a bit like taking a move back all the time and pushing past any horizon limitations plus there is the restrictions of opening books that all engines have. However I am not going to play my own cc games against Fritz 10 (Fritz 9 in my case)by giving it 1 day or even 10 minutes per move because I am not motivated - you need the human element for that. Hope that helps.
Christophe Czekaj (2007-09-13 13:00:14)
Thanks
[moderator : partly deleted]
(...) I understand the useless of any polemic, but what about a "droit de réponse" ?
Anyway, this topic is close for me. I've just made a proposition of tournament and find myself accused of immorality !
Garvin Gray (2007-09-14 18:37:01)
another idea
A possible answer is that once a player has withdrawn themselves from the waiting list for a tournament, they cannot re-enter that same tournament.
Edwin Dabbaghyan (2007-09-15 03:09:57)
how can I enter (or qualify for) ?
Hello :)
I am new here and I am going to start my first games.... I wonder how I can enter the world championship cycle? where should I start from?
and...how can I enter the freestyle money tournament? do I have to qualify or just paying is enough? how much should I pay?
I appreciate any help :)
by the way, I live in sweden, stockholm... I have played all of playchess freestyle tournaments but the first one and am playing in the current one too...( 2,5 of 5 so far ) ...anyone from sweden, stockholm here in Ficgs? we can drink a beer together in Medborgarplatsen och snacka lite om schack :)
I appreciate any help :)
regards
Edwin
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-15 12:59:08)
IECG WC 2006 final
As the IECG WC 2006 final just started, this is a good time to end the game. Quite surprising but finally, after 2 or 3 discussions about it, noone solved it and found me (some really looked for though) ;)
Clues were : Playing this year in a world championship final, birthdate (1973-04-13), first FICGS rating (2407, IECG rating), movies (a few players at IECG and FICGS knew about it, the trailer of 'A Clockwork Orange' where the other name is mentioned...
Here is the message I sent to my opponents :
"Dear chessfriends,
That's a real pleasure and honor to play my first IECG WC final with you all. Dinesh, Carlos, Farit, Massimiliano and John, nice to play again :)
I'm 34, single, living in the center of France... I play correspondence chess since 2002, IECG is the place I started with.
I made a few strange movies and videos a few years ago (soon available on the internet) :)
http://www.ficgs.com/psi/download/psi_divx411_vost_720x360.avi
http://www.ficgs.com/psi/download/A_clockwork_orange_2005__teaser.avi
http://www.ficgs.com/psi/download/Aphex_Twin_-_Inkeys_video_clip.avi
I wanted to play correspondence chess under my director's name but I'm now more known in our small CC world as Thibault de Vassal... I'm the webmaster of FICGS - http://www.ficgs.com , another Correspondence Chess Server, where I knew some of you :) .. Sorry about the confusion. I don't know how IECG rules will apply, I hope I can play this tournament anyway.
Best of luck to all !
David Gordh."
TS: Gordon Evans
+---------------------------------+---+----+----+---+---+----+----+------+-----+
|IECG WC-2006-F-00001 1 1 1 1 1 1 | | |
|WC 2006 Tournament # 00001 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 | Tot | Plc |
+---------------------------------+---+----+----+---+---+----+----+------|-----|
| 18149 Robson, Nigel ENG 2646 | # | 0,0 | |
| 16702 Sirota, Anatoli AUS 2553 | # | 0,0 | |
| 19142 Pappier, Carlos ARG 2518 | # | 0,0 | |
| 18096 Chovanec, Milan SVK 2508 | # | 0,0 | |
| 15446 Makovsky, Petr CZE 2500 | # | 0,0 | |
| 11273 Blanco, Cesar GUA 2451 | # | 0,0 | |
| 13336 Gordh, David FRA 2443 | # | 0,0 | |
| 17738 De Silva, Dines SRI 2425 | # | 0,0 | |
| 10969 Rocca, Horacio ARG 2422 | # | 0,0 | |
| 17342 Perez, Brigilia PHI 2410 | # | 0,0 | |
| 16273 Fiala, Jaroslav CZE 2406 | # | 0,0 | |
| 13552 Claridge, John WLS 2403 | # | 0,0 | |
| 21524 Balabaev, Farit KAZ 2398 | # | 0,0 | |
| 15174 Massimini Gerbi ITA 2363 | # | 0,0 | |
| 18311 Bendig, Frank GER 2341 | # | 0,0 | |
+---------------------------------+-------------------------------+------+-----+
Rating Average = 2452 Category = 9 Start date: 12.09.2007
I didn't know that I would create FICGS when I registered at IECG and I prefered to use my director's name. I hope you don't mind. Sorry to Igor Khokhlov, Harry Ingersol and Farit Balabaev (I played them under both names).
Best wishes, Thibault
Jason Repa (2007-09-15 13:03:20)
FIDE World Championship 2007
Well there is some doubt there, most remarkably from Anand himself who considered Kramnik to be the favourite here in a pre-tournament interview, despite Anand's higher elo.
I predict Kramnik to win, not out of any personal admiration for the man. Quite the opposite is true actually. I would rather see Anand or Leko win.
At the close of Round 2, Anand and Kramnik are tied for the lead.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-15 14:12:19)
FICGS chess & Go WCH cycles
Hello Edwin,
FICGS chess & Go WCH cycles start every january 1st and july 1st each year... Waiting lists will be open about 2 months before this date.
To enter the FICGS chess freestyle tournament (I still have to promote it after finishing the new interface, new date is october 14 :/) & money tournaments, you have to add E-Points to your account, see 'My account' to know how to buy it. Hope it helps :)
Best wishes, Thibault
Garvin Gray (2007-09-15 16:40:21)
freestyle tourney
Thibault- To enter the FICGS chess freestyle tournament (I still have to promote it after finishing the new interface, new date is october 14 :/)
Is that 2007 or 2008 :P :) lol
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-15 17:46:41)
Go tournaments
This message is displayed before to enter a Kyu/Dan/Pro tournament... (by the way there's a mistake, it will be corrected soon) I hope it helps.
"All games are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. Komi is 7.5 points.
Rules for Go are chinese rules, as defined by the Chinese Weiqi Association. Both players must play until one resign, both players pass (then resign or call referee) or game is adjudicated. It's up to the players to discuss the score at the end of the game, so calling referee should be exceptional. Scoring method is area scoring with chinese counting. Positional superko rule apply, it's impossible to repeat a previous board position ('incorrect move' message would be displayed)."
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-16 12:41:31)
Ok :)
Ok, I'll make very soon an update to download a tournament's games in PGN format.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-16 18:22:12)
Figlio - Schuster
Untrue, tournament entry ratings (TER) are 2576 (Gino) and 2516 (Peter)... Peter had to avoid draws.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-18 15:55:07)
Major update : New interface !
Hello to all.
You may have noticed that the way to send moves has changed, at least the way by default (you still can choose to play through the old - HTML only - interface by clicking "slow moves" in My games).
Please note that there are no more confirmation pages when using the new Javascript interface, meaning your moves will be sent as soon as you press the Send button. Also Javascript should be activated in your browser, that is generally the case.
Other changes :
- My games display only games where it's your turn, you can change it by clicking 'display all games'.
- It is now possible to download all chess games (PGN format) in a particular tournament, see the bottom of the page.
- To avoid massive forfeits, the number of running games is now limited to 60.
... and hundreds of other small improvements :)
Feel free to report possible bugs or if you have any suggestions. Thanks in advance !
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-16 20:48:11)
IECG WC 2006 final
Thanks Glen, it will be a hard tournament.
See you on the Goban soon ? :)
Gino Figlio (2007-09-17 03:24:19)
Schuster-Figlio
I wasn't trying to come up with a quote :)
But again, the rules are created to allow the game to progress to its end without difficulties, prevent conflict and in our case to break a tie.
Obviously, in this case I'm in advantage from the start given the tournament rules.
That's why if Peter evens the score and it looks like the match will end in a tie, I will resign the last game even if it is a draw.
These methods to break ties are ok in blitz or OTB games but in our type of matches where we want the superior player to qualify, it would be a dishonor to take advantage of them. At least I could not do it.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-17 05:35:42)
To tie or not to tie
Hi Gino !
"I'm in advantage from the start given the tournament rules" : Untrue IMO, according to the current situation (not all games are draw), if the match ends at tie, you'll lose it - at least qualification - in all cases ;)
In 8-games matches, like every WC round-robin tournament, fighting for the score and (&&) for ratings looks quite normal, there's no dishonor to tie, winning or losing the right to move to the next round. Definitely rules have something to do with honor, at least with victory. Is there no honor to win a chess game with White pieces and its small advantage ?
What about ICCF WC tournaments and Sonnenborn-Berger ? .. Somewhat more complex, but ratings decide according to the situation also. What about FIDE World Championship ? .. Did Kramnik win his title / tie his match against Leko without honor ? .. FICGS rules are not more unfair than FIDE WCH ones, I'm playing an 8-games match against Farit Balabaev, his strategy is clearly to draw the 8 games and it may work, there's no dishonor in it, only good strategy IMHO.
But, of course, that's more a question of human feeling than mathematics, so only my point of view :)
Gino Figlio (2007-09-17 06:32:59)
Schuster-Figlio
Hi Thibault,
Thanks for clarifying the current situation, however it does not make it less true that I was in advantage at the start of the tournament. According to tournament rules I would have won with 8 draws.
Regarding wins with white, in a round robin you must try to win with white and draw with black. That's normal. In a match, only wins should be counted and not draws. Any other tournament rule intended to break a tie will fall short. A tie is a tie. You try to break it there will always be controversy one way or the other.
Have you considered a "blitz" match to break ties in future 8-game matches? 2-4 simultaneous games at 10/10 or 10/15 would be better than a coin toss...
Gino Figlio (2007-09-18 06:53:43)
Tie breaks
Rodrigo,
I agree there must be better ways of doing this.
As far as the current match, the rules cannot be changed and I guess I will not have to withdraw since I will lose with the tie.
I can see the challenge for the tournament organizer but we have to also realize that FICGS is relatively new and its ratings do not necessarily reflect player strength.
How can we decide a match based on something less than representative even if we don't have anything better?.
I believe for the future ties must be broken playing chess even if it's "blitz" cc.
I also would like to stop making comments on this unfinished match, I don't want to get distracted nor distract Peter from our competition.
Hannes Rada (2007-09-18 12:29:07)
Round robin Tournaments
FICS champion should be crowned by a round robin tournament. This seems to be more fair than these KO matches.
Just my humble opinion.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-18 14:38:19)
Knockout matches
FICGS champion will be crowned by a knockout match, the best rated player has few more chances to reach the final, this is fair and his result in each match do not depend on results he's not involved in (like round-robin tournaments), which is the most interesting point IMO.
Another interesting discussion about this issue :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=2584
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-19 13:45:30)
October 21
This should be the final date for the 1st FICGS freestyle tournament. As I had to finish the new interface, I'll only start to promote it today in forums and other websites...
About the time control, I agree that ie. 1h+20s would be less "Rybka mode" and more centaur, but it requires a lot of energy and time for a 6 rounds tournament. So let's give a try to 10m+20s, thus the tournament should last about 6 or 7 hours...
Until october 31, you'll be given 20% E-Points more when buying tickets :)
Garvin Gray (2007-09-19 13:53:32)
longer time control
Thibault: About the time control, I agree that ie. 1h+20s would be less "Rybka mode" and more centaur, but it requires a lot of energy and time for a 6 rounds tournament. So let's give a try to 10m+20s, thus the tournament should last about 6 or 7 hours...
Perhaps it could be held over 20/21 oct with 3 rounds per day of 1h + 20 secs.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-20 19:32:38)
chessfriend
I dont think its plausible that the rule inspired anyone to lose Thibault -it was for a memorial tournament and although there were (supposedly) cash prizes (which never trasnpired)I think it just inspired the people with the higher rating to try to win. As for your explanation as to why you just bailed out on 4 games its difficult to respond other than to say it doesn't show you supporting your own concept of an 8 game match or the importance of the FICGS "world championship" stage that you had reached. I guess you will take the IECG "world championship" more seriously. I think having 2 game play offs at a fast time rate to a decision is a better way to go.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-20 20:39:56)
chessfriend
As far as I can remember, this way to break the tie was used in most Chessfriend round-robin money tournaments. I have no doubt that some players would have sacrificed their ratings for more chances to win cash prizes... Highest rated players were attracted anyway because they were invited.
About my match, I was simply glad to get these 4 draws easily with the black pieces, it gave me more time to try to win with White (I was in time trouble at this moment). GM Farit Balabaev is a strong correspondence chess player, even if I lose the match, I have no regret about it. Surely I won't play my FICGS WCH games less seriously than my IECG WCH ones :) .. By the way I still hope to play the first candidates final against Gino or Peter :p
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-20 21:54:21)
WCH knockout vs. round-robin
I don't know about finished money tournaments at Chessfriend, this was just the available rules I read.
About FICGS & IECG WCH, the point is one don't play the same way a knockout or a round-robin tournament, this is not a question to play seriously or not. In every FIDE WCH (knockout) final match, Kramnik and maybe even Kasparov would accept an easy draw with Black, simply because they have to save energy, as chances of win are generally defended with White (actually Kasparov even offered a short draw with White against Kramnik's Berlin defence). In IECG or ICCF WCH round-robin tournaments, draws are to be avoided at any price but many strong players think the same way: White must win, Black must draw. That's very different in matches, so the strategy. I did not play drawish openings in IECG WCH, and I'll accept short draws if I can't expect more, but it doesn't mean I take it more seriously. According to the situation, these 4 draws were quite a good choice for both Farit & me... in a way :)
Hannes Rada (2007-09-20 22:37:49)
Chessfriend and money
I received 2 times money for winning and for 2nd place in a chess friend round robin tournament.
But this was only small money about EUR 100,00 :-)
And there was no tiebreak at these tournaments. In this case the players hat to share the prize money.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-20 23:11:48)
chessfriend
Yes tournaments are different from matches but to take 50% of the match games as identical 15 move draws seems extreme and without parallel. Again it can only have been good for Farit to give up all his white games because his higher TER means he can get through by drawing his 4 black games so its really a 4 game match where black wins if he draws the 4 games. Anyway I just think it devalues the event to do that and the tie break rules encourage it - but lets agree to differ!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-21 19:57:01)
Tie Breaks
A 2 game play off series at a very fast cc time rate ie. 1 day + 1 day / move would delay the next stages by up to 6 months (by stage)... I think that players would prefer to defend their chances - as you understood it - more often, and simply would prefer to play !
In case of equal TER : "If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account."
Finally, draws usually happen more often in matches, that's a fact. The special rule, at least, force one player to avoid it. We'll see if these short draws happen again and what are the consequences. At last, as Wolfgang said, the tie break rule is not "unfair", it is only a rule.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-21 20:34:37)
Tie Breaks
Thansk for the reply Thibault. on the delay front I think it would be less than 6 months maybe 1 or 2 months. First the effect of this delay would impact on only very few top players in completing the final stages. Overall the quantity of chess games and opportunities would be unaffected as new championships start every 6 months so the amount of playing is the same. Second "If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account." Ok this will be rare but you cannot really be saying that a match would be decided perhaps 1 or 2 months after completion when the next rating is done? Third "The special rule, at least, force one player to avoid it." yes but it didn't did it? You took the 4 draws in 15 moves because you had too many games and your opponent was a strong player! My point is not about the unfairness of the rule Thibault its the effect of it - in this case 4 identical 15 move draws is not a good advert for the site, the World Championship FICGS or the players.
Dan Rotaru (2007-09-22 01:16:27)
Games download
Excellent update and new interface, thank you very much Thibault. I really like the new feature which allows to download all games in a particular tournament. On this note it really would be nice to be able to download all one's games in progress. If playing few tournaments in the same time it is not practical to download all of them. Also what about being able to download all the games finished on FICGS from the beginning to date?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-24 02:13:51)
1st FICGS freestyle cup
Dear chessfriends,
The 1st FICGS freestyle cup waiting list is open ! .. This advanced chess or more commonly said "freestyle" (computers, teams, everything allowed) swiss tournament will happen on 2007 October 20 & 21 (14 pm, 17 pm, 20 pm server time), time control : 1 hour + 15 seconds / move. Entry fee is 10 E-Points (10 Euros), prize is 100% of E-Points (see rules/membership).
Thanks to players who broadcasted the news on the web already !
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-25 21:03:09)
Title norms
Hi Garvin, sorry for the delay :)
A title norm (FEM, FIM, FSM, FGM) can be achieved in a correspondence chess tournament with at least 7 players and 6 games played per player.
More explanations and % table :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#titles
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-25 21:53:58)
Extra rule
A new rule to motivate more players before the start of the tournament :)
"An extra fee, usually 30% of the entry fee, will be added to the entry fee 7 days before the start of the tournament."
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-26 12:46:06)
Mexico, round 11
Unless an earthquake, Anand should win the FIDE WCH tournament... now leading with 7,5 / 11, by one point and a half, after another great game against Morozevich. That's a very impressive performance but not a real surprise, as he's always been able to play very well... and less sometimes (unlike Kasparov).
What could happen in a 12-games match against Kramnik if he plays at this level ?!
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2007-09-28 00:36:03)
Comment
This remark was made by past freestyle winner Equidistance in the rybka forum:
"This FICGS site is very unclear, impossible to find anything. No clear summary about what these e-points are all about, very long terms and conditions, really I doubt anybody will spend so much time to even find the page about Freestyle Cup, which is hidden under one of many menus."
Maybe navigation could be made easier for new players interested in the tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-28 01:16:46)
Comment
Thanks for forwarding this comment here ! .. Actually it's quite true, a summary (at least in forums where I posted about the tournament & maybe in Help section) could help... Thinking about that.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-28 02:56:48)
E-Points
A summary about E-Points has been added to the terms and conditions :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#epoints
"E-Points : To summarize previous Entry fees and Prize money sections, you can buy E-Points (1 E-Point is worth 1 Euro, see My account after you connect to the server) then play money tournaments with entry fees and prizes (bronze, silver, gold) with low rakes in E-Points, finally ask for money prizes instead of E-Points for the tournaments you choose : According to the prize won, you'll be paid 0,75 Euro per E-Point remaining in your account. Consequently the more tournaments you play before to ask for a money prize, the lower is the cost per game (prizes in E-Points reach up to 99 % of the entry fees, 100 % for the chess freestyle cup)."
Feel free to tell me if it is not clear enough... I've also updated the Help section about how to enter the freestyle cup & E-Points.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-28 03:01:14)
Invitation to FIDE, FICGS, ICCF GM & IM
Just added to the FICGS chess freestyle cup rules :
"FIDE GM & IM, FICGS / ICCF GM, SM & IM are invited to enter the waiting list for free until one week before the start of the tournament ! .. Please just send a message to webmaster through My account page to register. You may be asked to send a copy of your passport or ID card."
Strong titled players may be interested in winning the title & prize, other players may be interested in playing them...
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2007-09-28 08:09:33)
Question about e-points
A quote from the rules:
"When you buy tickets, a virtual account in E-Points is created (or modified) with a limited lifetime of 2 years, meaning the account will be emptied at the end of this period. Member's account lifetime will be reconducted each time tickets are bought by the member. The number of E-Points added to the account is the amount in Euros paid to FICGS. Tickets are not paid back."
This means i lost the E-Points after 2 years?
So what i do with E-Points if:
"Tickets for tournaments (E-Points) can't be sold to other members, exchanged with cash money or paid back"
In the summary that you wrote you said:
"... then play money tournaments with entry fees and prizes (bronze, silver, gold) with low rakes in E-Points, finally ask for money prizes instead of E-Points for the tournaments you choose"
This is not clear. For example, I join a gold tournament i must choose before hand if i want E-Points or a money prize.
Also why i want to play more tournaments before redeeming a money prize if i could do nothing with my remaing E-Points (see above)
Any help in my queries will be appreciated.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-28 11:23:24)
Tickets / E-Points
Ok, I'll clarify that. It means that you can choose AFTER a tournament to ask for a money prize (exchanged with E-Points as a prize, not a redeeming). About the 2 years, it means that you have to ask for money prizes if you don't buy more E-Points until this delay - there must be such limits in time, but the aim is surely not to apply such a rule - anyway if you buy ie 10 more E-Points, the account lifetime is reconduced.
In brief, tickets are E-Points you buy, prizes are E-Points or money you win after a tournament.
I'll update it today.
Garvin Gray (2007-09-30 11:31:11)
new entrant
A third entrant to the freestyle cup
:)
Was starting to think it was
going to be a six game match between Thibault and myself :P
Welcome to the tournament Michael
Will Ilmars be entering?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-30 12:06:30)
new entrants
Hi Garvin :) .. Don't worry, we're 3 weeks from the start of the tournament yet, the extra-fee rule (1 week before the start) and the invitation to titled players should help... 2 players more just bought E-Points, so it's on the way for an interesting tourney ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-02 03:45:44)
Update : Crosstables and Big Chess
A new update, now tournament crosstables link to games (in a new window), which is a more convenient way to find a particular game in a tournament. Click the magnifying glass next to the tournament's name, then on a symbol (1, 0, =, *) in the crosstable and a new window will appear with the game.
Also a new category in special tournaments : Big Chess masters (2000+), waiting for a complete category for Big Chess. Reminder : Your first Big Chess rating is your current Correspondence Chess rating - 300 (see your ratings in Preferences), so a player CC rated 2300+ without a Big Chess rating can enter the Big Chess masters waiting list.
Viktor Savinov (2007-10-02 13:21:59)
Kasparov CC
Almost all CC-games from tournaments in the USSR are lost.
Hannes Rada (2007-10-02 16:06:09)
CC Kasparov and other OTB GM's
Viktor,
What kind of Russian tournaments did he play ?
I played at chessfriend against OTB Elo > 2600 GM Daniel Fridman from Latvia.
At CC he was only around Elo 2300.
But I could not communicate with him to ask about his motivation for cc
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-04 16:17:18)
3,5-2,5
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=13157
A win from Peter... In the round-robin cycle final tournament, Gaetano Laghetti won his game with Black against Michael Aigner !
Mladen Jankovic (2007-10-06 01:33:43)
:s
I figured that I had things under control, but I now realize that I have 3 running tournaments, and I'm on another waiting list.
I'm still underrated since the last time I took on too many games. :s That's just when I settled on a nice slow pace of about 1-2 tournaments at the same time.
Wayne Lowrance (2007-10-07 17:02:50)
time increment
A 000027. game 14107. I dont understand this tournament time control i guess. I have been making moves this game but the time increment isnt happening. If continues i will loose on time.....What am I missing Thibault ?
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-12 22:11:47)
Reminder : Invitation to GM, SM, IM
"FIDE GM & IM, FICGS / ICCF GM, SM & IM are invited to enter the Freestyle Cup waiting list for free until one week before the start of the tournament ! .. Please just send a message to webmaster through My account page to register. You may be asked to send a copy of your passport or ID card."
One more day for titled players to register for free !
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-13 19:17:27)
Freestyle tournament
A new player may enter the Freestyle Cup waiting list soon... So we'll be at least 8 players, anyway only 6 rounds will be played, I can't change the rules now.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-20 13:19:52)
where?
Hello Edwin :) .. Of course it is played here, like any other game (interface is a bit different for games played in less than 1 day).
Have a good tournament & good luck to all !
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-20 23:29:30)
Eros in the lead
After the first 3 rounds, SIM Eros Riccio leads the tournament by 2,5 / 3
Everything is still possible with 4 pursuers at 2 / 3 .. See you tomorrow :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-21 01:07:45)
Go freestyle tournament
What do you think about a Go freestyle tournament, just like FICGS chess freestyle cup ?
A problem is to define the best time control and number of rounds... With about 100 to 120 moves per game & per player, time control 30+10 means 2 hours per round. As there's no draw at Go, 5 or 6 rounds played in a single day could be ok to find a winner. Any opinion ?
Another question is : Are there players interested to play it ? .. Entry fee would be 10 E-Points / 10 Euros, prize 100% entry fees in E-Points (or 75% for a money prize). It may attract some strong players for interesting games :)
William Taylor (2007-10-21 01:47:07)
Nice idea
I'd be interested in playing. 5 or 6 games of go in one day sounds a bit tough, unless they were blitz/fast games (considerably quicker than 30 + 10). Go tournaments can be played with fewer rounds than chess tournaments - I'm playing one next weekend which is only 3 rounds, but that does seem too short to guarantee a clear winner.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-21 02:12:36)
Time control
True :) .. It is a lot of energy, 5 games in one day is really hard already. Maybe 15+10 could be ok with 1 round per 90 minutes.
A knockout tournament could be another solution ! .. 8 players means 3 rounds, 16 players / 4 rounds and so on... but less games for most participants.
Don Groves (2007-10-21 04:25:53)
Go freestyle tournament
Another consideration is which time zones the players are in. Standard tournaments around here are two hours per game (1 hour on each player's clock plus five, 30 second extra periods.)
Even being all in the same time zone, it's still difficult to play four games per day.
Lionel Vidal (2007-10-21 11:24:52)
Is a one day limit mandatory?
Playing three rounds in one day is already very hard. What would you think of running a tournament for several days (like one round per day): that would mean, say, 4 or 5 days that could be picked from 2 ou 3 consecutives weeks?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-21 13:52:04)
Is a one day limit mandatory?
No it isn't, but unlike "real" tournaments, I assume that players prefer to spend 1 day hard in front of their computer than a whole week end or more for a tourney... But I may be wrong ;)
Garvin Gray (2007-10-21 20:54:55)
round times.
Only one serious suggestion at this stage.
If all games finish very early, I would like to see the next round start earlier.
Makes the tournament a bit easier to play for those of us who are starting the tournament at 10pm approx :o
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-21 22:35:06)
Eros Riccio wins 1st FICGS freestyle !
SIM Eros Riccio completely stunned the tournament, very well prepared with White & Black on this interesting sicilian line : 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.e5
Final score for Eros : 5 / 6 .. Congratulations :)
See results and games :
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__FREESTYLE_CUP__000001.html
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-23 02:59:46)
Time zones
I'm to add the waiting list, Go "freestyle" cup will be a 6 rounds swiss tournament... Chess & Go freestyle tournaments will occur at the same time. Rounds will start at 15:00, 18:00, 21:00 server time on 2 consecutive days.
Time zones are a problem for players from ie. New Zealand, but it should be ok for players from Moscow to New-York.
Time control will be 1 hour + 10 seconds per move.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-23 23:36:17)
Go freestyle tournament rules
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#go_freestyle
Players ranked 3 dan or higher are invited to enter the waiting list for free...
Edwin Dabbaghyan (2007-10-25 00:57:27)
freestyle on FICGS
Hello all :)
I am a bit confused in here...I see two freestyle tours, one "cup" and one "go" freestyle... what are the differences?
and I would like to write my view about the freestyle time control, as it was an issue on the forum I guess... I think we can have two forms of freestyle tours here: one 30+15 with more rounds every time, and one with absolutely longer time controls, like 90+30 with fewer rounds... . A knockout freestyle tournament is also very exciting with 30+15 time controls, in each round best of 3 games goes to next round, and in the third round the player with white pieces has less time, say 10 minutes less.
I hope freestyle tours will be more popular and successful on this server, I like here :)
regards
Edwin
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-25 01:17:16)
Go freestyle cup
Hi Edwin, this topic is about the Go (another game) freestyle cup. See both chess & Go freestyle cups in Waiting lists. Anyway, I'm already thinking about faster chess freestyle tournaments :)
Knockout format could be lots of fun too, but players will probably prefer to play all the games to try to catch the best ones.
Let's discuss about the chess freestyle tournaments in the other thread :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=3987
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-30 04:16:49)
Go tournaments : New categories
I'm to add new categories for Go tournaments and to change rating ranges for PRO, DAN & KYU tournaments, it should help players to get a more accurate rating.
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_PRO : 2600+
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_DAN : 2100+
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_III : 1600-2600
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_II : 1100-2100
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_I : 0600-1600
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU : 0000-1100
Feel free if you have any suggestion...
Wayne Lowrance (2007-10-31 19:35:51)
yea
But they avoid tournament confrontation. suggests they are not ready for other strong engines yet. My opinion at this point....Wayne
Marc Lacrosse (2007-11-01 15:56:06)
Tournament categories
In the list of players having enrolled for tournament Rapid M 000009 there are two players with 2174 and 2147 elo points.
The tournament is supposed to be reserved for 2200+ players
Is this OK ?
Marc
Don Burden (2007-11-01 17:04:22)
Tournament categories
I think they might have entered when their ratings were > 2200, but with the latest ratings recalculation today, their ratings dropped below 2200.
Marc Lacrosse (2007-11-01 22:56:53)
??
"if this is not ok for you, I can remove you from the list."
I never enrolled for this tournament and I am not on the list ...
I just had a look as I was searching for a possible new tournament with higher ratings ...
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-04 03:51:27)
Thematic tournaments #38, #39
Thematic tournament #38 just started, line is sicilian poisoned pawn variation (10.e5), the next thematic tournament will be about this complex line also.
Games to follow !
Michael Mueller-Toepler (2007-11-04 13:03:40)
New tournament
Dear Chessfriends,
I have an idea for a new tournament.
Swiss System: 20 players, 12 rounds
2 games at saturday, 2 games at sunday
over three weeks.
What is your opinion to my proposal?
Greetings from Munich
Michael
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-04 15:32:57)
Swiss tournaments
Hello Michael, more rounds probably means less players and less tournaments (freestyle cups), it is a quite hard format, also for the organizer :)
By the way, why 20 players ? An advantage of swiss system is it doesn't depend on the number of participants.
Michael Mueller-Toepler (2007-11-04 15:45:16)
Swiss tournaments
20 (16) players to avoid that every player has to play against the other
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-04 17:06:41)
Swiss tournaments
Ok, anyway 30 or 50 would be better :) .. A problem with such a 12 rounds tournament is to be sure to find enough players.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-11-07 15:03:22)
New category (chess rapid 2000-2200)
Thibault I think there may be a case for rapid tournament category 2000 - 2200 as there may be enough players in that category at the moment who might not feel very motivated to enter the 1800 - 2200 but would go for a 2000 - 2200 event. In the available tournament 1800 - 2200 for example no player above 2000 has entered. Just a thought.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-07 15:37:51)
New category (chess rapid 2000-2200)
Hello Andrew. True, but I don't think it is good to develop rapid tournaments too much, simply because it is quite hard to play, the risk is to see more forfeits on time & to concurrence the chess world championship as it is really hard to play 2 or 3 rapid tournaments at the same time. Also the more categories & players in rapid tournaments, the less in standard ones. Rapid tournaments are designed for players rated 1400-2200 who want to establish their rating quickly or to try the chess wch time control.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-09 01:05:28)
Chess sponsorship
An interesting discussion about chess sponsorship started on ChessDiscussions.com (Susan Polgar forums)
http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=504
Several issues : "How to bring chess to the masses ?", "How to make chess a show ?", "What kind of sponsorship is possible ?"
Susan obviously thinks that OTB chess still has a great potential and that organizations could do much better to promote it... Here's my last response in the thread (reminds some old threads here) :
<<<
In other words, you say that chess has a show-potential like any other sport that could be used and that isn't...
For sure traditional marketing methods could help to promote OTB chess, and chess organizations could do much better... but is chess "bankable", just like an actor ? .. I just saw one more comparison between chess & poker in the thread "How to bring chess to the masses", but there's a major problem in chess that doesn't exist in poker or soccer : "everything can't happen", at least at a first sight, actually the way people can see it...
FIDE tried to change some things, ie. time controls, wch cycle but that's not enough, obviously. Anyone can win a lost hand at texas hold'em against any professional player, like any 2nd division soccer team can beat the Real Madrid once... Of course long-time statistics will be always favourable to the best players, but it takes a much longer time... Everything can happen in any event in these games (poker wch, soccer world cup). The probability for a real surprise that makes buzz is much lower at chess, the same best players invariably play the best tournaments, won statistically (ie.) 20% by Anand, 19% by Topalov, 18% by Kramnik and so on... quite boring.
The only interesting chess events follow the same scheme : David vs. Goliath, the buzz-genius 12 boy vs. Kramnik, mystery-Deep Blue vs. Kasparov, Anna Kournikova vs. Fischer & so on... nowadays the man vs. machine match is no more interesting since any home computer is stronger than HAL 9000 or Kramnik and there's no clear world champion (too many FIDE wch, different cycles..)
Chess needs real events and I'm curious to see the ones "that could bring chess to the masses" in the future... Maybe I'm a bit pessimistic, at least for OTB chess, but I'm very interested to see how good marketing methods will be able to transform our chess world... Just wait, hope & see :)
Best regards, Thibault
>>>
I'm now working again on SEO (Search Engines Optimization) for FICGS, more and more players find us via Google... Of course one next step is to sponsor the FICGS WCH & freestyle tournaments but it is a hard task for sure... All comment and suggestions on this issue are welcome :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-11 05:08:02)
Number of games limitation
Hello all.
The current number of running games limitation before the program blocks the access to new standard or rapid tournaments is 60 (which doesn't mean the number of running games is limited to 60)
After having experienced myself the "too many games" effects (more than 80 games, quite stressful and time consuming), and after a few general forfeits by players who probably reached the overdose, I decided to change some parameters to prevent such consequences. In a previous discussion, it had been concluded that it was up to each player to manage this and eventually to take the risk, but definitely too many correspondence games is not the same than playing chess all day.
The number of running games limitation before the program blocks the access to new standard or rapid tournaments (but world championships cycles) will be 30, once more it doesn't mean the number of running games will be limited to 30... Of course faster tournaments will remain unlimited. It should accelerate running games, prevent general forfeits, and help us not to become chess machines, at least "correspondence chess machines" :)
Best wishes, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-11 15:46:30)
30, 40, 50... ?
One player (only) said to me that the 30 running games limitation before the program prevents to enter new standard or rapid tournaments [but wch cycles] was probably not enough. I think 60 is definitely too much...
Poll : What do you think about a reasonable number ?
William Taylor (2007-11-11 16:59:49)
Total games or type?
Does the limit refer to total games or games of each type? For example, if you have 20 chess games and 20 go games running, will you be blocked from entering both new chess tournaments and new go tournaments, or will you be blocked from neither?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-11 17:53:24)
2nd FICGS chess freestyle
The 2nd FICGS chess freestyle cup waiting list is open. This 6 rounds swiss tournament will start on november 24, 15:00 server time. Time control is 1 hour + 15 seconds / move. Entry fee is 10 E-Points (10 Euro). Prize is 100% of the entry fees in E-Points.
FIDE GM & IM, FICGS / ICCF GM, SM & IM are invited to enter the waiting list for free, please just send a message to webmaster through My account page to register (you may be asked to send a copy of your passport or ID card).
Definitely we need strong players to rivalize with SIM Eros Riccio :)
Andrew Stephenson (2007-11-14 12:54:32)
new rapid category
Thibault please reconsider your decision and set up a 2000 - 2200 rapid tournament which I think will fill up quickly. there are about 60 active players rated 2000 - 2200 and of these about 5 have more than 10 games going. 2 of these (Jason and Sandor) probably wont enter a 2000-2200 rapid as they are qualified and down for higher level tournaments.If the rapids are for players up to 2200 why have you got higher rated rapid tournaments? Lets get more chess played isnt that what its all about? Incidentally the standard ratings of 2000-2400 and 2200-2600 seems a mistake as no one above 2200 will enter the 2200-2400 tournament. Has anyone else got any views on having a 2000-2200 rapid category?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-14 16:13:39)
new rapid categories
Poll : Do you think that rating ranges for Rapid chess tournaments should be 200 instead of 400 points, like in Standard tournaments (I mean the rating range that separate tournament categories)
Thanks for opinions.
Garvin Gray (2007-11-14 18:26:42)
related issue
I think there is a bigger issue here. It is very rare to see a player who is just under the rating cut off enter said tournament.
For example: Tournament rating range is 1600-2000. It would be very rare indeed for a 1950+ player enter this type of tournament.
Maybe all the rating bands for tournaments need to change ie be moved to 200 points difference, with no cross over.
So the standard tournaments are:
1600- 1799
1800- 1999
2000- 2199
and so on upwards.
Rapid tournaments are:
1700-1899
1900-2099
2100-2299
and so on upwards.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-14 18:47:42)
Cross over & rating cut off
Hi Garvin, that's an interesting idea to have different rating cut off for Standard & Rapid tournaments ! .. Cross over is not a problem IMO, but Rapid tournaments could be displayed this way :
1) Rapid M (2300+), Rapid A (1900-2300), Rapid B (1500-1900) ... ~400
2) Rapid M (2300+), Rapid A (2100-2300), Rapid B (1900-2100) ... ~200
3) Rapid M (2100+), Rapid A (1700-2100), Rapid B (1300-1700) ... ~400
4) Rapid M (2100+), Rapid A (1900-2100), Rapid B (1700-1900) ...
~200
Make your choice :)
Lincoln Tomlin (2007-11-14 19:40:32)
The thing is...
If even fewer ~2000 players enter rapid tournaments won't that make it harder for those who enjoy rapids to rise through the ranks, improve their rating to similar levels and even improve their play in general?
Andrew Stephenson (2007-11-14 20:32:07)
New Category
I agree with Garvins point completely. I think there are crossover probs. I like Thibaults suggestion for the display of Rapid tournaments - people can then choose there category - great idea. There is plenty of scope for sub 2000 to progress under this format and I dont see any downside.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-15 20:06:25)
Rapid tournaments
1) Rapid M (2300+), Rapid A (1900-2300), Rapid B (1500-1900) ... ~400
2) Rapid M (2300+), Rapid A (2100-2300), Rapid B (1900-2100) ... ~200
3) Rapid M (2100+), Rapid A (1700-2100), Rapid B (1300-1700) ... ~400
4) Rapid M (2100+), Rapid A (1900-2100), Rapid B (1700-1900) ... ~200
Finally, is everyone ok with option 2.. or 4 !?
Dan Rotaru (2007-11-15 23:48:05)
Rapid tournaments
Options 2 makes more sense
Garvin Gray (2007-11-16 06:14:13)
Just say yes :)
same vote as before, Option 2.
Will the standard tournaments be different rating cut off to the rapids? Please say yes :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-16 21:52:04)
option 4 -> option 2
My choice is option 4 in a first time.. Option 2 will be ok as soon as we have players rated 2300+ enough IMO, the waiting time is too high at the moment. So I'll change the rapid chess tournaments this way as soon as the next Rapid M tourney starts.. and I'll add a higher category as soon as the waiting time for Standard (Class) M decrease.
Thanks for your suggestions :)
Robert Mueller (2007-11-18 08:52:18)
Class M Waiting List
Hello Thibault,
I noticed that in the Chess Class M (ELO 2200-2600) Waiting List there are two players with a rating of well under 2200 (2174 and 2147). I suppose, they had a rating higher that 2200 when they signed up, but dropped under 2200 before the tournament was started. Shouldn't they be removed from the waiting list now?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-18 15:21:04)
Class M Waiting List
Hello Robert, it wouldn't be conventional to remove players from waiting lists IMO. These players just lost their 2200+ rating but they probably deserve to play this tournament. Rating considered is the one you have when you enter a waiting list. Kind of "last chance" :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-18 15:29:10)
6 days
... time to promote the tournament !
I feel it's a bit early for a freestyle Go tournament, so only the chess tournament may happen (if we have 9 players at least). The next one could happen not during a week end and with a faster time control.
3 players are in, join the fun :)
Robert Mueller (2007-11-18 15:48:06)
OK, too late anyway ;)
OK, thanks. The tournament started today anyway.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-19 01:52:29)
how to start a Go game
Hello Xuan.
This server is mainly a correspondence chess & Go server, then a real time chess & Go server.
You may enter a tournament in "Waiting lists", Go tournaments are below chess tournaments. "Advanced tournaments" are real time tournaments, but most are tournaments with entry fee & prizes, you can play 20 "bronze" games free with your 2 E-Points.
Feel free to enter a Dan, Kyu III, Kyu II, Kyu I tournament, according to your provisional rating.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-19 02:07:51)
server based games
No, of course :) .. there are interfaces for each game played here, see tournaments & games. When a tournament starts, your moves can be notified to you by email but you have to connect to the server to play your moves.
See also Help - http://www.ficgs.com/help.html
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-22 18:07:25)
Freestyle tournaments
Hi Garvin, indeed 5am is a bit hard to start a 2 or 3 hours crazy chess game :)
Anyway, this tournament may be postponed (E-Points given back), I did not spend time enough to promote it 'cause I'm working to sponsorize it by all ways, so I hope it will be more attractive in a few months :)
Also, I feel that a whole week-end each time is a bit hard for most players interested in this tournament, so the formula may change regularly, we could try next time a faster tournament not during the week end, then alternate...
Garvin Gray (2007-11-23 13:17:48)
free entry
If the competition is postponed again, I think it is only fair to offer free entry to Michael and myself for whenever the next tournament will be held.
For myself, this will now be the second time I have entered the tournament, for it to be postponed.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-23 17:25:21)
free entry
Michael had retired from the waiting list just before, but anyway you're right, this rule could be added to the terms, maybe with a deadline. To be discussed... About the first tournament, it had been postponed a long time before the start (seems to me). Hmm, will be even more challenging :)
Marc Lacrosse (2007-11-23 21:00:02)
Any strong player for Rapid class M 00 ?
... Three players are awaited for completing rapid class M tournament 009.
There are already four players enrolled (2147-2215 Elo)
I (2373) would be pleased to join if two 2300+ do come with me for completing the table.
Anyone interested ?
... We need more strong tournaments.
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-24 04:23:35)
Next thematic tournament
We need five more players to start the next thematic chess tournament, then we could organize a few ones on Traxler again !
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-24 16:33:54)
SC. von Erichsen is FICGS Go champion !
Svante Carl von Erichsen 4d is the first FICGS Go world champion, congratulations :)
According to the rules : "In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage."
As Svante Carl now leads the tournament by 7/7, even if he loses his last game and another player also finishes with 7/8, the TER decides. And as there's no previous winner to defend his title...
After the second championship (the level should increase), we may have the first 5 games match between two very strong players :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-24 16:48:09)
1st FICGS Go championship
Tournament :
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__GO__WCH_TOURNAMENT__000001.html
Crosstable :
http://www.ficgs.com/crosstable_FICGS__GO__WCH_TOURNAMENT__000001.html
Graham McGrew (2007-11-26 22:33:50)
Wilkes-Barre Furor
Thanks for this wealth of responses, all. Thanks too for the tip on Ilmars' analysis. I will check it out.
Thibault, what is the next thematic tournament for which you need five more players?
Ilmars, I would love to play a game with you as white, me as black. Being new to FICGS, I'm not exactly sure how to start a game with you . . . ?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-26 23:36:46)
Wilkes-Barre Furor
The next thematic tournament is a very interesting line of the Sicilian poisoned pawn variation : 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.e5
See in Waiting list >> Special chess tournaments
If you want to play a "one-game" match with Ilmars, you may try in Advanced chess tournaments >> Bronze lightning .. and play Traxler, if you don't care about your blitz chess rating :) .. or Thematic lightning but with entry fee & prize (10 E-Points) & White must win rule.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-27 22:37:57)
Baduk and chance : 1dan in LG cup final
A Go player ranked 1 dan is about 800 elo points below a 9 dan player (whatever the ranking system ?!), meaning about no chance to win a game against such an opponent, right ?! .. How is it possible to see a 1 dan player at this level in one of the main Go tournaments in the world ?
Of course everything can happen in a Go game, but I suppose it is not the case during a whole tournament...
From IGN Goama newsletter - http://gogame.info
"An interview with Han Sanghoon, 1-dan, the first 1-dan in Go history, who entered the final match of the World Go Championship (LG cup)
- Congratulations! What was the most difficult game in this tournament?
- The last one with On Sojin, 4-dan. It was really close finally and I think, that I was slightly behind until the endgame stage
- You became a professional about 1 year ago. Did you think that you can reach the final match of the World Go Championship so quickly?
- I remember that it was very hard to become a professional. I was almost 18 and it was my last chance to win the qualification among inseis. Of course, I did not think, that I can show good results quickly. I was surprised, that professional tournaments are not much harder than the insei league :)
- What are your weakest and strongest parts in Go?
- I am weak at the opening, but I feel myself confident in middlegame fights. Usually I try to defend my groups solidly, before fighting
- Who is the hardest opponent for you?
- Yun Junsang, 6-dan. I lost him twice and feel that he is much stronger than me. Also his Go style is very impressive
- What do you think about your final match with Lee Sedol, 9-dan. How big are your chances?
- I never played him before, but I saw lot of his game records and I know that Lee Sedol, 9-dan is much stronger than me. Any way, I will try to win the match! Usually I am not afraid of the star opponents at all!"
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-01 15:02:34)
time counting
Hello Ulrich.
Yes, this is the only tournament where this problem happened, simply because the thematic opening starts at Black move number 10 :/ .. So the program added time to player Black when playing his first move, not to player White (at move eleven). I did not think about that when the tournament started, but anyway this advantage or disadvantage is shared (3 games with, 3 games without). Sorry about that.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-04 21:11:33)
1st round robin final
Yes, a very hard tournament, at least for me :) .. It seems to be between Alberto, Gaetano & Xavier but many games are not over yet ! We will see...
Congratulations to Gino and Peter for a nice match !
Andrew Stephenson (2007-12-08 21:30:53)
Back button
Thibault I find that if I enter tournaments then view a particular tournament then an individual game when I try to use the back button to return to the tournament cross table from the individual game it does not work but keeps returning me to the individual game. This is a bit tedious as it means re entering tournaments and selecting the particular tournament. Is there any way to fix this?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-09 08:08:28)
Back button
Hmm, if you use the games links from the tournament crosstable, it should open a new window, so you just have to select the previous window to go back to the tournament ?! Is it right ?
Garvin Gray (2007-12-12 14:38:00)
5
I would like to offer that perhaps five player tournaments should be considered instead of seven player, at least on a trial basis.
This would have two effects:
1) Less waiting time for tournaments to start
2) Players have to enter more tournaments to get the same number of games, increasing the amount of players entering tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-12 16:14:36)
5 vs. 7
5 players would be great this way, but it has many other effects including on tournaments results & cheating attempts.. 7 players is best for fair ratings IMO.
Garvin Gray (2007-12-12 16:40:02)
5 over 7 as a trial :)
7 players is best for fair ratings IMO.
I do not disagree one bit. The more games and more players in a touranment, the better rating outcomes and fairer tournament all round.
That being said, I think this does need to be balanced against both how long it takes to get a tournament started (which can be quite a while in some cases) and keeping new players on the site by being able to get them some starting games sooner. This has to also be good for accurate ratings as it increases the pool of potential players.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-13 17:59:07)
Wild cards & cheating
I don't think wild cards are useful (but wch cycle, maybe) cause ratings move quite fast, simple rules is best IMO, also to let the program apply accurate rules without human decision, as far as possible...
About cheating, if a player manage to play from several accounts that the program couldn't detect, the effects are negligible in 7-players tournaments, even more at a high level, so he'll stop quite quickly as it requires even more time.
Garvin Gray (2007-12-15 17:28:26)
wild cards
I think a wild card would be a good idea for the higher rated tournaments if there was a rating limit to the wild card.
For instance, after a certain amount of time for entries, entry is allowed for one person rated less than 100 points below the lower rating cutoff.
This wild card player will not be outclassed and if a new player might even be quite under rated and competitive in the tournment.
The point is that after a certain time given for normal entries, I think most players already registered in the tournament would rather the tournament to start than to keep waiting around.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-16 16:22:18)
Conditional Moves
Indeed, it has :) .. Conditional moves still brings many questions but I'm still opposed to the idea.
Anyway a new wish list is a good idea ! .. The main issue I'm working on these days is money prizes for WCH & freestyle tournaments, but ideas for improvements are always welcome.
Glen D. Shields (2007-12-17 14:51:16)
Conditional Moves ICCF Server
Conditional moves are technically possible on the ICCF server. The tournament organizer has the option to turn the conditional move feature on or off.
ICCF decided to turn it off for all ICCF tournaments. I don't recall the exact reason for doing this, but it has something to do with concerns about time abuse. One can peruse the ICCF Congress minutes to find why this was so decided.
Dan Rotaru (2007-12-17 17:41:55)
FICGS World Cup
Hi Thibault,
What is the difference between FICGS__CHESS__WCH_TOURNAMENTS and FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP ? Is the latest supposed to be a Knock-out tournament? There are no games displayed under this on the Tournaments page. Anyway a knock-out tournament would be interesting. Something like the FIDE World Cup.
Gino Figlio (2007-12-17 19:53:21)
MPT
Hi Glen,
There is one type of ICCF tournament where conditionals are officially allowed, the money prize tournaments (MPT). Their time control is 10/30 and it was found reasonable to activate conditionals in order to allow players save some time.
Best regards,
Gino
Glen D. Shields (2007-12-18 06:24:08)
Thanks Gino
Thanks Gino for the clarification. The ICCF prize tournaments are a new offering and I've not updated myself on the tournament details. I need to do that!
May you and yours have a wonderful holiday season :-)
Marc Lacrosse (2007-12-18 18:33:50)
High level performance
Marius Zubac just won tournament FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_M_01__000003 with an impressive 2631 performance (6.5/8 and no loss in a 2378 tournament)
On his way to victory he cruelly refuted a knight-for-three-pawns sac that I tried in our encounter. Nice job!
Congratulations for this fine performance.
... we need more high level tournaments ...
Marc
Hannes Rada (2007-12-18 21:57:02)
conditional moves and ICCF bureaucracy
> ICCF decided to turn it off for all > ICCF tournaments. I don't recall the > exact reason for doing this, but it > has something to do with concerns
> about time abuse.
How can conditional moves be considered as "time abuse" ??
What is the rationale behind this ?
Chessfriend.com had a perfect implementation of (secret) conditional moves.
But ICCF is a slow, conservative and bureaucratic organization.
Why not making a poll to find out if the players want this feature ....
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-12-19 08:03:06)
High level performance
This extra high performance is a result about forfeiting of the two both best rating participants of the tournament.
Anyway comgratulations tu Marius Zubac!
Marc Lacrosse (2007-12-19 12:14:58)
corrected
"This extra high performance is a result about forfeiting of the two both best rating participants of the tournament."
Right.
Still 2550 if you consider his 4.5/6 against 2357
Not that bad ...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-19 18:08:38)
High level performance
Right, many congratulations to Marius, at least for beating Marc (who made a good tournament too) with the Black pieces !
And congrats to Dinesh for "submitting" new great quotes with an interesting Nietszche-like written style to FICGS files :)) (if you agree, of course)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-20 00:21:24)
conditional moves, ICCF
About conditional moves, it would be a lot of work to implement it, but anyway yes I'm opposed to it, following several discussions around it. I think it's not completely fair and adds a (small) chancy factor to the game, so in this way I understand "time abuse".
But I can't see yet how it adds some work to a tournament director (Garvin ?!)...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-20 00:26:09)
FICGS World Ch.
Hi Dan, It's only a way to separate the final matches (candidates final or current champion vs. challenger) from the first stages tournaments, but I'll probably reorganize some things in a while as it is not so easy yet to find a particular WCH tournament...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-20 17:56:51)
FICGS championship
Yes, I'll separate the stages that way soon. About the WCH cycle, it is already a knockout tournament, even if there's a round-robin cycle inside.
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#chess_wch
Garvin Gray (2007-12-20 20:28:01)
needs new glasses :)
But I can't see yet how it adds some work to a tournament director (Garvin ?!)...
I have not played on a server with conditional moves, but I would imagine that there are times when the two players disagree over what conditional moves were proposed and so the td has to sort it out and maybe 'offend' someone with a ruling against.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-22 14:26:28)
Highest TER qualifies
Dinesh is right. There was many discussions to justify this rule in the forum. Statistically (for correspondence chess) the rating may be more important than performance to know who has more chances to win a tournament. Anyway this is only a rule.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-12-27 09:44:35)
option 4
Thibault please consider implementing option 4 now. I cannot see the current rapid M 00009 tournament filling up for a long long time but there are IMO plenty of 2100 players who would sign up for an option 4 tourney who are not going for the rapid A 000035
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-28 14:11:54)
option 4
I tried to change the rating ranges but a few 2200+ players would retire from the rapid M tournament... I'm afraid we have to wait. Anyway I'm to make a major update (challenges) and other improvements on the server, so I can't do it right now.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-29 23:27:34)
Major update : challenges
Hello to all.
Now it is possible to challenge connected players for bullet / lightning / blitz games (advanced chess tournaments - note : please verify time controls, ie. blitz games are played in 2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves) with White or Black.
Many improvements to come (when I find some time), to display ratings and so on... All feedback welcome.
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-01-07 06:34:46)
First FICGS GM tournament
There will be a forfeit by Viktor Savinov (Rating 2668 !!!) - good for ratings of the other players in this tournament! :)
Michael Aigner (2008-01-07 14:03:08)
Possible to stop the clock?
I do not know if Viktor did not know his clock will keep running during his vacation - but if so and this would be the reason he is ging to loose his games,i would prefer to stop his clock and keep him playing the tournament.
Nobody has anything to win when he is loosing on time because he did not know this (slightly unlogical) rule - but to loose a chance to play a very strong player and an interesting tournament.
Would this be possible - OK with all other players of the tournament - OK with Thibbault - OK with Viktor ????
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-07 14:54:59)
Possible to stop the clock
Ok, definitely I have to update this feature right now, but the 60 days limit per move should remain IMO, so it won't be possible to take too many days of vacation according to the clocks (or the player will be warnt that he'll lose some games)...
Well, if all players in the tournament agree to stop Viktor's clock, I'll arrange that.
Garvin Gray (2008-01-07 18:21:04)
conditional move tournament
Can we have a conditional move non rated tournament to test out the differences as I have never played on a server with conditionals?
Might give some of us more idea of whether to be in favour of it or not.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-08 00:50:55)
Incomes of top Go players
One more interesting article from the IGN "Goama" newsletter - http://gogame.info
Incomes of Top Korean Professionals in 2007:
1. Lee Sedol - $600.000
2. Lee Changho - $400.000
3. Park Yeonghun - $360.000
4. Cho Hanseung – $180.000
5. Kang Dongyun - $150.000
6. Mok Jinseok -$148.000
7. Lee Yeongku -$122.000
8. Won Sungjin -$116.000
9. Yun Junsang - $113.000
10. Kim Jiseok – $113.000
Japanese players, even who is not famous on international arena, makes more money, but it's still hard to compare their tournament incomes with top football or hockey players.
Maybe better to compare chess and Go players:
"As sports go, chess is not lucrative for the average professional.
The well known top players who have been able to achieve millionaire
status (Karpov and Kasparov) are the exceptions. Aside from them,
there are only about 20 players world wide who do well financially
from chess ($100,000+ per year income), and another 100 or so that
make a comfortable living ($50,000+). The next 1,000 players, on
average, come out about even -- earning in prizes what they incur in
entry fees and expenses. Then come perhaps 10,000 players who invest
several thousand dollars more per year than they earn." -- from "GM
RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge" by Rashid Ziatdi and Peter
Dyson, PROChess LLC, New York, 1998
Glen D. Shields (2008-01-08 03:36:15)
What are the Costs I Wonder?
This lists income ... I am equally curious what it might cost to play full time. Unless a player has a sponsor surely there travel expenses and tournament fees to cover. Then, of course, there's all the behind the scene preparation to become the best.
Don Burden (2008-01-09 02:02:20)
Incomes of top chess players
For a regular GM, my guess is not that much but they seem to make enough to live on. I find it interesting when playing in a chess tournament to look at the type of cars the GMs arrive in. Here in the USA, there was a regular GM tournament player who drove a car that looked like it was ready to break down any moment.
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2008-01-09 02:26:36)
Income ....
If chess were as popular as Tennis, we would see the GM's with advertisements on their clothes when they are playing tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-09 05:06:16)
The games will continue !
All players in the tournament agreed to stop Viktor's clock so that the games can continue... Thanks to all for the fair play and sorry about that problem, I hope it won't happen anymore after the update.
Best wishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-09 05:42:09)
4th FICGS chess championship
The 4th FICGS chess championship just started, it is now much easier to find tournaments (quarter finals, stage 2...) in the Tournaments page.
Quarter finals this time are :
1 - Harry Ingersol vs. Mark Noble
2 - Hannes Rada vs. Farit Balabaev
3 - Eros Riccio vs. Marius Zubac
4 - Peter Schuster vs. Thibault de Vassal
As a reminder, in case of equality the highest TER in each match qualifies if all games are drawn, the lowest TER qualifies if not all games are drawn.
The next stages of the previous championships will start as soon as possible...
Have good games !
Dinesh De Silva (2008-01-09 11:42:24)
Re:
"Viva!!! It's great to see top players with such integrity here in the First FICGS GM tournament."
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-10 19:22:25)
Started
Good luck to Harry and Wolfgang in the second WCH knockout final :)
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__WCH_KNOCKOUT_FINAL__000002.html
Peter Unger (2008-01-15 14:56:25)
FICGS_WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_04__000002
Who won the tournament "FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_04__000002"
Peter Unger?
Andrew Stephenson (2008-01-15 18:59:44)
winner
The winner of tournament_FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_04 was Robert Mueller because he had the highest TER of those on 4/6. Thats the rule!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-16 04:06:24)
My games
Feel free to tell what you think about the new My games page. In the next update (in a few minutes), games will be better separated by tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-16 19:32:31)
FICGS rules
Hello Peter, I understand your point of view. Correspondence chess is not OTB (over the board) chess and rules may not go the same way.
FICGS WCH rules can be found here :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=entry_tournament&tournament=ficgs_chess_wch
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#chess_wch
... so you should have seen it before to enter the waiting list.
The idea in this correspondence chess championship is to find the best player, of course. In correspondence chess, rating is much more important than in OTB chess to know the "current" level of a player, and should be taken in account, just like performance. This rule is quite hard but this way we can organize a new cycle every 6 months, so more chances to reach the final stages. Anyway this issue will be discussed again and again.. and rules are just rules.
Best wishes, Thibault
Andrew Stephenson (2008-01-17 14:04:20)
Result
TER stands for tournament entry rating ie the rating you had when the tournament starts. It is shown in the tournament crosstable along with the current rating. This TER is what decides in the event of a tie. However there is a slight contradiction when this rule is applied in matches. In this situation in the event of a tie the higher TER wins EXCEPT if there has been a result on both sides ie not all games were drawn then the lower TER player goes through. By analogy with Peters situation I think the rule might be ammended so that the higher TER goes through except when one of the tied players has beaten another tied player and in this situation is deemed to have a higher TER (as between them)for the purpose of the tie break. The point of this ammendment is that it still gives a tie break winner BUT it reflects the result bewteen individuals for tie break purposes as the result might indicate that the entry TER is not reflective of current relative strength. To late for you Peter I am afraid but worth a thought.
Christophe Czekaj (2008-01-25 13:04:00)
In Fischer's honour
Hello everybody !
What about a special Fischer tournament ? Or thematic tournaments, on line he used to play, for example : spanish exchange, or sozin against sicilian...
And yes, thanks for your wonderful play, Bobby.
Mladen Jankovic (2008-01-25 13:39:03)
Sounds good
We can just sign up for a Fischer Random tournament in the special tournaments category and just play.
I'm considering my game load right now.
Mladen Jankovic (2008-01-25 13:54:07)
Ok, I'm in
Looking for players in:
FICGS__CHESS_960__TOURNAMENT__000025
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-25 16:34:10)
Fischer's defense
The next thematic tournament could be Fischer's defense in the King's gambit...
Ivan Pljusnin (2008-01-27 16:43:11)
Team complectation
FICGS team could be much stronger, I think. Some of your players have lost their games by time. Imagine, you replace them with winners of FICGS World Championship and other strong tournaments of FICGS. FICGS result would be much better...
In fact I do not believe neither in official correspondence chess titles nor in ratings. They do not show real strength very often. On IGAME the best part of our team is anonymous players, I think. Their achievements in this match are just fantastic. 9 members of IGAME team who play under imaginary names have now 14.5 of 17! Owl (here he is "Dojnikov") is going to win his last game. Probably he is our best fighter.
P.S. If I was allowed to play as Mobutu, I'd play stronger!:-)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-29 02:36:57)
1st WCH candidates final started !
Finally, the 1st WCH round-robin final tournament finished with the 3 most dangerous fighters at tie, Xavier Pichelin, Gaetano Laghetti and Alberto Gueci (4/6). Congratulations to them !
According to FICGS chess WCH rules, the player with the highest TER qualifies for the first candidates final against the winner of the knockout cycle.
The first FICGS WCH candidates final just started !
Gino Figlio (2568) - Xavier Pichelin (2355)
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_ficgs__chess__wch_candidates_final__000001.html
Good luck to both players and be careful, we're watching your games ! :)
Hannes Rada (2008-01-29 18:30:38)
It's not there
Why dont' we find it under Candidates final ?
http://www.ficgs.com/category__ficgs__chess__candidates.html
"There's no tournament to display" ?
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-02-03 14:00:21)
First FICGS GM tournament
again - There will be a forfeit by Viktor Savinov (Rating 2668 !!!) - good for ratings of the other players in this tournament! :)
Andrew Stephenson (2008-02-06 21:07:47)
WCH candidates final tie break rule
Thibault I noticed on reading the rules for the candidates final that "the knockout tournament winner is qualified for stage 5 if all games are draw, the round-robin cycle winner if not all games are draw." Why did you not just stick with the tie break rule that applies for all other matches? Namely the higher TER (tournament entry rating)goes through on even score if all games drawn or lower TER on even score if not all drawn? Why have you made a special different tie break rule for the candidates final match?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-07 03:43:44)
Tie break rules
This set of rules favour the players with the highest TER at the start of the cycle (or CER - cycle entry rating), who play the knockout cycle, anyway the challenge for a player coming from the round-robin cycle - so difficult already - is just even more interesting :) .. looking at the first candidates final, I'm not sure at all who's favourite according to these rules. Xavier Pichelin is a dangerous player with an under-evaluated rating yet, he had to win (several) games in all stages of the round-robin tournament and he did it well, now quite the same situation but only one win could put him in a favourable position. He's used to this challenge, I think it is just more challenging and interesting this way. But the main idea is always to favour the highest tournament (here I should say cycle) entry rating.
"Victory belongs to who wants it more" (Bobby Fischer)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-11 02:07:18)
Next thematic tournaments
Any suggestion for the next chess thematic tournament(s) ? The full list of all thematics played at FICGS is available here :
http://www.ficgs.com/wiki_en-thematic-tournaments.html
Thanks for your ideas :)
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2008-02-11 02:39:18)
Next thematic tournaments
Caro kann panov attack?
Nicola Lupinacci (2008-02-11 09:20:50)
Next thematic tournament
Icelandic gambit?
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. c4 e6
Keres defense?
1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5
Iouri Basiliev (2008-02-11 14:15:32)
Next thematic tournaments
I would propose to play Sicilian Dragon or so in memory of Robert Fischer.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-02-14 13:40:04)
ratings
Hi thibault some time ago I think you suggested that you were going to start people at a higher rating? Maybe 1800? At present you have some players starting at very low ratings who are obviously going to be strong cc players. One outstanding example is Zack Stephen at 1300. He won the PAL/CSS frestyle advanced chess tournament in 2005 and as ZackS has remained at the top getting high places each year Just a thought .....
Amir Elnemr (2008-02-15 11:31:11)
How to edit GO games on FICGS
Hello all, I am just starting my first Go tournament, I still struggle to understand the so much alien game to myself, anyway, I like to edit and review my chess games externally with winboard, but I don't seem to be able to do the same with GO games, It seems as if the notation used is different than of that used by my software, I use PANDA-gIGo, so if anyone can help me by suggesting another program that can read the game format on FICGS or give me directions on how to edit it with PANDA-gIGo I will be very grateful.
Thank you and have a good day.
Iouri Basiliev (2008-02-18 17:11:12)
Anand
Winning Mexico is great achievment, but for me is nothing to do with chess WC title. It(title) should be taken in the MATCH, not tournament. Waiting for the Kramnik-Anand battle.
Marius Zubac (2008-03-02 23:49:06)
2nd GM standard tournament
Hello Thibault. I have now over 2500 and I would like to register for the 2nd GM standard tournament, however for some reason it is closed. Can you look into it please. Thanks, Marius
Thibault de Vassal (2008-03-03 12:38:05)
2nd GM standard tournament
Hello Marius, yes it is closed now. The reason is it (most probably) won't be filled before a very long time - we have more and more 2300/2400+ players but not enough yet. Maybe we can change the rating range but it is quite difficult already to fill the next SM tournament waiting list. Any opinion welcome.
Wayne Lowrance (2008-03-09 19:47:26)
Tournament Catagory S, FEM 4.5
What does this mean ? Wayne Lowrance
Thibault de Vassal (2008-03-09 22:48:57)
Norms
Hi Wayne, category S is the first category that allow to make a title norm. You just made me notice it is written category -1 in the rules (I'll correct it) :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#titles
So, you may obtain a FEM norm if you score 4.5 in this tournament.
Garvin Gray (2008-03-17 11:35:42)
freestyle and seedings
While I am just another user of this forum, I can answer both of these questions as they come up regularly.
Hailes- My understanding is once you sign onto a waiting list, you cant leave it.
The reason being is players could enter, then see another player enter, then leave the tournament and rejoin in another slot to get a better colour, as your entry position determines your seeding in the round robin draw.
Also regarding chess engines etc, as long as you play as an individual, anything goes. Most of the players on here are using engines and it is fully endorsed.
Basically this is a freestyle chess site.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-03-17 15:08:09)
Chess rapid tournaments : Rating ranges
Chess Rapid M waiting list has been deleted in order to change rating ranges for all rapid tournaments (increased by 100 points), sorry about that.
It should help players to reach the 2400, 2000 and 1600 elo barriers...
Mark Hailes (2008-03-17 15:10:44)
Thibault
Thanks - that's a relief. I'd have had some problems trying to run 10 games at once!? I'll try not to screw up again.
BTW I really like the site.
The tournament has just started!
M
Thibault de Vassal (2008-03-19 04:13:57)
Rapid categories
Here we are ! New chess rapid tournaments categories have been created (SM, D, E).
Mark Hailes (2008-03-20 17:56:40)
Voting for best game
Woops screwed up again. I inadvertantly pressed "vote for best game" on a game in my tournament and immediately got a confirmation of the vote. Sadly i don't think it was one of my own games :-) and in any case the tourney has only just started! I think it might be an idea to have a confirmation dialog with the game information that you are voting for, to make it harder for dense people to screw up. BTW is this option for voting for best game in a tournament or some other criteria?
Mark Hailes (2008-03-20 23:23:16)
Voting For Best Game
Hi thibault------
I’m a bit envious of those carriage returns you manage to get in your posts...
>>>> Voting will be more difficult <<<<
I do tend towards laziness in my daily life (I can’t imagine life without a dish washer for instance). But even so the fractional mouse movement & additional click would not I think cause me such effort as to eschew voting, but it might make it more likely that I’d vote for what I consider to be the best game rather than a random one :-). So that’s one vote for the confirmation!
>>>> There's no criteria... 'best' game, according to each player :) <<<<
I assume then (from this somewhat enigmatic comment!?) that voting is for the best game in the tournament. Perhaps it might make sense not to allow voting on a game until it is finished? It may be that after playing well in the early part of the game, the player/s collapse later and mess it up.
BTW. If I vote again for another game, is my vote removed from the first game I voted for? or not counted? Or can I in fact claim that multiple games are the best game in the tournament? What happens if I vote for the same game more than once?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-03-24 19:11:34)
FICGS 2nd Freestyle Cup
The tournament will be played on April 6, 2008.
All questions and feedback are welcome here.
Purity Tallant (2008-03-26 01:26:30)
Go! Challenges, why not?
I would like to challenge someone outside of a tournament.
Purity Tallant (2008-03-26 01:28:40)
opinion
Tournament games take too long as far as I'm concerned.
Garvin Gray (2008-03-28 15:41:07)
4 entries so far.
Well everyone, get your entries in. We have four entries so far.
Two decent players and two rabbits, so to speak.
More entries, the better the tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-03-30 07:25:30)
Freestyle cup : Rules & start
There was a small conflict in the rules, now corrected : The first game will start at 13:00 server time, not 15:00
Current rules :
FICGS advanced chess "freestyle" cup is a 6 rounds swiss tournament with entry fee and prize, played in a single day. Entry fees are E-Points that you can buy in 'My account'. Read carefully terms and conditions, particularly Entry fees & Prize money sections before to play tournaments with entry fees.
All games are played in 30 minutes + 15 seconds / move. Norms are not possible.
The first round will start at the date and hour (13:00 server time) indicated as "deadline". Next rounds will start at 15:00, 17:00, 19:00, 21:00 and 23:00 server time. Please register carefully as it is not possible to retire from the waiting list. It is strongly recommended to display the chat bar to communicate with the tournament director.
If several players obtain the best score and the best Sonnenborn-Berger, they will share the prize. It is possible to forfeit all next games (that will be unrated for the advanced chess rating list) during the tournament.
FIDE GM & IM, FICGS / ICCF GM, SM & IM are invited to enter the waiting list for free.. Please just send a message to webmaster through My account page to register. You may be asked to send a copy of your passport or ID card. The tournament might be cancelled if less than 7 players registered before the deadline, in this case entry fees will be given back to the players.
An extra fee, usually 30% of the entry fee, will be added to the entry fee 2 days before the start of the tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-04-04 03:51:57)
sponsor
Looks like we need more time to find a decent sponsor for this tournament :)
Benjamin Block (2008-04-02 18:08:20)
sponsor?
How is the sponsor of this tournament?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-04-04 03:53:14)
Freestyle registrations
We need at least 3 more players in the waiting list before saturday (april 5) to play this freestyle tournament !
Thibault de Vassal (2008-04-05 02:43:40)
FICGS 2nd Freestyle Cup
Obviously the tournament won't probably be really interesting before I can sponsorize it and find additionnal sponsors... Ok, I'll make some important changes during the next weeks, this 2nd freestyle won't start this time again, we need more time anyway. Sorry and many thanks to the players who entered the waiting list !
Garvin Gray (2008-04-05 09:38:33)
cancelled?
I take it the tournament is cancelled?
Garvin Gray (2008-04-06 14:02:58)
not a fan
Now that the tournament has been cancelled, I have a couple of comments regarding what was the proposed format of 6 rounds of 30 + 10 in one day.
Players on here previously objected to this type of 'fast' time control as
it gave too much advantage to engine only players over freestylers. This point was also discussed heavily when 45 + 5 was used in a playchess freestyle tournament.
I will not be participating again in a tournament under this time control when for me play starts at 9pm and will finish at about 7am with 6 rounds in one sitting.
I would find it much easier to play one round per day at 90 + 30 over a few days, with play starting at 1300 server time.
While this may seem like a big commitment, I would think that more players can make a few hours commitment each day, than a 12 hour or so commitment on one day. Especially when trying to run a tournament across 24 time zones.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-04-06 18:06:20)
time control
Once more, you are probably right about time controls.. just tried, but anyway, no formula will fit to everyone :( .. IMO the main points are the site has to improve yet and we need more players, then things should follow. Of course, feel free to make suggestions...
Two points :
- I just wonder if an 'open' waiting list is ok for such a tournament : Maybe players shouldn't be able to see the players who already entered the waiting list (cause of course everyone may wait to see who registered before to register...)
- Following some improvements, bronze games may become free soon. More players could familiarize with short time controls.
What do you think ?
Garvin Gray (2008-04-07 12:47:43)
freestyle
- I just wonder if an 'open' waiting list is ok for such a tournament : Maybe players shouldn't be able to see the players who already entered the waiting list (cause of course everyone may wait to see who registered before to register...)
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I would not recommend denying access to the waiting list. The reason is two fold:
1) Players will be regularly asking, who is playing and how many entrants so far? If these questions are not answered, then it either looks like there is something to hide or that the tournament is not going well.
2) It will just increase your work load of answering more questions.
- Following some improvements, bronze games may become free soon. More players could familiarize with short time controls.
It might be an idea to try the next freestyle tournament as a free entry tournament with the one game per day/long time control idea.
As for the bronze games being free, a trial period has already been offered and success has been limited. This gave everyone a chance to familiarise themselves with how the timed games operated. I do not think many players took this up.
As for paying for competitions, the payment options must become a lot more simple and obvious.
A simple paypal option would probably be best.
From my otb organisational experience, even offering a bank deposit option is beyond some players. And this is in competitions where the players know the organiser in person.
Lincoln Tomlin (2008-04-07 13:07:31)
...
Hi Julien. Each cycle requires that you play at least 9 games otherwise you will have an 'estimated' rating. This could prevent you entering certain tournaments for another couple of months because of games hanging in the air through no fault of your own. Yes, it should be a friendly game and people leaving games hanging is not really solveable. However, games that have checkmate positions when the ratings are calculated every 2 months should automatically be ended, imo.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-04-12 02:30:13)
freestyle
"It might be an idea to try the next freestyle tournament as a free entry tournament with the one game per day/long time control idea."
It might be... I'll think aout the other points too. Thanks for sharing your views, Garvin. (also there's a paypal option too)
Garvin Gray (2008-04-15 11:46:49)
otb v iccf ratings
To add a bit more to Andrew's answer.
While ICCF is fide recognised?, it does not mean an online player can turn up to an over the board tournament and use that ICCF rating or ICCF title in an otb tournament.
Only ratings attained over the board can be used for other otb tournaments.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-04-19 08:20:38)
Alberto Guecci
I see Alberto has got into the round robin final of the 8th Freestyle chess tournament under the name Spaghetti chess - congratulations Alberto and best of luck in the final which is showing on the Playchess server on April 25-27th
Garvin Gray (2008-04-19 14:46:19)
bad file, anyone do better.
Does someone have the games from the latest qualifying section of the freestyle tournament?
The chessbase file is corrupt.
Benjamin Block (2008-04-21 15:29:49)
Free rated tournament on iccf!
Now you can play free in the 3rd WebChess Open Tournament.
A.Players without ICCF ID or,
B.Players with ICCF ID but who never played a rated game in the past.
Read more here. http://www.iccf-webchess.com/Message.aspx?message=210
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-01 13:42:03)
time controls
The server is accessed on the site, you can tick the box on log in and then your password will come up automatically, once in you go to waiting lists and enter a tournament that your starting rating permits, the time controls are described under the categories (world championship is the same as the rapid time control), check the my games to see when you have games click on the game and you can play with the server keeping all the records. Hope that helps
Marc Lacrosse (2008-05-01 18:03:17)
to Andrew
"I don't se much benefit to letting the computer think for hours frankly wants it gets to 20 + ply. There all sorts of horizons in positions that letting the computer run for a year wont sort out."
There are other ways to use engines than letting simply one of them run for hours.
You may interactively walk along the various branches of the tree going from current position with one or several engines running.
You may also have engines playing some kind of test matches against each other from the current position or from any critical position that you identify along the possible continuations.
You can use Rybka randomizer against itself or against other engines for more exhaustive evaluation through test games
And so on ...
"Marc why are you playing this c3 stuff against the sicilian with such great kit? You play the same openings all the time and I thought it was because you had not much time!!!"
1. I never played this disreputed c3 stuff against the 2..d6 sicilian (with or without the 4.Be2 pawn offer) before january 2008 in my 140+ former serious correspondence games
Indeed I did choose it because I erroneously enrolled in three new tournaments simultaneously and I feared to miss time for serious analysis due to heavy workload at that time.
Results are a bit disappointing with it : five draws so far and two unfinished games that I should win (one win is sure and the other one is probable).
This should lead to a 64% result and a 2333 elo performance. Not shining but not that bad insn't it ?
2. I like playing unorthodox openings in correspondence play.
I do not see any interest in beginning my games with 30 moves of overanalysed theory.
Most often I decide for a side variation and I do play it in as many games as possible simultaneously : I do the analysis job once for all while being fully "in the mood" of a similar set of positions.
Then I change for something else
I won't probably ever play any more game with the line I played against you.
3. An exception is the Basman-Sale Sicilian (2..e6 4..Bc5).
I like it a lot and even have a web site devoted to it (http://chessbazaar.mlweb.info/basmansale/index.html)
I am in a running series of more than twenty corr. games without a single loss with it and decided not to stop using it until defeat happens
I probably analysed it more than anybody : I have several thousands of analysed lines in my files.
I am just busy to consider switching to something more agressive for cases where I need to play for a win as Black.
Regards
Marc
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2008-05-02 01:31:20)
Test matches ....
Hi, I use ARENA, a free user interface compatible with most chess engines. With it is possible to organize matches and tournaments between engines.
Marc Lacrosse (2008-05-03 23:12:54)
How fast ...
My main computer is a Q6600 quad running at 3.650 Ghz for overnight tournaments/ analyses (I had it running faster but not stable for long runs).
Marc
Jason Repa (2008-05-04 07:45:33)
From??
I agree with most of what you said, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to conclude that all variations of the From's Gambit are busted. We might end up finding out that some variations of it are fine for Black.
I also disagree with your statement that "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". Assuming I'm willing to hypothetically go along with the argument that there's supposedly something "wrong" with 1.f4, even though it's at worst a Dutch Defense a move up......you're not taking into consideration the fact that some people actually do more than "play" correspondence chess and want to practice lines they play in live tournaments. 1.f4 has been played by many of the world's greatest players, and in serious competitive tournaments. Fischer, Kasparov, Lasker, and many others have played 1.f4 occasionally, and there are many current IM's and even a GM (Henrik Danielsen) who have played it quite frequently.
Perhaps your idea of "playing chess" is to simply plug a position into various chess engines and mindlessly relay the moves your program suggests, but as for myself, I use the data I acquire from my cc games to prepare for my real chess (chess between human mind vs human mind). Anything other than that is just analysis or group study at best.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-05 12:50:53)
From here to eternity
Yes there might be some variations that are survivable especially OTB but at cc its tough to give up a pawn so early on. I think f4 is a perfectly ok first move (like b4) I just think it does not give any prospect of an opening advantage at cc because there is no surprise value and the black player has the time to research and find a response that equalises fairly quickly. That is why very few GM's have F4 as a main white weapon - it does not give enough prospects for an advantage - at the highest levels. Please note that qualification. I quite agree real chess is between people in real time and cc is a form of research competition. Getting experience for real world chess is a great reason to play a line at cc. There are exceptions OTB I often play the exchange french and have had good success (played by Kasparov Tal Morphy and others) I would not play it at cc though! In fact OTB I always play e4 but at cc gave it up because I see no way to get any adavantage against the caro kahn. Just relaying the moves the computer suggests does not, I think, give much chance of success against good players at cc.
As for the From I do not believe in g5 white has to avoid the tricks and develop and is a pawn up. Not so easy otb!! - but at cc not so much of a problem. As for Nc6 yes I was talking about this move after 5 g3 and you are probably right I will try to look at the game you gave and do some analysis. As for the Mestel variation I thought black would get the pawn back unless e3 and d4 are played but again that was based on a quick look. Anyway perhaps the thematic tournament wil provide some answers.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-06 15:01:06)
A bird in the hand
I think comparing f4 to b4 is quite reasonable - they are both off beat openings. On the question of chess knowledge I do not know how much he knows about b4? It can also be a dangerous practical weapon and can pose the black player more problems than f4. It is played by serious professional chess players in tournaments eg GM Christian Bauer (2626) has played it several times successfully this year and quite a few IM's regularly play it with success.
Now to comparing rating sizes something I confess to not having done since I was in short trousers. My current rating is 2225 with a future rating of 2247 but with 2 rapid games in the pipe line this should be a future rating of 2300 + shortly lets see. Mr Repas rating is 2281 with a future rating at the moment of 2316. How significant is that? Well I had the opportunity to look at his games to see what his rating is made up of. 10 of his wins have come against the same opponent Sandor Porkolab and in 7 of these Mr Porkolab abandoned the games in level, drawn or in some cases better position for him. Given that in these "wins" he was often rated over 2100 or in one case over 2200 this has boosted Mr Repa's rating significantly. He has not so far had much success in WCC not having got past stage 2.
As reference to my loss was made I can say that this was in a variation (the Prins of the sicilian) that I believe is unsound. Actually I overstepped the time limit while on vacation although I think the game could not be saved I learnt my lesson and do not play dodgy openings any more.
I have never on the other hand been busted after 17 moves in a main line opening at cc as sadly Mr Repa found himslef against Bucsa Loan (Game 1249),then rated 1700. Then again I have stopped trusting the books and analyse for myself.
Still less could I imagine being lost in a cc game after 16 moves in an exchange French (by tranposition) An instructive loss to Torsten Opas ( game 4388)- won with simple developing moves - worth playing over. Incidentally proves what I was saying about the exchange french it can be dangerous - although not of course, at cc.
Finally there is Mr Repa's pet Bird shot down by Mr Kotlyansky in the approved way as follows 1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 g6 3 e3 g7 4 Be2 Nf6 5 0-0 0-0 6 d4 c5 7 dxc5 Qc7 and Black was fine winning in 72 moves. Never having lost with f4 did not include this because I suppose it was a bullet bronze game.
I am afraid I am naive enough to think that people play chess on the server to win and increase their rating - clearly there are people who play to learn and strengthen their game and for whom results and rating are secondary. No doubt such people would not be interested in anything so vulgar as comparing ratings. Neverthe less its all just opinion and we are all free to express it within the rules of the server. So: f4 is a waste of time at cc little more than an invitation to draw and the From is unsound and almost like resigning.
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 06:46:43)
Bird Brain loses in 33 moves!
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the behavior of this lowlife. After all, I beat him in chess and beat him in debate. I also caught him RED-HANDED telling lies and exposed him for what he is. What else is a sniveling coward to do but dig up old flame wars on the internet from four years ago, that have not an iota of relevance to any of the topics being discussed here. I bet his parents are real proud of him, LOL!
"Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4"
Another typical tactic from a chronic liar....to change the very premise of what was being argued. I'll refresh your memory since you don't have the mental capability of remembering your own words. The statement you made was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". That is what I contested. I never disputed that there is some weakening of the kingside involved here. But some weakening of the kingside doesn't mean it's a poor opening choice. You're trying to win an argument with lies and misrepresentation. Try being honest and sticking to the facts for once in your life.
My otb tournament rating is currently 2010, but my active rating is not anywhere near what you're suggesting. I'm actually much stronger in both 30 minute active and blitz chess. I won more blitz tournaments in 2007 AND 2008 than anyone else in my region, ahead of 2 FM's. And my performance in active events is in the mid 2100's based on all the otb active events I've played in over the last 5 years.
In the region I play in we don't have many active events. So I've only played in 2 that were rated, and that was over a decade ago. The provisional ratings used were far below what everyone was worth (not just me). We had a strong FM who was competing at 1800 and change, while both his FIDE and national rating were in the neighborhood of 2300. Stranger things have happened in small clubs.
Did anyone notice how the coward won't discuss what HIS national otb rating is? We don't hear a word from him about that. Very telling indeed!
Then the little weasel reposts a game that he already posted in this thread earlier. Could it be that the poor loser whom I CRUSHED in chess, has run out of ammunition with which to compensate for the fact that he lost to me? I've lost 6 games, drew 59 and won 117 on FICGS, including the beating I gave to you. I beat you EASILY and I'm HIGHER RATED than you. Keep crying about that. Its entertaining.
Again, crybaby, if 1.f4 is a waste at cc, why did I gain rating points here playing 1.f4. And why did I beat you so easily at chess? I think I proved on the chess board, that you don't know what you're talking about. All you have is lies, slander, and random usenet group flame wars from 4 years ago. I have FACTS:
I BEAT YOU IN CHESS AND I'M HIGHER RATED THAN YOU ARE.
""Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny "
You're copying and pasting the same nonsense you posted earlier. Did you even read the words you typed? You're saying "look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as Black", as if he's the one who lost. Then You switch it around and suggest that Evgeny Alexseev was White and say that he played 9.g4. Are you pretending to be this stupid or is this really how you are? As I said earlier, you're probably making the whole game up, or at least changing moves around, etc, because it doesn't appear anywhere that I could find, and you're still not bright enough to figure out how to post the whole game as you were asked to do earlier. It's a pretty sad state of affairs of that's the ONLY game you can think of to try to smear a legitimate and recognized opening such as Bird's Opening. Whoever played White played very poorly. I spelled out for you the moves that White played that were very poor. Did I use any words too complex for you to understand?
" 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly"
This is also pure nonsense. There are MANY strong GM's (and super GM's)who haved played 1.f4 in serious games. GM Henrik Danielsen used it as a MAIN MOVE for many years also.
Keep posting lies, slander, and irrelevant 4 year old flame wars from the internet little man. I defeated you in chess and in debate. I proved that what you said is pure nonsense. All you have is hot air!
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 06:57:07)
Bird Brain loses in 33 moves!
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the behavior of this lowlife. After all, I beat him in chess and beat him in debate. I also caught him RED-HANDED telling lies and exposed him for what he is. What else is a sniveling coward to do but dig up old flame wars on the internet from four years ago, that have not an iota of relevance to any of the topics being discussed here. I bet his parents are real proud of him, LOL!
"Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4"
Another typical tactic from a chronic liar....to change the very premise of what was being argued. I'll refresh your memory since you don't have the mental capability of remembering your own words. The statement you made was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". That is what I contested. I never disputed that there is some weakening of the kingside involved here. But some weakening of the kingside doesn't mean it's a poor opening choice. You're trying to win an argument with lies and misrepresentation. Try being honest and sticking to the facts for once in your life.
My otb tournament rating is currently 2010, but my active rating is not anywhere near what you're suggesting. I'm actually much stronger in both 30 minute active and blitz chess. I won more blitz tournaments in 2007 AND 2008 than anyone else in my region, ahead of 2 FM's. And my performance in active events is in the mid 2100's based on all the otb active events I've played in over the last 5 years.
In the region I play in we don't have many active events. So I've only played in 2 that were rated, and that was over a decade ago. The provisional ratings used were far below what everyone was worth (not just me). We had a strong FM who was competing at 1800 and change, while both his FIDE and national rating were in the neighborhood of 2300. Stranger things have happened in small clubs.
Did anyone notice how the coward won't discuss what HIS national otb rating is? We don't hear a word from him about that. Very telling indeed!
Then the little weasel reposts a game that he already posted in this thread earlier. Could it be that the poor loser whom I CRUSHED in chess, has run out of ammunition with which to compensate for the fact that he lost to me? I've lost 6 games, drew 59 and won 117 on FICGS, including the beating I gave to you. I beat you EASILY and I'm HIGHER RATED than you. Keep crying about that. Its entertaining.
Again, crybaby, if 1.f4 is a waste at cc, why did I gain rating points here playing 1.f4. And why did I beat you so easily at chess? I think I proved on the chess board, that you don't know what you're talking about. All you have is lies, slander, and random usenet group flame wars from 4 years ago. I have FACTS:
I BEAT YOU IN CHESS AND I'M HIGHER RATED THAN YOU ARE.
""Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny "
You're copying and pasting the same nonsense you posted earlier. Did you even read the words you typed? You're saying "look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as Black", as if he's the one who lost. Then You switch it around and suggest that Evgeny Alexseev was White and say that he played 9.g4. Are you pretending to be this stupid or is this really how you are? As I said earlier, you're probably making the whole game up, or at least changing moves around, etc, because it doesn't appear anywhere that I could find, and you're still not bright enough to figure out how to post the whole game as you were asked to do earlier. It's a pretty sad state of affairs of that's the ONLY game you can think of to try to smear a legitimate and recognized opening such as Bird's Opening. Whoever played White played very poorly. I spelled out for you the moves that White played that were very poor. Did I use any words too complex for you to understand?
" 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly"
This is also pure nonsense. There are MANY strong GM's (and super GM's)who haved played 1.f4 in serious games. GM Henrik Danielsen used it as a MAIN MOVE for many years also.
Keep posting lies, slander, and irrelevant 4 year old flame wars from the internet little man. I defeated you in chess and in debate. I proved that what you said is pure nonsense. All you have is hot air!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-08 20:29:35)
Rating calculation & categories
Hello to all, I think it is a good time to gather feedbacks about chess (& Go) rating calculation and tournament categories. A player reported to me it was very difficult for a 2200-2400 player to reach the 2400 mark. Now we have a 2300+ rapid category, it may help but it is not very popular yet...
All feedbacks welcome :)
Best wishes, Thibault
Jason Repa (2008-05-12 01:14:13)
Rating changes
Could you write a script that removes players whose rating falls below the requirements before the tournament starts? It doesn't seem fair that a 2100 player should be playing in a tournament intended for 2200-2600 players.
Don Groves (2008-05-12 03:26:14)
Rating changes
I disagree. The rule has always been that TER (tournament entry rating) is what counts. I vote to keep it that way. Sometimes tournaments can wait weeks before starting and I don't think anyone should be penalized for losing a game while waiting.
Jason Repa (2008-05-12 10:14:41)
Rating changes
1) There was never a "rule" stating that a player has carte blanche to drop as many rating points as they want and still enter a tournament for which they do not meet the rating criterion.
2) Thibault has already manually removed players from rating lists for this reason. Nobody is being "penalized" except the players who are legitimately qualified to play in that category and who must play with the lower category player. The rating average is being erroneously brought down. The player who's rating was lowered is free to enter the correct waiting list for which his rating qualifies.
3) Your "C" class rating category is hardly comparable to the "M" class category where this has been an issue, so your opinion, even if it did have a shred of merit, which I proved it doesn't, is moot anyway.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-12 14:40:08)
Rating changes
"11. 1. Netiquette
(...) No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden (...). In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private."
Don the more I think about it the more I think your view is correct there is no need to make the drastic change that was proposed. I have a current rating of 2225 and future rating of 2247 but have no problem with a person whose rating falls after they enter a 2200 tournament I am in. However it would be good to get other players views as this proposed change would affect players of all levels.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2008-05-12 20:02:28)
Rating changes
Hello to all,
I think a player should be removed from the waiting list if his rating is out of the restriction of the tournament.
In my opinion TER means the rating at the start of the tournament not at the entry into the waiting list. If the tournament starts the current rating is used as TER.
For example in FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000015
the games with Jason (!) and Sandor were rated with 2174 and 2147 and not with >= 2200 (their ratings when they entered the waiting list).
No words in the rules about this theme?
Best, Heinz-Georg
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-12 20:43:04)
Rating changes, TER
About TER, it is fair IMO that a player who entered a waiting list with ie. a 2200+ rating can play the 2200+ tournament even if his rating decreases before it starts. There will be no change (it would have too many other bad consequences anyway).
Jason Repa (2008-05-12 21:42:44)
Rating changes
Nice of you to quote the one single solitary "M" class tournament that I was a few points short of 2200, out of the 7 such tournaments that I've played in, Mr. Lehnhoff, But my point stands. I would have had no problem waiting one more rating cycle back then if the rules were such to maintain the integrity of the rating categories.
As for the provocation that's going on here....It's amazing the lengths someone will go to for petty "revenge" after you beat them in chess.
Also, there is no point in quoting a "future rating" if you're not taking into consideration your losing games, some of which may end before the next rating cycle begins, that may indeed put someone under 2200.
Hannes Rada (2008-05-13 23:53:25)
childish and offtopic
After posting No. 4 this thread becomes a childish and offtopic guerilla battle ....
< It doesn't seem fair that a 2100
< player should be playing in a
< tournament intended for 2200-2600
< players
Are you afraid of losing so important FICGS - Elos when you have to play against lower rated opponents ??
If you want to play correspondence chess at top level than you have to sign up at ICCF.
Hannes Rada (2008-05-14 20:10:41)
Jason's query
Jason, I gave up OTB chess some 20 years ago. So I have no OTB rating (anymore)
Playing in my chessclub was not and ist not compatible with my working hours.
CC is perfect for me. Analyzing and making move later in the evening when I am returning from work, or whenever I can find time.
It's wise to play the strongest possible opponents.
But cc rating does not implicitly say anything about chess strength.
Too many variables may influence the players chess abilities.
(Too many games at the same time, lack of motivation, ....)
On the other side an ambitious 1800 Elo newcomer can sometimes more dangerous than an "old" CC-GM.
FICGS is quite a nice community.
Here you have the chance to raise your rating and play against the higher rated players pretty soon compared with ICCF.
But your "strong opponent experience" will end here around 2500 - 2550.
Raising your rating in ICCF takes much more time (because tournaments are slower) but when you've established yourselve at a certain level than you have the chance to play the > 2700 guys like van Osteroom & Co :-)
But at this level correspondence chess is no fun anymore. I've talked to GM Peter Hertel from Germany several years ago and he told me that he had to analyze and work on his cc - chess positions around 10 hours per day to compete at this level ....
if you are retired or jobless and a billionaire (van Osteroom) than you have the best chances of winning an ICCF championship final .... :-)
Do you think the playing cc helps to improve your otb abilities ?
I've talked to several players regarding this issue and I received different answers.
From: Yes I benefit from my cc-opening experience
To: No, these are absolutely different stories.
OTB requires the abilites to calculate deeplines correctly and to maintain concentration for a couple of hours.
All things which are absolutely not necessary for cc.
My experience for the short time frame when I played both otb + cc is that for the purpose of improving the otb abilities it would have been better to study chess books and solving tactical exercises than playing cc.
Jason Repa (2008-05-14 21:31:38)
corr. & otb
"But cc rating does not implicitly say anything about chess strength."
I disagree. But first be clear that I'm talking about correspondence chess strength. I never said that corr. chess strength has a 1 to 1 relationship with otb chess strength. I know too many guys who are better corr. players than me that I could mop the floor with at any time control in a live chess game.
But having said that, I believe that people have high corr. ratings for a reason. At a minimum they're good at employing interactive chess engine research and have good updated databases. I think overall chess knowledge and judgment are factors as well. Stronger chess moves win more games. Yes, I understand that sometimes an ambitious 1800 can beat a higher rated opponent, on occasion, but it's overall results that are important, not anomalies. The same is true otb. Sometimes experts and national masters beat GMs. That doesn't mean they're a stronger chess player than the GM.
"Do you think the playing cc helps to improve your otb abilities?"
I'm not surprised you're getting differing stories. Like anything else, it depends on how you use the experience and of course on your individual aptitude. Some people will just memorize the opening theory they learn from corr. chess, if that. Others will do much more with those games, such as developing technique, increasing their strategic knowledge, learn more endgame theory, etc. I think it is without question that corr. chess can have great benefits for your otb chess game, if used properly. Just being forced to comb through opening books and game databases alone is useful.
"OTB requires the abilities to calculate deeplines correctly and to maintain concentration for a couple of hours"
I agree that the ability to concentrate well is important for otb chess, but I think you're overvaluing calculation. The reality is that otb is all about COMPETITION. It's a mental fight. I know guys are are great analysts, and with the right hardware/software would probably be great corr. players, but they don't handle the pressures and stresses that go along with competition very well. Judgment and competence, especially while under stress and duress, are of the utmost importance in otb. You can calculate as deeply as you want, but if you're expending energy calculating lines that you should have rejected, or mismanaging your time by thinking too deeply in a spot where it's not necessary, you won't get good results in otb.
I don't have any desire to try to get anywhere near 2700 level in corr. chess. And I agree with your analysis that it would not be fun anymore and become a huge drain of time sitting behind the computer. Perhaps not unlike what a professional chess player has to go through in order to prepare for their tournaments, with the chief exception that the professional chess player gets paid for such a sacrifice.
"...for the purpose of improving the otb abilities it would have been better to study chess books and solving tactical exercises than playing cc."
I don't see why these things have to be mutually exclusive. For me I get more motivated to study my chess books and look through my databases when the positions occur in games. I also think about what I'm doing and analyze the positions using my own mind when I play corr. chess. Maybe that's not the case for everyone, but it is for me. As for tactics, I think blitz/bullet against strong opponents can be very useful for developing that.
Wayne Lowrance (2008-05-15 19:45:42)
Rating calculation
Hello all. I have been reading the discussions here and did not intend to add my t hought. But I guess I am anyhow.
Chess is about having fun, making new friends, competing with your peers, last but not least improving your skill.
I am playing in several M tournaments, a couple have players whose ratings have dropped below 2200. This not a problem for me. I think they should be allowed to play. With respect
Wayne
Lincoln Tomlin (2008-05-17 19:07:03)
Don, Thibault, Jason...
Thanks. I usually do make a habit of copying to the clipboard before hitting any butons but, well, you know that ONE time you forget etc. :)
Not to worry. I just wanted to add what a powerful study tool FICGS can be in analysing structures, plans and ideas in openings for your OTB repertoire. I really think that this form of chess is undervalued in really trying to get an understanding of target middle and endgame positions for use in club and tournament play. I use a lowly 1.7Ghz Celeron based laptop and Chessbase along with an older version of a 'weaker' (not telling which) engine for checking line and ideas but mainly try for lines that I want to head for in games against humans. Unless they prove to be truly disastrous of course. 8|
Ilmars Cirulis (2008-05-18 12:58:25)
One more...
What about seeing score of white and black in thematic tournaments?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-19 06:35:14)
Major update (may 2008)
Hello to all, a new update including :
- Regular tournaments with prizes (see thread "Free tournaments with prizes")
- Norms, titles and prizes are now announced by email.
- Players with Epoints are shown in the connected players list (My messages).
- Affiliate links : For each new player referred by your link (see My account) posted on the world wide web, 1 Epoint will be added to your account.
- Search games function improved : You can now search games by opening and by rating (White & Black)
All feedback welcome :)
Alfonso Di Giandomenico (2015-09-08 15:00:08)
Number of tournament won
thank you :=)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-19 06:49:44)
Free tournaments with prizes
Hello to all.
You may have noticed that some free tournaments now have prizes :
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS__SM : 15 Epoints
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS__M : 5 Epoints
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS__A : 1 Epoints
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID__SM : 7 Epoints
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID__M : 2 Epoints
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID__A : 1 Epoints
FICGS__BIG_CHESS__TOURNAMENT__M : 15 Epoints
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_PRO : 45 Epoints
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_DAN : 15 Epoints
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_III : 5 Epoints
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_II : 1 Epoints
Membership and Help sections have been updated, see :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#prize
"When a player wins a free tournament with a prize in E-Points, the current prize displayed for that tournament when the winners list is updated is added to his FICGS account. Prizes may change (most probably increase) during free events at the tournament director's discretion."
Previous chess class SM winners and a few others have received these prizes already.
It is also possible to win free Epoints by posting your affiliate link (see My account) on the web. For each new player referred by this link, 1 Epoint will be added to your account.
Thanks to all, I hope prizes can grow in the near future, also for the WCH cycles :)
Best wishes, Thibault
Marc Lacrosse (2008-05-19 11:00:52)
Feature suggestion
A little suggestion :
When going on a tournament page it would be nice to have a list of the most recently finished games ordered by inverse chronological order so that it would be easyer to see at aglance what happened recently.
In the present state it's difficult to guess what happened since last visit.
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-19 17:05:27)
Class GM
Hi Benjamin, I can't provide a 45 Epoints prize for 2500+ free tournaments at the moment and we still need more 2400+ players to start class SM tournaments, so class GM is still like closed at the moment.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-20 00:19:42)
Prizes updated
Prizes for tournaments with entry fee have been updated (increased, now typically 99% E-Points per game).
Benjamin Block (2008-05-22 16:03:24)
Understand right?
If i win a free prize tournament i get E-points. But if i want money i need to play in silver or gold tournaments?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-22 16:06:51)
Understand right
That's right. One win in silver/gold tournaments and you may ask for a money prize.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-24 16:36:19)
Tournament winner in WCH
This is true in WCH round-robin tournaments only !
I explained why I've chosen this rule in previous threads, ie. :
>>
As you noticed, rating is quite important in FICGS world championship cycle (particularly established ratings, obtained from IECG / ICCF or after 9 games finished in FICGS) !
I think these rules are really the best choice in order to designate a world champion. It's more logical IMO to favour players who obtained previously the best results at FICGS and recognized organizations, and consequently a high rating. It takes time, of course. Even very strong players starting with a 1700 rating won't achieve a 2300 established rating before months !
Criterias in FICGS wch are (from most important to least) :
1) Winner of the previous cycle (qualify for the final match)
2) The eight best established ratings (play the KO tournament)
3) Points obtained in the wch tournaments
4) The tournament entry rating (TER)
<<
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-26 17:37:24)
Provisional rating
"Some players just take a very low rating even if they have a real high", well that's a quite strange choice but at least it helps to start tournaments quickly :)
Mik Kris (2008-05-27 19:51:18)
Thanks for the quick response
I am sorry I did not think my original idea it all the way
And forgat my manners for a moment there
I wold like to thank you for building this great site and this opportunity for me to meet many intersting people
Yes I wold like to be able to challenge some one for a simple rank game without starting a tournament
one more thing might be nice is to get an "are youre ready to play" message before a game in a bullet or lightning tournament
Wayne Lowrance (2008-06-02 18:54:39)
Rapid chess entry rating
I sure do not like the entry 2100-2300. I guarantee you, I will not enter here, and I doubt that any other mid 2200 player will enter either, It is a opportunity bracket for 2100 players. It is not easy I know to managed rating requirements for tournaments. But the proper bracket for the 2300 entry tourney should be 2200-2400. That is my opinion. So it the rating entry of 2100-2300 will attract 2100 players for the most part, a great opportunity for them to advance and a darn good chance that a 2200+ player to loose points (guaranteed) cause rybka prevails, in the hands of a 2100 Player. Bravo Rybka !
With respect
Wayne
Garvin Gray (2008-06-02 19:19:13)
Open entry tournament
Hello Thibault,
Have been thinking for a while that it might be an idea to set up a tournament where everyone enters and then groups are decided strictly in rating order.
So the top nine? players in rating order play each other, followed by the next nine and so forth.
Have been thinking that this might be worth a try to alleviate the issue of players not entering a waiting list when they are just under the rating cut off.
Advantages:
1) Players will get to play against a full field of similarly rated players
2) Players will not know ahead of time where they will be in the nine player division, so hopefully they will not avoid entering because they are just under the rating cut off.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-06-02 21:03:24)
Leagues ?
If this tournament is a multi-stage one, I suppose it looks like the leagues(?) system (kind of championship like in soccer), where the 2 top players in each tournament could replace 2 players in the tournament above :/
Disadvantages:
1) Players will not know which division they'll play.
2) Harder to organize automatically.
Interesting to discuss anyway !
Jason Repa (2008-06-03 02:47:02)
Poker
Poker is not really poker without a monetary wager, similar to backgammon.
Unlike chess or snooker, where a brilliantly played game can be satisfaction enough, the entire point of poker is to win money (cash game) or accumulate chips (tournament) by hook or by crook. Achieving this in practice has much more to do with exploiting mistakes and emotional weaknesses in your opponents than doing anything "brilliant".
As for "Play money" poker, it's for bored housewives and people who have too much free time on their hands. These are the same people who kill time by playing solitaire.
Wayne Lowrance (2008-06-03 03:56:21)
Entry Rating
Okey Dokey Gavin, your right of course. I just feel like fewer players are inflicted with this misery at 2200-2400. I guess I am biased tho. I forsee that for me reaching 2300 will be almost impossible with the new bracket...I am in several tournaments at the previous bracket rating system, my hope is I can make it in this way, just dunno
Thank you
Wayne
Garvin Gray (2008-06-03 15:06:41)
One division or maybe league play.
Mine was just a one tournament suggestion as a trial and did not envisage any kind of league concept. Thought it might help with the rating entry problems talked about in many threads.
But that has potential too. I thought this was worth a go as a single tournament ie no leagues.
If it succeeds and is popular, then it can go from there. If it fails, so be it, it just disappears into the ether like all other dud ideas.
Arnab Sengupta (2008-06-03 19:44:12)
team chess
Hey Thibault why dont we try a team chess tournament?
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 20:56:31)
Poker
I don't "think" 1300 is a mediocre Go rating, any more than I "think" 1600 is a mediocre chess rating. But a guy like you is used to being below average at the things you do, so I guess you're comfortable with that.
I've proven myself for years at live OTB chess with no computer assistance whatsoever little guy. You're only making a fool of yourself with such comments. I'm in the top 1% of all tournament chess players in my province at slow chess. And I'm a several time provincial champion at blitz chess.
Did I use any words too complex for you to understand in my previous post? I tried to explain to you what goes into making poker decisions, in the way a 4 year old should be able to understand. Was I overly optimistic?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-06-05 01:31:43)
Top players in Wch 5
Hi Marc,
It is possible that some 2400+ players wait until the deadline before to entry the waiting list to know if they will play the knockout or the round-robin tournament, just as before I think. Anyway, I assume that most 2300+ players have running games and wait to know if they'll be able to manage some more games.
Best, Thibault
Don Groves (2008-06-09 06:47:09)
Brackets - both Chess and Go
In response to Garvin Gray's first response in this thread: There is a way around the problem of being stuck at a certain rating because you never get to play against higher rated players (which is necessary to move up) -- allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification regardless of his/her rating. This is done on at least one site already (IECG, if I recall correctly). If the player in question does not improve his/her rating enough to stay at the higher level, he/she drops back into the lower classification. Thibault would have to agree to allow this of course. I think it's a good way to reward the winner of a tournament.
Jason Repa (2008-06-09 08:12:28)
Brackets - both Chess and Go
" -- allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification regardless of his/her rating."
This idea seems interesting, on the surface, but on closer inspection it's not feasible. The FICGS tournament categories are dependent on certain rating averages that determine the level of points required in order to achieve norms for various FICGS titles, starting at class "M" and higher. Throwing in lower rated players would dilute the rating average of the entire tournament. It's also unfair to the rest of the players in that tournament who are legitimately qualified to be there. They are forced to play a lower rated opponent artificially and now THEY are at a big disadvantage in their attempt to gain the points required to get to the next level.
Additionally, I don't think groves thought about this long enough to realize that there is no guarantee that each "A" level tournament will end precisely as each "M" level tournament does. What if two "A" level events are completed in the time it takes for one "M" level event to finish, which isn't an unreasonable possibility as the "M" level players generally take the game more seriously and tend to use their time more? Should we then throw in TWO players into an "M" level event that don't deserve to be there? At any rate, it's a poor idea. If someone is winning tournaments, they're definitely gaining rating points and will qualify legitimately for the next rating level soon enough.
Don Groves (2008-06-09 09:01:24)
Brackets - Chess and Go
Thanks for your reasoned response, Jason. I'll answer your points in order:
(1) Having one lower rated player in a group of seven does not seem to me to be much of a dilution. Also, remember that this player is at or very near the top of the next lower rated group, and again, this doesn't seem like a large enough disparity to be of concern. (2) The other players in the group will have five other opponents rated within the group's normal limits and thus will have plenty of opportunity for their own advancement by winning a majority of those games. Remember also that Thibault instituted a rule that losing to a lower rated player only counts as a loss to someone a maximum of 150 ELO below. So, losing a game to this one player will not constitute a disaster to anyone's rating. (3) The new rule could easily specify that no more than one lower rated player may enter any given tournament. (4) Your point here is simply not true in general. In my own case, I'm the highest rated player in a current Go tournament. Even if I win every game, my rating will improve at most from 8 kyu to 7 kyu. The next cutoff point is 5 kyu and there's no way I can reach that level without playing against higher rated players.
Jason Repa (2008-06-09 11:05:13)
Brackets - Chess and Go
"Thanks for your reasoned response"
Somehow I don't think you know the meaning of the word "reason", groves.
"(1) Having one lower rated player in a group of seven does not seem to me to be much of a dilution"
It is very much a dilution. As I just finished explaining to you, it will not only make it more difficult for the other players in the tournament who legitimately qualify to be there by rating, to acquire the rating points necessary to get to the next level, but it will lower the overall rating average and effect the awarding of norms.
"Also, remember that this player is at or very near the top of the next lower rated group"
Total rubbish. You just finished saying, in your previous post, that you propose to allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification REGARDLESS of his/her rating. There is no certainty that the winner of the tournament will be near the top of the next lower rated group. They could very well be at the bottom of the next lower rated group, as I often was, as were many others, when I won tournaments.
"and again, this doesn't seem like a large enough disparity to be of concern."
And AGAIN, As I just finished explaining to you, it will not only make it more difficult for the other players in the tournament who legitimately qualify to be there by rating, to acquire the rating points necessary to get to the next level, but it will lower the overall rating average and effect the awarding of norms.
"Thibault instituted a rule that losing to a lower rated player only counts as a loss to someone a maximum of 150 ELO below"
Where did you get the 150 ELO figure from? I was under the impression it was a 200 ELO ceiling. Not that this has any relevance in terms of supporting your position anyway.
"The new rule could easily specify that no more than one lower rated player may enter any given tournament."
I just finished explaining to you that there is no guarantee that the "M" class tournaments will end at the same time as the "A" class tournaments. Not only do "M" class players tend to take the game more seriously and move slower, but there are more "A" class players than "M" so it takes longer to fill an "M" class list, hence less "M" class tournaments are played. If you propose to have only one "A" class player sent to an "M" class tournament at a time, then you'll quickly accumulate a waiting list backlog of "A" class players waiting to be seeded into a tournament they don't legitimately qualify for, stretching for decades. The other reasons I mentioned are MORE than enough reason to ditch this suggestion. This is just gravy.
Additionally, and once again, as I just finished explaining to you, if someone is winning tournaments, they're gaining rating points and will soon be able to qualify for the new rating category through legitimate means. So there is no reason at all to provide such "handouts".
I hope I don't have to repeat myself a third time here. It seems quite silly that you don't yet understand the simple and logical truth of what has been explained to you.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-06-09 23:36:06)
Invitations
Ok, that's an interesting discussion, the idea is interesting and it has some advantages but in the other hand to limit the number of invited players from a lower rated tournament (like IECG) is a problem. My main argument remains the same : too many rules is not good.
A poll could be instructive anyway.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-06-09 23:37:39)
Alekhine's defence
Hello all,
The waiting list for the next chess thematic tournament is open : Alekhine's defence (1.e4 Nf6).
Feel free to make suggestions for the next thematic tournaments :)
Jason Repa (2008-06-10 01:03:04)
Free entry into unqualified tournaments
As for the discussion of allowing lower rated players to play in events with higher rated players after winning a tournament.....such a thing already exists. They're called FICGS Championships!
Don Groves (2008-06-10 02:09:17)
Brackets...
(1) "Somehow I don't think you know the meaning of the word 'reason', groves."
Ah, here they come -- the insults so typical of you...
(2) "Where did you get the 150 ELO figure from? I was under the impression it was a 200 ELO ceiling."
I thought I remembered 150. If that's not correct you have my sincere apology...
(3) "There is no certainty that the winner of the tournament will be near the top of the next lower rated group. They could very well be at the bottom of the next lower rated group, as I often was, as were many others, when I won tournaments."
This is true and there is a simple fix -- add the condition that, in order to qualify for the exception, the player must be within 25 ELO of the next higher classification...
(4) "I hope I don't have to repeat myself a third time here. It seems quite silly that you don't yet understand the simple and logical truth of what has been explained to you."
Poor boy! I'm so sorry I made you repeat yourself. I get the feeling though you don't really mind as you seem to love the sound of your own voice so much.
Thibault has decided this anyway and I abide by his decision. Your precious class M tournaments are safe from pollution by losers who are not yet up to your lofty standards.
You can have the last word now -- you always do anyway.
Jason Repa (2008-06-10 04:52:22)
Senility is a terrible thing
"Ah, here they come -- the insults so typical of you"
Sorry groves, but I was simply stating facts. It's difficult to find anything to say about you that you won't construe as an "insult". Everything that has spewed out of your keyboard thus far is evidence of your complete lack of reasoning ability, and very modest IQ.
"I thought I remembered 150. If that's not correct you have my sincere apology"
You "think" a lot of nonsense that isn't true, groves. This is nothing new.
"-- add the condition that, in order to qualify for the exception, the player must be within 25 ELO of the next higher classification"
I realize that with your condition you can scarcely recall your own words from moments ago, but it was YOUR idea that the player in question be seeded into the higher rating classification event REGARDLESS of their rating. So now the little light bulb went on in that melon head of yours and you now realize what I was telling you earlier....about there being no guarantee that the tournament winner is rated near the top of his classification? If you're going to change what you proposed earlier, and only allow players who are within 25 elo of the higher classification, what's the point of it? You might as well let him get the remaining 25 elo on his own and enter the higher classification event normally.
I'm so sorry I made you repeat yourself.
You're doing an awful lot of apologizing, groves. Your very existence seems to be one big apology. I'm sure quite a few people in your life have to repeat themselves, ad nauseum, for your benefit.
"You can have the last word now"
The last word should have been my previous post. As usual, you've contributed nothing of value here. Just more pathetic whining and blabbering, as per usual.
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2008-06-12 15:12:47)
More thematics ...
Also the old indian defence or janowskey indian thematic tournament would be nice, Tal used the latter occasionally. They are solid, a bit passive. I played a few times the janowskey indian and I felt like I was playing a Philidor with steroids.
Garvin Gray (2008-06-17 08:25:59)
conditional thematic tournament
I agree with this Marc and would like to see it trialled in a non rated tournament just like the thematic tournaments.
That being said, I have seen Thibault express some concerns regarding conditional move use.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-06-17 09:43:26)
Conditionals
Yes good idea. IMO no need to trial it though could be limited to rapid tournament where time saving is perhaps more important
Garvin Gray (2008-07-04 16:49:20)
norms?
Are norms available from Class M tournaments?
Marc Lacrosse (2008-07-05 19:36:23)
Qualification information ?
Because i did not realise that I had qualified for two WCh tournaments I recently enrolled for a third one and had three tournaments beginning almost simultaneously in january, which proved to be too much for me.
And now the deadline for the next Wch (005)is approaching and it just seems that i will win WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_M_01__000004.
So I am hesitating : when will Wch-004 next stage begin ?
I do not wish anymore to have more than one tournament starting almost at the same time.
More generally speaking, I wish I could get the following infos permanently updated on my "My messages" page :
* I enrolled for a tournament of type X on date Y. Presently there are already Z players enrolled for this tournament.
* I registered for championship X on date Y. this is supposed to start on date Z.
* In tournament Wch-X my present result ensures (or leaves the possibility open) that I will be qualified for next stage tournament that is supposed to begin on date Y.
Your opinion ?
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-05 21:58:53)
Qualification information
Hi Marc, next stages of previous championships will start at the same time, or a few days/weeks after, actually as soon as possible.
Your idea is interesting, not much time right now but let's see what other players think about that.
Anyway, anyone who wants to retire from the waiting list may send a message to me before the start of the tournaments.
Garvin Gray (2008-07-07 07:14:05)
NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
Thought that was the case.
So my first tournament is not eligible with a 2133 average.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-11 23:13:29)
FICGS Go championship final match
The first FICGS Go championship 5 games final match (in WCH Go 000002) just started !
Svante Carl von Erichsen (2478, 4 dan) vs. Ke Lu (2591, 5 dan)
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000002.html
Nice & instructive games to follow :)
Best of luck to both.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-13 16:39:58)
Replacement
Hi Andrew, a replacement has been done in this tournament.
Best wishes,
Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-13 16:42:36)
rating categories
Most probably true, however it helps some tournaments (class E, F, G) to start faster. I might change this later though.
Dirk Ghysens (2008-07-13 18:29:25)
Disagree
There have been several 2200-2600 tournaments in which 2400+ players have started; in one of them even two 2500+ players participated. A well-known GM started in two such tournaments.
The 2400+ category tournaments fill up very slowly; it took about nine months for the last one to start.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-13 22:57:05)
ok
Good point Dirk I had not realised that
about 2400+ tournaments nor Thibaults point about E F and G tournaments :)
You may well be right Garvin - cant remember!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-15 01:15:34)
Not luck
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=17894
Anyway a chess tournament is just like a poker championship, everything can happen, probabilities and any knowledge factor sometimes look like chance, but at the end when you watch all your games, everything takes sense... and vice versa.
Normajean Yates (2008-07-15 03:25:32)
is mirroring moves legal on ficgs?
suppose I am playing a tournament. I need only 1 point [1/2=draw,1=win]. in one game I am white. In another game I am black.
In the game where I am black, I wait for opp to move, say move w1. Then in the game where I am white, I make the move w1, then I wait for opp's reply, say b1. Now in the game where I am black I move b1. And so on..
So i am guranteed exactly 1 point (1/2+1/2 = 1 + 0 = 0+1 = 1).
Is this legal? If not, by which rule?
Thibault?
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2008-07-15 09:16:50)
Good idea!
We could use it, especially in Thematic Tournament!
Benjamin Block (2008-07-16 14:32:33)
New idea
i have think about this a long time but now i think it is time to write it down.
What do you think about make you´re own money price tournament. First you choose e-points fee 10 or 100. Then you choose how many games you want. Of course the site need to have limit so nobody take 100 games.
And you choose the highest and lowest rating you want here the site need to take a limit. And the last thing you choose the time control. Here it will be fun if we can take more time control example 30/10 days,50/10 days and 60/10 days.
What do you think?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-17 14:14:25)
New idea
BTW it may be possible in the future to choose exactly how many E-Points to play but (thinking like a lawyer, Normajean ;)) french laws are still quite hard and fuzzy. There's a difference between entering a tournament with an entry fee & money prize and betting money on a game.
To choose how many games before to decide the result may be possible but there's some work yet... About the lowest and highest rating, I may add this option in a few weeks. Finally about time control, I may add it but is it a good and necessary thing ? I'm not sure.
Thanks for discussing new ideas anyway :)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-18 17:51:09)
Rapid tournaments
Hello Olivier,
WCH and rapid tournaments time control is 30 days + 1 day / move.
BTW 1 move a week may be too slow for classical time control 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves in some cases :/
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-25 21:44:40)
Caire - Utesch
The only running games of François right now are the ones of your match, so I assume he left just before the start of the tournament... Not a real problem yet but definitely I'll have to add more informations in 'My messages' about the start of the next WCH stages.
Marc Lacrosse (2008-07-27 19:36:41)
The specifics of match play ...
Tanks to FICGS championships interesting formula I just entered Wch 005 in a quarter final 8-games match (against GM Balabaev).
This is the first time I have to play several simultaneous games against the same opponent in correspondence play.
There are interesting questions related to this unusual kind of tournament.
First of all, what kind of opening(s) should you play, and more precisely is it better to vary or to go for the same opening in several games?
Having had a look at my opponents former games I had prepared quite a few options.
As Black I decided to rely on my favorite Bc5 sicilian defence
Four identical games developped and very soon it appeared that these games should be decisive for the whole match
For long I was afraid that my opponent could come with some decisive prepared analysis leading to a 4-0 lead ...
But the opposite happened and all four games ended (draw by position repetition) before I had left my opening prep, after less than one month of play.
Thus I am left with four games where I am white
A considerable advantage IMHO ...
On this precise topic I wonder what is the opinion of top players here : is it better to be the one who vary early or should you go along your favorite analysis as long as your opponent won't diverge himself in case of match play
I have never read anything on this topic anywhere ...
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-28 00:27:32)
The specifics of match play ...
Hi Marc.
There was discussions about the 8 games match format already... and you may have seen that I used this strategy without success before with Farit as my opponent :)
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_3__000003.html
Anyway, the choice of openings and to vary the lines is a very complex (and interesting) question IMO, that depends on too many factors, so I probably may change my view in certain cases, whatever the results.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-03 12:46:18)
Round Robin qualification
Thibault looking at the WCC rules for Round Robin tournaments. It says: "If necessary, a player could be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player." This must be how Marc Lacrosse came to be in the Round Robin final for 02 as he was not in any stage 1 or stage 2 tournaments for 02. With 5 qualifiers from stage 2 and a stage 1 M winner a 7th player was needed. How did you decide which player to leave out of stage 1 M 02 and put directly in the RR final? Presumably not TER as both Brunsteins and Marius had higher TER's. This is not a problem for 03 as there will be 4 stage 2 qualifiers and 1 stage 1 M winner. Just curious:)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-03 18:56:16)
Round Robin qualification
Hi Andrew, that's right : Marc did not play round 1 & 2 in the WCH 02. As far as I can remember, Marc couldn't play round 2 in WCH 1 (he won Group 20) and due to his rating at this time - I don't remember if he entered a waiting list for replacements - I've included him in this tournament. Such a case will probably happen again if necessary.
Marc Lacrosse (2008-08-03 20:34:52)
No extra qualification required!
Hi all
To Andrew : I really did not ask for this invitation: i am already unable to face all tournaments for which I qualified.
- I just won WCH-04-group M01
- At the same time I just began to play my quarter-final match in Wch-05
- and if I am not wrong I am not far from winning WCH-03-stage2-group02 (possibly ex aequo with you)...
... so really I do not need to get extra qualifying opportunities !
Marc
PS If I remember correctly you had some critical comments on my recent opening choices. It seems that they did not work too miserably so far.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-16 12:29:32)
Questions to Xavier Pichelin
Xavier Pichelin is 1st FICGS chess champion after beating IM Gino Figlio in the first candidates final, he accepted to talk about his match, the tournament, his views around correspondence chess, chess engines and so on... The most important part may be he'll defend his title against the winner of the 2nd candidates final :)
Unfortunately, the complete interview is in french only as he doesn't speak english, but if someone finds a good translator (if possible better than Babelfish), he may post it in this thread. Thanks !
- Bonjour Xavier et tout d'abord félicitations pour ta victoire dans le match
qui t'opposait au MI (ICCF) Gino Figlio [Pérou] dans la finale des candidats. Tu
devais éviter à tout prix la nulle dans toutes les parties, finalement les noirs
t'ont porté chance, comment expliques-tu ce résultat ?
Xavier : Bonjour, merci pour les félicitations.
C'est vrai qu'en cas de nulles pour toutes les parties, le règlement indique Figlio Vainqueur en cas d'égalité avec victoire(s) et défaite(s) je remporte le match. Donc il fallait que je prenne des risques en attaquant et c'est avec les noirs que je l'ai fait car je pensais que Gino, dans ces parties, attendrait sans prendre de risques pour assurer les nulles.
- Peux-tu nous décrire la manière dont tu as abordé ce match contre Gino et
son déroulement au fur et à mesure des différentes phases du jeu ?
X : C'est assez simple, dans ce match je n'étais pas du tout favori car
avec plus de 200 points ELO FICGS en ma défaveur, et Gino titré Maître
International avec plus de 2480 point ELO ICCF, je pensais que je n'allais pas
résister sur 8 parties simultanées car sur une partie tout est possible mais
sur 8 parties... c'était pour moi un grand défi !
Pour le déroulement du jeu j'ai joué la diversité sur mes débuts avec les blancs
4 parties 4 coups différents : 1.e4 1.d4 1.c4 1.Cf3.
Gino a fait de même : 1.e4 1.d4 1.Cf3 1.Cc3.
Ce qui m'a fait douter aussi car 1.Cc3 m'a surpris, je pensais qu'il avait prévu
un début tonitruand et c'est là que je me suis dit qu'il fallait que je prenne
des risques avec les noirs. Au fur et à mesure des différentes phases du jeu
j'ai assuré les nulles des positions équilibrées pour me concacrer a deux
parties avantageuses dont une avec les blancs et une avec les noirs pour au
moins faire la différence dans une partie pour assurer la victoire.
Et en fin de compte c'est 3 victoires qui me reviennent, ce qui me paraissait
impossible étant donnée la qualité du jeu de Gino joué sur ce site pour arriver
à la finale des candidats du championnat.
- Tu as réalisé pendant le championnat un parcours sans faute, aucune
défaite à signaler, tu affiches également des statistiques stratosphériques à
78% contre une moyenne elo à près de 2200, quel est ton secret ?
X : Mon secret? Je n'ai pas de secret. Si j'avais un secret je ne le
dévoilerais pas sinon je ne gagnerais plus ! Je pense que j'ai eu un petit peu
de chance car il s'en est fallu de peu que je ne sois pas qualifié au stage 3
(robin-round final) car il y avait 3 joueurs à égalité et j'ai eu l'avantage du
classement du départ de ce tournoi comme l'indique le règlement. Quant à mes
statistiques, c'est aussi grâce aux erreurs de mes adversaires qui m'ont permis
de gagner des parties équilibrées.
- Que penses-tu du système mi-ko, mi-toutes-rondes du championnat FICGS et
de ses départages inédits lors des matchs en 8 parties ? Quelles modifications y
apporterais-tu ?
X : Très bonne question !
Le système mi-ko pour moi est un peu trop rapide car un coup par jour c'est des
heures d'analyses pour exploiter une position compliquée, ce qui est difficile
quand on à plusieurs parties en cours. Surtout quand on travaille.
C'est peut-être aussi grâce à cette cadence que mes adversaires, faute de temps,
ont fait des imprécisions sur certaines postions ou exploité mes erreurs.
Mais cette cadence a un avantage par rapport aux cadences ICCF qui est de 5
jours par coup, c'est que les parties durent 5 fois moins longtemps !
Le départage inédit des matchs en 8 parties est excellent, obliger le favori à
assurer tous les matchs nulles pour gagner ce duel et sinon
d'obtenir une victoire supplémentaire contre le challenger est un mode très bien
pensé. La modification que je pourrais y apporter est peut-être la gestion du
temps qui est rapide pour un système de jeu par serveur.
Peut-être augmenter l'horloge de départ de 15 jours, soit de commencer avec 45
jours contre 30 en ce moment. Et aussi la possibilité des prendre des vacances
uniquement sur le tournoi en cours afin de gérer les autres parties du site.
Par exemple prendre 7 jours de vacances sur un tournoi d'échecs du championnat
et pouvoir jouer un tournoi de Big Chess, de Go ou un autre tournoi
d'échecs pendant ces vacances. Pouvoir choisir une date de début de vacances à
l'avance serait également appréciable.
- Pourquoi t'être investi dans les échecs par correspondance ?
T'apportent-ils d'autres satisfactions par rapport aux échecs classiques et au
blitz ?
X : Je préfère les échecs par correspondance par rapport au temps.
Car les échecs classiques se jouent souvent le week-end, à une heure précise et
souvent en déplacement pour effectuer un tournoi.
L'avantage, pour moi, des échecs par correspondance est que je puisse me
connecter à n'importe quelle heure pour jouer mes coups, ce qui me
permet, par exemple, de faire des repas de famille le week-end et le soir tard
de jouer un coup, ce qui n'est pas possible aux échecs classiques.
- Tu as su ne pas céder à la tentation et te limiter à jouer un nombre très
raisonnable de parties sur le site tout le long du championnat, penses-tu
néanmoins que les échecs par correspondance soient addictifs et à quel point ?
Ont-ils des répercussions sur ta vie de tous les jours ?
X : Oui ! Limiter mon nombre de parties en cours est pour moi essentiel pour
essayer d'avoir des parties de qualité plutôt que de quantité.
Avoir beaucoup de parties en simultanée est quand même une chose très difficile
à gérer !
C'est peut-être la clé de ma victoire contre Figlio, j'ai regardé ses parties en
cours, il en avait pas loin de 90 sur le site de l'ICCF, cela a pu se ressentir
sur son temps d'analyse consacré à nos 8 parties sur FICGS.
Sur la vie de tous les jours les répercussions sont familiales car il est vrai
que je passe plus de temps à analyser les parties et moins temps avec ma
famille, ce qui est assez difficile pour moi.
Mais quand les résultats sont là je ne regrette pas !
- Que penses-tu de la place actuelle des moteurs d'analyse (Rybka, Shredder, Fritz et autres) dans les échecs par correspondance ? Quelles sont pour toi les
qualités complémentaires essentielles du joueur par correspondance, devenu
centaure avec la machine pour jambes ?
X : Les moteurs d'analyses dans les échecs par correspondances sont utilisés par
95% des joueurs...
Maintenant il faut s'adapter et savoir utiliser ces machines à calculer.
Car jouer simplement le meilleur coup de Rybka 3, de Fritz 12 ou Hiarcs 12 sans
réfléchir mentalement mène à la nulle si l'adversaire fait de même ou
possiblement à perdre si l'adversaire se donne la peine de réfléchir en les
utilisant également.
En sachant que lorsqu'on est dans le milieu de partie ces logiciels vous donnent
souvent 4 à 5 coups evalués de manière semblable, et c'est là qu'il faut choisir
le bon coup alors que celui-ci n'est même pas forcément cité par le moteur
d'analyse...
- Tu joues désormais au Big Chess sur le site, curiosité ou intérêt ? Que
penses-tu de cette version étrange des échecs ?
X : Par curiosité et par amusement et je pense que Rybka 3 ne joue pas encore au
Big Chess !
Cette version est quasiment inédite je ne connaissais pas cette forme de jeu
d'échecs auparavant donc celui qui a inventé ce jeu a très bien fait !
A propos c'est moi qui vous pose une question sur le Big chess... Y a t-il
possiblité de roquer avec ce jeu si oui comment? (NDLR : Non, il est impossible
de roquer au Big Chess)
- Et enfin la question que tout le monde se pose, particulièrement François et
Wolfgang qui disputent la deuxième finale des candidats, penses-tu pouvoir
défendre ton titre l'an prochain ? :)
X : Bien sûr ! Je défendrai le titre ! J'aimerais si possible savoir la date et
la cadence du match. Et je souhaite à François et Wolfgang une belle finale !
Je dois faire honneur à cette compétition qui est bien organisée !
- Le match devrait pouvoir débuter durant la première semaine de janvier 2009, la cadence sera à nouveau de 30 jours et 1 jour supplémentaire par coup.
Merci pour tes réponses, et encore bravo pour cette belle performance !
X : Merci ! Et à bientôt ! Bonne continuation à tous et bonnes parties !
Benjamin Block (2008-08-18 08:52:18)
Try to translate!
I think it is something like that?
Hello Xavier and first congratulations on your victory in the match which t'opposait the MI (ICCF) Gino Figlio [Peru] in the final candidates. You should avoid at all costs void in all parties, finally brought blacks t'ont chance, how do you explain this result?
X
avier: Hello, thank you for the congratulations. It is true that in case of zero for all parties, the regulation states Figlio winner in the event of a tie with victory (s) and defeat (s) I won the match. So I had to take risks in attacking and it is with blacks that I did it because I thought Gino, in these parts, expected without taking risks to ensure the void.
-- Can you tell us about how you approached this match against Gino and his conduct as different phases of the game?
X: It's pretty simple, in this match I was not at all favorite because with more than 200 ELO points FICGS to my disadvantage, and Gino titled Master International, with more than 2480 ELO ICCF point, I thought I n ' not resist going on 8 simultaneous games as a part everything is possible but on 8 parts ... it was for me a great challenge! In the course of the game I played diversity in my beginnings with white 4 parts 4 different strokes: 1.e4 1.d4 1.c4 1.Cf3. Gino did the same: 1.e4 1.d4 1.Cf3 1.Cc3. What made me doubt also because 1.Cc3 surprised me, I thought he had planned an early tonitruand and this is where I said that I should take risks with blacks. As the different phases of the game I assured the zero positions balanced for me concacrer deal has two parts, one with blanks and one with the black for at least make a difference in part to ensure victory. And ultimately it 3 victories me back, which seemed impossible given the quality of the game Gino played on this site to reach the final of the championship candidates.
-- You have made during a championship course without fault, no losses to report, you also posters statistics stratospheric to 78% against an average elo to about 2200, what's your secret?
X: My secret? I have no secret. If I had a secret I do not dévoilerais if I do win more! I think I got a little lucky because he is required by little I am not qualified to stage 3 (round-robin final) because there were 3 players equally and I had l 'advantage classifying the departure of this tournament as indicated by the regulation. As for my statistics, it is also thanks to the errors of my opponents who allowed me to win parts in balance.
-- What do you think the system mid-ko, semi-all-round championship FICGS and its new départages in matches in 8 parties? What changes would it be?
X: Very good question! The system mid-ko for me is a little too fast since a coup by day is overtime analyses to operate a complicated position, which is difficult when several parties in progress. Especially when you work. It is perhaps also through this pace that my opponents lack of time, made some uncertainty regarding postions or exploited my mistakes. But the pace has an advantage over the cadences ICCF which is 5 days a coup is that the parties had to 5 times less time! The départage new games to 8 parts is excellent, forcing the favorite to ensure all matches to nil win this duel and otherwise obtain an additional victory against the challenger is a very well thought out. The amendment that I could make is perhaps time management which is fast for a game system per server. Perhaps increase the clock starting 15 days, starting with 45 against 30 days at this time. And also the possibility of taking a vacation only on the tournament underway to manage other parts of the site. For example, take 7 days vacation on a chess tournament championship and be able to play a tournament Big Chess, Go or another chess tournament during the holidays. Being able to choose a start date of holidays in advance would also be appreciated.
-- Why t'être invested in correspondence chess? T'apportent there are other rewards compared to traditional chess and blitz?
X: I prefer chess match over time. For the classical chess is often play the weekend at a specific time and often on the move to make a tournament. The advantage for me, correspondence chess is that I can connect at any time to play my shots, which allows me, for example, making family meals on weekends and late at night to play a coup, which is not possible chess classics.
-- You knew not to succumb to the temptation and you only play a very reasonable number of parties on the site throughout the championship, do you think nevertheless that the correspondence chess are addictive and at what point? Did they affect your everyday life?
X: Yes! Limiting my number of games in progress is essential for me to try to have parts of quality rather than quantity. Have a lot of parts simultaneously is still something very difficult to manage! This is perhaps the key to my victory against Figlio, I watched its games in progress, it had nearly 90 on the site of the ICCF, it has been felt on his time devoted to analysis our parties on FICGS 8. On the everyday life impacts are family because it is true that I spend more time to analyze the parts and less time with my family, which is quite difficult for me. But when the results are there I do not regret!
-- What do you think about the current position of engines for analysis (Rybka, Shredder, Fritz and others) in correspondence chess? What are the qualities you complementary core player by correspondence, now centaur with the machine for legs?
X: The engines of analyses in chess matches are used by 95% of players ... Now we must adapt and learn to use these machines to calculate. Car simply play the best shot of Rybka 3, Fritz 12 or Hiarcs 12 mentally without thinking leads to zero if the opponent does the same or possibly lose if the opponent gives himself the trouble to consider using them as well. Knowing that when you're in the middle part of these programs give you often 4 to 5 strokes assessed similarly, and that is that we must choose the right time when it is not even necessarily cited by the analysis engine ...
-- You get the Big Chess now on the site, curiosity or interest? What do you think of this strange version of chess?
X: For curiosity and fun and I think Rybka 3 is not yet the Big Chess! This version is almost unprecedented I did not know this form of chess before therefore the one who invented this game was very well done! About I'm the one who asks you a question on the Big chess ... Is there possibility of castle with this game if so, how? (Editor's note: No, it is impossible to castle the Big Chess)
-- And finally the question that everyone arises, especially Francis and Wolfgang disputing that the second final candidates, think you can defend your title next year? :)
X: of course! I will defend the title! I would like if possible to know the timing and pace of the match. And I wish Francis and Wolfgang a beautiful final! I must honor in this competition which is well organized!
-- The match should be able to start during the first week of January 2009, the pace will again 30 days and 1 additional day by coup. Thank you for your answers, and even congratulations for this excellent performance!
X: Thank you! And see you! Bonne continuation to all and good parties!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-18 16:06:16)
translation
I will have a go off the top of my head at giving a sense of the interview in english (I dont know the phrase tonitruand but I am guessing it means dynamic!)?:
Hi Xavier and first of all congratulations on your success in the candidates final match against IM (ICCF) Gino Figlio [Peru]
You had to avoid drawing all the games and finally you succeded with the black pieces. How did that happen?
Xavier: Hi thank you. Its true that if all the games had been drawn then under the rules Figlio would have won whereas if the match was drawn but with a win and loss I would win. Because of this I had to take risks and attack. It was with Black that I did this because I thought that Gino would play safely to be sure of a draw.
- Tell us how you approched the match and how the different phases of the game went
x: Its quite simple, I was not the favorite I have 200 ELO less on FICGS and Gino is an IM on ICCF with a 2480 rating. I did not think I could survive 8 games at once - in a single game anything is possible but 8 games .... it was a big challenge for me! In the openings I chose 4 different moves 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nf3 Gino chose 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nc3 I was surpised by 1 Nc3 because I was expecting dynamic openings and it was then that I decided I must take some risks with black. I kept most of the games balanced with a draw in hand and concentrated on 2 games 1 white and 1 black to get a result. In the end I got 3 wins which seemed an impossibility given the quality of the games Gino had played on this site to reach the final.
- you have not lost any games in the championship and you have fantastic statistics 78% against an average elo of about 2200. What is your secret?
x: My secret? I havent any secret and if I did I would not say because I would not win anymore! I think I have been a bit lucky because in the the Round Robin final there were 3 of us on the same score and I went through under the rules because of my rating. As for my statistics I was helped by mistakes by opponents who allowed me to win some drawn games.
- What do you think of the system for the FICGS championship (round robin and knock out matches)and what changes would you make?
x: Very good question. The matches are a bit too fast for me - 1 day per move when there are hours of analysis needed to exploit a complicated position its difficult when you have several games running Particularly if you are working. Perhaps that is why my opponents have made errors or failed to exploit my mistakes.
But this time limit has an advantage over ICCF where it is 5 days per move the games here are 5 times quicker! Having 8 game matches is an excellent idea and obliging the favorite to draw all the games and the challenger to get a at least 1 victory is very well thought out. The change that I would suggest is to have 15 days extra starting time that is 45 days at the start instead of 30 and also the possibilty to take holidays for tournaments for example take 7 days for championship games and to be able to play big chess go or another chess tournament during the holiday. To be able to choose the start of a holiday in advance would also be good.
- Why do you like cc and how does it compare to blitz and normal chess?
x: I prefer cc because of the time factor. Classical chess is often played at the week end at a fixed time and you have to travel to the tournament. The advantage for me at cc is that I can connect at any time to play a move which allows me for example to have meals with the family at the weekend. Late night moves for example are not possible at classical chess.
- You limited the number of your games on the site to a reasonable amount throughout the championship. Do you think nonetheless that cc is addictive? Does it affect your daily life?
x: Yes! Limiting the number of my games is essential to try to have games of quality not quantity. Having a lot of games going at the same time is something very difficult to handle. It is perhaps the key to my victory against Figlio - I looked at his games - he had not less than 80 games going on at ICCF this must have affected the amount of time he could spend analysing his 8 games at FICGS. The effects on daily life are felt by the family because the reality is if I spend more time analysing the games I spend less time with the family. Thats difficult for me. But when the results come I dont regret it!
- What do you think of the role of chess engines (Rybka Fritz etc)in cc. What are for you the important skills of a cc player - to supplement the machine?
x: Chess engines are used in cc by 95% of players. You have to adapt yourself and know how to use the engines. To play just the best move of Rybka 3 Fritz 12 or Hiracs 12 without thinking leads to a draw if your opponent does the same or to a loss if your opponent is thinking. You have to choose bewteen 4 or 5 moves with a similer evaluation from the engine during a game and sometimes the best move is not among these.
- You play Big chess. Interest or curiosity? What do you think of this strange version of chess?
X : Curiosity and amusement and I think Rrybka 3 cannot yet play Big Chess! This version is new and I did not know it and the inventor has done a good job! By the way I would like to ask is it possible to castle at Big Chess?
[No its not possible]
- Finally the question that everyone is asking particularly Francois and Wolfgang who are contesting the 2nd candidates final. Do think you will be able to defend your title next year? :)
x: Definitely I will defend the title I would like to know if possible the date and time limits for the match. I wish Francois and Wolfgang a great match! I would also like to express my appreciation for this tournament which has been well organised!
- the match should start in the first week in January next year the time limit will be 30 days plus 1 day per move. Thank you for your answers and once again congratulations on a great performance.
x: Thank you. Cheers. Best wishes to everyone and good games!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-19 17:17:59)
Adjudications
Hi Benjamin I am not sure what you mean by help people without asking.
The rules refer to adjudications as follows:
"11. 5. Adjudications
In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious."
At the end of 11.5 is states: "There are no time limit for games else but the clocks, but it may be announced that certain multi-stages tournaments will have one. At the end of this time limit, a referee committee will adjudicate games."
Obviously it was bit worrying without warning to have an announcement saying hey seems like a draw I am going to adjudicate. A draw would mean that I would not win the tournament - a win means I win the tournament so its an important game.
But as I am certain the game is won and can demonstrate this I am not concerned - I have no idea what Janos thinks. I dont think this is the best way to handle this but this is where we are - I am just glad it happened after Janos played 63...Kxf4 which was the losing move. We are only about 12 moves away from 6 man table base wins in almost all cases. Please post any anlysis about the position you would like as Thibault has asked for comment
Normajean Yates (2008-08-21 05:25:54)
it is! llmars is on the vive-greco team
So the greco countergambit [latvian gambit] is alive, and as long as llmars is there it will stay alive:)
I am not so courageous - I play it only in no-engines chess :) [although engines cannot help much in the opening - this being a *real* gambit - can they?]
No, actually I *am* courageous! In the ongoing chess tournament I am playing here I did play the greco [latvian] against Taoufik - it is a pity that Taufik decided to forfeit all his games on time [incl. mine on move 5 :(] ...
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2008-08-21 17:43:41)
Latvian ...
I hope I am not asking too much, but can we have a Latvian gambit thematic tournament?
Since there are good players here, after such a tournament the theory about the Latvian gambit will have to be rewritten.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-22 14:43:52)
Latvian thematic
Ok, we'll have another Latvian thematic tournament soon ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-22 17:50:17)
Team challenge : Latvian gambit
Based upon an idea by Ilmars, let's try to create a special Latvian thematic tournament that could start at the beginning of september, consisting in two teams : Latvian gambit "defenders" and latvian gambit "refuters" (that will play either Black or White), this could be interesting to improve the theory in this opening.
Any player who wishes to play this tournament may post in this thread "I am in as White (or Black)" and I'll make pairings in a few days/weeks.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-05-29 21:41:37)
Ultimate Challenge Tour 2017, USD 20k
Looks like the tournament finished a few days ago... one recognize "Zor" as winner (again), but the crosstable shown seems to be a small part of it!?
http://infinitychess.com/Page/Public/Article/DefaultArticle.aspx?id=322
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-22 17:51:06)
Latvian teams
That's a very good idea ! .. So it would be created handly as a special tournament, let's try to build teams in this new thread - http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=5566
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-22 20:18:54)
Round Robin qualification
"Round-robin tournaments are groups of 5, 7, 9, 11 or 13 players. The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage."
Thibault these are the rules upon which I entered the tournament WCC 3. I have spent an enourmous amount of time sweating blood to beat Janos Helmer so that I won my stage 2 group and qualified for the Round Robin Final now this tournament has started you have 1)placed 6 persons in the tournament which breaches the rules 2) You have placed Miranda Marcus in the tournament even though she did not win stage 2 group but tied on 4 out of 6 and had a lower TER. If I had known you were going to arbitrarily change the rules like this I would have agreed a draw with Janos a long time ago and Marc Lacrosse and I could have both gone through. We have 5 winners and I request you to comply with the WCC rules for this tournament and place the 4 stage 2 winners and and 1 stage 1 group M winner in the Round Robin final. I will wait for your decision before continuing. Thanks. I would like to know other players views on this. I have no objection to the rules being amended for future WCC but I want to know what the rules are when I start a tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-23 00:03:38)
Round Robin final WCH 3
Hi Andrew, I understand your point of view, on one hand rules specify : "If necessary, a player could be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player" which does not exactly fit to this case (2 players have been invited). On the other hand, rules give administrators the final decision in all cases - also rules may change whenever necessary - and of course the aim is simply to make it well. As it has been discussed in the past, WCH tournaments with 5 players give tournament entry ratings a too big importance and such a tournament lose some interest, 7 players should be a minimum (I may change the WCH rules this way, to be discussed)
5 players in this tournament won their group, 2 players have been invited and tied for first in their group. This does not mean : "Two players tied for first then have been invited." .. Maybe this was a mistake and we'll discuss it. Once again I understand your point of view, I think it wouldn't be acceptable to change it now but I'll accept all comments on this choice and I'll make the rules more accurate while taking account of this.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-23 11:43:19)
Rules change
All members are invited to comment on these points :
1) "Should all groups in WCH tournaments consist in 7 players at least, several players being invited if necessary at the tournament director's discretion" ? I'll change the rules this way if a majority agrees. In all cases the 3rd round-robin final must continue this way IMO but I may add a new rule :
2) "Referees are not error free and are not supposed to change the rules anytime they estimate it is a better choice, players accept the view that a tournament should be modified or any error corrected in all cases." (this is not irony, I'm not sure such a rule wouldn't bring some problems but we may try it if a majority agrees with that).
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-23 17:59:14)
still a mystery
I know understand that you had decided (I dont know when??) that you would not allow 5 person round robin finals. So you were going to "invite" two players to make up the numbers in WCC 3 final. Nobody knew this only you. Second you are reserving the right to invite anyone according to make up the numbers according to your own preferences . It may be some all of those who tied for 1st place or you may choose to invite some other highly rated players who did not enter the tournament. Nobody knows! Firstly lets reduce the "invitations" as follows: 1) WCC tournaments will be made of at least 7 players. 2) Any shortfall will be made up of the best losers from the previous stage 3)Best losers will be selected from those who tied for place in a group in the previous stage ranked by tournament entry rating and /or from those who came 2nd ranked by tournament entry rating.
Under these rules everone knows where they stand and its transparent fair and consistent with existing rules.
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2008-08-24 11:07:55)
IGAME.RU
If IGAME.RU has been killed maybe Thibault can consider a Memorial IGAME.RU tournament.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-24 11:52:22)
separate criticism from suggestion
Whatever decisions Thibault made are past and I never doubted his good intentions. However I made a suggestion for the future which is in itelf not a criticism but a response to his invitation to comment on his proposed rule ammendments. I suggested a system for adding to numbers based on the best losers (those tied for 1st place, those placed 2nd etc) and if necessary to rank the best losers by tournament entry rating so if there were 2 slots to be filled and 3 persons who tied for first place in the groups (ie they were 2nd in their group because of lower TER than the winner) the top 2 by TER would qualify. I would also like to suggest an Ajuducations process 1) having indicative finish dates in WCC 2)if the Tournament director feels a game needs to be adjuducated (ie finish date reached)requesting both players to submit their views with analysis 3)having an adjudication commitee who will agree on the result within a set time period. These are just thoughts for possible improvement perhaps they are unnecessary. Anyway they are not intended as criticism scathing or otherwise!
Don Groves (2008-08-25 06:06:34)
Downloading pgn files
Salut, Thibault -- It seems now that we have to download each game of a tournament separately. It would be nice if we could download all six pgn files with a single command. What do you (and others) think?
Or does this already exist and I am the only one in the dark.
Don Groves (2008-08-26 06:18:01)
That's a step...
... in the right direction, thanks. I'd really like to download just the games from a new tournament, I already have the others. I suppose I could delete the ones I already have though...
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-26 21:24:02)
To be continued
Hi Don, I'll make an update soon.. a new button at the bottom of the page of each tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-05 19:23:28)
Team challenge : Latvian gambit
"Will every play with every from opposite team?"
Good question : I think yes, at least if there are no more than 4 players in each team. Do anyone else want to enter a team or may we start the tournament ?
Ilmars Cirulis (2008-09-07 22:04:46)
Re
Scott, nice to see you in! (It is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5)
Thibault, when we will start the tournament? :)
Peter Unger (2008-09-08 00:54:05)
a game ended with mate
my Game vs. Sharma ended with Mate. Why isn't it finished? And tournament-table isn't adapted?!
Here is the game:
[Event "FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_04__000005"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2008.07.08"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Sharma,Kirti"]
[Black "Unger,Peter"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "1365"]
[BlackElo "2187"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. c3 Nf6 4. Qc2 Qc7 5. Be2 e5 6. O-O Be7 7. Na3 O-O 8. Nc4 Be6 9. Ng5 Bd7 10. Ne3 h6 11. Nf3 Be6 12. c4 b6 13. Nd5 Qb7 14. Qd3 a5 15. a4 Nc6 16. Qc2 Nb4 17. Nxb4 axb4 18. d3 Nd7 19. b3 Nb8 20. h3 Nc6 21. Qd1 f5 22. Nd2 fxe4 23. dxe4 Nd4 24. Bg4 Bxg4 25. Qxg4 Bg5 26. Rb1 Rf6 27. h4 Rf4 28. Qd1 Rxh4 29. g3 Bxd2 30. Bxd2 Qxe4 31. gxh4 Ne2+ 32. Kh2 Qxh4+ 33. Kg2 Qg4+ 34. Kh2 Rf8 35. f3 Qg3+ 36. Kh1 Qh3+ 37.*
regards
retep1
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-09 19:40:44)
Multi-site tournament
Hi all,
A multi-site tournament is being to be organized with 4 chess websites (not using real names), each player from each team playing 1 game with Black "at home" and 1 game with White in his opponent's home with 1 opponent of each website (3 in total, hope I'm clear), so 6 games in total.
2 websites in the competition are :
http://www.echecsemail.com
http://www.echeconline.net
6 games (3 games here and 3 games played on 3 other websites) seem a lot though, what do you think ?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-10 19:32:43)
Use of engines
FICGS rules authorize the use of chess engines (like any other kind of help) but in "NO ENGINES" tournaments.. So engines are ok in this tournament also. Do you want to take part anyway ?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-12 15:02:52)
Latvian gambit tournament just started !
You can find the tournament in "SPECIAL TOURNAMENTS"
http://www.ficgs.com/category__ficgs__chess__special_event.html
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__LATVIAN_GAMBIT_EVENT.html
Good luck to Michael, Rodolfo and Denis :)
William Taylor (2008-09-18 13:25:56)
Big Chess Championship
I know there was a discussion some time ago about a big chess championship here on FICGS. Now the first 'M' class big chess tournament has started and I think big chess has enough regular players to try a championship. What do you think?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-20 03:29:51)
MoGo - Rematch
According to the AGA E-Journal : "Myungwan Kim 8P will take on Mogo in a rematch set for this weekend's Cotsen Tournament in Los Angeles."
Good news :)
William Taylor (2008-09-22 18:36:07)
An idea
We could perhaps use the 'M' class tournament that has just started to decide the first Big Chess champion. Thereafter a challenger could be decided by a similar high-rated tournament, or else by an open tournament or series of tournaments if it's thought that the rating system isn't reliable enough.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2008-09-22 23:32:54)
Big Chess Championship
I think, the Big Chess Championship should be announced as a championship. We should not use this M-tournament instead.
William Taylor (2008-09-23 01:10:09)
I agree
I agree that a separate championship tournament would be better.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2008-09-28 16:45:05)
Big Chess Championship
To drive this theme I propose a champions-league-type tournament with a new round every 18 month. At the beginning the groups can be built according to our rating list.
Other ideas?
Best,
Heinz-Georg
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-28 21:51:45)
Big Chess Championship
18 months is so long :/ .. In my opinion, the scheme could be the same than the Go championship :
"FICGS world Go championship is a 2 stages tournament. First stage is a single round-robin tournament, involving the 9 highest rated players who entered the waiting list. The winner of this tournament is the challenger for FICGS world champion title. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage. If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account. If current world champion defends his title, he will play a 5 games match against his challenger."
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2008-09-28 22:33:50)
Big Chess Championship
I don't like the idea to exclude players with a minor rating.
And the length / duration of a Big Chess game does not depend on the mode of the tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-02 20:15:08)
Game 22676, towards a new rule ?
Once again, an unusual case that may lead to an enforcement of FICGS rules. In our match, Marius lost 3 games on time and continues to play the other ones : FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_2__000005
Games 22676, 22678 and 22679 have been lost in an equal position.
Currently, the rules specify : 11.6 "Games are not rated for the winner if less than 10 moves have been played by his opponent (most probably forfeit, silent withdrawal or obvious cheating) or in global forfeit cases against the same opponent, ie. 8-games matches, but games where an advantage is obvious."
Of course, it is up to the referee to estimate an 'advantage' which is quite hard to define accurately, but the real problem is there's no real silent withdrawal in this case, as Marius had about 1 day only to play his last move. It is fair to cancel my wins in these games IMO but the question is how to make the rules fair enough in all cases.
My suggestion : "...or in global forfeit cases, including losses on time whatever the context, in at least 2 games in a 2 players tournament, ie. chess championship's 8-games matches, but games where an advantage is obvious."
What do you think ? Also does anyone see another unusual case that this rule wouldn't envisage ?
Thanks in advance.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-03 09:06:04)
Rules
I think you are right Thibault ie amend the rule as you suggest. However maybe change the wording put EXCEPT instead of BUT ("except games where an advantage is obvious")otherwise the english is difficult to understand (but so much better than my french!!)In this case though perhaps Marius is not going to play anymore moves at all in which case it could be classified as silent withdrawal?? At the level he is at it he surely does not need the time to get the positions the fact is that Marius (probably because he has got lot of games/commitments elsewhere) is not playing much at all in FICGS - looks like he will forfeit in the Round Robin final for example....
The existing rules make a distinction between matches and other tournaments. if you follow the other posters then it seems that they are saying that you should not have the rule for silent withdrawals or even losses under 10 moves?? So I vote for the extension proposed by Thibault it seems logical to me for matches - they are not primarily about rating. The idea is that it is too distorting to have a rating that shows a 6-0 win over a similer high level opponent when they just stopped playing and it has nothing much to do with relative playing strength. On the other hand Thibault it will give you a cool rating!! :)
Both view points are valid - its true time is a part of the game - but rules involve compromise and the proposed amendment just extends the principle already there........
Michael Aigner (2008-10-03 13:28:09)
Makes sense!
I agree with you that Thibaults suggestions makes sense in the context of matches where many games are played against the same opponent.
For normal tournaments a loss on time should just be a loss (after 10 moves played) - even when the player is loosing all his games in this tourny because of time.
Maybe there is some space for exeptions in case of illness or somethink like that - but on the other hand how is the player going to proof such things?
William Taylor (2008-10-03 14:43:56)
Big Chess Championship
I like the idea of making it like the Go championship because it's simple. As for excluding players, I'm not sure there are many more than nine who would want to play anyway. If there are lots of players outside the top 9 who would want to play in the championship, perhaps there could be two stages of tournament. For example, if 21 people entered, we could have 3 groups of 7, with the top 2 from each group advancing to the next stage. Then there would be a six-player tournament to determine the challenger, followed by a match challenger vs previous champion. For the 1st championship the champion could either be the winner of the 2nd-round tournament, or the winner of a match between the top 2 finishers in the 2nd-round tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-04 19:35:26)
re : In response to Don
You wouldn't be penalized in that case. All this is about 8 games match, as Andrew said "The idea is that it is too distorting to have a rating that shows a 6-0 win over a similer high level opponent". The whole problem is just to know where to put the limit.
Well, as it is possible to win elo points this way (loss on time in equal or winning position) in round-robin tournaments, it should be possible in 8 games matches too, but 8 wins this way shouldn't be taken in consideration.
Consequently, I propose a new rule, quite reasonable, that could satisfy everyone (finally even my rating :)), here is :
"11.6 "Games are not rated for the winner if less than 10 moves have been played by his opponent (most probably forfeit, silent withdrawal or obvious cheating) or in global forfeit cases, including losses on time whatever the context in a 2 players tournament, ie. chess championship's 8-games matches, except games where an advantage is obvious, in this case at most 2 of these games will be rated."
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-05 20:04:28)
Slight amendment
Thibault thinking about your point that "as it is possible to win elo points this way (loss on time in equal or winning position) in round-robin tournaments, it should be possible in 8 games matches too" I suggest the follwoing "Rating changes will occur, in 2 player matches, for losses on time (whatever the reason) within the following constraints: the game(s) is at least 10 moves, only 1 time loss game will be rated unless there is a game where the winner is clearly better in which case a maximum of 2 games may be rated"
My idea is that if someone forefeits all their games on move 11 in a match there should be 1 game rated (as in a tournament) so there is a price to pay but not too distorting. If in the 8 games say 5 are level and 3 (or 2 or 1) are clearly advantageous then 2 games could be rated. Alternatively just give 1 rated game as a max irrespective of advantage or not (ie just the first loss) provided it at least 10 moves. I am thinking of 2 situations a 6-0 result over 10 moves dead equal positions there should be some rating penalty (like tournaments) On the other hand soemone could let the clock run out in 6 games just before being mated in each game to avoid heavy rating penalty they should take a 2 game hit.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-05 20:22:01)
Re: Slight amendment
I'm not sure to see the point, all games are rated for who forfeits or loses games on time, in 8 games matches just like any rated tournament. So what "price" do you mean ? The rule is about the winner's rating only.
Christoph Schroeder (2020-02-04 01:13:01)
Go ratings, rule update
What is the initial rating for a Go player in his first tournament?
I noticed that most players start at 100, but my own initial rating was 000.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-05 21:50:02)
Sorry
..I must have misunderstood I thought if games were forfeit on time in matches even after 10 moves they were not rated only rated if the games were better ie the foreited party was clearly worse?? So in the case of a an 8 games match 11 moves completed all lost on time in dead equal positions there would be no rating effect ie no price paid?? In a tournament game they would be these losses would be rated. I thought your proposal was to rate the losses in matches up to a max of 2 games ONLY if it was 10+ moves AND the position was clearly better.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-05 23:03:12)
The Many Faces of Go
...is the name of the program that just won the Go section in the Beijing International Computer Games Association tournament. It won all 12 games which included beating the 2nd place program MoGo. In the 9 x 9 Go competition Many Faces also triumphed winning 15 out of 18 games but was beaten by MoGo who took 3rd after a playoff with the program Leela. the chess of course was won by Rybka
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-06 18:03:43)
Rybka is World Computer Chess Champion
No surprise, Rybka wins the 16th World Computer Chess Championship (2008)... Strangely, Rybka was running on the most powerful hardware, a 40-core system, in comparison Mobile Chess was running on a Nokia cell phone, so results are to be compared. Anyway, good result for Hiarcs, and a (very) bad tournament for Shredder.
The tournament results :
Rybka 8.0 / 9
Hiarcs 7.0 / 9
Junior 6.0 / 9
ClusterToga 5.5 / 9
Shredder 4.5 / 9
Falcon 4.0 / 9
Jonny Beijing 4.0 / 9
Deep Sjeng 3.5 / 9
The Baron 2.5 / 9
Mobile Chess 0.0 / 9
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-06 21:15:21)
complete results
Here's the link for the complete results http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/tournament.php?id=181
Iy seems smartgo did not compete.....
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-09 11:42:51)
Promotion
(Kevin, maybe we'll launch another tournament in a while)
Iouri, I don't think there's such a pop up window here :) .. Scott, please read the F.A.Q. in the help section... all explained. In bried, you just have to use the PGN format.
Wayne Lowrance (2008-10-13 07:33:14)
Hello Thibault
I am just curious. I just realized that I am getting close to 3 norms for FEM.
In Tournament M #15 I have already enough points for a FEM norm.
In Tournament M #21 I will earn a FEM and possibly FIM norm.
In M #19 it is possible I could earn FEM norm.
Question: in the M #15 tournament I have not been notified about qualifying.
( and I have). Which brings up the question.
Do you notify the players of norm status. And should a player earn enough to get 3 FEM norms does the server notify that player, and how often are Status achievments upgraded.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-13 12:31:56)
Hello Wayne :)
The norms calculation occur about once per month but it just consider tournaments where you have no more running games !
I just launched a calculation so you should see the changes now (and you must have been warnt by email for your norms and title). Well, actually I see no norm for you so you must have at least one running game in this tournament.
My best,
Thibault
Wayne Lowrance (2008-10-13 17:15:58)
norms
thank you Thibault. Yes, I see, in M #15 I still do have one running game. I am 5/5 in that tournament so I do have one more game to complete. Wayne
Don Groves (2008-10-30 20:15:01)
Quicker chess
I would like see some way of making players play more regularly. Some players join a tournament and then play only a very few moves until their clock turns red. Others take sometimes a week or more between moves until the are forced to speed it up or lose on time.
I have a couple of these games going now and it is frustrating to wait so long. If a player does not have the time to make moves regularly, they shouldn't enter so many tournaments at the same time. </rant>
Normajean Yates (2008-10-30 20:15:55)
5x5 chess again - thibault please read!
Thibault, I know you dont want to start another variant - but since we [meaning ficgs] pushed the theory [and the demise :( ] of the latvian gambit further... and we will have another round of that, so
in 5x5 chess (5x5 board, starting position rnbqk/ppppp/8/PPPPP/RNBQK) [o-o-o etc allowed - all 8x8-chess-type moves allowed] - as far as I know this hasnt been solved yet - far from it; so:
Please consider introducing this some time in the future... ask around to see if there is enough demand... you can consider payment-only tournaments for 5x5 chess....
Plus it will make ficgs academically famous!
[I don't know who suggested this version first: I first read about it more than 25 years ago in a Martin Gardner article - at least then, no theory was known about it.]
Marc Lacrosse (2008-10-30 20:29:24)
To Don : better "fast" correspondence
If you wish a faster but still really "correspondence" play I would recommend the following : 7d + 1d/move with a maximal time capital of 7 days (anything over 7 days is cut off).
No vacation allowed during course of the game (or vacation pause not working for these precise games so that you may take leave for other kind of competitions but still need to play in these ones).
I am ready to play any kind of test games/tournaments at this timing.
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-31 20:37:59)
10x10 "super" chess
The 10x10 variant seems much more funny but it is not so far from 8x8 chess. Ok, let's say that 5x5 chess is a "natural" variant, but I see no real interest to play it yet as the first 5x5 chess engine will be probably invincible :/
16x16 big chess is too long but IMO the great interest is that the pieces are the same and it is far enough from computer chess (unlike chess 960)... But it is not played enough yet and the more tournament categories, the more variants (..whatever), the less players in each one. This site is firstly dedicated to competition, unlike some other sites that offer tens of variants and it is not compatible IMO :/ .. Big chess & chess 960 + all unrated categories are a lot of chess tournaments already, maybe too many.
Normajean Yates (2008-10-31 22:52:08)
I love [16x16] bigchess! :)
But disclosure of bias: I am winning my first bigchess (16x16) tournament 6-0 I think ;)
[4-0 I have already, One opp is timing out, and the only remaining opp: well see game 23201... ]
Let me be clear, 16x16 is very nice, need 'far' sight in two senses of the word :), and I would still love it - even if I was losing!
If some genie gave me the option that 'okay, from tomorrow at ficgs there will be no bigchess but there will be 5x5 and 10x10 and Philip Roe's generalisation to 7x7 with a nice initial position worked out -
I'd say no! I want bigchess!
Volker Koslowski (2008-11-03 11:05:33)
Bug?
I don't think that there is a vacation bug. It ist still possible for your opponent to make his next move (if it is his turn) even if you are in vacation.
As far as I can see Rule 11.4 does not say that you and your opponent could not make any move when you are in vacation. It only says that all your clocks in all of your running games will be frozen and it is not possible for you to play further until your vacation is over. In order it is not possible for you to cancle your vacation, or take only a vacation in one special tournament you play.
Maybe Thibault could say more about this...
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-07 01:04:56)
Sokolsky
Let's go for a Sokolsky :) .. See Waiting lists (chess special tournaments)
Wayne Lowrance (2008-11-14 00:58:53)
Future Rating
Hello Thibault, In the short msg's window all I was asking for was what happened to the feature ! I click on my tournaments, click on magnifying glass, then try to click on elo, but no longer does this respond. What am I doing wrong sir. I accepted a draw offer, wondering what impact it will have
Thank you.
Wayne
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2008-11-16 09:35:45)
We do not know, what happen
Well continences happens, I lost almost all my games from a tournament by time ( the one's I did not lose , the opponent forfeited and the other was awarded by Thibault) because I was kidnapped in a carjacking and when I got back to my computer my time expired so as the saying goes s..t happens
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-19 16:51:37)
1st FICGS poker standard tournament
The very first Poker Holdem round-robin tournament just started, you may observe the games here :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__POKER_HOLDEM__TOURNAMENT_D__000001
Don Groves (2008-11-20 00:15:55)
Chips?
Since no ePoints are required to enter a standard tournament, how are chips allocated?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-20 01:23:06)
Chips
Hi Don, here are the current FICGS rules :
"d. Rules for Poker Holdem (or Poker Texas Hold'em) are official rules. Both players must play until one resign, or game is adjudicated (when one player wins 3 rounds). A poker holdem game is played in 3 winning rounds of 100 chips by player, played in "no limit" mode. The minimal bet is always 1 chip and does not depend on the blind's value. The small blind's value is doubled after the 50th hand, then after the 70th, 80th, 90th and 100th hand (the big blind then is 64 chips)."
No epoints in these tournaments, we play for the rating only.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-22 12:56:48)
Poker rating
Hello Ben, I've updated your poker rating.
To answer your question in the chat, it is possible to win epoints by winning some free chess or Go tournaments with epoints prizes... (see Waiting lists details) See also 'My account' page for other ways.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-22 13:22:52)
Poker Holdem Championship
Hello all !
The next chess & Go championships waitings lists are now open, this is a good time to share our views for an interesting Poker Holdem world championship scheme (before to open the waiting list)...
It may look like the FICGS Go championship (one round robin tournament involving the 9 highest rated players, then a match between the winner & title holder), or it may be a multi-stages round-robin tournament (with or without a final match).. and so on. What do you think ?
The idea of a cycle looking like the Go championship is that the standard tournaments are in a way also preliminary tournaments of the championship.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-24 14:50:09)
Poker Holdem game duration
Well... as a correspondence poker holdem game may last about 500 moves at most, it is quite complicated to think about a multi stages tournament that would last 3 or 4 years... I think the current formula (looking like the Go championship) will be the one... waiting for a Poker freestyle cup :)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-24 18:48:29)
Go championship : Lu vs. von Erichsen
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000002&boards=1
About 40 moves played in all games.. at a first sight, the games are still open, any predictions ?
Michael Sharland (2008-11-26 20:32:17)
Time controls for Holdem
It seems clear that most holdem tournaments are going to require 200-600 moves to complete. This seems to indicate that the time control probably needs to be accelerated from 1 move / day in order to finish these in a reasonable time. Given that the thinking time needed for poker is only a few seconds rather than hours or days, the time needed for a move should be much less than for Chess or Go.
Some ideas might be to:
1) reduce the time control further to 1 move / 12 hours or even less.
2) cap the maximum days at 30 or so.
3) change the format to 2 out of 3 rather than 3 out of 5.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-26 21:58:40)
Time controls for Holdem
Correspondence time controls (> 1 day) are very delicate to manage. If we set an increment inferior to 1 day, it may provoke some problems with a few players trying to find some tricks to win on time or at least to keep a time pressure on their opponents (most players sleep during the night yet :)). With the current time control, most players still seem to play fastly and, of course, do not hope to win on time. And last but not least, this is much less stressful than rapid chess tournaments :)
However the maximum days could be inferior for poker, that's right, but let's see... I'm not sure it is really necessary to change something yet.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-12-02 16:21:04)
Drugs in chess
I have read views of players who claimed that there are prescription drugs (eg modafinil) that enhance concentration and thus performance in chess tournaments - significant improvement but not dramatic. However even small improvements could prove extremely useful at the top levels. Of course no one would ever admit it but I assume if there is some effectiveness then some top players will definitely be taking them. Drug testing at the higher levels is quite reasonable if chess is seeking olympic status.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-08 19:33:05)
Levon Aronian's open letter
Now Levon Aronian comments the latest FIDE's decisions in an open letter :
"(...) With the GA's recent actions, it seems that there is a democratic deficit within FIDE. The GA did not consult the players currently taking part in the Grand Prix in their decision processes. Please keep in mind a very important point – these players, including myself, have a legally binding agreement with FIDE regarding the World Championship cycle and the Grand Prix. Therefore it is FIDE's duty to consult the other party of the contract – the participants.
Does this mean that the chess players have lesser rights than others? The GA appears to act with no concern for the players. The decision to suddenly change the World Championship cycle has damaging effects on the career plans of leading chess players. It is also reasonable to ask: why should we go through several tournaments over several years and fight for a place in a tournament that another player gets by losing a match? The GA's decisions remove the motivation for players like myself to take part in the World Championship cycle."
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5059
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-13 23:42:25)
FICGS poker holdem championship
The waiting list for the 1st FICGS poker holdem championship is open, as all ratings are not established, the rating limit has been changed to 1600.
Only the 9 highest rated players at the beginning of the tournament (february 1, 2009) will play it, consequently the best way to improve your rating before the deadline is probably to play POKER HOLDEM BULLET BRONZE games (you may use the challenge function in My games).
The current rules :
"FICGS world poker holdem championship is a 2 stages tournament. First stage is a single round-robin tournament, involving the 9 highest rated players who entered the waiting list. The winner of this tournament is the challenger for FICGS world champion title. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage. If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account. If current world champion defends his title, he will play a 5 games match (3 games with White, 2 games with Black) against his challenger.
All games are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. Rules for poker holdem are official rules. You may find more information about the FICGS betting structure in FICGS rules. Both players must play until one resign or game is adjudicated. One game is played in 3 winning rounds of 100 chips by player played in no limit mode. The minimal bet is always 1 chip and does not depend on the blind's value. The small blind's value is doubled after the 50th hand, then after the 70th, 80th, 90th and 100th hand (the big blind then is 64 chips) of each round."
Don Groves (2008-12-15 01:57:22)
A suggestion
Bonjour, Thibault
There are many players here who like to play several moves per week and there are others who sometimes play less than one move per week until forced to move faster by their clock. There are even a few who don't move at all (or rarely) until their clock is red.
Would it be too much work to make another tournament classification? The time control would be 7 days plus 7 days more for each 3 moves, up to a maximum of 7 days. In other words, each player must make a minimum of 3 moves per week.
Those players who can't, or won't, move that often can play in the standard tournaments. Those of us who like to move more often can play in the faster tournaments. Everyone is happy ;-)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-15 19:34:43)
Elista Grand Prix starts
Finally a category 19 tournament started in "City Chess" - Elista, Kalmykia.
The participants :
1
Radjabov
Teimour
AZE
2751
2
Leko
Peter
HUN
2747
3
Jakovenko
Dmitry
RUS
2737
4
Wang
Yue
CHN
2736
5
Mamedyarov
Shakhriyar
AZE
2731
6
Eljanov
Pavel
UKR
2720
7
Grischuk
Alexander
RUS
2719
8
Alekseev
Evgeny
RUS
2715
9
Bacrot
Etienne
FRA
2705
10
Gashimov
Vugar
AZE
2703
11
Cheparinov
Ivan
BUL
2696
12
Akopian
Vladimir
ARM
2679
13
Kasimzhanov
Rustam
UZB
2672
14
Inarkiev
Ernesto
RUS
2669
Without Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Adams, Carlsen...
Don Groves (2008-12-16 01:21:06)
Ten day time control?
I can't find such a thing. Where is it?
You could prohibit more than one 7 day time control tournament at the same time.
That would diminish the problem of too many games.
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2008-12-16 06:38:20)
Reply to Monsieur De Vassal
"Anyway, I think it is admitted now that we have reached the point where brute force can't fight anymore against knowledge, actually the processor speed is probably becoming less and less important."
I disagree as the Rybka engine is being used in a 40 core cluster for their latest tournaments. It is not the brute force approach but hardware is progressing faster than software so developers must maybe redesign their products to be able to use the full potential of the hardware advantages(in this example parallelization).
Garvin Gray (2008-12-25 15:00:58)
<br>
Not so much a problem, but a comment and could not find a better place for the comment.
Just had a look at how my first tournament is going and realised that the game score from each of the tournament game seems to me to be not quite as relevant as in chess.
Don Groves (2009-01-01 05:21:01)
Small problem?
Salut, Thibault!
When I tried to enter the Hold'em World Championship, this was what I was presented with:
"You can't enter this tournament: Your chess rating : 1597, is out of the restrictions."
Should my chess rating matter, and, if it does, could we use my correct rating ;-)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-01 21:52:17)
Rating limit
Salut Don, très bonne année à toi ;)
The POKER HOLDEM rating limit for the championship is 1600 (3 points more:)) because of the rules of the tournament. You shouldn't have many problems to reach it before february 1st (you may play a few rated bullet games also) :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-04 14:06:51)
FIDE or FIFA
Salut Don !
FIFA has not the biggest problems FIDE has :
1) There are only about a hundred of participants in the world cup before the preliminary tournaments already.
2) A dozen of these participants are stars and will remain the stars, just like clubs in each country, and it is unlikely to change (one reason is money of course but there are many others). Chess, like soccer or any sport, needs stars !
The context is not the same, I don't think one can compare the FIDE & FIFA business...
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-04 14:14:38)
Rybka 4
Vasik Rajlich wrote a few comments on what can be expected from the Rybka engine/team in 2009 :
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=9199
Three engine releases are planned in 2009:
* Rybka 3+ - Rybka 3 playing strength, with bugfixes and cosmetic improvements, for Rybka 3 customers
* Pocket Rybka 3 - published by Convekta/ChessOK, packaged with their Pocket Champion interface, conforms to S. Tsukrov's Pocket-UCI protocol
* Rybka 4 - better search, better eval, new analysis features
"Our tournament goal for 2009 is to win a top freestyle event in 100% automated mode. (...)"
Very interesting, a new challenge for Eros :)
Wayne Lowrance (2009-01-06 00:56:30)
Norms
I have no norms credidted to me, why ?
Tournament M000015 finished with 5.5/6, a Norm, no/yes ?I understand that one must finish all of his/her games to get the credit , or is the tournament needed to be ended by all players, gad I hope not that ?
What about the case where a norm is guaranteed, but a players games within a Tournament are not complete.
I have always had confusion on this topic. Bah humbug
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-06 13:56:32)
Norms
Hi Wayne, norms are calculated regularly, from every week to every month AFTER the end of the tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-06 14:14:28)
How to beat Rybka 3 ?
Hi Ben, the main -enormous- advantage you have over Rybka 3 is of course that you know by advance what she may play at least in "some" cases. At correspondence chess, you have to create a trap according to the horizon's effet (don't remember if this is the correct term) or analysis depth. Well, it may represent several weeks of analysis though, to understand such engine's weaknesses, then to incitate her to follow you in a good line, knowing the book she uses.
Playing against Rybka 3 in a freestyle chess tournament will be even harder, only someone who perfectly knows the engine & has a very good understanding of the game may hope to have a good score (over 60%) against the engine IMO.
Finally a good centaur would have quite good chances to win this match in my opinion.
Wayne Lowrance (2009-01-06 17:52:36)
Norms
Good grief! Thank you, i can just sit back for a couple of years before those 3 norms I expect to materialize. It is ok though, no problem, but i cannot agree with with the reasoning. The Tournament info, for example said norm requirement for, example FEM is a resutt of " ". so if a player has achieved the required points, why should that player wait until some ding dong, uninterested guy finish his games.
I don't want to make waves Thibaut.
Wayne
Wayne Lowrance (2009-01-06 19:32:00)
Norm
Okey Dokie, I understand that problem. I will ask both of my Sons (programmars) what they think about your problem, culling tournaments for Norm achievements before tourney is complete and thus occupy cpu time. The way you now have it implemented, the culling is simple, "tournament complete" look for norms. I am a retired EE and not a programmer, but I think your evaluation is not valid. you only have to do this culling, say once a month and besides it is not that much cpu time overall. Wayne
Marc Lacrosse (2009-01-06 21:30:45)
Wayne ...
... We all had to wait according to these rules that are present since the very beginning of FICGS
I do not see why your impatience deserves changing what has been running for years.
If I see well you have one FEM norm recorded and wish to see the second one recorded as soon as possible
So far you played against a mean 2000 rated opponents
Most top accounts have mean opponent rating higher than 2200
This is probably the reason why you do not achieve more master norms at a faster pace
Do play in higher rated tournaments and you will soon earn as many norms as you wish if your playing strength is OK against stronger opponents
The best way to enter high-rated tournaments here is to go as often as possible in Ficgs-Wch qualifications tournaments
Marc
Wayne Lowrance (2009-01-06 23:20:05)
Norms
Thank you Marc, your input is well received. I was a 2300+ rated player on another CC site. I was unaware that I could apply for an appropriate transfer rating. My entry rating here was 1400 which accounts for a mean opponent rating of 2000. I have not cherry picked tournaments, far from it. I always have entered in the highest rated tournament allowed, always. I do not wish special treatment, wont accept it. I think my suggestion is an improvement in this terrific server. Thiabault has always solicited ideas. That was my sole intent, nothing more. I think it is a darn good one. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-06 23:45:25)
Tournament director
Wayne, I do not say that it is impossible to implement, but anyway I don't like to leave the server alone to administrate the tournaments or to calculate the rating list by itself... as a tournament director, I prefer to run some programs by myself, see & check what happens.
Hannes Rada (2009-01-08 19:55:05)
Tables
Hi Thibault,
Just a few ideas.
I mean 'spreadsheet-like' tables with cells where you can not only see the points, but also the results (1,0, 1/2) between all players.
Furthermore on the tournament page I would prefer to see the notation first and then diagram of the actual position. I think this is more logical to see first who is playing and what has been played (the moves) and then the actual position.
I think it is also an idea to show only the running games on the (main) tournament pages and to show the finished games for a specific tournament on a second page per tournament.
Chess fonts (?) on the ICCF Server looks a little bit nicer then those here.
I have been playing now my first tournament on the ICCF server where (secret) conditionals are allowed (chessfriend had this feature already many years ago). And I am a big fan of it. Conditionals can help to speed up to game significantly.
Some openings like the Grunfeld, the French, and The Sveshnikov really cry for conditionals :-)
I don't see any disadvantes regarding the introductions of conditionals (maybe except for the programmer :-).
Why are you against them ?
But finally I have to say that I really appreciate playing here.
I can imagine how tough and how much work it is to maintain such a server as a 'One man show'.
I really appreciate your efforts.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-08 21:17:38)
Paragraphs
See at the top of the page : "please use <br > html tag to begin a new line"
About the tournament tables, did you try to click the magnifying glass near the name of the tournament ? ie :
http://www.ficgs.com/crosstable_FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000001.html
About the tournament page & diagrams, that's a nice suggestion, I may change this quickly.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-08 21:42:49)
Halasz gambit
A new chess thematic tournament !
The very hard Halasz gambit : 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.f4
What do you think ? Ilmars ? ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-10 18:06:40)
Time span of ratings
Actually ratings (correspondence chess ones) are calculated based upon the previous ratings and games played the last 2 months only. In your example it may take 8 or 16 months "only" for the lowest rated to catch the other player in a tournament. Moreover, ratings at FICGS move faster than in other organizations in order to find the good category quickly. So I think that's not a real problem here.
As an example, it took not so long (one year) for Wayne to reach 2113 from 1400 ! That's quite short in correspondence chess.
More details about rating calculation :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_chess
Tom Smith (2009-01-11 11:54:02)
Newbie time question
Hi, new player here.
I am slightly confused by the time controls, in the rules it states minimum of one move every 60 days (which to me is a little over the top) but the tournaments state 40 days then 40 days /ten moves but it doesnt state if the first 40 days is for each single move or for a set amount of moves, say for example 40 moves in the first 40 days.
Could some one please clear this up for me?
Thank you.
Tom
Tom Smith (2009-01-11 12:16:27)
Engines allowed?!
Hi
I have another issue with the rules and conditions here, I came across the following:
Computer assistance is authorized, as any other kind of help but in the "no-engines" tournaments.
This in itself is confusing, am I to believe that players are allowed to use engines to play for them in the "no engines" tournament?? Unless it is a mistake and means engines are allowed but NOT in the no engines section.
If this is true then do most people use enignes here? I really do not want to play on a site where engines use is considered ok!I am far too weak to play engines :)
Would somebody please clarify this section of the rules for me please.
Thank you
Tom
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-11 14:27:55)
Engines allowed
Hello Tom, actually there is a "NO ENGINES" tournament category. Well, I'll try to make it clearer. It is not possible to verify if engines are used or not in any correspondence chess place, so chess engines are allowed in all tournaments but this specified category where games are not rated.
If you really want to play "chess" without engines, you may try BIG CHESS here :)
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2009-01-12 14:02:15)
Gambits ...
Gambits are a form of gambling. A few religions forbid gambling, so playing this thematic tournament would be a sin.
Don Groves (2009-01-12 22:50:39)
Cheating?
Hello, Tom -- It seems to me that "cheating" is defined as doing something that is against the rules of the game. Here, the rules specify that engines may be used, so using them is not cheating.
I understand your concern about players letting an engine play their games for them, but I don't think many here do that. I think the players here generally use engines to do deep analysis of moves they themselves have selected, not to select all the moves via the engine. Otherwise, there is no learning and the player is only harming him- or herself. This is only my opinion, of course.
Another point to consider: all top players in tournaments have advisers that help them prepare lines and analyze games during adjournments. And they all use engines as part of this process. Do you consider this practice to be cheating?
Tom Smith (2009-01-15 07:10:20)
wow...
normajean you are one crazy lady.
Thibault, I have chosen the wrong site I feel, would you please cancel my membership, I entered a standard 40 day tournament, would you please remove from that too as I wouldnt want to hold that up.
Thank you
Glenn Giffen (2009-01-17 13:05:37)
This is not a valid tournament.
I looked up the tournie I was playing in: FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_B__000113
It says "This is not a valid tournament." What is going on?
Normajean Yates (2009-01-20 07:19:07)
nicola [nicola lupinacci ansered it]
nicola lupinacci posted in the international chat in june last year that:
In bigchess, P=1, N=3, B=5, R=8, Q=11.
One of the points is, bigchess is a bigger board, so compared to chess, long-range pieces (B, N, Q)are much more powerful than short-range ones - specially, B is significantly more powerful than N.
I followed nicola's implicit advice, and as you can check, I've won all 6 of my games in one of the two only bigchess tournaments I am playing: FICGS__BIG_CHESS__TOURNAMENT__000025.
And I have won all 4 of my completed games in the other one.
[ FICGS__BIG_CHESS__TOURNAMENT__000030:
all games are in early stages by bigchess standards ]
my two incomplete bigchess games are keenly contested.
In one of them, opp has exchanged two Bs for my two Ns and 2-Pawns: so, that game puts Nicola's idea to test.
Waiting for the top bigchess players to comment on Sophie's and my posts...
Nicola was so good at chess and bigchess, but she stopped playing.
I have pasted her reason (her profile) below: (so why did she stop playing bigchess is what I do not understand. I mean no one has bigchess engine!)
Lupinacci, Nicola (ITA) [member # 1307]
Nicola Lupinacci
I am a chess amateur, playing only for fun! I do not have any chess engine. Good game to everyone!
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-27 16:40:31)
We need more Big Chess players !
Come on, let Rybka & other chess engines work in your 8x8 games & play Big Chess with us, that's the real life, amazing chess & the only way to see such incredible moves :)
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=24656&move=85
Waiting lists > Big Chess standard tournaments !
Waiting for strong players in Big Chess standard M tourney.
Josef Riha (2009-01-28 09:50:08)
Hello Garvin,
I agree with your feeling. Seems that I have the same problem.
And on the other hand it looks that chess tournaments need more time to start.
Normajean Yates (2009-01-28 21:13:52)
re - NPS
Well in the mid-90s some of the fairly good programs were open-source : crafty one of the the strongest open-source programs, and its author Bob Hyatt used to dicuss chess-programming related issues...
Even with closed-sourse proprietory programs, however, the *empirical* fact of NPS being not so relevant can be established statistically by just seeing the results of inter-engine tournaments..
[of couse NPS is not totally relevant! a 1 NPS engine is likely to be quite bad in comparison with a 10000 NPS engine on the same hardware! :) And a 0-NPS engine can only generate moves by using a random number generator ;) [not-necessarily uniformly distributed] - or by tablebase lookup ... but is the present position counted as a node? If yes, then 0 NPS can do nothing at all, not even check legality of move! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-29 12:33:51)
FICGS
Hi Francisco, these important points need to be discussed for sure.
1) As it has been said here on another point, I shouldn't try to protect players from themselves, but I've to protect players from other players (speaking of the quality of the games, general forfeits & so on - or the posts of Garvin & Josef in this thread). You can play poker all over the internet, it's up to you only. I'm not sure I should feel responsible of players addictions, the whole world (commercial issues) is about addictions that exist anyway. In my experience, I was not really addicted to poker as a gambling game, I never played it in casinos but I like competition and that's the way I introduced poker here, quite different from the casino games (by the way a few "pro" poker players here do not even understand it).
2) "Play poker heads-up one to one, is bored, the winner is not always the best", so chess, so Go... of course. I may be wrong on the poker games format (3 winning rounds / 100 chips), we'll see it in a few months as the rating list will evolve.
3) "Poker insults chess", I don't agree with this but I understand & respect this opinion (that could probably be "Poker insults" in some cases). Only 1 player cancelled his membership because of this at the moment. I'm sorry about this, I can't satisfy everyone when making updates but be sure I'm working for FICGS firstly as a chess place and thanks to poker (even with no money), we welcome more players & the prizes (for chess tournaments) will increase a lot in the next months. That's quite good for the site in my opinion. Anyway if I realize I'm wrong, no doubt I'll change it.
Anyway, that's an interesting & important discussion and I'll listen to all your points.
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2009-01-30 19:03:40)
No winner in this tournament ?
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_11__000005
No winner.
Why there was no winner?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-31 02:00:27)
"No winner"
The program indicates "no winner" when more than 2 players end the tournament with the same number of points.
However, in the WCH cycle, the winner of the tournament is (in this case) the player with the highest number of points and, in case of equality, who entered the tournament with the highest TER.
I'll add this in the Help section.
Normajean Yates (2009-02-01 09:55:59)
poker is NOT interfering with chess..
Players that are *choosing* poker over chess (as posted by some as reason for delay on moving, delay in tournaments starting...) are either not *that* interested in chess anyway, OR it is a transient phenomenon - they are trying out poker as a novelty.
We are humans, not dedicated chess-playing machines.
If someone takes longer to move because of poker or anything else (whether the 'anything else' is related to this site or not, whether it is related to the internet or not); it gives me either more time to analyse, or effectively more vacation time, so I see no reason to complain.
If poker generates revenue for ficgs, it will help ficgs survive and so it will help ficgs chess (and go) survive.
The point is, whatever choices we make have to be made taking into account that we are embedded in a capitalist economy. We are not living in some anarchist utopia.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-02 21:54:00)
Poker championship : New rules, deadline
Finally, a 2 stages single round-robin tournament (no ratings limit, everyone can play) seems a better choice for the poker holdem championship !
The deadline is now february 8, 2009... Join the fun !
Here are the new rules :
"FICGS world poker holdem championship is a 2 stages single round-robin tournament. All games are played in 30 days + 1 day / move.
Round-robin tournaments are groups of at least 7 players. The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage. If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account. Groups are built grading all players by rating and distributing them to obtain similar elo averages. Players may be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player.
Rules for poker holdem are official rules. You may find more information about the FICGS betting structure here. Both players must play until one resign or game is adjudicated. One game is played in 3 winning rounds of 100 chips by player played in no limit mode. The minimal bet is always 1 chip and does not depend on the blind's value. The small blind's value is doubled after the 50th hand, then after the 70th, 80th, 90th and 100th hand (the big blind then is 64 chips) of each round."
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-09 16:12:03)
Blinds
It's all in the tournament rules : "The small blind's value is doubled after the 50th hand, then after the 70th, 80th, 90th and 100th hand (the big blind then is 64 chips) of each round."
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-14 13:29:46)
Topalov vs. Kamsky
The match between Veselin Topalov & Gataulla Kamskiy (Gata Kamsky) is about to start, a former challenger of Vladimir Kramnik and a former challenger of Anatoly Karpov in the FIDE World Championship, quite surprising.
Both usually make amazing performances in top chess tournaments, but not exactly as regularly as Garry Kasparov. Who do you expect to win such a match ?
The prize fund is $250,000, the winner should play current FIDE world champion Viswanathan Anand later this year.
More to read in an interview with Veselin Topalov in Chessbase news, particularly on the Lvov bid, originally of $750,000.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5207
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-21 16:57:08)
Norms and Titles
Hello Robert, yes it does (it is specified in the Help section) ;)
By the way, if you just finished a tournament, you still have to wait a few more days to see your norms & title updated - the script runs about every 15 days.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-25 14:52:12)
Risky opening
The games played with Black by Tomas Civin are worth a glance, nice to see this opening at this level (quite hard to play for sure)
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=29043
Maybe a thematic tournament to follow :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-25 15:37:38)
BCcard cup World Baduk Championship
Just read in the IGN Goama newsletter by Alexander Dinerchtein :
BCcard cup World Baduk Championship will be the first open tournament in Go history !
The tournament will take place in Korea, the first prize should be about $300.000 and the real point : Everyone can take part in it.
Nice to see such news in the small world of Go, I would participate for sure (just to see it) if I could :)
Ulrich Imbeck (2009-02-27 01:21:58)
Modern isn't the Hippopotamus
Modern isn't the Hippopotamus.
Only Hippopotamus is a system of the Modern.
I'll never play a thematic tournament Hippopotamus
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-28 03:35:14)
Svante Carl wins FICGS Go WCH (again)
Congratulations to Svante Carl von Erichsen who keeps the FICGS Go champion title by beating Ke Lu 5d on an impressive 5-0 score, also reaching a rating of 2653 !
A rematch just started between our two top Go players, as Ke Lu convincingly won the 3rd FICGS Go WCH preliminary tournament by 7/7
You can follow the games here :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000003
Svante Carl kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match :
FICGS - Hello Svante Carl, first of all congratulations for your win in the FICGS
correspondence Go championship final. Your opponent was Ke Lu 5 dan, you
won 4 games out of 5 already (the last game is not finished yet), how do
you explain such a result?
Svante Carl -
Hello! Thank you very much! It is certainly astonishing for me that I
was able to hold my own in these games. I believe that the main factor
that helped me in getting on even terms with such a strong player was
that I could spend much more time analyzing each move than in a
face-to-face or online direct playing situation.
FICGS - Did you have a particular preparation or plan before to start the games?
Svante Carl - The only things I planned beforehand was to really give my best, and to
make the games as distinct as possible.
FICGS - The site will now try to attract more correspondence Go players from Asia
(with a few chinese, japanese or korean words on the home page already),
what do you think about the games format played at FICGS
(30 days + 1 day / move, chinese rules komi 7.5 points) and the championship rules?
Svante Carl - I like the format. I am also interested in the rules of Go as well as
the rules that surround Go, like tournament rules and time settings.
My current conviction is that the "real, pure" Go rules are area rules
with superko, and territory rules should be seen as a shortcut which
should give the same result. I have come to think that the "Taiwan
rule", i.e. White gets a point of compensation if Black got the last
play (before the first pass), is a sensible part of the rules. FICGS
has taken a very easy route by declaring the rule set and leaving
negotiation of the result to the players. While in the end, it is only
important who won, I think that showing a result as e.g. "White+3",
"Black+Resign" adds a lot of flavour.
As a time system, I think that bonus time (a.k.a. Fischer time), like on
FICGS, is a very general and sensible approach to timing a game like Go.
I think that many "real-world" tournaments and internet servers will
switch to that in the future, for all, blitz, speed, normal, slow, and
correspondence games.
The championship format is quite nice. I like the title
holder/challenger way of tournament series. The only thing I would like
to see is some sort of nigiri to determine the colours in the odd game.
Attracting players from Asia is really a worthwhile goal. I look
forward to playing players from all over the world.
FICGS - Does correspondence Go bring you something more than real time Go?
What is more addictive according to you?
Svante Carl - Since I think that analyzing is a forte of mine, I might be a bit
stronger at correspondence Go than at "real time" Go. I don't think
that one is more addictive than the other.
FICGS - Do you often play real time Go online? What servers do you prefer?
Svante Carl - I usually play on KGS, but not too much, perhaps one or two games per
week on average, often in "bursts". KGS is quite nice, but not perfect.
Sometimes I play at CyberOro, but there is much less communication; I
like to watch pro games there.
FICGS - Do you use softwares that assist you in your games (FICGS rules allow
this)? What do you think about computer Go in general nowadays?
Svante Carl - I only use a board or a simple SGF file viewer for analyzing. There are
no playing programs that could help me. The programs have advanced
quite much recently, but I think that it will still be a long time
before they can beat me in an even game. Currently, most tests of these
programs are against professional players with high handicaps, and I
think that this is a good situation for the bots, since they get
exponentially weaker the further the game is from the end -- high
handicap practically eliminates the opening, their weakest spot. I
would like to see more tests against amateur players at the bots' own level.
FICGS - Do you play other games (board games, video games...), what is your
favourite one?
Svante Carl - Go is certainly my absolute favourite. I also know chess, although I am
really weak at that. I also like "german board games", there are some
really nice pearls there. In video games, well, there are also some
pearls, but they get drowned by a mass of ... not so good games..., I
don't waste time looking at that scene any more. I also played some
online poker, but it wasn't able to keep me interested.
FICGS - Will you defend your title again against Ke Lu who also won
the 3rd wch tournament?
Svante Carl - Of course, I am looking forward to that!
FICGS - Could you give us your impressions on the games, how it
went from the beginning to the end, do you think that
time pressure were a non-negligible factor in the result
(the clocks of Ke Lu were quickly near 1 or 2 days left)?
Svante Carl - I was a bit surprised that he let his time drop to such a low level
right at the beginning, perhaps he was not familiar yet with the vacancy
feature at FICGS. I can't see his reasons for this, or how much time he
actually could spend on his games. I was ahead in each game when it
timed out, though.
I think that game 2 was quite even from the start. The skirmish in the
lower left resulted in me capturing a little group, but he got a nice
framework on the lower side. My prospects of reducing this were a bit
hampered by the fact that my right side group was not completely
settled. I found a way to sacrifice some stones to settle my group
while fixing the framework's extent and keeping sente to secure my top
side, at which time, the game was still almost even, but I think that I
was a few points ahead then. Later, I could seal the top side with some
extra points through some rather blunt forcing moves.
In game 3, my opponent made an approach with White 24 that is usually
regarded as bad in this situation, because the pincer Black 25 works out
very well in conjunction with the stone on the left side. He tried to
settle with White 26, but I refused to make things so easy, even though
the result from the usual joseki would not have been bad. He resisted
Black 27, but I think that White 28 is an overplay. The resulting fight
left me with nice profit in that corner and sente, while he made some
centre thickness. I then tried to carefully neutralize this thickness,
but I may have played some slack moves in the course. Later, I was able
to keep a little moyo in the lower right centre, and then I poked into
his right-side territory where he had left a serious weakness earlier.
Game 1 started out with an interesting fight in the upper right. After
White 42, both the three captured black and the two almost captured
white stones retain some serious aji, which I came back to fix on my
side a few moves later. When I could set up a splitting attack with
Black 77, he was able to connect his two weak groups, but in bad shape.
I continued to keep this dragon separated from the top, planning to
invade the top side afterwards. However, with White 110, instead of
connecting by playing B6, he saved some centre stones, and I proceeded
to separate and kill the dragon. He may have overlooked that my upper
left side group was still able to live after 110 and 111.
In game 4, after White 22, Black's stones on the left side have a
strange relation. The three stones in the corner are a bit far from
C10, but putting another move here is way too slow. He tried to remedy
this situation with the following moves. After Black 27, there are
weaknesses left in both sides' shape. When I entered with White 32, I
thought that his weakness at F13 would let me settle easily, but he
attacked very hard. After White 60, there are some weaknesses in my
shape, but he also has a weakish group in the centre. Playing at K10
with White 76 before taking the two stones with H2 felt very important
to me. At move 94, I couldn't find a good move to complete my moyo at
the top, but I thought that I had found a good point to invade. This
was much harder than I thought, since after Black 95, the 3-3 point
fails to live. With 96 and 98, I thought that I would get a ko, but he
played a line that I had excluded earlier on account of too many cuts in
Black's outside shape. However, with Black 107, he made things very
difficult for me, since cutting at P16 doesn't work out too well -- my
inside group doesn't have enough liberties. I cut at Q14 instead with
the hope to at least get some outside forcing opportunities that might
have been able to keep me in the game. I think that Black 115 should
have been at R12, because after White 116, R12 and N16 have become miai.
Black 117 just doesn't work at all. I really got lucky in the end here.
These impressions are naturally one-sided, and I would be really
interested what stronger players might say about these games.
FICGS - Thank you very much and have good games !
Svante Carl - Thank you!
Garvin Gray (2009-03-03 23:16:45)
sorting by start date
A 'compromise' could be a preference option where players can sort by tournament start date or by game type. Something like that anyways.
The reason I put the compromise in inverted commas is that while it is all very easy for us players to offer suggestions, it is another for programmers to implement them.
Anthony Jones (2009-03-06 13:06:37)
Perverse poker
Its certainly gripping to watch, but the level of aggression he displays is borderline unethical due to the intimidation of his opponents.
As tournament director i'd offer him a single warning before booting him out.
Imagine the same actions in chess after winning a pawn! Although i do remember Nigel Short saying that in a world Junior champs when he was 15 he played a move and Kasparov laughed in his face before crushing him....
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-06 13:53:51)
Perverse chess & poker
Huh, I didn't hear about that story about Short & Kasparov but surely it reminds me one movie about chess.. maybe the one with Christophe Lambert.
Anyway you're right, such behaviour couldn't be tolerated, I'm quite surprised this guy can play in broadcasted tournaments. Maybe "special rules" for the TV show only, even explaining the behaviour in this case.
Anthony Jones (2009-03-06 14:25:26)
TV influence
Ya, i'm sure the producers of the TV show & the sponsors are overjoyed at such actions. The highest profile players nicknames are after all 'Poker Brat' and 'The Mouth'.
Maybe if there was any chess on television, the behaviour of players may deteriorate!?
I once witnessed a player in a tournament react to losing by flipping the board and pieces over his opponent, knocking his chair over and storming out!!
Is this what chess needs to 'jazz' it up?
Michael Aigner (2009-03-07 20:34:56)
Unrated Tournaments
Sometimes I would like to experiment with some more or less unserious openings (e.g. to "improve" my OTB opening repertoire).
I would not like to this in serious rated tournaments, therefore I would be happy if we could have some unrated tournaments (special tournaments area) similar to thematic tournis.
What do you think about this?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-07 23:56:15)
Unrated games
Hi Michael, that's a very good idea ! (why didn't I think about it before :))
Now thinking about this : If it is unrated, shoult it be a tournament ?! .. or a 2 players 1 or 2 game match ?
Also we may find a funny category name to suggest that this is a place to test new or unusual openings...
Any ideas ? :)
Michael Aigner (2009-03-08 00:36:05)
Category name
What´s about "The almost Good, the Bad and the Ugly" as a category? - :-)
I think tournaments should be OK, maybe with less participants than in standard tournaments.
I guess we would produce a lot of good stuff for Wikichess ;-)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-08 23:10:38)
Big Chess World Championship
Hello all,
Finally, the very first Big Chess World Championship will start in a few months... Feel free to train to this incredible game before the event :)
The tournament should be a multi-stage round-robin tournament. Feel free to make suggestions if you have ones, thanks in advance.
Marc Lacrosse (2009-03-09 16:19:53)
Unserious openings in serious games!
"Sometimes I would like to experiment with some more or less unserious openings"
For what regards myself I do it all the time in rated games !
For example in my wch-05 semifinal match against D. Ghysens I am busy trying the Hampe-Algaier gambit (not a real success so far) and a Alekhine-Chatard one (much more promising) ... :)
So no need for special unrated tournaments for experimenting IMHO ...
Marc
PS you should have a look : this match will win the price for the most excentric openings in high-level correspondence chess (well I hope so).
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2009-03-10 15:22:31)
Big Chess World Championship
Hello Big Chess fans!
I have finished about 120 Big Chess games. Only 5 last more than a year (all with Thibault :) ).
I propose that the WCH should be a 2 stage round-robin tournament starting once per year. As usual the groups of the first stage should be filled according the Big Chess ratings.
The winner of each group is qualified for the second stage. If more players are needed to build a final group of 7, 9 or 11 players Thibault can invite the best of the second placed of the first stage groups.
If all players of the final group are known the second stage should be started within a month.
I hope this WCH will be a success :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-11 11:58:44)
Unrated class tournaments ?
Now I just wonder if there should be unrated class tournaments, maybe less categories (maybe 2000+ and 2000- would be ok) but it may be more interesting for strong players... I'm not sure, what do you think ?!
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2009-03-13 18:10:06)
Categorys
In my opinion unrated tournaments should not be devided into categories according to the ratings of the players. If we have no categories the tournaments are filled much faster.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-15 15:07:07)
Wch 4 round-robin final started !
Finally, the WCH 4 round-robin final tournament started (game 22898 is a win for White). Initially, only 5 players qualified, meaning 2 games with White and 2 games with Black. I was thinking about a future rule to make double round-robin tournaments in this case but I thought it was more interesting to invite 2 players in this particular case due to the results of Alberto and Jason.
Marc Lacrosse (2009-03-15 15:35:28)
a problem with tournament scheduling.
This is the third time I find myself enrolled in a tournament at a completeley inapproppriated time with regard to my professional duties and leisure time possibilities.
Thibault, you should do something. At least when a tournament start has been delayed for months (or more) like this one please do send a mail or message to all players announcing the date of beginning and asking for confirmation of their participation.
For what regards myself and this wch-4 round-robin final I am in the complete impossibility to free the required amount of time by now : so I regret but I have no other choice than announcing my forfeit for all these games. Please do take my name off.
By the way I won't enroll in any other championship qualifications as long as there are no better rules regarding scheduling and announcements of tournaments start date
It's completely unacceptable to stay without any news for months and then to suddenly discover that you have a new set of games running.
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-15 17:55:32)
a problem with tournament scheduling
I agree, Marc.
Well, to summary the situation is :
1. It actually happens that tournaments start up to two months late in wch cycles.
2. It would take too much time (compared to the wch tournaments duration) to ask for a confirmation to all qualified players (+ spamfolder & other problems), particularly when a few players may suddenly be invited in a tournament.
3. Players can only withdraw their participation before the wch tournament starts.
IMO, to keep this rapid format, the rules should evolve to : "A player may withdraw from a wch tournament up to 15 days after it started, if he did not play a single move. In this case a player will be immediately invited in replacement. As it is not possible to wait for all confirmations, this player may withdraw from the tournament by following the same rule."
This may at least partly solve the problem. By following this new rule, you may be replaced without any penalty.
What do you think ?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-15 18:58:58)
wch cycles & rules
In addition and to make the rules clearer and less hard, we may envisage to launch a wch new cycle every 8 or 9 months - in practice 6 months seems to be really short. There are always a few games that can't be adjudicated before the very end.
About the idea to send an email to qualified players to warn them about the start date of the tournaments, I agree that it would be the best way but it may also delay tournaments (+ spamfolder & so on..). In the news, I wrote that the round-robin final would start as soon as game 22898 finished a while ago, then deleted it, which is not enough also. So if all tournaments surely start when a new cycle starts (clearly announced in the news page), it may solve the problem. What do you think ?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-17 20:50:44)
Epoints with a SMS or phone call
Now it is possible to buy Epoints (thus also supporting FICGS & sponsorize tournaments - the prizes have just increased in most categories) by entering a code after sending a SMS or with a phone call.
More informations in "My account" page, see the window on the right of the chat bar.
Here is a free code for 3 Epoints : X358F876 , let's see who will be the first one to try Allopass :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-17 22:53:06)
Rules updated
I just made this change in the general rules & chess wch rules :
"11.6
There is no withdrawal, from any tournament, however in the case of multi-stages e.g. world championship tournaments, the games won't be rated if a player warns the referee before the tournament starts and at most 15 days after a new stage started but the first one, then a replacement will occur if possible. (this special rule is particularly dedicated to players surprisingly invited to an advanced wch stage, as it would take too much time to wait for confirmations from all qualified players)"
Don't hesitate to make suggestions if you think it can be better formulated. Thanks in advance.
Scott Nichols (2009-03-18 10:28:13)
Ratings floor.
Hi Thibault. One thing I would like to see implemented is a ratings floor here. By this I mean a player can never drop below one class below his/her ratings peak. e.g., a player with a 1951 rating can never drop below 1600, a 2001 player can never drop below 1800.
In the U.S. (and maybe worldwide, not sure) we have this system to keep strong players from sandbagging and artificially let their rating drop so they can play in the lower sections of big money tournaments.
On FICGS I don't think that is a big problem. The problem here is that Corr. chess takes long term dedication and some players tend to drop out for whatever reason and resign all their games or just quit and let their time run out. This also drops their ratings artificially low levels.
Then, as it seems to always happen, Caissa's power sweeps over them and they get back in. Or, they just bought a new super computer and want to show it off. Anyway, when they do get back in....you have an expert player coming in with a very low rating. This to me is unfair to the other players who try very hard on their ratings. e.g., In the current world Ch. cycle I am playing a very strong player who is over 800 points below my rating.
I would appreciate any other opinions on this subject. Thank you.
Robert Mueller (2009-03-21 08:28:45)
Slower Time Controls
I would like to see a World Champion Cycle with slower time controls. I like the WCH tournament, it is just too fast for me. Standard time controls (10 moves in 40 days) would be great. And yes, this means that a cycle will last several years to complete. That is not unusual in correspondence chess.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-21 19:26:53)
Slower time controls
Hello Robert,
Well, in a perfect world I would like to create another multi-stages tournament ("Cup" or something) with 40+40 days/10 moves time control. Maybe we can start it already but I'm not sure we have enough players... The same about the format. Any opinions ?
I think we should keep a fast multi-stages tournament anyway.
Wayne Lowrance (2009-03-24 16:51:19)
another suggestion
My thinking is not favourable for slower time controls. There are already tournament classes that are very thin and increasing the number of tournament options only delutes the base of tournaments.
By the way, Tribault if you want to increase participation, open up some faster tournament bases. Not like blitz or such, but faster. I think that would be a better improvement than slowing down. Holy cow some of my games have gone on close to a year, or seems that way anyhow. I am content with the classes/timers as they are.
By the way, hardy congratulations on auto rersign on mate . :) (about time hehehehe) kidding of course.
Wayne
Benjamin Block (2009-03-28 09:04:48)
Other sites
There are some site that have free tournamnets. You can win in them and then play bigger and bigger some have earned over $10 000 starting with no money. But the most sites you need to be 18. I don´t really understand why. If it is free tournament why do you need to be 18? You can´t lose any money. Maybe they only want players that they can take money from. At the moment i play on pogo.com it is free and you win tickets that you can win money but the chans is very smal.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-28 19:30:21)
New category : Unrated tournaments
Finally, a new chess tournaments category : "Unrated tournaments" in FICGS__CHESS__SPECIAL__TOURNAMENTS
A place to test new ideas & openings... Thanks to Michael Aigner for the good idea :)
Denis Ivanchenkov (2009-03-29 14:14:21)
Wayne Lowrance
>By the way, Thibault if you want to increase participation, open up some faster tournament bases.
imho 1 day/move, 2 day/move or 3 day/move - these time conntrols more demanding for players.
and I'd like to suggest one more idea - so call ladder tournaments (well, this may be too complicated to develop corresponding soft - but this is just a suggestion). so the essence of such tournament is that we have "ladder" classes H (lowest), G, F, ... and A - the highest one. In the beginning all players belong to H class. And there are open 5/7/9-player tournaments starting in each class - they are just waiting until filled and then open again. each tournament is all-play-all 1 game with fast (1 d/m 2d/m 3d/m) control. When tournament is finnished the winner (or several winners in case of a tier) is promoted one class up. Similarly, the player (players) occupying the last position is demoted one class down (except for H classers). So winning the tournaments is actually a "climbing" the ladder.
this scheme was used in igame.ru and was pretty popular among players.
i suggested this scheme to chess-online.ru - unfortunately they were pretty hesitant as to realization (maybe due to soft development complexity?)
Garvin Gray (2009-03-31 10:45:47)
200 point rating bands
Apologies for repeating myself but it has been a while for this topic. I argued previously that the rating groups for the tournaments are too wide ie in the standard divisions there is a four hundred point group.
I think this needs to change to a 200 point rating gap in the standard group and have more groups offered.
I know this has been done to a minor extent in the rapid section, so for the standard section, the rating bands would need to be on the opposing one hundred point scale.
The main point I am trying to make is that rarely are the groups comprised of players from all over the 400 points bands, but instead come from players just over the rating limit ie if the lower rating limit is 2000, then most of the players are just over 2000 as they have the most to gain.
So I think there would be more players entering if more groups were offered with 200 point rating bands, instead of the current 400 point rating bands.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-31 19:41:45)
200 point rating bands
I'm not sure, 100 point rating bands are theorically better of course but it will take much more time to fill the waiting lists. The rapid section (with different bands) partly solves the problem in my opinion - particularly for players who may play rapid tournaments also.
Anyway, waiting for more opinions on this.
Don Groves (2009-03-31 22:48:41)
Ratings lists
It would also make the ratings lists more meaningful to only list players who have actually entered tournaments. There are many in the rating lists who have not logged on since their first time here and who may never participate in an FICGS event. Why should they be shown in the ratings lists?
Philip Roe (2009-04-05 08:21:08)
Will the games be viewable?
I see that the first unrated tournament has begun, but it doesnt seem to possible to view the games (There is no entry under "Tournaments").
Since the players have expressed an interest in trying opening experiments, it might be interesting to watch their adventures.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2009-04-05 13:21:55)
Will the games be viewable?
Hello Philip,
you can try
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__UNRATED_TOURNAMENT__000001
or
https://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__UNRATED_TOURNAMENT__000001
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-05 14:57:31)
Thanks Philip !
Indeed, I forget to add the link in the tournaments categories.. I'll add it soon, thanks !
Scott Nichols (2009-04-06 02:40:34)
A couple more thoughts
Maybe the history of updating ratings every 2-6 months was necessary with slow mail by letter or postcard games. I've played in the Golden Knights back in the 80's where games easily take over a year. But now with the instant moves, there might be cause for change. Also, (#1)towards the end of a rating cycle, the games noticably slow down because players do not want to resign and lose their chance to enter a particular tournament. #2. A player may achieve a rating milestone and want to enter a tourn. right away, but can't because his/her rating doesn't change for another few weeks. So he/her may delay resigning lost games and prolong others waiting for the change. If it had changed right away, he/her would enter the tournament and proceed with his/her other games at a normal pace.
Just a couple of thought...would love to hear more opinions on this, :)
Don Groves (2009-04-06 06:37:12)
Ratings
Both Go and Poker ratings are changed after each game and doing the same for Chess would make all FICGS games consistent in this regard.
Also, I think Scott has a good point about having to wait to enter a tournament for which one is qualified based on "future rating" but must wait, perhaps weeks, until the next ratings update.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-06 21:31:27)
Rating peaks
Among possible problems : It is likely that players could reach higher artificial ratings (peaks) this way, even if we change the complete system & the way tournaments are built. IMO instant ratings mean that games should start as soon as a player enter a tournament waiting list - gradually, like at IECG server - otherwise it would be even harder to predict your opponents tournament entry rating, by the way there is no more TER taken in account in Go rating calculation, that is an advantage in some ways but one of the main problems also]
As for me, the deep reason why I may prefer the 2 months system is this very special "moment" that FIDE players know when waiting for their next rating. The other system makes everything faster & faster, just like the world wide web but finally maybe the passion flies away faster also. My 2 cents :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-07 15:42:29)
Update
The bug has been fixed, also now you can enter a new chess or Go tournament if you exceed the number of poker games limit (50), and vice versa.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-11 17:08:18)
3rd FICGS chess wch candidates final
For the second time (out of 3), the winner of the round-robin tournament won the candidates final, congratulations to Edward Kotlyanskiy and Peter Schuster for a nice match !
Here is the spectacular game which decided the result :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=28292
William Taylor (2009-04-12 14:41:59)
FICGS Oympiad
Not sure if this has been suggested before, but how about a big tournament on FICGS with teams from different countries, like the Olympiad? The number of boards per team would have to be thought about carefully to get the right balance between number of teams able to participate and number of players from each country able to participate.
The Austrian team would probably be favourites (headed by Aigner, Rada, Kund), but there are other potentially strong teams too.
Denis Ivanchenkov (2009-04-12 22:11:51)
idea!!!
Maybe instead of national teams tournament it is better to organize just TEAMS tournament?
Nick Burrows (2009-04-12 22:30:28)
Teams
The team tournaments on Playchess don't work well at all. It all feels much more random to me playing for Star Trek United etc.
I personally prefer a Ficgs Olympiad as William called it..
William Taylor (2009-04-12 23:33:05)
Teams vs Olympiad
Nick: I haven't played teams tournaments on Playchess but I'd guess they're similar to those on ICC. I agree that they feel rather pointless, but I think that's just because they're over quickly and you won't play in the same team with the same people again. Getting a (perhaps starting annualy) team tournament or league going on FICGS would be quite different I think, with longer time controls, hopefully well-established teams and perhaps prize money. Maybe there's room for a team tournament and an Olympiad - if not either would be nice.
Scott Nichols (2009-04-17 12:41:53)
Increase the blinds
A simple solution to shorten poker games is to increase the blinds to like every 20 moves the blinds double. This would put a lot more importance on every hand. This is what is done in major tournaments.
Nick Burrows (2009-04-17 14:35:47)
increasing the blinds?
Poker tournaments, as they stand right now finish much quicker than even rapid chess tournaments.
The current blind structure is good because it encourages skill - which is the point of 'correspondance poker'.
The issue is rather about adjusting the time to penalise defence through inactivity.
Ulrich Imbeck (2009-04-18 22:24:35)
GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_I__000012??
I could open my games in
GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_I__000011
and GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU__000072
and I made my moves there,
but I can't open GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_I__000012.
Ulrich Imbeck (2009-04-18 23:30:39)
Only in Kyu I 00012
My problem with the running games-mode is not in
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_I__000011
and not in FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU__000072
Wayne Lowrance (2009-04-23 00:52:43)
FICGS Olympiad
Okey Dokey fair enough. As I said I liked the original proposal, I thought it was a unique idea and an "Olympiad" similiar to Olympics Chess, country against country.
I was always very active in sports in my youth. Maybe that is why I perked up when I read Mr Taylor's post. I am usually involved in a lot of tournament chess and outside activities and would make an entry for an "Olympiad event" despite my heavy work loads.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-25 21:32:16)
Teams, not olympiads this time
In my opinion, thinking about kind of olympiads is too early yet. We may try to build some friendly teams (4 players per team) with funny names - could be a contest also :) -, then we can start a tournament. But no doubt that we'll discuss olympiads again... just later.
Vadim Khachaturov (2009-04-27 22:15:23)
Team tournament.
Thibault, I think You should open a waiting list with a some deadline point. After that time the teams of four can be created according to the average rating. IMO the teams average ratings should be as close as possible to each other.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-29 14:12:20)
Team tournament
Let's do it. (see new thread) :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-29 14:17:53)
1st team tournament !
Hello all,
As you may have read in the forum previously, the idea of a team chess tournament came up (originally Olympiad, maybe later).
The 1st FICGS CHESS TEAM TOURNAMENT will start on May 15th, 2009. Each team must be made of 4 players, whatever their ratings.
The tournament will be a single round-robin tournament, games will be unrated (just for fun !), time control : 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves.
You may contact other players through the form in My Messages (bottom) or just make a call here in this thread or in the chat bar to find partners, the definitive teams should be announced with their name in this thread to be in !
We might also vote for the funniest team name after the tournament started, be aware ;)
Have fun :-)
Benjamin Block (2009-04-29 16:24:46)
Filter in My tournaments?
I have a lot´s of tournaments played and it would be very funny if we can filter them. Like "Ended Tournamnets", "Tournaments with my games", "Runing Tournaments".
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-29 16:39:08)
Filter in My tournaments
True, I should be able to arrange that...
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-29 18:07:53)
Filter in My tournaments
I just added a filter for running tournaments, it should be ok. Actually it is more complicated to add a filter for finished tournaments, maybe later.
Daniel Parmet (2009-04-30 00:30:12)
Error in bold
Thanks Thibault for the new filter but there is a minor error. When I click running tournaments it still leaves all tournaments bolded as though this were selected. (no big deal really just thought you'd like to know)
Scott Nichols (2009-04-30 10:00:53)
Great improvement
I've been hoping for just such a button. When you've played many tournaments, the running tourney button is very nice, thanks Thibault.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-30 12:47:48)
Rated or unrated ?
Should this team tournament be rated or not in your opinion ? At a first sight it seems to me that high-rated players would think about playing twice as they can meet players with low ratings, but according to at least one of them I may be wrong on this...
Benjamin Block (2009-04-30 18:09:40)
Thanks
finished tournaments is not importent. It is already great.
Scott Nichols (2009-04-30 23:58:53)
Rated or unrated?
I would play either way. Usually, I only will play rated, but I would think this format would work just as well unrated.
The theme I think is fun here, with fun names. I was thinking of all kinds of bizarre openings to try, but would need to think twice about opening choice if it was rated. It sorta goes back to Michael Aigner's point on unrated tournaments IMHO. Thank you for having this new style.
The incentive in rated games is simply not to lose points if you lose, or to gain points if you win. In team chess, this incentive is not needed. The incentive is that you do not want your teammates to beat you up if you lose. ;-)
Sophie Leclerc (2009-05-01 01:25:25)
A team tournament
Just don't forget me guys.
I don't post quite often, but I am still there and has to try plenty of things.
William Taylor (2009-05-02 12:27:29)
Will
Will - if you look at the other thread (called '1st team tournament !') you'll see that we're running a team tournament rather than an Olympiad, so teams can be international. An Olympiad may be discussed again in the future but I don't think Thibault has immediate plans for one.
Denis Ivanchenkov (2009-05-02 22:21:13)
Engines go home!
are there any engines-free teams tournaments?
Don Groves (2009-05-03 00:21:39)
Team tournament ethics
Should each player on a team play his/her game in isolation, or is asking one's teammates for advice permitted?
William Taylor (2009-05-03 01:36:13)
Team tournament ethics
Good question Don. In OTB team tournaments team members might help each other to prepare for an opponent before the game, but of course couldn't help during the game. I'm not sure if we'll know who our opponents are before the games have started here, so that approach may not be possible. It would be nice to have some sort of cooperation, but one thing that should be avoided IMO is a strong player getting 3 weaker team members and essentially playing their games for them.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-03 14:09:17)
First team : "The Dark Knights" :)
Name : The Dark Knights
#1 William Taylor-2140
#2 Scott Nichols-2089
#3 Don Groves-1991
#4 Josef Riha-1989
.. brr, frightening :) kind of Monthy Python tribute ?
About team tournament ethics, I don't think that the best player would play all moves for his team in any case, FICGS rules should still apply, I don't think it will be a problem, particularly in an unrated "for fun" tournament :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-06 11:57:15)
Scoring
I agree with William on this point, if a team scores 4-0 or 3-1, it is 2 points for the team, 1 point if the score is 2-2, 0 otherwise.
This time the games will be unrated as a test (maybe this will be a rated tournament next time), I think it is a good occasion to play more unusual openings, this is for fun after all :)
Vadim Khachaturov (2009-05-06 16:14:00)
team tournament
Consider me in. I dont care whether it is rated or not. As to points score, we can do it in both ways: total points score and 2-1-0 points system. I would join any team with a big pleasure.
Iouri Basiliev (2009-05-07 11:32:54)
1st team tournament !
If someone from Ukraine want to play in the team - please answer here or write to me. Preliminary team name is "Yellow-Blue Warriors" :)
Vadim Khachaturov (2009-05-08 10:38:12)
1st team tournament
Would anyone like to join the team with a provisory name " the summer breeze" ?
Jorge Orden (2009-05-08 18:41:59)
hello all
I wish to play in the team tournament.
I don't have team now
Sophie Leclerc (2009-05-09 21:49:51)
Sure you accept^
Right.
Then we need to find another player.
We will contact the webmaster once our team is created. We should see who accept, wonder if it could be right for Yugi inving to help us a little with that tournament.
Even if I have to make his move since he don't have a computer. I do not make him win....
The summer breeze is a good name, but I still believe the phantoms suit us more, as no one see us.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-11 23:05:09)
Poker & chance
90% luck ? This is true when you're talking about a certain number of hands, not in all cases of course.. So when you consider several tournaments (norms), so ie. 6 games * 6 tournaments * 600 moves (let's say 300 hands), we're talking about 10,000 hands .. The chancy factor "disappears" when you play 500,000 hands. I do not pretend to explain anything about poker theory, but it is quite clear to me that theorically the possibility of norms is not a totally stupid idea (but it still has to be discussed for sure).
Vadim Khachaturov (2009-05-11 05:39:56)
team tournament
About Yugi or Daniel? We have one place only. Any of them two are ok. But for me, its better, when the player make his moves by himself.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-12 22:34:06)
Team tourney : Players without a team
Players who would like to play in the team tournament but who don't have a team yet may announce themselves in this thread, I'll build the last teams myself if necessary by gathering as much as possible players with the same ratings...
Teams will be announced in this thread :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=7059
Join the fun :)
Vadim Khachaturov (2009-05-13 01:10:06)
Team tournament
Finally! So, here is our team, called "The Ghost Knights". 1. Vadim Khachaturov, 2. Yugi Inving, 3. Sophie Leclerc, 4.Jorge Orden.
Stanimir Denchev (2009-05-13 09:20:47)
Anyone need a player ?
I wish to play in the team tournament.
I don't have team now
Volker Koslowski (2009-05-13 12:32:49)
New Team
Hi to all!
I would like to announce a new team called FSF En Passant for the first FICGS team tournament. We are:
1. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2270)
2. Volker Koslowski (2264)
3. Sebastian Boehme (2175)
4. Roland Markus (2096)
and we are looking forward for some nice games at this tournament. So let's have fun :)
Garvin Gray (2009-05-16 17:46:08)
Easy.
There is an easy way to solve this. Start the tournament!
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-17 23:11:38)
Complete teams !
The team tournament should start very soon, complete teams are :
>> Yellow-Blue Warriors
Iouri Basiliev
Dmytro Romaniuk
Ostap Hladky
Yura Lemehov
>> Happy Pawn
Stephane Legrand 2209
Garvin Gray 2125
Daniel Parmet 1961
Ilmar Cirulis 1805
>> FSF En Passant
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2270)
Volker Koslowski (2264)
Sebastian Boehme (2175)
Roland Markus (2096)
>> The Ghost Knights
Vadim Khachaturov
Yugi Inving
Sophie Leclerc
Jorge Orden
>> The knights who say "Ni"
Michael Aigner - 2602
Xavier Pichelin - 2577
Hannes Rada - 2559
Thibault de Vassal - 2473
>> The Dark Knights
William Taylor - 2140
Scott Nichols - 2089
Don Groves - 1991
Josef Riha - 1989
Players without a team yet (one team is possible, with 3 more players, we could build one more) :
1. Ranganathan Raman
2. Alexander Blinchevsky
3. Stanimir Denchev
4. Benjamin Block
5. Murray Findlay
Did I forget someone ? So we have 6 complete teams + 5 players without a team.
We should be able to start the tournament in a few days ! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-18 21:43:40)
Rybka 3 wins the 17th WCCC
Rybka 3 is still the king of computer chess, she just won the 17th WCCC tournament on an Intel Xeon W5580 / 3.2GHz x 8 with 8 points ahead of Junior, Deep Sjeng & Shredder (6.5 points).. Hiarcs finished the tournament with 6 points.
That's a pity, Fritz did not participate, once more.
Vjacheslav Perevozchikov (2009-05-20 16:31:57)
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUPS
Sorry for a bit stupid question...
I wonder how many players come out from a group to the next round of the tournament?
William Taylor (2009-05-22 07:28:56)
Different world championships
I qualified for FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_04__000004 from tournament FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_07__000004, not tournament FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_02__000005.
However, I didn't win that tournament either - I came second.
My initial guess as to how I qualified from that one is that more than 1 player needed to qualify to make up numbers for the next round - it was quite a large group and I seem to remember reading something about that in the rules. Second guess - Vadim Khachaturov withdrew. Third guess - the large sum of money that I sent Thibault with an e-mail saying 'please let me into the second round' had the desired effect.
That answer is based on about 30 seconds' thought - I'll have a closer look when I get back from what I suspect will be a highly unpleasant physics exam.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-23 00:31:31)
1st team tournament : games & results !
A new thread to comment the games & results in the 1st FICGS team tournament that just started ! The teams are :
>> The knights who say "Ni"
Michael Aigner - 2602
Xavier Pichelin - 2577
Hannes Rada - 2559
Thibault de Vassal - 2473
>> FSF En Passant
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2270)
Volker Koslowski (2264)
Sebastian Boehme (2175)
Roland Markus (2096)
>> The Dark Knights
William Taylor - 2140
Scott Nichols - 2089
Don Groves - 1991
Josef Riha - 1989
>> Happy Pawn
Stephane Legrand 2209
Garvin Gray 2125
Daniel Parmet 1961
Ilmar Cirulis 1805
>> Yellow-Blue Warriors
Iouri Basiliev
Dmytro Romaniuk
Ostap Hladky
Yura Lemehov
>> The Ghost Knights
Vadim Khachaturov
Yugi Inving
Sophie Leclerc
Jorge Orden
>> The Knights with no name (yet)
Alexander Blinchevsky
Stanimir Denchev
Benjamin Block
Ranganathan Raman
You can follow the games here :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__TEAM_EVENT_TABLE_1__000001
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__TEAM_EVENT_TABLE_2__000001
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__TEAM_EVENT_TABLE_3__000001
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__TEAM_EVENT_TABLE_4__000001
Note : The first player displayed in each tournament table is not always the player of the first team because when the 1st & 3rd players of a team play White against another team, the 2nd & 4th play Black against the same team, this is not obvious to read (sorry).
I'm really sorry to the 2 players that were not included in a team, but we had to start the tournament now... The last team may still announce their name (provisional : "The knights with no name")
Have nice games :)
Alexander Blinchevsky (2009-05-23 09:35:44)
The Knights with no name
I like this name too. Just remove "yet" in brackets ;)
Good luck for all teams in the 1st team tournament and a lot of thanks to you, Thibault!
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-26 17:30:46)
Thanks :)
There's no problem with to-do lists.. actually it is just absolutely necessary.. I can't think about everything. I still have many things to improve, this year I developped much more the "other side" of the site and this was very exciting, I learnt a lot while doing this.. that will be useful for future improvements and it brings more and more visitors [the current statistics are about +10% every week for a few months (that's good :))] on the server (I try to redirect as many as potential players as possible here).
Speaking of the server, I'm not afraid of crisis or whatever, the statistics are just better and better now, that helps the site to distribute Epoints (potential money) prizes. Almost nobody claims for real money prizes but that's the finality (to distribute money prizes in free tournaments).. There are plenty of "successful" sites on the internet that offer money prizes (or costly services) for free but all of them are built on unrealistic views IMO, so they implode or cheat in a way as soon as they encounter success. Most of us know about the Facebook case that still lose money. FICGS grew very slowly during 2 or 3 years but IMO it was based on realistic views so don't worry, the site will survive after both of us, I'll take care of that :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-03 01:29:29)
Exciting games :)
Hi Sophie,
It can't work every time...
There are many exciting games in the tournament though :)
Michel van der Kemp (2009-06-04 10:01:38)
re
Offering a draw is one thing, offering a draw in several consecutive moves is another. I would think that is harassment, especially when the other player has answered politely he thinks he has chances. Harassment should be fought.
I remember a case in FIDE tournament, where one player would offer a draw with each move. The player was first warned by referee, and when he didn't stop, was expelled from tournament.
One could argue if consecutive draw offers in correspondence chess should still be considered harassment, but it is still irritating to say the least.
Normajean Yates (2009-06-05 03:07:37)
oh then minor technical change...
instead of the game having been drawn automatically, referee *adjudicates* it as a draw.
This ensures that fide rules are not violated, because a game result *can* be changed by adjudication: for example:
Suppose OTB, immediately after a game is over, the winning player is found to have a hidden transciever with a *log* showing that moves *were* transmitted and move-suggestions *were* recieved. And the player breaks down in tears and admits to cheating: pleading for leniency - not in re that particular game, but for a shorter ban-from-tournaments than s/he expects to get. In this case, at the very least the game would be readjudicated as a loss for said player, no?
Also, on ficgs the 50-move rule is not implemented; so a game won here which would otherwise be drawn under the 50-move rule - wouldn't *that* violate fide rules? For corr chess, it is more iecc/iccf than fide - fide will come around :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-08 21:19:20)
New feature : Silent mode !
Due to several problems caused by a few players recently (mainly insults in private messages), I just created a "silent mode".
Every player who will not respect the FICGS general rules & netiquette may be placed in this mode for a certain time or permanently, that way the player can play games and enter new tournaments but it is no more possible to send messages to other players (or receive messages with moves) by any way, this is the only way to avoid troubles in tournaments.
I'm very sorry to anyone who received such messages and I'll take care to avoid and prevent this in the future.
My best wishes,
Thibault
Marc Lacrosse (2009-06-10 11:08:12)
Garvin : I do not agree
"For the rapid games, I think the issue is the 1 move per game increment.
Perhaps having the time control as 20 days plus 3 days per move would be easier for people to manage and it guarantees that a player will have at least three days per move."
This is simply turning "rapid" games into standard ones !
If you feel that the one-day increment is too short then do enroll in standard tournaments
For what regards myself I already stated that I prefer a small number of fast games over a larger number of slower ones (this is even the reason why I more than once declined to play in advanced wch tournaments that were supposed to begin simultaneousy with other competitions I am in).
Just my two cents.
Marc
Garvin Gray (2009-06-15 16:57:01)
Freestyle tournaments
It has been a long while since this style of tournament was attempted on here. When will the next one be organised?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-16 14:12:31)
Freestyle tournaments
Hi Garvin. I planned to organize the next ones in July and August. There will be more freestyle tourneys after that, actually as soon as I have a large broadband (at last - yes, I'm the only person on this planet with a ~33 kbps connection, not easy every day :))...
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-16 14:17:09)
To Garvin
1) Quite strange... is there the same problem for other players ?
2) Did you try to click the magnifying glass just after the name of the tournament (on the tournament page only) to see the crosstable ? Not perfect but better, most probably.
Robert Gally (2009-06-16 20:22:27)
E-mail notification
Is there some way to set notification e-mails on just the FIRST game an opponent moves in? Often, in tournaments, I get 4 e-mails at a time for moves made within a short period of time...
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-21 23:02:23)
Cochrane gambit
It is now planned to be the 86th thematic tourney !
By the way it has been played before, see :
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000031
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000030
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-22 16:41:00)
Discussion at Rybkachess
That's an interesting discussion... Once more, the confusion reigns between Freestyle chess (commonly played at classical & blitz time controls) and Correspondence Chess, particularly for centaur players who did not experience correspondence chess at a 2500+ level.
IMO (in brief) on several points :
1) All these made-for-engines books have no other interest than to "manipulate" chess engines & other made-for-engines books, actually this has almost nothing to do with correspondence chess (where they are completely useless at a high level, let's say 2300+) or even chess.
2) Many players do not realize the multitude of factors that appear to be more important that the basic strength of centaurs once the correspondence chess 2400 mark is reached and that still increases at 2500 and 2600... The higher the level, the more "opening books" depend on the recent games played by the opponent (and his level), the number of current games played, the score to reach in 8 games matches, the importance of rating, the goal in life, even the month/season for a few players and many other things according to the persons... Actually these "openings books" just live the time to use it one time, so a better term is preparation, actually opening books do not exist anymore in correspondence chess at a very high level, at most it may be useful against weaker players.
3) The previous point is enough to explain the rating changes of most 2400+ players ! In example...
- GM Farit Balabaev is a very experienced player who constantly has(had) more than 100 running correspondence chess games at several places for years, he's also a fast player, it is quite logical to me that he looks for quiet games and fast draws (or lose sometimes to very strong players who want to win more)
- Wolfgang Utesch, FICGS WCH finalist, like many players at one time in their life, decided that other things were more important and that correspondence chess was too time consuming, particularly once the 2500 mark has been reached...
- Eros Riccio obviously decided to win every correspondence chess competition at FICGS while playing a high number of games at several places AFTER having topped the FICGS rating list with the highest rating so far (which he did), so it is natural to look for a few quick draws in matches if 8 draws mean a victory for him (and a few rating points lost, that is quite inhuman anyway :))
- Michael Aigner tops most FICGS rating lists by playing only games at 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves time control, which is an enormous performance as obviously the longer the time control, the higher the rate of draws. I do not know how many current games he's playing at ICCF or IECG and other organisations but I suspect he plays a quite reasonable number of games.
- Xavier Pichelin may top the FICGS rating list this year as he's an incredibly dangerous player with White and Black and with a reasonable number of running games.
Many strong players also choose to play some tournaments for "fun" or to experiment openings and may lose some points while their real strength is over 2500 or more... so it is quite hard to make the difference between the real strength and correspondence chess ratings. So many parameters... It is likely that we'll see one day a 12 games match between Eros and Xavier (Michael do not play fast correspondence chess time control, yet I hope), we all wonder what rating could achieve Vasik Rajlich (Rybka's creator) and other very strong freestyle players but it is very hard to predict only by knowing their results in freestyle tournaments. Correspondence chess is a mirror of real life.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-23 17:11:00)
waiting lists 2400+
Hello Arno,
5 months for the next class SM tournament is quite long indeed. I may ask to all players in the waiting lists but in my experience I doubt that everyone will agree and it would be not fair that I take such a decision without asking.
Summer is not the most active season for chess but most players register for new tournaments just after the new rating list is published (next week, july 1st) so let's see... moreover the next WCH cycle will not start before november so I hope that a few players will register for this tournament.
To be continued.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-24 19:06:32)
Future thematic tournaments
Thanks everyone for your nice suggestions, so we'll have :
Anti-Moscow gambit, 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 :
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000088
Sicilian Dragon, 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 :
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000087
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2009-06-25 20:42:58)
About thematic Volga
We had recently one: FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000059
Michel van der Kemp (2009-07-02 11:56:00)
Chucky
Ivanchuk lost a lot of rating points, but it would have been OK if FIDE had recognised a tournament he won convincingly, in which case he would have had almost 30 points more. Perhaps this is a hidden punishment from FIDE for Ivanchuk's doping incident during the chess olympiad in Germany earlier this year.
Pity how politics can influence our game.
Nick Burrows (2009-07-04 07:55:18)
Minimum rating idea
A common problem encountered in correspondance chess is that of strong players forefitting several games and their rating dropping by hundreds of points
This spoils the tourny for lower rated players who often have a 2200 rated player in their group with a misleading rating of 1600.
It also de-stabilises the ratings across the whole site as many players grades are false.
Lastly, and of least concern because players who made the drop deserve some handicap - the artificially low-graded player has a whole year of uncompetitive matches as he waits to regain points.
In o.t.b tournaments in England, a method employed to stop rating cheats is that a player who has won a certain class of tournament previously, cannot re-enter at that level.
The equivalent here would be that your rating has a minimum value, equal to the highest rating requirement of a tournament class you have previously won.
This seems to solve the problems experienced by many on this site.
It may be said that the rating drop is a necessary deterrent to prevent players from doing this. My experience is that it occurs from factors out of one's control (illness) and any deterrant is irrelevant - just as a death penalty doesn't stop heroin addicts from stealing!
What d'yall think?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-07-05 23:14:20)
Interesting idea
"In o.t.b tournaments in England, a method employed to stop rating cheats is that a player who has won a certain class of tournament previously, cannot re-enter at that level."
I quite like the idea in this way. Maybe it can be improved even without complicating the rules too much. Anyway if someone wants to make trouble in some tournaments (it did happen), there's no perfect way to prevent him and it is better in class B or A (2000+) than in class 2400+ IMO.
Simon Johnson (2009-07-06 17:02:44)
question
i'm new here, and i was wondering... are we able to play anything without it being a tournament?
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2009-07-06 17:32:38)
Response
You could be a more specific with the anything. Are you interested in chess, go, poker? In the waiting lists there are special tournaments where you could play against single persons
Iouri Basiliev (2009-07-12 23:26:10)
1st team tournament : games & results !
Would be nice to see the teams points. Kind of common table.
Iouri Basiliev (2009-07-13 14:59:09)
1st team tournament
I'm lost. Where we can see the 1st team tournament reglament? Would be team match points counted or just all players points? Sorry, i can't scan all the messages.
Iouri Basiliev (2009-07-13 20:24:46)
1st team tournament
Thx Thibault, it's clear now.
Klearchos Loukopoulos (2009-07-14 21:47:18)
withdraw, me too!
Would it be possible to be removed from
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000086
thematic chess, first moves : e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 d6 Nxf7.
Just this one, not the other one that is currently on nor the other, for which I'm still in the waiting list.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-07-28 19:35:16)
Tournament Entry Rating (TER) history
Hello all,
A new feature, now you can see graphics for your correspondence chess, advanced chess, big chess, Go (weiqi) and Poker Holdem TER history.
To see your TER history, several ways :
1) Direct link with username :
http://www.ficgs.com/players/devassal_thibault/history.html
2) Direct link with member id :
http://www.ficgs.com/display_history.php?member=1
3) Preferences : Click the magnifying glass then click History
Why a TER history ? Because TER are more significant (and less numerous) than every rating changes for most games.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-01 22:28:54)
Maxime Vachier-Lagrave wins Biel 2009
Finally, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave emerged from the 2600 GM field to convincingly win the top tournament of Biel, a category 19 double round robin tournament, ahead of super GMs like Vassily Ivanchuk, Alexander Morozevich or Boris Gelfand. At eighteen and with a FIDE rating of 2703 he may be the next french good surprise in the top class players and bring some fresh blood in such tournaments. Does anyone have an opinion on his style of play or something ? :)
Scott Nichols (2009-08-13 13:09:47)
Rapid expansion?
Hi Thib, I was wondering what you think about expanding the parameters for rapid tournament from 200 points to 400 points to make it the same as standard tournaments? This would allow for many more rapid tournaments IMHO.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-13 15:08:15)
Rapid expansion
Hi Scott, I'm not sure... Rapid tournaments take so much time that too many tournaments may mean more general forfeits also. So it's a way to limit rapid tournaments entries and favourize long time control tournaments.
Ralf Mulde (2009-08-18 00:24:11)
DESC corr. chess Open 2009 invitation
Dear chessfriends,
German e-mail Correspondence Chessclub (DESC) invites everyone to
join the DESC Open. Join with uns and have fun playing chess!
Everyone in the world who can play chess (and has the possibility to
use an e-mail-system) is invited herewith to take part at this tournament.
It's a cost-free tournament, no one has to pay any fees.
Please register per e-mail at [ turnierbuero@desc-online.de ] until
Sept. 19th 2009.
Your registration has to include
a) your family name
b) your first-name
c) your e-mail-address
d) and the remark < Anmeldung zum DESC-Open 2009 >.
The tournament will start at Oct. 1st 2009.
Reflection-time will be 30 days per 10 moves,
first time-exceed forfeits the game.
Moves will be transmitted by e-mail in the well known pgn-format.
During this pre-tounament, every player will have four to eight
games in groups with five to nine players.
The best three of them will reach the next round.
More informations are shown at DESC's homepage:
http://www.desc-online.de/turniere/open/2009/
Take part, have fun! You and your friends will be welcome!
Best regards, IM Joerg Kracht, Michael Schirmer, and Ralf Mulde
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-18 19:04:39)
DESC corr. chess Open
Hello Ralf,
I would have loved to play this email-chess event (a few chessfriends here told me about it) if I hadn't some many games and things to do here. My best wishes of success for the tournament !
By the way what do you think about the future of email chess (I quite liked this way of play in the past but I experienced lost emails also), will DESC offer server chess also like IECG ?
Best regards,
Thibault
Daniel Parmet (2009-08-19 01:53:58)
Idea: Unr, No Comp, Match
I was wondering if it was possible to setup a new competition option for chess.
Just a 2 game unrated match where both players agree no computer. Each person has W&B.
This is more appealing to me than No engine tournament where the ratings/pairings are from people that have played rated corr w/comps. We can agree to play friends in 2 games.
Thoughts?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-22 15:16:12)
Unrated (no computer) matches
Hi Daniel, this has to be discussed. This would be on another path than the "competitive" way the server followed until there, particularly to avoid the "just for a glance" games that are just thrown and lost on time after a few moves like on most other correspondence chess servers... But after all maybe most players here wouldn't do it because they also play rated tournaments.
The other point is "confusion" because of too many tournaments... Many new players are still lost when arriving here and I feel I have some work to make it clearer before to add such new categories... To be continued.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-28 13:37:50)
Zeitnot & Go Wch #4
The clock is an important part of the game, even at this correspondence time control. Thanks for your comments, obviously the match was much more intense than the score let it appear. Congrats to Ke Lu for giving you such difficulties :) .. One more reason to read these games with attention.
By the way, the 4th Go Wch preliminary tournament seems to be discussed between the very dangerous & surprising Huayong Yang (with 6/6 until now), Simon Billouet and Thomas Connor !
Garvin Gray (2009-08-29 16:05:33)
Issue for 2150 rated players
I am starting to notice an issue with how the rating bands are set for tournaments, both standard and rapid.
Currently I am rated between 2150 and 2200, depending on the rating period. After having been in this rating band for a couple of rating periods, I am noticing it is very difficult to get rated games against players rated above 2200.
This makes it very difficult to improve my rating, or at least have it proven that my playing standard is not deserved of a higher rating, or a lower rating as the case maybe.
I know it is possible to look at my results from players rated similar to myself and try and work out conclusions from there, but to not have the opportunity to play people rated above myself does not afford me the opportunity to see how I go against them, or to record results against higher rated players that might suggest I am underrated.
I suggested awhile ago that each of the tournament bands need to be 200 points apart, with the standard and rapid tournaments operated on odds and evens 200 point rating bands. I still believe this to be the answer to a lot of the sites ills as I still see many tournaments where players just under the rating cut off not entering when the rating band is 400 points.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-30 01:24:36)
Issue for 2150 rated players
That's why WCH round-robin groups are useful to help players to find more quickly their rating... Unfortunately, it seems we go towards a 8 months cycle instead of 6 months.
So your idea is to make the rapid tournaments like the standard (class) ones with 400 points bands -am I right- ?
I'm not sure it will solve the problem but we may try, why not... Any opinion ?
Don Groves (2009-08-31 00:58:08)
My .02 Euros
As I understand it, the current limit for a game to affect ratings is 350 ELO points. If so, then why would any player near the top of a 400 rating band enter a tournament unless at least one other player near his/her rating has already entered? Otherwise, that player stands to gain little or nothing from winning.
It seems logical to me that the rating band be smaller than the rating limit to insure that all the games will be rated.
Michael Sharland (2009-09-01 03:41:29)
I agree with the Garvin's suggestion
If you look at the waiting list for any of the standard tournaments, you will typically see only players rated in the bottom 100 points of the band. This means that certain ranges are missing profitable opportunities to play and move up their ratings.
By narrowing the standard tournament bands and offsetting them with the rapid tournament bands, you will likely see an increase in signups as more players will find tournaments that align with their desire for the ability to make rating progress.
I am also in this 2100-2199 rating range and feel that there is no tournament that I can sign up for that would help my rating improve. So I find myself waiting for a WCH tournament to move me up or down rather than playing a new tournament as I would like to.
Don Groves (2009-09-01 04:46:20)
Question
What is the rationale for having a 400 point range in standard tournaments and a 200 point range in rapid tournaments?
Iouri Basiliev (2009-09-01 18:10:07)
1st team tournament : games & results
It seems "Yellow-Blue" team lost one player (Romaniuk, Dmytro ), but continue to play.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-02 02:06:53)
Response
The rationale for the 400 points bands in class tournaments and 200 bands in rapid tournaments is to reduce the number of opportunities to play rapid tournaments (that are much more time consuming and may lead to general forfeits)... I still do not understand why 400 points bands are a problem as most players play the tournaments that may help to increase their rating (as Michael said, by the way the Rapid M seems quite dedicated for 2100-2199 rated players, actually a future improvement may be 100 points bands).
Anyway, I see no strong reason not to try this change... let's do it unless someone sees this strong reason.
Daniel Parmet (2009-09-02 03:36:36)
Can't Join tournament?
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=entry_tournament&tournament=ficgs_chess_standard_a
The standard Class has the rating band 2000-2400?! Expert to MASTER when its supposed to be class A? On top of that... several 1900s are in the waitinglist .... yet I as a class A player also in the 1900s can't join this because I don't have an X rating for an A tournament? I'm confused...
Don Groves (2009-09-02 04:50:03)
Can't join tournament?
Those high 1900s were over 2000 when they signed up.
Garvin Gray (2009-09-02 07:33:40)
to be clear
Apologies if my post irks anyone, but just to be clear, the standard and rapid rating cutoffs have to at the opposite 100 point bands.
So as I said previously,
It is only that in the standard time control that the bands be 1700-1899, 1900-2099, 2100-2299, 2300-2499 etc and for rapid it would be 1800-1999, 2000-2199, 2200-2399, 2400-2599.
Of course this idea also works if Thibault decides to have the standard tournaments using an even rating cutoff ie 1800-1999, 2000-2199 etc.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-02 16:18:33)
Rating bands change
Ok, I've changed the rating bands for class tournaments as Garvin & Don suggested... Let's try and see.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-02 16:20:51)
class A / rapid A
There's no A players, only class A & rapid A tournaments. Indeed those 1900 players were over 2000 when they signed up, that's fair IMO and I see no other good way to deal with it.
Don Groves (2009-09-05 00:09:13)
Too much French wine?
CHENNAI, India (Reuters) - A leading French chess player turned up drunk and dozed off after just 11 moves in an international tournament in Kolkata, losing the round on technical grounds, domestic media reported Friday.
Grandmaster Vladislav Tkachiev arrived for Thursday's match against India's Praveen Kumar in such an inebriated state that he could hardly sit in his chair and soon fell asleep, resting his head on the table, Hindustan Times newspaper reported.
Indian papers carried pictures of the world number 58 sleeping and the organizers' futile attempts to wake his up.
The game was awarded to the Indian on the technical ground of Tkachiev being unable to complete his moves within the stipulated time of an hour and 30 minutes, the paper said.
The player was warned and reprimanded by the organizers afterwards but has been allowed to take part in the remainder of the competition, the paper said.
Nick Burrows (2009-09-07 02:27:46)
Waiting Lists
Hi Maurice, you have to enter your name on the waiting lists, and then wait for the tournament to fill up with players.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-07 19:11:36)
Games vs. Tournaments
Hello Maurice, FICGS is mainly a correspondence games server so it is much easier to play tournaments (you can register in Waiting lists) than live games (advanced games and challenges), be patient and you may use the chat bar to try to find an opponent !
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-14 21:22:36)
Rating cutoffs change
Hi Wayne, no problem :) .. The responses are in this discussion, right ?
Garvin, it seems to me that this is a minor change (only for chess class tournaments) that does not change anything to most players, I did not want to annoy all members with such an email.
Scott Nichols (2009-09-16 08:58:46)
Quick Corr. Chess
With the recent narrowing of the band in standard tournaments, it occurred to me that there is even less opportunity to get games than before. For those of us (and I think it is many) who check the site many times daily waiting for the next move, there just isn't enough games to feed our tremendous appetite for chess. I propose a new catagory, Quick Corr. chess, I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but here it is. It would have it's own Quick chess rating. Bands would be, Over 2000, 1600-2000, and under 1600. Time limit-10 days per game, increment-8 hours. I truly believe there is a market for this here. Advanced chess requires that you actually be at the comp. for a length of time till game is done, so it is not an option for many. But as you can see there has been quite an increase in advanced games being played. So---if you are one of those players like me, that check for moves first thing in the morning and last thing at night, sneak your laptop into the bathroom at work to see if your opponent took the sacrifice you just offered, etc., and time after time are disappointed at not seeing any new moves, please offer your support and suggestions on this. Thank you, signed "Starving for chess". :)
Garvin Gray (2009-09-17 04:32:42)
I call it reality :)
and the reality was that only players just above the lowest rating cutoff were entering the tournaments.
In a 400 point rating gap, incredibly rarely did a player from the top end of the range enter one of those tournaments.
Don Groves (2009-09-17 07:52:52)
Rating bands
What's the difference between 1800-2000 and 1800-2200? No one rated 2000 or above would enter that tournament either. I just don't see how your choices have been reduced.
Besides, if everyone adopted the attitude of only playing higher rated players, there would be no games at all.
Michel van der Kemp (2009-09-19 08:58:08)
ICCF uses no rating bands
Maybe this was the reason ICCF has qualification tournaments to get into higher tiers. You win a tournament and are qualified to play in a higher tier, regardless your rating. Of course that also means new players will always start in the lowest tier and getting to a tier that suits them is a long long road.
I don't know how hard it is to implement this, but it would solve the rating issues.
Don Groves (2009-09-19 10:00:50)
ICCF
I brought this up a couple of years ago but it met some resistance ;-) I still think it's a good idea as it gives more reason to try to win games rather than settle for draws. Obviously, it also rewards those who win a tournament.
The biggest objection earlier was that higher rated players may be forced to play against far lower rated players, but with 200 point rating bands now instead of 400, that objection is greatly lessened.
Thibault, will you reconsider?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-19 22:14:20)
Rating bands
Well, you have to win even more games to enter the upper rating category and I'm not sure it is always a fair system for the winner of a tournament to access it, based on the argument you quoted & also is it fair to play more games to finally win one tournament and lose elo points because of the number of games played at the same time, what happens if 3 or 4 players win a tournament ? (we could use the WCH tournament rules but is it appropriate in this case)
Moreover IMHO, such a rule wouldn't be necessary for ratings below 2200. On the other hand, it may be envisaged to casually offer to the winner of a 2000+ tournament to enter an upper waiting list to complete a waiting list in certain conditions, eg. if his rating is not more than 100 points below the upper rating band (it may be an idea to launch the 11th class SM tournament), what do you think ?
Don Groves (2009-09-21 04:11:45)
rating bands
I agree with that: Under certain conditions, such as being less than 100 ELO points below the next higher rating and winning a lower rated tournament, a player gets a one time opportunity to play in the next higher group. If the player's rating is above the limit after the tournament, he/she remains in the higher class; otherwise they must play again in the lower class.
This would help fill higher rated tournaments faster and also allow players to advance more rapidly if they are good enough. This should apply to all FICGS games, Go and Poker included.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-22 17:37:12)
Important issue : Moves taken back
Hello all,
A player (no need to specify the game, at least not yet) asked me as the FICGS admin to take back his opponent's move which is an obvious mistake. In this case both players agree to take back the move to not waste the game, after that the player who made the mistake kindly asked to the other player if it was possible take back the move. At this point, all depended of the other player's fair play, but of course only the FICGS admin can take back a move in any game.
However I just wonder if it is fair in all cases to do this, particularly when a player shows a great fair play in all his games.
I've just read the rules again and nothing is mentioned on this and what should do the FICGS admin (or tournament director). Note, I've already taken back a few moves when both players agreed to do this in the past.
Question, not really a poll but your opinion would be appreciated : Do you think that the FICGS admin should...
1) take back all moves in this case.
2) take back some moves in this case (at his discretion).
3) never take back any move even in this case.
IMO, choice 2) is the best one as more or less complex cases may happen, what do you think ?
Thanks for sharing your views !
Hannes Rada (2009-09-22 21:48:50)
Depends
imho on the type of tournament.
It could be problemantic in round robin tournamens, as there are also other players involved.
Seems to be okay in a knockout tournament where only the 2 players are involved.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-22 21:57:22)
Round robin tournaments
Very true, this is even more complex when taking account of this point !
So do you think that there shouldn't be any move taken back in round-robin tournaments ?
William Taylor (2009-09-22 22:16:32)
#2
I also vote for number 2.
Regarding Hannes Rada's point about the decision also affecting other players in a round-robin - this is also true to a lesser extent in elims, as it could affect who somebody's opponent is in the next round. Personally I don't think these considerations are very important if it is an obvious mouse-slip (such as Kf1 instead of O-O) and I certainly wouldn't want you to get the agreement of everyone in the tournament before allowing a takeback.
Michael Sharland (2009-09-24 20:16:32)
#3 is the only fair choice
I've lost several games and tournaments due to carelessly inputing a move but I can't imagine ever asking my opponent for a redo. In the same vein, I wouldn't like to be put on the spot of being asked for a take back that I would not ask for myself. This make #3 the only fair choice. Everybody has to live with their mistakes. That is sensible and fair.
John Smith (2009-09-28 22:32:58)
Human only games/Centaur
Hi all,
Initially when I registered I was under the impression that (e.g. like RHP) engines are not allowed. Then I saw a flag NO_ENGINES, which seems to imply that in other tournaments engines are allowed.
I would like to ask which types of tournaments are for Centaurs and which are human-only. Stepping into a Centaur tournament would not be a good idea as I don't think any amateur stands a chance vs a 2800+ Centaur.
So obviously NO_ENGINES are normal tournamets, are thematic tournaments normal tournaments as well? which ones are for Centaurs?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-29 10:10:30)
Human vs. Centaur
Hello John, NO_ENGINES are the only "normal" tournaments, in all other ones engines are allowed, simply because there is no way to avoid it in correspondence chess. I'll try to make it clearer soon.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-29 20:17:35)
Carlsen leads the Nanjing tournament
The Nanjing tournament starts quite well for Magnus Carlsen, who won his first game with the scotch opening against Peter Leko (maybe the influence of Garry Kasparov), and won his second game against Veselin Topalov !
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-29 23:10:41)
Next freestyle tournament
I am still not clear on what a freestyle tournament is?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-01 18:54:07)
Carlsen beats Jakovenko
A third win (for 4 games) for Carlsen in the tournament !
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-04 21:18:25)
IECG stopping
Shocking news.... Email chess will miss to many players, I loved this way of playing too, server chess is just different.
The message at IECG home page :
"Due to the fact that email play declines quickly in popularity making it impossible to build tournaments in a reasonable time, and due to the practical issues of email (viruses, spam filters) making this playing mode difficult, IECG has decided to stop its operations in December 2010 and to transfer its activities to our partner the Lechenicher SchachServer Server (LSS) in the meantime."
A page of correspondence chess has ended.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-06 20:48:12)
Freestyle Cup
FICGS advanced chess "freestyle" cup is a 6 rounds swiss tournament... See the freestyle cup page in waiting lists for more details (some will probably change soon)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-07 16:03:42)
Freestyle cup dates
Hi Garvin, I mean the days of the week should be chosen "in general", for the next tournaments as well.
Well, if noone disagrees we'll play it on friday, saturday & sunday... I'll give the dates as soon as possible.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-22 20:23:32)
Results
Almost all games are finished on tables 2, 3 & 4 .. There is no doubt that Yura will win the tournament on table 4! (the Morra gambit is really hard to play against a good player, definitely :))
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-22 20:41:56)
Huayong Yang is the new Go WCH finalist
Congrats to Huayong Yang who made it in the Go WCH 4 preliminary tournament with an outstanding 8/8 !
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WCH_TOURNAMENT__000004
He will play Svante Carl von Erichsen in the next Go WCH final match...
Huayong started with the minimal authorized rank (10 kyu) without an official rating but obviously he's much much stronger ... His current rating is 2334 (3 dan) already, so the question is : do his opponents have an idea on his real strength ? :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-23 14:16:12)
ICCF - final
Congrats Peter, a very strong tournament!
That's a pity the top seeds 2700+ do not play this one :/
Lazaro Munoz (2009-10-30 19:09:42)
rating bands
That is the way LSS (IECG's server) works. If you come in first place in a section, you get a ticket to higher section. If you win two sections you get two promotion tickets to a higher section, etc. If you have no more tickets you will only be able to enter in current rating group for class tournaments, everyone can join the opens of course.
I guess if you win a section in which you were promoted into, you would get a super-ticket to a two-level up (at least you can dream).
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-31 13:18:45)
vacation time
Hello Miloš, yes it is allowed, as in any tournament but while playing a bullet/lightning/blitz game.
Garvin Gray (2009-11-02 13:39:26)
new tournaments
When is the next world championship starting? Both the newest version and round two's from the previous event.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-03 19:10:11)
FICGS WCH 6 stage 2
I finally built 5 groups of 7 players (=35 players) for the 2nd stage of the 6th chess championship.
As you probably noticed, we had much less players in the 6th championship than in the 7th, also as there was 9 players by group, there was much less groups in the 6th championship.
Finally the choice was to build groups of 5 players playing a double round-robin tournament (wch rules have been updated for this case) with a few players invited, or to invite 10 more players from stage 1 in order to build 5 groups of 7 players. This last choice was best & more natural IMO to limit the number of games by player and to follow the idea to have more chances to see the very best players in the final stages.
Consequently the 3rd stage of WCH 6 (round-robin final) will be most probably a double round-robin tournament including the winners of these 5 tournaments (as there will be no need to invite any player to complete this group)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-03 19:44:40)
FICGS WCH 6 stage 2
To "clarify" the way groups are built, when looking at previous cycles there was 4 groups in most round-robin stage 2 and 7 players in every round-robin final, so there was 4 players qualified +1 from M group in stage 1 +2 players invited due to their result in the tournament (~1st place shared).
So I could have chosen to build 4 groups for this stage 2 as well, but there isn't a M group in this cycle and 3 players should be invited for the round-robin final which is a lot compared to the initial number, or it could be a double round-robin of 4 or 5 (with 1 invited) players, that I try to avoid as I think it is less efficient than single round-robin tournaments with more players... well I try to explain this complex way to decide how the groups are built to make it transparent at least, if not clear. As it is not possible to make a perfect algorithm, finding the best player should be the priority while building these groups, that's why IMHO it seems correct to see 2 (3 in rare cases) players qualified in these stage 1 tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-04 22:33:08)
Knockout Final 05
I would be surprised... but we will see, Marc may want to play only WCH tournaments. Anyway, it happened already in previous cycles and it will probably happen again, as in every high level correspondence chess tournament :/
Vjacheslav Perevozchikov (2009-11-14 03:10:41)
Thibault
Game 36911 and Game 36913 in my group seems to go in the same way. There is a temptation to spy the opponents game :)
My question - is there a possibility to hide games during tournament avoiding a simple repetition of the moves? Like LSS it does.
John Smith (2009-11-17 13:38:01)
regarding Naum
Regarding Naum retiring, I didn't find an official word on this, but
1) Naum's site http://www.geocities.com/naum_chess/
appears to be down
2) according to wikipedia " Naum tied for first with Rybka in the 2008 Internet Computer Chess Tournament [3], but has not yet competed in other public tournaments."
Don Groves (2009-11-18 05:01:43)
Bil Gates
The man was so attached to Microsoft, it's a wonder he had time to even think of anything else. He did play in a few duplicate bridge tournaments later in his working life.
A former co-worker of mine told me he was turned down for a job at Microsoft because "he had too many outside interests." Gates was once quoted as saying "If a programmer doesn't spend all his waking time thinking about making his program better, he hasn't got religion."
Iouri Basiliev (2009-11-18 16:40:46)
1st team tournament : games & results !
FSF vs. Yellow blue warriors : 3-0 ***WRONG***
Iouri Basiliev (2009-11-18 16:48:24)
1st team tournament : games & results !
FSF vs. Yellow blue warriors : 2-1 and one game left on the table 3
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-30 21:18:17)
Big chess rules
Hi Pavel,
When you enter a big chess tournament waiting list, it is specified "(...) The special rule is no castling is possible", so by default, en passant is authorized like in regular chess.
It is not so clear though, so I'll add it in the rules, thanks for pointing it out :)
Hannes Rada (2009-12-01 18:08:56)
secretary of billionaire Joop van Ooster
Quite interesting ....
Secretary of an ICCF WM seems to be more lucrative then playing and winning usual OTB chess tournaments .... :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-02 14:21:48)
Marc Lacrosse memorial
Dear chessfriends, the waiting list for the next chess thematic tournament is open, this thematic #100 will be named the Marc Lacrosse memorial in honor of our lost chessfriend, we will play one of his favorite openings, the Basman Sale sicilian : 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bc5
Best wishes,
Thibault
Scott Nichols (2009-12-03 06:35:24)
E-Points
Hello Thibault, After having been a member here for a few years, I've been fortunate enough to collect a few E-points. There is a small problem, there is nothing to spend them on! Can you come up with ideas to correct this?, e.g., Tournaments with entry fee, books and chess equipment, wild women etc.? :) Any ideas out there...
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-04 13:09:53)
E-Points
Hi Scott, well actually there are tournaments with entry fee (silver, gold.. as you know). By winning some tournaments with entry fee & prize, you may ask for a money prize... This is the only way to spend E-Points at the moment, but any idea is welcome.
I should be able to play lightning games in a few weeks... still waiting for a large broadband at home :/
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-04 13:13:05)
Castling
Funny story... So we can imagine the problems referees may encounter in OTB tournaments when the question is more complex :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-06 15:50:16)
Multiple nicknames
It is not authorized, particularly to use several accounts at the same time in order to try to cheat (that is detected in most cases)... Anyway the system discouraged the few attempts.
I also know that a few players do not use their real name (eg. that was authorized for the match Igame.ru), generally they do not find motivation enough to stay and reach the top ratings, that seems quite logical and consequences are negligible.
You may send a private message to me if you think that there is cheating in a tournament.
Don Groves (2009-12-06 22:56:17)
Problem?
What if I have several tournament games running and also a real-time game? If I had to respond to all other moves before playing again in the real-time game, I could lose on time.
Wayne Lowrance (2009-12-11 21:08:34)
clock implementation
Hello Thibault. In my tournament SM11 my clock increment may not have been added after first 10 moves in all my games. If you have a time stamp would you please examine it. My remaining days left does not suggest that 40 moves have been added at end of the 10 move slot in my games. Knowing my operating habits it sure sound wrong.
Understand this please, unless you can verify with time stamp or whatever I do not want any adjustments. I will play as the remaining time in each game remains.
Wayne
Anthony Ibbitson (2009-12-15 20:22:07)
How to join a game?
How do I join a game on here? It would seem that I can only join tournaments?!
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-15 22:37:30)
How to join a game?
Hello Anthony,
You may challenge players in My games (best way), or you may enter a bullet, lightning or blitz waiting list in an advanced tournaments category in Waiting lists - in this case do not forget to retire from the waiting list if you don't find an opponent.
Most players here prefer to play tournaments at a long time control.
Feel free to read the help section - http://www.ficgs.com/help.html
Iouri Basiliev (2009-12-22 23:59:36)
1st team tournament : games & results !
What you are talking about, guys? The true winner is definetelly Y-BW :)
Pablo Schmid (2009-12-27 02:02:01)
rules of 10 moves
Thanks for the quick response, my proposition would be no limit of move at all to win points, as in OTB chess. Maybe an idea could be to not make winning points in a game where the player did not connect for a long time before the tournament begin as it is clear that it is a "forfeit", as in OTB when someone don't come.
But maybe you will convince me that your idea is better than mine?
Iouri Basiliev (2009-12-27 13:01:25)
1st team tournament : games & results !
First blood on the table 1 :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-27 20:20:33)
Bergmann - Schuster
One of these matches we like to watch :) .. many interesting games and many wins, but I'm afraid it is a good advertisement for the sicilian defense once more, Hannes please help ;)
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_3__000007
William Taylor (2009-12-30 22:17:44)
Wayne
Stockfish is not a commercial program, and has only been released relatively recently (I think), but it is already at about the level of Rybka. I know it's based on Glaurung, which has had years of work put into it, but perhaps Robbo is also based on a strong open source program. I'm not saying Robbo's not a Rybka clone - very likely it is - I'm just pointing out that it is possible for free, open source programs to approach or surpass the level of commercial ones.
On another note, for anyone interested I ran a quick 12xRR 2 2 tournament today with Rybka 3 32-bit, Stockfish 1.6 JA and RobboLito 0.085g3 w32. Rybka scored 13/24, Stockfish 12/24, and Robbo 11/24. Of course, the time control was very quick and I'm not putting this result forward as a serious test, but it seems that the 3 (or 2) may be close enough to be competitive. An interesting time for computer chess.
Wayne Lowrance (2010-01-07 18:45:05)
Fed Up
Thib you missed my point. It is the forbidden, hush hush, "dont you dare mention that name here" that bugs me the most. I have always been a strong supporter of the Vas "lil girl", followed her tournaments etc etc.
Oh well it is not worth my concern anyhow. As I said I owe no loyality to Vas any more, If his continued Rybka programing yields the best engine, I will buy it. Results is what matters.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2010-01-27 09:18:36)
Wijk aan Zee 2010
Finally, the tournament is now open again in Wijk aan Zee group A, after that Alexei Shirov won consecutively his first 5 games with a comfortable lead, Vladimir Kramnik finally catched him at 6.5/9 after a win over Magnus Carlsen with Black pieces.
Here is the game :
In group B, A. Giri leads by 6.5/9, in group C, Li Chao leads by 6.5/9 as well.
Svante Carl von Erichsen (2010-01-29 00:48:50)
Go chinese rules : should pass count?
As far as I see, you do not have your rules written up anywhere yet, just a reference to "chinese rules".
I think that referring to rules that are not in place has high potential of confusion.
If you want to explicitly put down the rules that shall be used on this server (game rules, not tournament or server rules), I can offer you some assistance.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-01-30 01:58:20)
Go chinese rules : should pass count?
Extract from the tournament pages : "Scoring method is area scoring with chinese counting. Positional superko rule applies, it's impossible to repeat a previous board position."
I must admit that I have some difficulties to perfectly understand all this in english... so does it mean that passing never changes the score in FICGS games, or the contrary ? (anyway thanks again for helping)
Scott Nichols (2010-01-31 01:04:06)
1st team tournament : games & results !
Hello everyone! I thought it was time for an update to our first team tournament. I will give my totally (doesn't mean a thing) IMHO the outcome here. After looking at all the unfinished game positions, consulting the stars, and taking into account there is a full moon tonight...here is what I think will be the first four teams. Tied for third will be---The Dark Knights & The Yellow-Blue Warriors! One point ahead of them will be----The Knights who say "Ni"!, give them a hand. And finally, a full two points ahead of the field is the winners-----FSF En Passant!! Of course, like I said this is just my humble opinion. Seriously, one game to watch is #32188 between two up and coming players who just broke over 2300 each and still climbing, Boehme vs Hladky.
Hannes Rada (2010-02-06 10:52:37)
E. Kotlyanskiy new FICGS chess champion
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000003
Congratulation to the new champ !
and to a lot of very intersting games !
Thibault de Vassal (2010-02-22 01:21:35)
Rating calculation
What do you mean exactly a game's rating?
Rating calculation takes account of the Tournament Entry Ratings (TER) for each game and of course the current player's rating when the calculation occurs.
See - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_chess
Garvin Gray (2010-02-22 08:37:37)
E-point tournament
Been thinking about this for a while.
Do you think it would be worthwhile to offer a tournament where there is an e-point entry fee?
For instance, Seven player entry, entry fee is ten e points and the winner receives 65 or so e points.
I would like to see it at least tried once.
Hannes Rada (2010-02-22 15:49:25)
Rating calculation
Daniel,
TER (Tournament Entry Rating) is used for elo-calculation.
Scott Nichols (2010-02-22 22:03:31)
E-point tournament
I like this idea also. I would like the Rapid format. Also, maybe give 45 points for first and 20 for second.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-02-22 23:23:05)
E-point tournament
Yes, it would be great of course and actually it was implemented a few years ago, but there was no players enough with Epoints... Maybe we could envisage it again soon.
Teudis Naranjo (2010-02-23 04:03:55)
Go
How to play in the tournaments of in this sites?
Don Groves (2010-02-23 05:41:39)
Go
Click on "Waiting lists" and enter a tournament.
Scott Nichols (2010-02-23 06:46:44)
E-point tournament
Maybe drop the entry fee down to 1 or 2 e-points. It would be just as exciting for me.
Alexander Blinchevsky (2010-02-26 12:29:28)
E-point tournament
I like this idea too. Agreed with Scott on Rapid format and 1st and 2nd place prizes as well
Lazaro Munoz (2010-02-27 16:46:21)
Hosting tournaments
Would FICGS be able to host a closed group tournament? For instance lets say some chess club, or group wants to have a tournament. Could they, after getting themselves an id on FICGS send you a request to create a tournament for that group?
As an enhancement for the future you might want to create a group(s) concept that can be stored in each users profile, so that one can in the future create group tournaments that are open to that group. Since this site is built in the spirit of openess it need not be enforced but people should understand that some groups many not want to be so open so they should request it from someone, so maybe the group info should have the user and email of the moderator for that group who will give the ok to join the group.
For instance some groups may want specific language so they converse in their native language in the chat box, or geographic area. Or even opening specialist can create thematic openings (although it could get tricky there if someones enters one these thematic groups and decides to play a different opening).
There really isn't anything like it for free anywhere, ICCF will host tournaments however they charge a fee, for instance.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-03 14:29:25)
Hosting tournaments
Sure it is possible, I would even create such tournaments for free (if not too many ones) but it would be played with FICGS rules which are slightly different from FIDE rules. About players able to create their own tournaments, closed or not, I would have to think about this, I'm not sure it is really necessary as e.g. I always add thematic chess tournaments that I'm suggested, and "private" tournaments may be not so easy to start, but if there is a strong demand, I could arrange that.
William Taylor (2010-03-03 15:21:08)
E-point tournament
Good idea. I'd definitely play tournaments with 1-2 e-point entry fees, and would be quite likely to play higher ones too. I like Scott's prize structure.
Garvin Gray (2010-03-03 15:31:00)
E-point tournament
If the tournament is to go ahead, perhaps since it will be for some kind of entry fee, it could be trialled as a four player double round robin event.
By having only four players, it would make it much easier to get the tournament started considering only a small percentage of the players on here have e points.
Also by having double round robin, this ensures fairest possible circumstances for an entry fee tournament. It also means the same amount of games as a normal seven player, single round robin tournament.
Hannes Rada (2010-03-03 18:54:05)
Conditionnal moves
Okay Thibault, I don't want to put pressure on you regarding the conditionals, or to take up to much of your time.
But here is one minor improvement (in my opinion).
Can the tournament pages show first the chess notation and then the chess diagram ? It is in my opinion more logic do present it in this way.
What do you think ?
Philip Roe (2010-03-12 15:45:54)
Tournament Leaders
But 1/1 is not better than 4.5/5
Ralph Deline (2010-03-12 19:36:04)
Rating calculation
Hi Thibault,
Thanks for your earlier explanation. I wanted to respond sooner but then when I was at the FICGS site, I saw another player, also confused about his chess rating, questioning you about it so I threw in my two cents. In my situation, my opponent was rated about 80 points higher so when I drew, I thought I would actually go up in ratings points instead of down. That is still confusing to me.
Maybe my age is catching up with me, but for fifty years or more, using the formula for establishing ratings in Canada, I was always under the impression that your score and your opponents ratings, with a bit of math thrown in, determined your rating. I know at one time it was possible to win a tournament and lose rating points but I believe that was corrected about a decade or so ago. I wasn't playing for over a decade so I'm not certain on dates.
However, let me acknowledge the fact that I understand what you are saying, play less, win more, and your rating will improve. But I still have a hurdle to overcome. When a lower rated player ties with a highed rated player, regardless of colour, why does he get penalized instead of rewarded for achieving a result that is performing above his present rating? It doesn't seem logical.
You are probably busy and I've taken enough of your time. I don't think I will understand any explanation, you know, can't teach an old dog new tricks, so you don't have to try to explain any further. I just wanted my voice to be heard.
I have had three gross blunders in the last half year so maybe I am playing too many games. I hate to do it, but maybe I will try playing less.
Thanks for listening.
Ralph
Daniel Parmet (2010-03-12 20:58:47)
Rating calculation
A sidenote, but yes you can still win tournaments (otb at least) where you win the tournament but lose rating points. Look at the 2009 US Open where GM Jesse Krai and GM Alex Lenderman both won the event with 7.5/9 and both lost 2 rating points.
Daniel Parmet (2010-03-13 01:59:56)
Poker Min Bid
Completing the blind is not what i'm talking about. I'm talking about bidding one at the flop. This is not legal at tournaments. Completing the flop is actual a bid of two. You just did it in two steps (first small blind, then the last chip).
Lazaro Munoz (2010-03-10 12:34:40)
Tournament Leaders
I am confused. In my section FICGS_CHESS_CLASS_C_000127 I have a full point lead and have had this lead for several weeks, yet I am listed as co-leader with another player (Panov) [I am not complaining, just confused]. I know that I have completed a game more than Panov. Is this 'leadership' based on total points? If so it has a bug; if it is based on points gained vs points loss then we are tied (just like every player would be at the beginning of the tournament). Btw, my game against Panov was a draw, I don't if that goes into the calculation and we both have a game in progress against the same opponent.
Daniel Parmet (2010-03-10 19:55:47)
Tournament Leaders
it doesn't update right away.
Lazaro Munoz (2010-03-11 02:58:55)
Tournament Leaders
Its been like that for weeks! How long is "right away"?
Don Groves (2010-03-11 05:26:50)
Tournament Leaders
Leaders should be based on percentage of games won. 2/2 is better than 3/4.
Garvin Gray (2010-03-12 05:02:35)
Poker Min Bid
Having watched quite a few poker tournaments on TV, I have seen quite a few instances where players have been told that the minimum bid is a certain amount. This is usually the amount of the big blind.
I think this change would speed up some of the games and does make sense, to me at least.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-13 21:27:24)
Tournament Leaders
The reason is that I generally update this table every 15 days.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-13 21:30:50)
Conditional moves
Hi Hannes, you mean in such a page?
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000003&boards=1
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-16 10:37:01)
Interview with E. Kotlyanskiy
Congrats again to Edward Kotlyanskiy, new FICGS chess champion after beating Xavier Pichelin (2577) in the 12 games final match of the 3rd cycle.
Edward kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match and correspondence chess in general :
_________________________
> Hi Edward, first of all congratulations for winning this 12 games match against the former FICGS chess champion, Xavier Pichelin. You had to score at least one point more than your opponent, what was your strategy when the games started?
Knowing that I had to score at least +1 against Xavier, I had to try to get the games into complex positions where there are many options to play for both sides. At the point when the games started, I was the underdog to Xavier (mainly due to the face that I was rated about 200 points lower). In part, I think that one of the reasons why Xavier allowed the games to reach such complex positions is due to the fact that his rating was undoubtedly higher than mine and therefore he probably assumed that he could “outplay” me. Although this was simultaneously a brave and admirable choice, I think an option that many other players would have pursued would have been to play “drawish” lines with the hope of having all of the games ending in draws. I have great respect for Xavier due to the fact that he didn't choose such a path and allowed us to put on a hard fought show that was worth watching.
> What could you say on the hot moments of the match?
The first game in which I thought I had very good chances to win was game 34739. In this game (particularly on move 18) Xavier played the move Nb8?? Looking back at the move, I realized that the game was lost for him. I assumed that Xavier probably underestimated the threat of f5. There were no good responses and/or countermeasures for the move f5. For example, if 19) gxf5, I have 20) Nxh5 Nc6 21) Rc3! Bxh4 (Qd8 was also possible) 22) Qf4 Be7 23) g4! His king is just clearly caught in the attack! 19) exf5 also fails to 20) e6 f6 (trying to keep the king safe) 21) Bxh5!! gxh5 22) Nc6 Rc3 and therefore it’s easy to see that it is just a matter of time. Xavier did try something better although even that failed due to some nice moves. I believe that 21) g7 came as a surprise to Xavier (or that at least he hadn't seen this move when playing Nb8). After Nxh5 (another neat move), another line that I thought Xavier would enter (which is also losing) is 22) Qxc2 23) Qxc2 Rxc2 24) Nf6+! Bxf6 25) exf6. Clearly my pawns are just too strong! Knowing that I am winning after the mentioned alternatives, the other games (although I won three others) were just necessary to hold without falling for any tactics/tricks.
A second game I want to briefly comment on is game 34729. I played a very nice (although I am not sure if it is winning just yet) move known as 17.a4! It was a very nice way to open the position on both of our kings. In all honesty, the move that I think was winning in this situation 25) Rd3, I did not even consider too highly until the position reached that very move. After a relatively short analysis, I was indeed pleasantly surprised to see that; overall, it was completely winning for me.
> What could you say on the advantages and inconveniences of this 12 games match format played at a quite fast time control?
From the days when I first starting playing correspondence chess, I have always been accustomed to making moves rather quickly. In fact, when I first started playing, in some games I made moves within 10 minutes of looking at the position. Although I take a lot more time to analyze now-a-days, I still consider the speed of my play to be relatively faster compared to most other correspondence players. Playing 12 games simultaneously can have drawbacks as not having enough time to properly analyze; however, I didn't have such a problem. With the exception of a few games that I was playing on IECG at the start of the FICGS Championship, the 12 game series was my main concern.
> Without revealing your secrets, how would you define modern correspondence chess as a centaur (playing with chess engines)?
These days, it is impossible to play correspondence chess on a high level without consulting the engine. It is also unlikely that one can achieve a lot of success just by following the engine blindly (even after a long analysis). Personally, I know that some of my friends believe that in correspondence chess you are just following the engine but I believe that most “high level” correspondence players know that it just doesn't work that way.
In my opinion, one of the most important skills that a correspondence player should have is having some sense of where the engine he is analyzing with is faulty. To give a well known example, many people know that there are certain endgame positions that an engine alone can't be trusted in (a simple case is the wrong color bishop). In essence, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of whatever engine you are analyzing with is critical to playing correspondence chess at a “high level”.
> Why did you choose to play correspondence chess, do you play OTB (over the board) chess as well?
Before starting correspondence chess, I played OTB chess for quite a few years. When my schedule became busy, I realized that I wouldn't have much time to play OTB in clubs. I came across correspondence chess and got hooked on it very quickly. Also, I began to enjoy more of the subtleties of the game; something that is just lacking in OTB blitz games. I imagine that some people prefer to play practical chess (OTB) in which a move order wouldn't make much of a difference; however, I guess I am a perfectionist and believe the game should be played on as high of a level as possible.
> How many correspondence games do you usually play at the same time (on different chess servers or by email)? Would you say that it is an addiction?
Usually, I played about 5 to 10 games on average on all different sites. I did play via email on IECC but wasn't fond of playing by email therefore I went back to server only sites (IECG, FICGS, Schemingmind).
I can definitely say that correspondence chess is an addiction. All too often, I catch myself analyzing games when I really should be doing something much more time sensitive. Well, at least I can say that this addiction paid off in that I am the new FICGS champion!
> Are you interested in other games?
As far as board games go, chess is primarily the only game I play. At times I do play games like monopoly and scrabble with my friends. Another interest that I have is billiards.
> The next challenger for the FICGS chess champion title is SM Eros Riccio (winner of several PlayChess PAL freestyle tournaments). Do you think that you'll play him? What does this perspective inspire in you?
I can't wait to play Eros! I believe that he would be my toughest opponent yet (although I have played GM Leitão, Rafael (fide elo: 2619) and managed to draw). Eros is like an unstoppable juggernaut in corr chess. That said, I look forward to our games and I am certain that they will simultaneously be challenging and entertaining.
> Thanks and best of luck in your future games!
Iouri Basiliev (2010-03-17 11:33:52)
1st team tournament : games & results !
Thibault, you can resign in the game 32204 :) This is 6p Nalimov's TB.
Yellow-Blue Warriors geting 1 extra match point! Could someone udate the tournament status?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-17 14:42:57)
1st team tournament : games & results !
Hi Iouri... Well, my old computer can't even see it (just realized that modern computers are about 40x faster :/) , but I just checked the shredder bases online, this is checkmate in 21 moves indeed. It was predictable anyway :) .. I just resigned.
Table 1 : 4 unfinished games remaining (Iouri leading)
Table 2 : 0 unfinished games remaining (Volker won)
Table 3 : 2 unfinished games remaining (Ostap leading)
Table 4 : 0 unfinished games remaining (Yura won)
One thing is sure already, our yellow-blue chessfriends did it very well !
So...
"Team 1" - "Team 2" : points (score)
"Ni" - "FSF" : FSF leads by 1 point
"Ni" - "Dark" : 1-1 (2-2)
"Ni" - "Happy" : 2-0 (3-1)
"Ni" - "YB" : 1-1 (2-2)
"Ni" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Ni" - "No" : 2-0 (leads by 2 points)
"FSF" - "Dark" : 1-1 (2-2)
"FSF" - "Happy" : FSF leads by 1 point
"FSF" - "YB" : 2-0 (2.5-1.5)
"FSF" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (leads by 3 points)
"FSF" - "No" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Dark" - "Happy" : 2-0 (2.5-1.5)
"Dark" - "YB" : 0-2 (1.5-2.5)
"Dark" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Dark" - "No" : 2-0 (3-1)
"Happy" - "YB" : YB leads by 1 point
"Happy" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Happy" - "No" : 2-0 (3-1)
"YB" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (2.5-0.5)
"YB" - "No : 2-0 (2.5-1.5)
"Ghost" - "No" : 0-2 (1.5-2.5)
Total :
Knights who say Ni : 8 points (-)
FSF en passant : 7 points (++)
Dark knights : 8 points
Happy pawn : 4 pawns (--)
Yellow Blue warriors : 7 points (+)
Ghost knights : 0 points
Our team king (knights with no name) : 2 points
(+) meaning : leads in a match yet, (-) meaning : is leaded in a match yet
Nothing is decided yet... but it looks like Yellow-Blue have good chances, which is particularly impressive with a player who made 0/6 !
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-20 22:24:31)
Firebird, Ivanhoe vs. Rybka
Of course, since the free open source chess engine Ippolit is available, clones have appeared, starting with RobboLito & Igorrit, now Ivanhoe & Firebird, and some may be even stronger...
It seems that we still do not have any clue to know if Ippolit is itself a clone of Rybka or not, anyway it would interesting to compare these new engines.
Does anyone have any informations, tournament results or something for these new engines?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-21 01:13:54)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010
Dear chessfriends, the next FICGS chess freestyle cup waiting list is open until april 3. This 6 rounds swiss tournament will start on april 3, 13:00 server time (first three rounds, every 2 hours) and on april 10, 13:00 server time (last three rounds, every 2 hours). Prize is 100% of the entry fees in E-Points + 100 E-Points. FIDE GM & IM, FICGS / ICCF GM, SM & IM are invited to enter the waiting list for free, please just send a message to webmaster through My account page to register.
To enter the waiting list :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=entry_tournament&tournament=ficgs_chess_cup
Feel free to reply here if you have any suggestions, I hope that this format (2 consecutive saturdays, 3 rounds per day) will be ok for the most !
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-21 01:15:37)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010
New record for sure, Garvin entered the waiting list 20 seconds after the tournament is announced :)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-22 02:56:35)
Easter weekend
Hmm, it may be a problem... I assumed that it would have been a problem sunday only for the most !? Any other opinion ?
Anyway in the worst case we'll now have regular freestyle tournaments...
William Taylor (2010-03-22 12:50:15)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010
The original dates are better for me, as I may be playing an OTB tournament on the 17th. That said, Garvin's desire to play in this event may be stronger than mine. ;)
Garvin Gray (2010-03-25 04:29:33)
Blitz time controls
Hello Thibault,
I am not asking for a significantly shorter time control. I am not proposing or asking for a shorter time control for moves 1-40. Moves 1 to 40 can stay at 40 moves in 2 hrs if you wish.
My request is for a change to the second time control from the current 40 moves in 2 hrs to 20 moves in 1 hr continuous.
Following others comments, I used examples of the time controls for major tournaments.
As I said in my first post, In my match with Scott, it was quite common for the games to go only 50 moves or so, which meant we had 2 hours available for just ten moves or so.
William Taylor (2010-03-26 14:47:19)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010
What's the planned prize structure for this tournament? Just a 1st place prize? 1st and 2nd? 1st 2nd 3rd? Or will it depend on the number of entries?
Garvin Gray (2010-03-26 22:54:42)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010
Sonnenborn-Berger is a terrible tie break and I strongly recommend that the tie break either be progressive or buchholz.
SB does not tell you much about the path a player took in the tournament (Progressive), or the strength of the opponents they played (Bucholz).
Why does there need to be a tie-break, when we are talking about first place here?
Josef Riha (2010-03-29 08:53:24)
Immediate start of tournaments
Hello Thibault, is it possible to start a tournament immediately when more then one player has signed in? At playchess.de it works very well.
Josef Riha (2010-03-29 14:36:53)
Immediate start of tournaments
Thanks for answering, I don't remember this topic(greetings from Alzheim) :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-30 21:17:07)
Playchess PAL tournaments winners
Hi everyone, does anybody know where I can find the list of all winners of Playchess PAL tournaments ?
Thanks ;)
Samy Ould Ahmed (2010-03-30 22:16:43)
Playchess PAL tournaments winners
http://www.freestyle-chess.com/tournaments.htm
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-30 22:35:35)
Playchess PAL tournaments winners
Thanks Samy, so the list of winners so far :
1. ZackS
2. Zor_champ (Hydra)
3. Rajlich (Rybka's author)
4. Xakru (Jiri Dufek and Roman Chytilek)
5. Flying Saucers
6. Rajlich
7. Ibermax
8. Ultima (Eros Riccio)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-29 14:05:09)
Immediate start of tournaments
Hi Josef, yes that's the system implemented at the LSS chess server too. There was a discussion on this about one year ago, I tried to explain why I prefer to keep this waiting, a kind of excitement, of the moment when all games start, also for historical reasons... But there are inconvenients also, that's obvious.
Andres E. Leon (2010-03-31 19:06:50)
Difference between class A / rapid A
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_A Tournaments admits chess players with 2000-2200 ELO and FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_A is for 1900-2100 ELO players. Why there is this difference?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-31 20:30:54)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010
To the players who will participate to the next freestyle tournament, be sure to read the following discussion before to play :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8345
I recommend to practice this new option (touch move) by playing a few bullet bronze games before the tournament ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-31 22:03:34)
Improvement to watch games
It will be now much more convenient to follow bullet lightning, blitz & freestyle games (in other words fast games) with the viewer.. The top informations (name, tournament details) will be removed until the game ended.
Michel van der Kemp (2010-04-03 16:58:45)
Weird technical problem
Thibault, thanks for organising this nice tournament. Lot of fun. I lost my first game against Xavier Pichelin, which I will totally accept, Xavier played excellent. However I do have a weird question.
About the game I receive this email:
[Event "FICGS__CHESS__FREESTYLE_CUP__000002"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2010.4.3"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Pichelin,Xavier"]
[Black "van der Kemp,Michel"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2405"]
[BlackElo "1921"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Be3 Bg4 16.Qd3 Rae8 17.Nd2 Re6 18.a4 Qh5 19.axb5 axb5 20.Qf1 Bh3 21.Bd1 Qf5 22.Qe2 c5 23.Nf3 Bf4 24.Qd2 Nxe3 25.fxe3 Bh6 26.Qf2 Rfe8 27.Bc2 Qh5 28.e4 Rf6 29.Bd1 Bg4 30.Rf1 g6 31.e5 Rf5 32.Ra5 cxd4 33.cxd4 Rc8 34.Ra3 Rc1 35.Qe2 Rb1 36.d5 Bh3 37.Qe4 Bxf1 38.Qxb1 Qh3 39.Qc2 Bc4 40.Be2 Rxf3 41.Rxf3 Bxd5 42.Bf1 Qg4 43.Rc3 Qd4+ 44.Qf2 Qxe5 45.Bg2 Bc4 46.Kh1 Bg5 47.h3 Kg7 48.Bf1 Bd5+ 49.Kh2 h5 50.Qe2 Qd6 51.Rd3 h4 52.Bg2 hxg3+ 53.Kh1 Bxg2+ 54.Kxg2 Qc6+ 55.Kxg3 Qc7+ 56.Kg2 Qc6+ 57.Rf3 f5 58.b3 Bf6 59.Qd3 1-0
Move sent : 2010.4.3 - 16:34:26
Move replied : 2010.4.3 - 16:34:55
Last move sent : g7-h7
WhiteELO : 2405 ... 2405
BlackELO : 1921 ... 1921
This email was generated automatically by http://www.ficgs.com/
It says last move send g7-h7. How did I actually lose this game if the server still received my move? The result of the game came as a little shock to me, because I thought I had about 10 seconds left when I send the move, and the server did receive it as well, and somehow registered it.
Anyway I should have been faster and accept my loss.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-03 22:13:23)
Round 4 - Pairings
Hi all, the freestyle tournament will continue on April 10... A very interesting tournament but I hope we'll have less problems with our *$@#&% internet providers this time.
Here are the pairings for round 4, I'm BYE this time.
Table 1 : Boehme - Taylor
Table 2 : Evans - Pichelin
Table 3 : Moreira - Petrolo
Table 4 : van der Kemp - Nichols
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-05 18:04:46)
Issues + New pairings
Hi Garvin, what is your browser ? I guess that you use cookies so your problem is quite strange to me as the links posted in the forum only open a new window (that should use the same session - works fine on Firefox & Chrome, at least)...
About the freestyle tournament, I just tried to add a new player during the tournament and the software seems to accept it. Finally I think it cannot be bad to authorize players to enter the waiting list until the end of the tournament, so I just added this rule.
Consequently the pairings for round 4 changed :
Table 1 : Boehme - Taylor
Table 2 : Evans - Pichelin
Table 3 : van der Kemp - Petrolo
Table 4 : Moreira - de Vassal
Table 5 : Gray - Nichols
Sorry to the players for this update, but I'm still trying to find the best rules for this kind of tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-10 00:19:35)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010
The freestyle tournament will continue tomorrow!
However I must say I regularly have some connection problems with my new provider (it should be fixed in a while - according to them), so I apologize in advance if I'm late to start a round or if I have to lose another game on time :/
See you tomorrow!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-10 14:20:52)
Freestyle vs. Access providers
It looks like that access providers are a real problem during freestyle tournaments... In 4 rounds, 2 players (at least) lost a game on time because of them and 1 other had to play with his mobile phone card because his access provider was not able to see ficgs.com during a few hours.
It is possible that week-ends are a quite bad choice to play as most internet providers encounter most problems from friday evening to monday (and take much more time to solve it).
I do not see a clear rule that could solve all this, maybe more rounds would attenuate the problem... If you have any idea, let's discuss it!
Thanks.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-10 17:49:40)
Freestyle vs. Access providers
Another lesson is that maybe I shouldn't organize such tournaments (the last round was launched about 40 minutes late because of a new connection problem) before that my own access provider makes the necessary to be more stable :(
That's a shame but there's nothing else to do than to wait. It was a good tournament anyway that will allow me to improve some things for the next editions.
Thanks to all players who participated!
Lazaro Munoz (2010-04-06 12:40:44)
Ratings calculation
I don't quite understand the way that ratings are calculated (for initial ratings).
I entered my first chess tournament with an initial rating of 1785 (my ICCF rating at the time). I won 5 games and drew 1 and got a rating of 1837.
My fellow tournament entry Chris Brooks entered also for the first tournament with an initial rating of 1800. He won 4 games and lost 2 and got a rating of 1906?! No complains to him, only to the rating system.
Is there some draw penalty built in? We played the same set of players(so the tournament average rating is exactly the same) and played the same number of games (and no more, I checked this has so far been our only tournament for both of us), yet with my extra point and half I wound up with a much lower rating.
What's up with that?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-07 16:42:57)
Replacement in rapid silver 18
Hello all, we're looking for a player interested to replace Wayne in the Chess rapid silver #18, anyone interested ?
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_SILVER__000018
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-10 19:37:35)
Congrats to David Evans!
David Evans wins this 2nd FICGS freestyle cup!
Here are the final standings (please note that the FICGS crosstable may be slightly different from the pairing software's one) :
1. Evans, David : 4,5 / 6 games played (berg 11,75)
2-3. Petrolo, Mauro : 4 / 6 games played (berg 12,5)
2-3. Taylor, William : 4 / 5 games played (berg 9,5)
4. van der Kemp, Michel : 3,5 / 5 games played (berg 6,75)
5. Boehme, Sebastian : 3 / 5 games played (berg 6,25)
6-7. de Vassal, Thibault : 2,5 / 5 games played (berg 6)
6-7. Nichols, Scott : 2,5 / 5 games played (berg 4,25)
8. Pichelin, Xavier : 2 / 6 games played (berg 5,75)
9-10. Moreira, Jose : 1,5 / 4 games played (berg 3,5)
9-10. Gray, Garvin : 1,5 / 3 games played (berg 3,25)
Of course and unfortunately, the number of "played games" includes losses on time without playing. There were numerous problems with access providers during this tournament...
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-10 22:18:47)
Prize : 170 Epoints or...
David also won the total prize in this tournament, 170 Epoints (100 Epoints + 70 Epoints of entry fees as 3 titled players on 10 total entered the waiting list), or 100 Epoints + 75% of 70 in real money according to the rules, at the winner's discretion.
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#prize
Congrats :) .. let's hope the next freestyle tourney will be free of all these problems with access providers!
Garvin Gray (2010-04-11 12:18:37)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010
For the next tournament I would like to see the time control increased to 60 + 15 or similar. I found this time control way too fast for decent freestyle play.
Scott Nichols (2010-04-12 03:59:40)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010
First of all, thanks to Thibault for having this tournament. I have some ideas for the next one for us to kick around. First and foremost we know the connection issues need to be resolved. Second, the time control. I've played both 30 & 60 minutes with 15 second increments and my preference would be the 60+15, but 30+15 is ok also, not a big deal for me. As for the time to have it, (days of the week, hour of the day), I think there is no way to satisfy everyone because of the wide range of time zones, so you just have to make a time and we will find a way to make it. -----The main new idea I have is to make it an open tournament. This means anyone can join, but only those who pay the entry fee will be eligible for prizes. The reason is to get many more players involved, but only the highest entry-paying player will win prize money. Since there are far more players here without any E-points than those with. It might even inspire more to buy points.
Garvin Gray (2010-04-12 06:02:19)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010
I would certainly prefer only one or two games per night a longer time control.
I am strongly against the idea of allowing free entries whilst other pay. With allowing free entries, they have not done anything to show their commitment to finishing the tournament and could just withdraw/not show up at any stage.
While this can also happen for those who have paid an entry fee, at least these players would lose their entry fee.
Also, I am strongly against this idea of free entries and no chance to win prizes as it means some players can just play risk free with no concern for their overall tournament standing, whilst those competing for prizes have to be mindful of their tournament position.
In effect it will create two different mini tournaments and some players will be adversely affected.
I would rather a smaller tournament, but where all the players are playing under the same conditions ie time control, entry fee, ability to win prizes.
Lazaro Munoz (2010-04-13 20:40:15)
More ratings questions
This time one big chess. According to rules for big chess (I actually read it first before posting :), it says that the original rating that is used for calculations is the correspondence rating, which should have been 1785, however it appears that 0 was used instead. In the section that I almost finishing I am now 5 out 5 with 1 game left. The ratings of the other players ranged from 1800 down 1200 (roughly) initially. My current provision rating is 1609 and it seems that all my opponents have lost at least 200 ratings points in the process of playing in this tournament.
If rating system had used a real low rating as the initial for myself it would have been unfair to both myself and all of the other players in my section.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-13 22:30:46)
Big chess ratings
Hi Lazaro!
"Big chess ratings are first estimated from current correspondence chess ratings (current rating -300 points, with at least 1400), then adjusted in real time after each result (...)"
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_big_chess
When you entered your first big chess tournament, the TER was not specified but your current correspondence chess rating was used (minus 300) to calculate your first big chess rating with your first result, so a rating of 1609 seems ok taking account of your opponents ratings. The first results may look quite arbitrary but some rules prevent to lose too many points when losing against a strong opponent with a low rating. Anyway there should be more class categories to get more chances to improve ratings (to be continued), we needed more players but maybe we can do it now.
Iouri Basiliev (2010-04-17 11:37:50)
1st team tournament : games & results !
"Happy" - "YB" : 0-2 (1.5-2.5)
Yellow Blue warriors : 9 points
Garvin Gray (2010-04-21 19:06:39)
Wider rating range tournaments
That title reads like I am doing some back-tracking (for those keeping track) and in a way I am.
I have previously asked for the rating bands of the standard and rapid waiting lists to be 200 points apart as rarely does someone join from outside those rating ranges.
Since then I have noticed that I am getting 'stuck' having to play the same people (feels that way at least).
We have only a couple of tournaments a year where players from different rating ranges are paired together and even in the World Champ groups, the 2300's or so are protected from the rest of the membership.
I would like to see some RATED tournaments created which allows more play between players of different rating ranges.
I believe this would also help with rating list accuracy as it gives the potential for players to increase their rating if they perform and would also sort out the over-rated players quite quickly.
George Clement (2010-04-21 19:56:33)
Wider rating range tournaments
I would like to see a little wider range or tournament also
George Clement (2010-04-21 19:58:54)
Match Against Rybka Forum
Thibault, how do we access a match on FICGS in this tournament? Will you set it up?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-21 20:40:33)
Wider rating range tournaments
So, maybe we should come back to the 400 points ranges for every category, e.g. 1600-2000, 1800-2200, 2000-2400 and so on... ? Any other opinion?
Garvin Gray (2010-04-21 21:30:59)
Wider rating range tournaments
Returning to the 400 rating range will not help for two reasons.
1) Players have shown with both the 400 and now 200 rating ranges that they will not join a tournament if most of the other players are rated below them, even if e-points are offered for winning the tournament
This will not change by going back to 400 point rating bands.
2) The only time players participate in tournaments where they could lose rating points is in the World Champ tourneys, where the prize (qualifying for next round and six games against strong opponents) is greater than the risk of losing rating points.
Hence why I have at least brought up the idea of another set of tournaments. The idea would be every one enters, players are allocated to groups (each group is as equal as possible), then the winners of each group go through to another round robin final group.
The difference between this and the World Champs is that there is no knockout stages and everyone starts from stage one. This means even the 2400's would have to play in stage one to win the tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-21 23:49:04)
FICGS Cup or Open tournament
Here comes back the idea of a FICGS cup or whatever the name... I'm not sure if this is a good idea as WCH tournaments take a lot of time to most of us already, best is to gather most players in the same competition IMO.
Of course I could create a rated category with no rating range at all in Special tournaments, but I'm not sure if there is really an interest in it, any opinion ?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-22 00:14:03)
Match Against Rybka Forum
All games started !
You can see all boards for games played at FICGS here :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__FICGS_VS_RYBKAFORUM_MATCH&boards=1
The other games played at Rybkaforum :
Bobby C Vs. Harvey Williamson
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=16385
Kamesh N. Vs. Mark Eldridge
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=16389
omprakash Vs. Sebastian Boehme
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=16388
Thibault d.V. Vs. SpiderG
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=16383
Weirwindle111 Vs. Wayne Lowrance
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=16384
William T. Vs. Vytron
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=16390
Have nice games :)
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2010-04-24 01:17:43)
Wider rating range tournaments
What about paying an entering fee? Example If I want to play in a higher class tournament, for example M class, I pay an amount of whatever e points the tournament director( in our cases Thibault) stablishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-24 00:04:48)
Wider rating range tournaments
Makes sense... but that will be quite a lot of work :)
Anyway, I'm still not sure if it's best. Other opinions are welcome.
Garvin Gray (2010-04-23 18:33:33)
Wider rating range tournaments
Thibault- This is the system used by IECG but I'm not sure if it is best, and what if several players share first place & so on...
Garvin- If several players share first place then probably it would have to be the same as for the world champs, the person with the highest TER gets the slot, or the person with the highest TER if the winner is already eligible at the end of said tournament.
Does that make sense?
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2010-04-22 18:55:53)
Wider rating range tournaments
I do not know how made this suggestion before, but what about a special tournament which enables the winner to play in an upper category, for example winner of c group special tournament is allowed to play in a b ranked tournament. Comments about this proposal?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-23 00:26:49)
Wider rating range tournaments
The problem is either it would ask a big update to make it automatic or an action from a tournament director each time... If I make an update, it should probably work for all class tournaments. This is the system used by IECG but I'm not sure if it is best, and what if several players share first place & so on... Ratings move faster than at IECG to avoid that and allow players to reach higher categories in a shorter time. Simple rules are often best IMO.
Wayne Lowrance (2010-04-23 01:11:29)
Wider rating range tournaments
Garvin, you have a very good point. I have been there and so I know how your feeling. It is very difficult to advance that is for sure.
Garvin It can be overcome, I have! please refer to my rating climb. I started off at rock bottom despite the fact that I had a rating of 2300++ going in here at ficgs. I did know know I could transfer part of my rating (1800 I Think) but I started at the bottom (1500 if memory serves).It has taken me for what seems forever to arrive to where I am now. I have worked very hard to achieve the Title and it's rating. I have a nice comp now, but the first couple of years I grew in stature with a 1.8 ghz single cpu. Have used that cpu most of my stay here.
What is my secret ?. Answer I have non. First is I have a excellent CC book (lousy for blitzing). I feel the real only way to advance here on FICS is outbook and out think your opponent in opening lines (ask Thibault :)
So MY thoughts are that it would follow that I am not in favor of your proposal. Having said that, I will support what ever way Thibault goes with your ideas.
Good luck my friend, I am behind you, but honestly cannot say I will support any new rating grading.
Wayne
Garvin Gray (2010-04-22 17:01:33)
Wider rating range tournaments
An all in rated category would not work.
I understand that the World Champs is meant to be the focal point and the main tournament, I am certainly not trying to take away from that.
Just that I am seeing an issue that has to be bugging people more than just me and trying to find a solution to this.
If you need help with setting up the groups and making pairings, I am willing to help with that to get the idea of the ground.
As for workload for the players, well I guess that is for each player to decide. If they think it is too much, then they will not play and the tournament goes no further than one trial.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-24 17:02:39)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Tano-Urayoán just posted an interesting idea in the following discussion:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8507
I was totally opposed to this idea at a first sight, but after a while I found some real advantages.
The idea : Any player could pay an entry fee to enter a high class chess tournament (e.g. 20 Euros for class M, 40 for class SM, 60 for class GM), whatever his rating.
Of course what we all see first is : Anyone can pay to make increase his rating faster, that is just unfair!
But let's imagine that a player rated 1800 pays an entry fee of 40 Euros to enter the class SM waiting list.
1) The waiting list will be filled faster!
2) If this player is actually stronger than its rating show, he'll find its place faster (the other players will not lose so many points because their ratings are protected - see rating calculation rules).
3) There could be such an extra rule: Players who are already in the waiting list or who will play the tournament may share 50% of the entry fee in Epoints, which would be a kind of compensation for them.
4) These entry fees will help to have more prizes in free tournaments (another compensation) and bigger prizes in e.g. freestyle cups, although I don't have any idea on how many players would be interested in this, so the site will become more popular and so on...
Anyway, please share your views if you have any idea to improve this one, and your opinion is needed here of course!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-24 17:04:09)
Wider rating range tournaments
Tano-Urayoán, your idea (with some changes) may be worth to be discussed after all!
Let's discuss it here:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8545
Thanks!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-24 17:53:33)
Bullet & lightning time controls
The bullet & lightning games are slowly but surely gaining in popularity, the next freestyle tournaments should help to continue this way...
Now that the touch-move option appeared at FICGS (see Preferences), maybe the bullet & lightning time controls should be faster to make it more different from each other and from blitz.
So far bullet is : 10 min. + 20 sec. / move , lightning : 30 min. + 1 min. / move
Maybe we could envisage this change :
Bullet : 5 min. + 15 seconds / move , lightning : 20 min. + 30 seconds / move
Any opinion?
Garvin Gray (2010-04-24 12:03:25)
Wider rating range tournaments
Thumbs down for the paying an entry fee to get into a higher rating.
It just seems to me that it goes against the whole idea of earning your way into a higher rating group by improving your play and rating to justify an opportunity in the higher group.
Garvin Gray (2010-04-24 12:08:38)
Wider rating range tournaments
Thibault,
The idea of qualification for a higher rating group might get people entering more tournaments in their 'correct' rating group.
Also, even if there is just one lower rated player in a higher group (earned by winning), is that really so bad as it at least gets that division playing, rather than sitting around waiting for someone to join.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-24 14:27:23)
Wider rating range tournaments
:o) .. that's a very good commercial idea, Tano-Urayoán ;) Unfortunately I'm afraid Garvin's right on this point.
You make another good point Garvin IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-24 14:30:18)
Wider rating range tournaments
I also think about the possibility to imitate the advanced chess (Go as well) rating rules :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8375
There may be several advantages to this:
1) It would give a better image of the quality of the games compared to the past as engines are stronger and stronger but ratings do not increase in average...
2) It would allow players to access more easily the next category...
3) Old best ratings achieved a few years ago wouldn't be unbreakable anymore...
4) It may motivate retired players to come back to the fight :)
What do you think?
Wayne Lowrance (2010-04-24 20:25:52)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I do not like it. What you will see is a higher bracket classification in the waiting list stage will see presumably some qualified players entry, soon to be filled up with a host of players with deep pockets entering, so it ends up being not a higher bracket but a lower class bracket. This just does not seem fair. It means (as you have already pointed out) players with deep pockets can buy there way into rating points. I will not support or tolerate that notion if I can avoid it.
Scott Nichols (2010-04-24 23:44:18)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I agree with Wayne totally.
Don Groves (2010-04-25 01:45:46)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I still like the idea of allowing the winner of a tournament to enter the next higher level one time. It serves the same purpose as this suggestion but is limited to one player at a time so it doesn't dilute the level of play in the higher tournament. It also helps a new player find their appropriate level faster.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-25 01:50:10)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Okay, that's what I thought :)
Anyway, the silver games are another way to play stronger players. So that was not necessary in any case.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-25 02:52:37)
FICGS
I understand you Wayne, I don't want to make such mistakes and that's why we talk so much about these changes in this forum :)
On entry fees for a higher class tournament, I agree on the main point of course, but some advantages had to be discussed. The success of this site is also money and money prizes in the future IMO so I prefer to discuss such ideas than to do nothing.
That was the first point. Then there are some other points that remain to be discussed IMO : 1) Maybe correspondence chess ratings should increase (in average) as engines become stronger. 2) Titles calculation rules should probably be harder as a consequence, maybe it should have been changed already.
Correspondence/Advanced chess is constantly evolving, our marks move fast, so rules may have to change. I don't think that FICGS can turn into a kind of Yahoo chess (I did not ever play there btw), the most important thing is the atmosphere and I know that if I make a mistake, someone will let me know very quickly as it happened once a few months ago. We all make that success in that way!
Scott Nichols (2010-04-25 10:43:52)
Careful wht you do with our loved F
An annual membership fee is not a good idea at all IMO. Then you would change the whole concept of the "free" international games server. However I am a firm supporter of a small "take" from the entry fees for tournaments and E-point games.
Benjamin Block (2010-04-25 18:02:19)
Ads gone?
Before there where ads everywhere. No i can´t found any... I hope this are not a tecnical bugg or something. Because i know having a site cost money. And the there are a lots of free e-points wining in tournaments. I guess the money need to come from somewhere. Keep up the good work.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-25 18:50:23)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
By the way it would be possible to set as a limit 1 "sponsoring" player per tournament as well.
Maybe this rule would look like more acceptable if I can make an update so that winners in a tournament get a ticket to entry a higher class tournament.
Once again, I'm not saying I want this "entry fee for higher class tournament" rule at any price, but if we find a way to make it not too unacceptable, maybe it would be worth a try before to see the real consequences so let's discuss it again!
Wayne Lowrance (2010-04-25 21:47:28)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
OK, were getting closer. How about this:
The winner of a tournament class "just below" the next higher class gets a free ride into that class. No money needed! I sorta think this is ok
Wayne
Wayne Lowrance (2010-04-25 21:50:58)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Or, maybe you want the money entrance requirement to compensate the "class" players for permitting the entry.
I am ok with this as well
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-25 22:02:41)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I'm not sure if I understood well your last message, would you have an example?
Michel van der Kemp (2010-04-27 10:44:40)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
For reasons already mentioned by others I would be opposed to people being able to buy themselves tickets to higher tournaments.
The idea of earning a ticket for a higher tournament by winning a tournament seems fair, and seems similar to what ICCF has. I would be in favour of that idea.
Garvin Gray (2010-04-27 12:12:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
As already stated, I am in favour of the winner of the immediate section below being able to earn a spot in the higher division.
I do have a slight change of position. In previous posts I have stated that in the case of a tie for first, it should be the highest TER that goes through.
Now I think about it, it should be the person with the highest rating at the END of the tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-01 19:44:21)
chess engines
Hello Adam, yes chess engines are authorized & encouraged here... Many reasons to this, there was numerous discussions in this forum on this question (I'll try to find some links if you wish).
There is a NO ENGINES category in the CHESS SPECIAL TOURNAMENTS (see waiting lists), but of course you cannot be sure that you will not play against an engine...
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-02 16:40:48)
Speeding up Poker games
I'm afraid that a few tournaments would not be enough as a test... 2 time controls would be a good idea but I'm not sure if the rating lists would be filled fast enough so if you think that this new one would not bring real problems, maybe we should change the time control for all poker standard tournaments... then the experience will tell what to do!?
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2010-05-03 00:22:51)
Speeding up Poker games
I like best of 5. I would not like to miss it.
I think small blinds could raise earlier: 20/2 35/4 50/8 65/16 80/32 100/64.
"there is a "bullet" time control for poker": That's true, but not an alternative to a tournament. I have tried it once. After more than 2 hours and (only!) 265 moves my opponent had to resign because he has to do other things. If I think that I played many poker games with more than 1000 moves ...
Conditional moves are too complicated for poker I think.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-08 21:08:51)
New proposition
Here's a new idea, based on the fact that I don't think I'll have time (before a while, at least) to implement a script that would allow 1 or 2 tournament's winners to enter a higher class waiting list... many particular cases, not so easy.
The idea :
We could allow one (actually 2 would be still ok IMO) tournament's winner to enter a higher class waiting list for 10 Epoints (not Euros, big difference as most Epoints are won in free tournaments and cannot be cashed out if not played in tournaments with entry fee). I would place the players in the waiting lists by myself but finally it may satisfy everyone -> A player rated 1900 could enter a 2000+ waiting list but could not enter a 2200+ waiting list, the server can offer more Epoints prizes (that just increased for chess tournaments, by the way), and players could find their place more easily in the ratings.
Any opinion?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-08 23:45:26)
New proposition
Actually the main problem is IMO what to do if let's say 5 players rated 2000-2200 suddenly ask for an entry in a 2200+ (class M) waiting list... It may take so much time for the 5th player to be able to enter it (waiting for a 3rd M tournament starts if 2 players can have a ticket per tournament) that he may reach the 2200 mark before that his ticket be useful.
Garvin Gray (2010-05-09 03:17:39)
Careful wht you do with our loved F
Thibault,
I have previously addressed the issue of what happens if players tie for first.
In my opinion, it should be person with highest rating at the end of the tournament that gets the invite to the next division.
I have proposed end of tournament rating for this at it would be a more accurate guide to each players potential.
The entry fee for this qualified player should be the amount they won in their previous division.
I am against four or five players qualifying as it could lead to collusion between players, or at least the appearance of collusion (paranoia).
Also having the possibility of more than one player going through could lead to more draw agreements as players realise they do not have to score 5.5/6 or so to get the spot in the next division.
Don Groves (2010-05-09 05:01:36)
How many games at once?
Vacations take care of life getting too busy to play. The other stuff is a matter of opinion. Ours are different.
I have no problem with taking 10 days for a juicy decision, but some here take several days for almost every move! That becomes too much.
Another thing that happens is that when a new tournament begins, one player may let his clock go red before he starts to move in a game. Then he will play one move per day to avoid losing on time, but the other player must wait for several weeks before the game begins. Is this fair?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-09 23:24:12)
How many games at once?
Of course it is laughable, I took the extreme opposites but while everything goes faster & faster on the internet and everyone MUST become more & more addicted so that the world runs fine (just meaning more money), my choice is definitely not to follow that way, also because this system will not work so long IMO. People will slowly quit Facebook after a time or at least will not use it the same way, and many already started to stop to play all these thousands stupid applications. Maybe it cannot be really a good comparison but the idea is there.
Correspondence chess was much slower before email chess & server chess, and it is now fast enough IMO. I don't know how other players feel it, some ones have time for sure, as for me I have some time to play but a 14 days limit per move would be really stressful to me though... I cannot imagine how many games more I would have lost with such a rule.
I know that a few players would like faster moves, however I feel that most players are fine with the current rules and I really want everyone to be cool here. We've lost a bunch of good players because of the previous rules such as unlimited number of games.
Now we should debate it game after game as most players who would like faster moves at chess still play in class tournaments (while rapid category was designed for them). Go is a game of patience definitely, but I have some work to do to accelerate some games (something towards automatic adjudication), and the major problem will be for poker games.
So, what are we talking about? :)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-09 23:31:20)
Careful wht you do with our loved F
Sorry Garvin, I was not clear enough, I meant "what to do if let's say 5 players rated 2000-2200 (who won 5 different tournaments !) suddenly ask for an entry in a 2200+ (class M) waiting list".
We can discuss your other suggestions of course, everything is possible there, but we must find an "agreement" on the other points before :)
> The entry fee for this qualified player should be the amount they won in their previous division.
I guess that we could try this way, but it seems a bit unfair for the winners of strong tournaments, any other opinion?
Iouri Basiliev (2010-05-10 09:40:37)
1st team tournament : games & results !
1 game (32187) left. Waiting :)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-10 12:15:16)
Big chess world championship
The very 1st Big Chess world championship (ever!) waiting list is open, the tournaments will start on july 1st, 2010.
Now it is time to promote again this incredible game where chess players may be quite lost during the first games (the value of the pieces may move quite fast), its complexity is probably somewhere between chess & Go...
Just let your chess engines on your chess games, you only need your brain on the 16x16 board, join the fun! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-10 12:34:09)
More Big chess categories
Also I've added a few more big chess tournaments categories to help players to find their place faster in the rating list.
It is also possible to play Big Chess bullet bronze games, as a test for now...
Garvin Gray (2010-05-10 14:42:11)
Careful wht you do with our loved F
First of all, can we change the incorrect spelling in the thread title, it is start to shit me lol
Anyways, on to the thread topic.
Ok, now I understand what you are talking about Thib. Different tournament winners decide to exercise their right to enter the next highest division at the same time.
Rule One: Winning a tournament entitles you to enter the next highest division up. This is valid for the next tournament only in the division you have qualified for.
Upper qualification can not be stored for use at any future time.
The qualification only exists in the section you qualified in ie standard or rapid. It can not be transferred to the other section.
Thib, I do not think there will be ever be a situation where 5 players try and exercise their qualification rights into the exact same tournament at the same time.
Also the two rules above should help in reducing the chances of this happening.
In cases where two or more players do attempt to enter the same 'upper' division, the first person to pay their entry fee will get entry.
The idea of first person to pay is the earlier the commitment, the more benefit the 'committer' receives.
I have not yet come up with an idea for those who try to exercise their earnt option and miss out. Should they lose their opportunity, or it retained for the next tournament that they could enter.
Could be quite a long reserve list and also by the beginning of the 2nd tournament, the player may have lost more rating points and it can be shown by their results that they probably should not be going up.
Maybe on the reserves list, it should be listed by TER and the highest TER gets first option when it comes to second tournaments.
Does this make sense?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-10 15:14:35)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Garvin, you can change the title for your posts in the discussion :)
Well, all your ideas may work fine, let's discuss it again in the original discussion on this topic :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8545
I just made a new proposal there.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-10 15:16:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Well, the discussion continued in another thread :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8555
Garvin's ideas may work fine, but while some players will like the benefits, some others will be deceived not to be able to take advantage of it (quite a chancy factor)...
Here is my new proposal (based on a few Epoints, not real money) :
- Winners of any standard (class) or rapid tournament, whatever the game, may buy a ticket for 10 Epoints to enter the waiting list for the next tournament category according the following conditions :
* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.
* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.
* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.
* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].
* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
Please correct anything that looks unclear and let's discuss it again :) Thanks for all your help Garvin & all!
I'd like to have Wayne, Michel's & other opinions on the proposed changes, is this at least more acceptable according to you?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-11 13:31:14)
Georges Stibal dies on May 1st, 2010
Our well known chessfriend George Stibal (born 1-8-1936) died on May 1st, 2010 after a massive stroke. My thoughts go to his family.
George were involved in the Correspondence Chess scene for more than 30 years, he was a Director of Play & Tournament Director for ICCF (he obtained the IA title as an Arbiter), he was also the CCLA International Secretary from 1992-2001.
He was also one of my very first opponents in a correspondence chess game...
The whole correspondence chess world lost a good friend.
Michel van der Kemp (2010-05-11 16:42:20)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I just dont like the possibility to buy oneself tickets for higher tournaments. What's next? Next FIDE world championship challenger is going to be the one that brings the largest bag of money to the table?
Perhaps a commercial aspect to this justifies this idea. I know it's a lot of work to keep a site like this running, and FICGS gets many improvements all the time. It makes sense to get some revenue out of it, to compensate so much work.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-11 18:01:16)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Hi Michel! Thanks again for discussing it.
> What's next? Next FIDE world championship challenger is going to be the one that brings the largest bag of money to the table?
I don't know if this was designed to be humor (I guess, but maybe you meant FICGS instead of FIDE?) but in the context of current FIDE rules I find it very funny :) .. by the way if the same rules were applied at FICGS, anyone could challenge the champion for the title for $500,000 or something like this. Of course that would be great for FICGS and the current champion may appreciate such a prize as well, but that's not the point here.
However yes this FIDE rule may be compared to my suggestion, at a very different level though (the basic idea is the same: to build prizes for more interesting [free?] competitions), in my opinion an entry fee of 10 Epoints is quite different from what I suggested before already. Note that even if FICGS was not free, it would not justify such special entry fee more (not saying it cannot be justified!), after all there's an entry fee in the vast majority of OTB tournaments, if you don't pay it (but GM/IM that are generally invited to play for free - and most often take the prize), you cannot improve your rating, the problem is that the entry fee depends on the tournament, and the entry fee for closed tournaments (the main/only way to get norms) is often much higer.
I agree that things are somewhat different here as the main idea of FICGS is to be completely free. So the real question is : "Is FICGS still 'free' if a tournament's winner can choose to pay an entry fee in a virtual money (by the way it is quite easy to get Epoints without having to pay anything) to enter the next tournaments category".
- If despite of all the answer is "no", then FICGS is NOT free right now anyway as any player can play a rated 2 games match RAPID SILVER with an entry fee against a higher rated player to have more chances to win elo points. This way even IECG was not free (chessfriend), and even if something is really 100% free, it still doesn't mean fair, which is the main point here. Even if a tournament's winner could enter the next tournament's category for free, such a rule would NEVER be completely fair, as I described the particular cases.
Quite complex :)
Finally I'm not saying you're wrong in any way. Free or not free is a really complex question IMO, in my point of view, FICGS will remain free as noone needs to pay to become champion or to achieve the highest ratings (unlike FIDE). But if it is 99% free only while offering money prizes, I'd choose it anyway for sure.
Benjamin Block (2010-05-11 18:19:01)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Ficgs is still free... I think it can be very good indeed.
1.Some players maybe want training...
2.It will also stop an inflation. Because some new player came here and already have a high rating from example iccf.
And they start playing this site. Maybe they don´t have time for the games and left this site. With just giving a way some points.
Am i right?
Garvin Gray (2010-05-11 18:25:23)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Michel van der Kemp - I think you need to read, or re-read all of the comments and proposals, discussions again.
The key feature of this is that a person has to win their own rating group tournament in either standard or rapid before being able to enter a higher division.
There is no case where anyone can just buy a spot into a higher division. They have to first earn the privilege. Then in simple terms they would only be using the epoints collected from their win of said division.
I really do hope you have read the previous comments over the few threads that have eventuated on this topic, as they are crucial to understand the concept.
I have spent quite a lot of time typing out proposals and thoughts on this idea, so if you have not read them and instead just come into the forum and protested at the first thing you think it wrong, then I will be rather pissed off at you and anyone else that does it.
Stephane Legrand (2010-05-11 18:37:09)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I agree with Garvin, Wayne .... I am in favour of the winner of the immediate section below being able to earn a spot in the higher division.
An i propose that if this player obtains 50% or more he can have a new one in this division.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-11 18:48:52)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Stéphane, please specify if you agree any conditions (which ones?) described a few posts above... that's the main point.
Garvin, I need some opinions like Michel's one (even if I cannot convince him), it helps me to make my ideas clearer and to bring better arguments. I feel that we approach something now, but we really have to specify what conditions we're talking about (e.g. entry fee in Epoints or real money) when discussing. So should I understand that you agree my previous posts?
Stephane Legrand (2010-05-11 19:09:42)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I was totally opposed to the idea of entry fee at a first sight, but after a while maybe you can propose the 2 solutions for tournaments (entry fee possible or not to enter a high class chess tournament)
Daniel Parmet (2010-05-11 19:25:22)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I am very much in favor of the winner of his/her own class tournament earning as a prize the right to play one up class. This actually brings a relevant prize to the tournaments! Up until I have had no reason to care if I won a tournament or not. Why? What do I get? Pride? Ego? Bragging Rights? Epoints? I get nothing! Now I earn the right to player stronger players! A true prize indeed!
I don't agree if two players tie though that one just mystically be given the prize and the other not. I understand you don't want to dilute the rating pool... but you can force one person to wait til waiting list fills and each person can sit in it one at a time.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-11 19:34:50)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Stéphane, the point is I cannot add this rule without any entry fee (as explained many posts above or in the other thread).
Daniel, I agree with your last point!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-11 19:37:04)
6 options
So, to be clearer here are the 6 options :
1) Tournaments winners may entry the next category waiting list according to the conditions described a few posts above and for 10 Epoints.
2) Tournaments winners may entry any higher category's waiting list for 10 to 100 Epoints according to his rating (e.g. 10 Epoints for the next category, 30 for 2 categories above, 60 for 3 categories above, 100 for 4 categories above).
3) Any player may entry the next category's waiting list for 10 Epoints.
4) Any player may entry any higher category's waiting list for 10 to 100 Epoints according to his rating (e.g. 10 Epoints for the next category, 30 for 2 categories above, 60 for 3 categories above, 100 for 4 categories above).
5) Any player may entry any higher category's waiting list for 10 to 100 Euros [not Epoints] according to his rating (e.g. 10 Euros for the next category, 20 for 2 categories above, 40 for 3 categories above, 100 for 4 categories above).
6) No change.
Please choose :)
As for me, while choice #2 looks like a non-sense between my first proposal (choice #5) and my last proposal (choice #1), I feel that choices #1 and #4 could be ok, the #4 may help to build bigger prizes while the #1 is the most fair (after choice #6 of course).
How would you rank these choices?
Daniel Parmet (2010-05-11 19:39:23)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I very much like option 1. I would also point out that this is the appeal of the WCH tournament. You get to play some stronger players and if you manage to win your group... your prize is even stronger players!
Kamesh Nookala (2010-05-11 19:57:10)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Dear Thib,
Points 1 and 4 are quite good. However, here comes the question.
What if the winner of the preceding (lower) category, after paying 10 e-points and entering into the next higher rated tour, fares decent enof, for e.g. finishes 2nd in the higher category (or doesn't lose a single game)? Will he have to again win his category of event and then pay 10 e-points and join the immediate higher rated event again? Or, he will "earn" a chance to play that higher rated category again considering his previous performance?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-11 20:14:40)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Hi Kamesh, I think we should just follow the conditions that I copy again here (valid for choice #1, a tournament winner may buy a ticket if) :
* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.
* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.
* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.
* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].
* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
Let's say the winner of a class B tournament then wins a class A tournament after having bought a ticket, he has good chances to see his rating increased after the next rating calculation and before that his possibility to buy a new ticket (for class M) expires. Maybe the possibility to buy a ticket should be valid 3 months, I'm not sure.
Kamesh Nookala (2010-05-11 20:22:57)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Dear Thib,
All this stuff is way too much for my little 1 kb brain to understand. Whatever, you guys decide, I am prepared for that, coz, you guys wont do things without a genuine reason and a valid discussion !
I will keep on trying to march ahead !
Peter Marriott (2010-05-11 21:17:18)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I agree with Thib. This is pretty confusing... I'm sure whatever you guys choose will be fine, though! :P
Peter Marriott (2010-05-11 21:17:56)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
oops, *I agree with Kam
Wayne Lowrance (2010-05-11 21:53:09)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Away to complicated for many of us.
Wayne
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2010-05-12 05:58:32)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Option 6 no change at all.
Wayne Lowrence exposed that with hard work you could gain your way to the top
Garvin Gray (2010-05-12 08:51:01)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
To answer one point, as opposed to point one hehe.
While it is true with hard work and good results, it is possible to get into the very high rating groups, the way this site works makes it very difficult indeed.
In fact, it is more likely that a persons rating will stay the same or reduce due to the fact that more players come into the system, take away rating points from those with established ratings and this keeps happening.
With how this site is set up, there are very few opportunities for players in the 2100 rating group to get back those points by playing opponents in the 2200-2300 or more as it stands atm.
So it is highly likely that a player, or players, could be improving their games, but their rating does not improve because they do not have the opportunity to improve their rating because they do not play people rated above them as much as they are playing people rated below them.
Garvin Gray (2010-05-12 08:55:30)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Options 1 and 6 are the only options in my opinion.
As I have already commented many times now, if you allow people to just buy their way in, then it creates disadvantages for those without much money and goes against the grain of this whole site.
While I am voting for option 1, if it is a choice between anyone can pay to enter a division up or there are no promotion opportunities at all, I WILL CHANGE MY VOTE TO OPTION 6- NO CHANGE AT ALL.
Garvin Gray (2010-05-12 08:59:48)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Thib- I really think this voting idea is the wrong direction indeed.
The number of votes that you will receive will be so small as a representative of the whole site that it is not representative at all.
Furthermore, those voting most likely will not have read all of the history, counter-arguments and posts that have been made explaining why things are being proposed.
I am getting quite frustrated at reading some of the posts. I really would just like to see option 1 enacted by yourself, even for a trial period of one year.
One year might seem like a long time, but considering that this rule would only apply from when new tournaments have started, it could take a while for tournament winners to become apparent and then for them to accept their entry and then for those 'going up' to have achieved results that are worthy of analysis.
Scott Nichols (2010-05-12 13:14:12)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I like things the way they are...:)
Wayne Lowrance (2010-05-12 16:42:29)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Eliminating the voice of the players down to just one being more representative. Now that is an original thought. I think many of us here are weary of this proposal.
Thibault I trust your judgement. Whatever you wish, is ok with me.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-12 16:51:21)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Not exactly a vote Garvin, anyway a few opinions are much better than nothing and still matter to discuss.
My answer to Scott & Tano-Urayoán : I agree that none of these proposals is more fair than the current rules, but here is why at least choice #1 has also many advantages, for FICGS but also for the players : Of course, those who made it the hardest way like Wayne may feel that this is unfair to change the rules, but rules constantly evolve & this would be really a minor change (in the case of choice #1). The point is that while e.g. IECG uses this promotion system, it is unfair the same way that a player from IECG can register at FICGS with his IECG rating that benefited of this rule. From the start FICGS rules were harder than IECG rules when registering, but as ratings move faster here I thought that it would be a compensation, but it is not a reason enough not to improve the rules again if possible.
The reality according to me : choice #1 is less fair than current rules, and choice #4 is even more unfair, but the current rules aren't so fair either. Rules that would be completely fair may exist but would have too many bad consequences for sure, and at least FICGS would not have been a success by using it. Anyway, I will not take any decision today, let's wait for some more arguments, the whole discussion is actually even more interesting than the point that is discussed in. Finally, I'm quite favourable to try (as Garvin suggested) the choice #1 and discuss the consequences after a few months.
Daniel Parmet (2010-05-12 20:25:24)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I think option1 is the best. But I completely agree with Garvin. Why not try it? We tried those silly rating band idea even though we knew it was bad. Why not try this? I think its a good idea. I agree that options 2-5 are silly.
Right now as it stands, you get nothing for winning a tournament, you might not even get many points either. If you are 1990ish and beat 6 1800s. They might have been much stronger than 1800 but the results also came in slowly 1/1 for each rating period... you don't stand to gain very many points maybe not even enough to get you to the next rating band... but you would be guaranteed to play the next rating band for sure because you won the tournament. I think you'll see alot of the invitations into the rating bands helping people out that are only missing it by a few rating points anyways. Besides its a REAL prize for winning the tournament, right now all we give is a pat on the back!
Wayne Lowrance (2010-05-13 18:20:15)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Been giving a lot of thought to this post. At first I was opposed to it. I think primarily maybe I was influenced by my thinking " I climbed through the levels", so anyone can if they dedicate the effort as I did.
Now I am swayed to support Garvin Grey posting ideas.
I recognize very well that there are many players qualified to move up but find it frustrating to make headway.
It comes down to this. Chances are if they win a class tournament, they probably deserve to advance an level. If not competitive, they will not stay at that level. So anyhow I am posting as to what I believe the proposal #1 is in fact.
- Winners of any standard (class) or rapid tournament, whatever the game, may buy a ticket for 10 Epoints to enter the waiting list for the next tournament category according the following conditions :
* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.
* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.
* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.
* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].
* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
That is a paste of your thread Thibault.
If that is what you and Garvin want or close to it then I say why not ! Give it a go.
Wayne
Garvin Gray (2010-05-15 11:43:02)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Thank you for your compliment Wayne.
Another benefit is that it will allow the higher divisions to fill quicker, allowing more games between the top players.
I quite often see posts asking for more players to join the top divisions. With this idea, while it will mean one person from the lower group, it will still allow more games between the 6 'genuine' people in that division.
Garvin Gray (2010-05-15 11:45:34)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Just thought of another benefit. This idea might also get those who are just under the rating cutoff to start joining tournaments where they think there is nothing to gain except loss of rating points.
So in a 2000-2200 rating division, 2150+ might start entering knowing that they can win that division and get to the next upper division, rather than just having to get there on rating alone.
So this idea could provide a compensatory return for being in a group with 6 other people rated lower.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-17 23:18:18)
Question
Still thinking about the last Garvin's idea... the real question is IMO: can one estimate that it is fair that a player who is 50 elo points below the rating cutoff, let's say a player rated 2150, have the same right than the winner of a previous class A tournament to buy a ticket for the next class M tournament?
There are advantages to this idea of course, a problem is that there will be even less possibilites for tournaments winners to have a ticket... (well, it goes in the other way also)
I like the idea though... My personal answer to this question would be probably: All this is far too complicated to be summarized this way to this question, winning a tournament IS a matter of chance also, winning a game IS a matter of chance (we prefer to call it statistics) also, and this rule, whatever the details, IS unfair anyway. So there is no clear answer IMHO, but if someone has one, please share it now :)
Garvin Gray (2010-05-18 06:46:22)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
If you want a rule for this, then I guess it has to be in TER order at the time the next tournament is going to start.
But that does make setting up each tournament more complex.
Or you can let the 'market' decide for you by taking the first person to enter is the person that accepted into the higher division.
Arno Bezemer (2010-05-20 14:57:17)
Late resignation
Normally I don't mind to play out a winning position, but my opponent in game 32535 keeps on playing for ever, with just a pawn vs my rook and 2 pawns. On the lowest level i can maybe understand this but not in a class M 2200+ tournament. Is there anything i can do about it?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-20 23:48:59)
Updated !
As you may have seen, the FICGS rules have been updated with the rule that was discussed here...
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#tickets
This is still an experiment, let's see the benefits (for waiting lists & future prizes), it may be changed yet.
If you just won a tournament, you should have received an email explaining all this.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-06-02 16:43:27)
Rybka 4 wins ICT10
Rybka 4 just won the latest edition of the International Computer Chess Tournament (ICT10, 10th edition) ahead of Deep Sjeng (surprise!?) and far from the other Chessbase engines: Hiarcs, Deep Shredder and Deep Junior...
Interesting to see that Rybka (by Vasik Rajlich) only lost to Deep Sjeng (by Gian-Carlo Pascutto) and won all the other games, including against the well known Hiarcs (by Mark Uniacke) and Shredder (by Stefan Meyer-Kahlen).
Rybka 8/9
Deep Sjeng 7/9
Hiarcs 6/9
Deep Shredder 6/9
Deep Junior 5.5/9
Komodo 5/9
The other participants were Pandix, The Baron, Spark, The King, Kallisto, Almond, RedQueen and Joker.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6381
Lazaro Munoz (2010-06-03 19:23:41)
Number of rated FIDE players
FIDE has always had a bit of an elitist streak with rating, but also most national tournament administrator do not send in tournament reports from local events to them so that is another reason why do not the expected bell curve of ratings.
The traditional method for a lower rated player to get a FIDE rating was to play in major open event such as the World Open and hopefully play against a FIDE rated player. But since these events are broken in under-xxxx (by ratings) sections, most lower rated players never get a chance to play against a rated opponent unless they were brave enough to enter to top open section.
ICCF had a similar elitist attitude but that has changed in recent years; however at in countries that have a established national CC federation, you use to need to be a member of one to play; it use to be you needed to be invited by your national federation, but that part has changed and as long as you a member of national CC organization you can enter any ICCF that you qualify for (based on ratings).
BTW, ICCF has announced a Webserver open tournament that is free to anyone that does not currently have an ICCF rating. If you have one (ICCF rating) you can join via your national fed or at the ICCF site; I found that the ICCF site was more expensive than going through the national federation.
--laz
Don Groves (2010-06-13 00:29:20)
FIFA world cup 2010, predictions
It should be a great tournament. There is no dominant team the time, several teams have decent chances...
Thibault de Vassal (2010-06-28 20:44:06)
Encyclopedia of gambits
I guess that many of you read the interesting Chessbase article by Kavalek :
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6460
The link to the encyclopedia of gambits by Marco Saba was a surprise to me... really interesting, and a huge work!
http://studimonetari.org/edg/
I picked up a few ideas for the next chess thematic tournaments, so there may be the next ones in the future :
Aasum [Van Geet: Hector Gambit] 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 de4 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.f3
Abonyi-Tennison [Reti: Tennison Gambit Accepted] 1.Nf3 d5 2.e4 de4 3.Ng5
[KGA: Allgaier Gambit] 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ng5 h6 6.Nf7
"Anti-Stonewall" [Dutch: Alapin] 1.d4 f5 2.Qd3 d5 3.g4
[Budapest: Alekhine, Balogh Gambit] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.de5 Ng4 4.e4 d6
Banzai-Leong [French] 1.e4 e6 2.b4
Batavo [Bird: Batavo Gambit] 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.e4
Beyer c.g. [Blackmar-Diemer: Beyer Countergambit] 1.e4 e5 2.d4 d5
Birmingham [Polish: Birmingham Gambit] 1.b4 c5
Blackburne - I [Scandinavian: 2.exd5] 1.e4 d5 2.ed5 c6
Böhnke [Scandinavian: Böhnke Gambit] 1.e4 d5 2.ed5 e5
Breyer [KGA: Breyer Gambit] 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Qf3
De Smet [Nimzowitsch Defence: 2.d4 e5 3.dxe5] 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e5 3.de5 d6
[Diemer-Duhm Gambit (DDG) vs. Slav/Caro-Kann] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e4
Gaga [King's Gambit Accepted (KGA)] 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.g3
Halasz - II [Sicilian: Halasz Gambit] 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cd4 3.f4
Hickmann [English: Anglo-Dutch] 1.c4 f5 2.e4 fe4 3.d3
Hjoerring c.g. [Benko Gambit] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.e4
Jerome [Giuoco Piano: Jerome Gambit] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bf7
Krejcik [Dutch: Krejcik Gambit] 1.d4 f5 2.g4
Lasa [Open Game: Lopez/Mcleod, Lasa Gambit] 1.e4 e5 2.c3 f5
Lasker - III [Bird: From Gambit Accepted] 1.f4 e5 2.fe5 f6
Omega [Indian: Omega Gambit] 1.d4 Nf6 2.e4
Vector [English: Vector] 1.c4 d5 2.cd5 c6
Wheeler [Nimzowitsch Defence: Wheeler Gambit] 1.e4 Nc6 2.b4
Zilbermints - III [Queen's Gambit] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 b5
"Zurigo" [Queen's Pawn Game] 1.d4 d5 2.g4
If you notice more interesting openings, do not hesitate to suggest it here...
Peter Schuster (2010-07-05 21:06:06)
CHESS__WCH_KNOCKOUT_FINAL__000006
Hello Thibault,
when does the following tournament start:
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_KNOCKOUT_FINAL__000006
Best wishes, Peter
Thibault de Vassal (2010-07-05 23:32:09)
CHESS__WCH_KNOCKOUT_FINAL__000006
Hello Peter & all,
I'm a bit late for stage 2 & stage 3 of the previous chess cycles, sorry about that... the knockout tournaments should start within minutes, the round-robin tournaments will start tomorrow.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-07-07 12:07:52)
Class GM 2 : Rating average 2496
It seems to me that the strongest FICGS chess tournament (7 players or more) so far just started, I would like to apologize to my opponents, if I didn't lose so many points, it would have been a category 11 tournament for sure... :/
https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000002
Good luck everyone!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-07-07 13:33:08)
Round-robin stages in the chess WCH
Just a word on stage 1 & stage 2 for the chess WCH round-robin tournaments: I understand the disappointment of players who share 1st place but do not qualify while some others do... Sometimes we need a few more players to build 7 players tournaments, in this case most often players who share 1st place are ordered by place in the tournament, then by current rating. As there are many special & complex cases though, the official rule is "Players may be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player".
I know that the round-robin system may be quite frustrating (that's why I wanted the knockout in parallel that I'm sure now it's more interesting & fair) for the players who share 1st place, particularly in the round-robin final (Alberto Gueci knows that..... he shared many first places before to play the knockout matches), but the round-robin is the only way so that everyone can play and once again the idea is: "if you share first place but you didn't qualify, at least you won rating points for the next cycle". I have no idea of a better system...
Jeroen Van Assche (2010-07-14 17:51:07)
Wch 7 Group N 01 (chess)
Hi Thibault
I won this tournament, but I'm not in round 2 of the 7th Wch cycle. Does this mean I immediately qualified for the Round Robin final (like in the M-groups)? Or did you forget me ;-)?
When I read this post I thought nobody from this tournament would advance immediately to the final.
Jeroen
Svante Carl von Erichsen (2010-07-15 14:39:03)
How to link?
How would I link to a FICGS game or tournament from the outside? It seems that nothing works without login.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-07-15 16:45:22)
How to link?
Hi Svante Carl, you may open the homepage www.ficgs.com in your browser, then follow TOURNAMENTS, you'll find the public links to the tournaments & games.
The public link to any game is displayed at the bottom of the pages user_page.php?page=viewer&game=xxxx, it looks like www.ficgs.com/game_xxxx.html
Not the simpliest way, but anyway I'll add a small script to redirect from user_page.php to the public pages if the visitor is not logged in.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-07-25 18:56:22)
Layout improvement
I'm now trying a few improvements for the layout (mainly for the fast moves process), please report if something displays badly because of a long name, tournament's name, anything... Feedback is welcome :)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-07-28 16:00:00)
1st team tournament : games & results !
Still waiting for the end of the game Parmet-Boehme before the definitive results!
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=32187
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-03 12:46:54)
Congratulations to "FSF en passant"
Finally here are the final results !!!
"FSF En passant" won this very interesting tournament by 1 point ahead of 2 teams !! The suspense was until the very last games to know the final team ranks.
The fact to note: Yellow Blue warriors finish second while they were actually 3 players in the team, Yura Lemekhov played an amazing tournament (5.5/6 , perf 2456) ... (the last player stopped to play :/)
Thanks to all players, it was lots of fun! I'll try to make the things clearer in the tournaments pages for the next edition...
10 points for : FSF En Passant
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2270)
Volker Koslowski (2264)
Sebastian Boehme (2175)
Roland Markus (2096)
9 (tot: 15.5) points for : The knights who say "Ni"
Michael Aigner (2602)
Xavier Pichelin (2577)
Hannes Rada (2559)
Thibault de Vassal (2473)
9 (tot: 13.5) points for : Yellow-Blue Warriors
Iouri Basiliev (2173)
Dmytro Romaniuk (1937)
Ostap Hladky (2176)
Yura Lemehov (2171)
8 points for : The Dark Knights
William Taylor (2140)
Scott Nichols (2089)
Don Groves (1991)
Josef Riha (1989)
4 points for : Happy Pawn
Stephane Legrand (2209)
Garvin Gray (2125)
Daniel Parmet (1961)
Ilmar Cirulis (1805)
2 points for : Our team King
Alexander Blinchevsky
Stanimir Denchev
Benjamin Block
Ranganathan Raman
0 point for : The Ghost Knights
Vadim Khachaturov
Yugi Inving
Sophie Leclerc
Jorge Orden
Ni FSF Dark Happy Blue Ghost King
Aigner 1 = = = = =
Pich 0 = = 1 1 1
Rada = = 1 = 1 =
DeVas = = 1 0 1 1
0 Lehnh = = = = =
1 Koslo = = 1 1 1
= Boehm = 1 = 1 1
= Marku = 1 = 1 1
= = Taylo = = = =
= = Nicho = 1 1 1
= = Grove = 0 1 =
= = Riha 1 0 1 1
= = = Legra = = =
= = = Gray 1 1 1
0 0 = Parmet 0 1 =
0 0 0 Ciruli 0 1 1
= = = = Basili = 1
0 0 0 0 Romani 0 0
= = 1 1 Hladky 1 =
1 = 1 1 Lemekh 1 1
= 1 = = = Khacha =
0 0 0 0 1 Inving 0
0 0 0 0 0 Lecler 0
0 0 0 0 0 Orden 1
= = = = 0 = Blinch
0 0 0 0 1 1 Denchev
= 0 = = = 1 Block
0 0 0 0 0 0 Raman
"Team 1" - "Team 2" : points (score)
"Ni" - "FSF" : 1-1 (2-2)
"Ni" - "Dark" : 1-1 (2-2)
"Ni" - "Happy" : 2-0 (3-1)
"Ni" - "YB" : 1-1 (2-2)
"Ni" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Ni" - "King" : 2-0 (3-1)
"FSF" - "Dark" : 1-1 (2-2)
"FSF" - "Happy" : 2-0 (3-1)
"FSF" - "YB" : 2-0 (2.5-1.5)
"FSF" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"FSF" - "King" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Dark" - "Happy" : 2-0 (2.5-1.5)
"Dark" - "YB" : 0-2 (1.5-2.5)
"Dark" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Dark" - "King" : 2-0 (3-1)
"Happy" - "YB" : 0-2 (1.5-2.5)
"Happy" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (3.5-0.5)
"Happy" - "King" : 2-0 (3-1)
"YB" - "Ghost" : 2-0 (2.5-0.5)
"YB" - "King" : 2-0 (2.5-1.5)
"Ghost" - "King" : 0-2 (1.5-2.5)
Definitely, even if the "Knights who say Ni" team decided before the match to play unusual openings in most games, this tournament shows again that the strength gap between top players and players rated 2150-2300 is not big at all as many of these players tend to reach the 2400 barrier...
Scott Nichols (2010-08-03 22:00:53)
1st team tournament : games & results !
Thanks Thib for this great tournament. It helped us all make new friends. And working together was a great treat.
Alexander Blinchevsky (2010-08-06 16:17:45)
1st team tournament : games & results !
Great tournament! Thanks to all of you.
Scott Nichols (2010-08-09 21:12:59)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Just a note to say how this new rule is affecting at least one player here (me), :) I "earned" entry to a higher class tournament by winning the class just below. I paid my ten E-points and received entry into the next higher class. We have been playing for a while and I am holding my own ok. I have met new players and am overjoyed at the chance to play them. They are all friendly and welcoming. Life couldn't be better, ......but....... Maybe it's just me, but I feel at this point that I never REALLY earned my way into this realm. The old way was to suffer through months and years of climbing the rating ladder a little at a time and then finally reach that next level. Also, just my opinion, is that these days there really isn't a big difference in strengths between 1850 and 2450 given that we all have fast computers running on Rybka mostly. The difference I find is the human side of the ratings. The old days whether Shredder could beat Fritz, or Deep Junior could beat Hiarcs are long gone. So I guess what I'm trying to say without rambling any further, is that as much as I like playing in the higher section, I would prefer to "EARN" it the old way. Just one players opinion, Thank you
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-10 00:01:37)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
It is true that there isn't a big difference in strengths between "many" 2150 and 2450... That's a reason why this rule may be useful IMO, particularly while 2450 ratings are somewhat "protected", it is more an advantage for you than a disadvantage for 2450 players.
Anyway this is still an experiment... So far, only 2 or 3 players used such a ticket.
Don Groves (2010-08-10 10:00:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Scott: In a way you did earn it, you won a next lower rated tournament which "earned" you the right to play one time in a higher rated one. The purpose is to allow players to improve their ratings faster if they are good enough to win some games at the higher rating.
As you say though, and Thibault seems to agree, with fast processors and the best software, there isn't as much difference between players as there used to be.
Andres E. Leon (2010-08-11 00:41:41)
Future Rating Question
I am sorry to bother you, but I do not understand why the system does not take into account three of my last four games, in the moment to calculate my future rating. For example, the last game that I finished in the FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_A__000075 tournament was:
Game 39469
Last move : 1-0 2010 July 3 22:30:1
[Event "FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_A__000075"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2010.01.20"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Leon,Andres E."]
[Black "Faust,Dieter"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1904"]
[BlackElo "1980"]
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 Ne7 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.Qg4 Kf8 8.Bd2 Qa5 9.a4 Nbc6 10.Nf3 c4 11.Be2 b5 12.O-O bxa4 13.Ra2 Ba6 14.Rfa1 Bb5 15.h4 h5 16.Qg5 a6 17.Bc1 Kg8 18.Qd2 Nf5 19.Bf1 Rh6 20.g3 Re8 21.Ba3 Rg6 22.Bh3 Rh6 23.Rb1 Rb8 24.Bxf5 exf5 25.Qe3 Nd8 26.Ne1 Ne6 27.Ng2 Rc8 28.Qf3 g6 29.Nf4 Nxf4 30.Qxf4 Rh7 31.Bd6 Rg7 32.e6 fxe6 33.Qh6 Qd8 34.Be5 Qf8 35.Re1 Rc6 36.R2a1 Kf7 37.Qxg7+ Qxg7 38.Bxg7 Kxg7 39.Kf1 Kf7 40.Ke2 Rb6 41.Rab1 Rc6 42.Kd2 Ke7 43.Kc1 Rc7 44.Kb2 Rc6 45.Ka3 Rc7 46.Re5 Kf6 47.Rbe1 Bd7 48.f3 Rc8 49.Ka2 Rg8 50.Rb1 Bb5 51.R5e1 Rc8 52.Rb4 Rg8 53.Rg1 Rb8 54.Ka3 Rb7 55.Rgb1 Rg7 56.Rg1 Rb7 57.R4b1 Rg7 58.Kb4 Rc7 59.Rh1 Rh7 60.Rh2 Rb7 61.Ka5 Rh7 62.Rg1 Ke7 63.g4 fxg4 64.fxg4 hxg4 65.Rxg4 Rh6 66.Rh1 Kd6 67.Rb1 Rh8 68.Rxg6 Rxh4 69.Rbg1 Rh2 70.R6g2 Rh3 71.Kb4 Rh6 72.Rg8 Rh2 73.R1g2 Rxg2 74.Rxg2 Be8 75.Ka5 Bb5 76.Kb6 Kd7 77.Kc5 Kc7 78.Rg7+ Bd7 79.Rh7 a3 80.Rh1 Be8 81.Ra1 Bb5 82.Rxa3 Kd7 83.Ra5 Ke7 84.Ra1 Kd7 85.Rh1 Kc7 86.Rh7+ Bd7 87.Rg7 a5 88.Rh7 1-0
Besides, I am playing the FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_13__000008 group of the WCH, and I already finished three games.
Game 45063 Leon - Leclerc
Game 45064 Piantadosi - Leon
Game 45065 Leon - Dsouza
In one of them less than 10 moves were played (Game 45063 Leon - Leclerc ). However, in the other two games more than 20 moves were played, but when I finished these two games they were not taken into account in my future rating. Some of these games, particularly the Game 39469, I like very much and I spend a lot of efforts. It is a bitter that it is not used in my rating. I am afraid that the system is not actualizing my future rating, Can you help me to understand what is happening?
Again, I apologise for this inconvenience and I appreciate any help, thank you very much.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-11 11:09:44)
Future Rating Question
No problem, it is always good to check from time to time if everything works fine :)
So, your current rating is now 2031.
1) Game 39469, win against TER 1980, more than 10 moves, the game counts! It is obvious when looking at the Opponents elo average in the Future rating : Games calculated : 1, Result : 100 %, Elo opponents : 1980
2) Game 45063 : less than 10 moves played.
3) Game 45064 : does not count, explained by the rule "The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is greater than 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player." <- see http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_chess
4) Game 45065 : same reason.
Of course you cannot win Elo points by beating opponents who are much weaker (even if you have to play them sometimes, e.g. in WCH tournaments)... That's the core of the Elo system.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-12 22:46:32)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6
Hello all, 2 players are needed for a replacement in the tournaments CHESS CLASS GM #2 (average 2496) and CHESS RAPID SM #6 (average 2408).
Please send me a private message (or email info*ficgs.com) if you're interested, thanks in advance.
Note: There's no specific rule when choosing players for replacements so the fastest players with the strongest ELO will play.
Don Groves (2010-08-13 05:30:05)
Speeding up Poker games
I agree with Rolf. Make a Rapid Poker tournament category for the faster players.
Philip Roe (2010-08-16 00:55:23)
Tournament entry conditions
Thibault,
Is it reasonable for someone to enter a new tournament when they have twenty four existing games and have not played a single move in any one of them?
This situation makes me hesitate to enter either B 00120 or Rapid B 00158.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-16 14:55:01)
Tournament entry conditions
Hello Philip, thanks for warning me... I just removed the player from the waiting lists & sent him a message about this. If it happens again, I'll make some replacements.
Garvin Gray (2010-09-11 19:03:18)
Next freestyle tournament
Hello all,
From just seeing a couple of comments in the chat section, I am very concerned regarding plans for the next freestyle tournament.
It seems like it is going to be organised at short notice ie just one or two weeks notice.
I think this is a major mistake and would result only in those who happen to be available by coincidence being able to play.
I really do hope I have wrong. I think the next freestyle tournament needs at least one months notice so it can be properly promoted.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-11 20:25:34)
Next freestyle tournament
Hi Garvin, it will be the case... I was not sure about september week-ends and finally I shouldn't be able to organize it before October 16-17 which looks like a good time...
If anyone finds a good reason not to do it on October 16-17, please send me an email... I should announce the definitive choice in a few days.
Garvin Gray (2010-09-14 13:15:28)
Next freestyle tournament
If it is Oct 16/17 then I am out.
Hannes Rada (2010-09-14 19:30:55)
Time control in GM 2 Tournament
Thibault, what happened with the time control in this tournament ?
Since the replacement there, we have only 30 days i.o. 40 days per 10 moves against Michael Aigner ??
Is this correct ?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-14 21:44:12)
Time control in GM 2 Tournament
Ah, it had to happen :) I made a mistake when I made the replacement with 30 days instead of 40... I've now corrected the games by adding 10 days to Michael and his opponents. Thanks !
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-16 13:01:23)
Chess WCH knockout final #6
Alberto Gueci beats Peter Schuster 7.5-0.5 in their match in FICGS__CHESS__WCH_KNOCKOUT_FINAL__000006
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__WCH_KNOCKOUT_FINAL__000006
As this is a general forfeit at the end, according to the rule 11.6 it seems to me that all games should be rated for the winner except Game 45571 where the advantage is not obvious.
The score looks severe but Peter's play is always interesting & risky (look at game 45574)...
Alberto's future rating is now 2620, congrats you're the man to catch now :)
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.
Scott Nichols (2010-09-19 23:26:52)
Corr. Chess Maxims
Of course you don't get it, and by this point I am sure you never will. In the analogies, we all have met "these" type of people. Sometimes they get punished, sometimes not. I think anyone playing in your tournaments could get away with most anything.
AGAIN, in my system as you call it, it is just a GENERAL rule of conduct. Of course players rated 1 point apart do not fall into this category. The main point I make is that most players take their rating seriously. Players work their whole life to achieve a Master or Grandmaster title. They are titles awarded players as a token of respect for their accomplishment from their peers. Maybe we aren't IM's or GM's, but our rating has been EARNED.
So for one player who is a good deal lower rated than the other to offer a draw, especially in the early part of the game, is showing a lack of respect for what that person has accomplished.
If fact one draw offer is not bad at all, no matter what, it happens, but to keep at it again and again is bad form.
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-19 23:45:16)
Corr. Chess Maxims
Yep, I'm afraid you're a lost cause. No players cannot get away with whatever they want in tournaments read the rulebook dude. You are rating crazy. Do you not realize that for a person to improve they have to be playing beyond their rating? Ratings represent past performance. You need to judge a position based on its features not the person's playing its rating. Many positions reach draw positions early in the game as ours did when people play unambitiously. But I give up trying to convince you of your illogical ways.
Just know this: it is irrelevant whether you use the right to offer draw but it is important that you have it so your point is mute here as well.
A funny incident also happened a few weeks ago: two players kept offering each other draws every 2 moves, declining their opponent's draw then offering it themselves two moves later. It was funny because it was perpetual check and they both knew it. But everytime they offered a draw, the other one would decide maybe he'll mess up. Turn it down and offer it again about 2-3 moves later. By the end of the game each player had offered the other over 15 draws in the perpetual check scenario but the game managed to end decisively strangely.
And btw, your definition of respect and others will different. I certainly don't respect someone cause they've had more time than me to study and made a 2001 rating. I already explained I have no respect for Corr ratings whatsoever. I have also explained my rating does not represent my strength because I do not take it seriously. Do I respect people that have made a career of this? Of course. But I digress because here opinions will vary wildly and be to each their own. We have left the realm of facts. I just think it amusing to always remember that however good you are, there is always some one better. Or put even better, if you could buy a man for what he is actually worth and sell him for he thinks he's worth there would always be a huge profit. Ie there is always arrogance involved when you include ratings. A fun quote to conclude on: "First-class players lose to second-class players because second-class players sometimes play a first-class game." - Siegbert Tarrasch
Scott Nichols (2010-09-20 00:34:24)
Corr. Chess Maxims
I knew you'd keep it going. You can't tell a bullhead like you or Obama anything. I know the reason you don't care about ratings is the same reason every loser says after he's lost again. "Well, I don't care about that anyway."
You haven't proven anything except that you seem to want to have the last word in any discussion. See you STILL can't seem to grasp the fact that a maxim is NOT a rule. If you can scroll back up to the top you will see that maxim #2. says "Generally one offer of a draw is enough for at least 10 moves" In your first post you already got it wrong by saying, "And a draw can only be offered every 10 moves." So the only thing you've proven is that you can't read and can't understand English. Here is another maxim.."Always check who the TD is before you enter any tournament."
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-20 01:22:07)
Corr. Chess Maxims
Haha you're psycho, you call me the bull head yet you're the one who has managed to make 7! posts without a single point. All insults. Obama this Obama that. What the f does Obama have to do with anything? You brought up and you keep bringing him up for god knows what reason.
Your lack of logic is astounding. You admit 1 rating point is enough that the lower rated should still be allowed to offer a draw but not at 80pts. What about 2 pts can he offer a draw here or is it still illegal? Where do you draw the line? Can't you see how stupid this is? You know ratings are considered on 200 pt bands right and anything within 200pts is always considered comparable skill levels hence why terms such as Class B( 1600 1799) and Class A 1800 (1999) developed in the first place. Guess what, 80 pts is less than 200 so its the same skill band hence why they were in the same tournament in the first place.
I know exactly what a maxim is and what a rule is. I know the damn difference. You seem to not understand that your proposition is not acceptable as either. In no circumstance should rating ever matter when a player is thinking about whether he/she wants to offer a draw. It is irrelevant as I've proved to you time and time again.
I do care about my OTB rating yes because I try my hardest there when I have time. But my corr rating nope. Its meaningless. I've given draws in winning positions many times because I don't care. What you describe is utter insanity (must be your philosophy). You realize whether your 2084 or 2240 or 2300 or 2400 you're just a fish right? Trying to brag like its an accomplishment is a joke beyond all measure. There is ALWAYS someone better. As IM William Hartson aptly put it, "playing chess badly is where the growth is."
And don't worry you don't have to check for my tournaments as TD because I wouldn't permit you in my tournament anyways. I don't want known trouble makers.
oh well: " If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong."
William Taylor (2010-09-24 01:44:55)
Road to Grandmaster
Thanks for the encouragement, and I'll keep you updated. Don: if there are regular team tournaments I hope I will still be a Dark Knight if/when I make GM. ;)
Wayne Lowrance (2010-09-26 20:46:49)
whole database transfers made simple
Is this what your talking about ?
How to import my Chess games in a chess database ?
There are several ways to import your chess games played at FICGS in a chess database like Chessbase or SCID. 1) You may download the complete FICGS correspondence chess database: Click "Search games" in the menu, right click & save "All games (PGN)". Import the file in your database, then you may filter the games by using your name. 2) You may create a PGN file by going to "My games" (please use the chess filter, click the rook icon if you also play Go or Poker, you may also select pending, running or all games) then clicking the printer icon. You just have to copy/paste the content of the new page into a new text file, then importing it in your chess database. 3) You may download the PGN file of a particular game or tournament, right click and save the "download" link at the bottom of
Do you mean "left mouse click" if I right click I get Link copy options, none of which seem to do what I want.
I do not see a way to save "all games pgn" in any case which is what has stopped me for days. Left mouse click copies all database to where i want to open, Ie scid (which I cannot figure out either), notebad, but i see no filtering capability in notepad.
So I do not know how/able to do "Import the file in my database" as your instructions say,
sorry Thib, I am a pain in the butt. can you clear these things up for me ? especially your step 1.
David Evans (2010-09-27 13:14:37)
Next freestyle tournament
Can u give a date as i would like to defend my freestyle title and need to confirm a date in my dairy
Thanks
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-28 20:55:02)
Next freestyle tournament
Finally... the next freestyle chess tournament will be held on october 30 & 31, 2010 ! It will be announced everywhere on the site very soon.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-30 13:26:12)
WCH Stage 1 Tiebreaks
1) This is correct. Actually, when it is possible, 2 players per group (the second one is chosen according to his number of points in the tournament and his rating compared to all other players in the same case in the same cycle) may play the next round.
2) The tiebreaker is the TER because it does not change during the tournament, so whatever the difficulty (and the difference between TER) the challenge is known and it gives a chance by influencing the risks to take, just like in the knockout cycle! (it answers the final question as well) When the TER tie, the current rating is the best way to do it IMO, it is rare enough anyway. The WCH rules are based on ratings, thus all rated tournaments "count" in a way for the final result & title.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-30 13:35:58)
Next freestyle tournament
A "freestyle chess tournament" is (according to me) a chess tournament played OTB or on the internet by players using any kind of help (chess engines [Rybka, Fire, Houdini, Fritz, Shredder, whatever...], databases, other players...) with a fast time control (a few hours per game at most).
The "FICGS chess freestyle cup" is a freestyle chess tournament played on the internet...
As "correspondence" implies all freestyle features but the fast time control, freestyle 'must' probably mean played at a fast time control, or the two words would mean the same.
Well, it may be worth to add the final definition in the Help section after all :)
Garvin Gray (2010-09-30 20:37:21)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
I wish to propose that the stage one groups starting from the next WCH tournament be paired differently.
Currently, from my understanding, all the players who have not qualified for the high rated round robins or elimination matches are paired into separate round robins of about seven players in each group.
Seed number 1 is in group 1 and so forth until all groups have been allocated.
The idea of this being to try and ensure that each of the groups is of equal strength.
Where I think this falls down is the issue of players with provisional ratings ie players with new ratings of 1800, 1500.
I have had the experience of having one or more of these 1800's in my group and after the group is finished, it is clear that the 1800 player has achieved a rating of 2100 plus, meaning that my group had three players with playing ability over 2100, meaning my qual group was unfairly disadvantaged.
How I would like the stage one qualifying to work from now is:
1) All players with recognised ratings are paired as per normal.
2) All the provisional rated players are put into groups by themselves.
Then normal qualification rules apply for getting to stage 2.
It is highly unlikely that a low rated player will qualify from the provisional rated groups as someone from each of those groups will be about 2100 or so by the end of the first qualifying stage.
I do ask for this to be endorsed for the next WCH.
Garvin Gray (2010-10-01 13:30:27)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
GG- "2) All the provisional rated players are put into groups by themselves." ,
TB- You mean they play together in special groups?
We can think about it as well but one goal of the championship was to help those players to find their place quicker in the rating list before the next cycles. I'm not sure if a 2300 player provisionnaly rated 1800 is an advantage for anyone else in the group more than seed 1.
GG- It is not an advantage to have an 1800 in your group if they play to a standard of 2100. It is a severe disadvantage.
It means there is one more person in some groups that plays to a rating way above their provisional rating.
I am very concerned that you seem to be putting the needs of increasing those players ratings in the WCH above the integrity of the competition as a whole. It means you are unfairly affecting other players chances of qualifying, just for the sake of allowing new members the chance to gain a few extra rating points.
The new members still have a lot of chances to increase their rating through playing in normal tournaments, which is where the longer term members had to get their ratings from.
I am saying that those with provisional ratings should be seeded into groups by themselves in stage one.
Whoever wins these groups will clearly be about 2100/2200 playing strength and so will not be crushed in stage two anymore than those with long term 2100 ratings.
A secondary option is to seed some of these players using their advanced rating (if they have one), so at least then there does not end up being three or four 2100's trying to qualify from the same group, while having other groups with only one or two 2100's.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-01 17:51:59)
On colour allocation
On colour allocations, there was numerous discussions on this topic during the 1st year of the server. Well, I cannot remember exactly all my arguments, but briefly 1) Double round-robin is too much effort for the players while it does not eliminate totally the chancy factor. 2) On Berger, the whole FICGS WCH idea is to give more importance to the non-WCH tournaments, the very best player must be champion IMO, not only the winner of a few tournaments, that's why ratings are so important in the tie breaks (and that's why my first idea was to give White to the top seed in round robin groups)!
Less games for everyone per cycle + More cycles = More chances to find the real champion (and more fun :)) !
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-04 19:20:13)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Yes, but it doesn't mention the M groups, this way the number of players in the final round-robin tournament would be quite hard to predict.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-05 13:09:20)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Hi Garvin, to continue on your original point, I don't think that a player provisionally rated 1800 in a WCH group is a real problem: It is not a significant advantage for anyone in the tournament (the chancy factor always exists in 7 players tournaments anyway), there is a rule [for ~2 years now] that prevents high rated players to lose many points in case of a loss or draw against such a 1800 player who is actually worth 2300 or more (there are other occasions to get free points btw e.g. general forfeits), and WCH groups help these players to find their real rating quicker. As I said the number of cycles is the point, giving more chances to everyone.
But it is true that the colors (top seed playing White against seed 2) may be reversed, so far the idea was "the rating does count to give more chances to the best player to become champion" but maybe the advantage is too big. It still needs to be discussed though.
Garvin Gray (2010-10-05 13:36:15)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Thibault,
You have missed my original point. I am saying that having a 1800 player in your group can be a DISADVANTAGE.
In none of my postings on this topic have I mentioned anything about ratings, except to express a lot of concern that you seem more concern about using the WCH tournament to improve ratings than to try and qualify the best player from each group and to have each of the groups of as close to equal standard as possible.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-05 14:21:22)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
If it is a disadvantage, it should be consequently an advantage for someone else, I meant this way... So your point is that it is a disadvantage "in the tournament", right? I do not agree with this, if the best player was actually this 1800 player, he should be able to play the championship anyway (and you have the advantage of ratings there for tiebreaks)... If players with a provisional rating play together in special wch groups, the winners (probably still under-rated) will play stage 2 and we'll have the same problem then IMO.
Do other players have an opinion or similar arguments on this point?
Garvin Gray (2010-10-05 16:31:02)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Thibault, I am more than happy to let others give their opinions, but I really do not think you understand at all what point I am trying to make.
This is now three times that you have misunderstood what I am trying to say.
Geez I wish we could quote better in these forums. It would make discussing points much easier.
Thib: So your point is that it is a disadvantage "in the tournament", right? I do not agree with this, if the best player was actually this 1800 player, he should be able to play the championship anyway (and you have the advantage of ratings there for tiebreaks)...
GG- I am not arguing at all that the 1800's should not be able to play in the championship. Please stop mis-quoting me. I have also stated this previously. I am stating that they should be in groups in stage one all by themselves.
The disadvantage is with how the groups are paired and I finding it very difficult to not get completely pissed off with having to explain items many times for you to understand what I am trying to say.
You keep failing to respond directly to my points and I keep having to point out how you have mis-quoted my points, which does not help in the debate at all.
The groups are currently paired in the first stage with the highest rated player in Group 1, second highest rated player in Group 2, third highest rated player in Group 3 and so forth for eleven groups (in this example there are eleven groups). Then the 12th highest rated player is placed in Group 11, the thirteen highest rated player in Group 10 and back we go to the 22nd highest rated player in Group 1. The pattern keeps repeating back and forth until all players in stage one have been allocated to a Group.
Now with the 1800's being seeded in these groups with their 1800 rating is that they end up being about the 4th or 5th seed in some groups, but are not allocated to each group.
Now when some of these 1800 players start performing at a rating of 2100, it means in some groups that the top seeds have received three players of similar playing level and some other groups have not. This makes some of the groups disproportionately unfair.
If these 1800 players were somehow seeded accurately according to their playing standard, meaning they entered stage one in their proper seeding position, it would push all the rest of the players down one spot and so the Group allocations would be fairer.
Another option could also be to make it a rule that players must have a proper rating ie not provisional, before being able to play in the championship. I have tried to avoid suggesting this with my proposal to have them play in a group all by themselves.
Philip Roe (2010-10-05 17:20:42)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
I think that the management of the WCH should not be too heavily weighted toward ensuring that "the best player" wins. On behalf of the underdogs, I would like us to have at least a sporting chance. If the cards are too much stacked against us the idea of an "open" tournament is lost, and we won't enter.
I looked at the statistics for cycle 000007. The top seed won outright 7 times, and tied for first on 7 other occasions. The second seed won outright twice, and tied first 7 times. The third seed won 5 times and tied twice. The fourth seed won once and tied twice. Out of all the winners, only the the two fourth seeds who tied had provisional 1800 ratings.
Are these numbers really a cause for concern?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-05 17:58:43)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Hi Philip, thanks for taking some time to give us these numbers, really appreciated!
Well, I did not hide that I thought about this championship this way, simply because I wanted it also to look like the old classical chess championship. The point that is discussed here is a tiny detail only compared to the whole idea... Of course the 8 players of the knockout cycle have much better chances to reach the final, and the current champion is by far the favourite. Why to play a WCH that would be a boring copy of IECG & ICCF WCH?
I think that everyone has a real chance though, maybe hardly on 1 cycle but by playing 2 or 3! Have a look at Edward Kotlyanskiy's tournaments, he started WCH 3 with a rating of 2132, seed #2 in a RR group... he is champion!
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_10__000003.html
Daniel Parmet (2010-10-05 19:13:39)
WCH Stage 1 Tiebreaks
Well you said was "when it is possible, 2 players per group (the second one is chosen according to his number of points in the tournament and his rating compared to all other players in the same case in the same cycle) may play the next round. "
SO you're saying its possible the tiebreaker may never matter because you might need another player to continue to even your numbers in one of the other stages.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-05 19:32:33)
WCH Stage 1 Tiebreaks
"the tiebreaker may NEVER matter" is strange or wrong cause it may matter... but more simply a few players may be invited to play stage 2, according to their results & rating. The same occurs in e.g. IECG championship (until the very last tournament if I remember well).
Daniel Parmet (2010-10-05 20:41:54)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
No according to the numbers given by Philip my point is huge.
7 wins, 7 ties meaning 14 went on.
2 wins, 7 ties meaning 2 went on.
5 wins, 2 ties meaning 5 went on.
1 win, 2 ties meaning 1 went on.
Notice that because of color and tiebreaks the giant separation in place 1 2 and 3. It actually went back on spot 3 because they had white most likely. Clearly spot 2 is the worst position to hold in the tournament. Everything is against you. Color and tiebreaks.
Anyways, I agree it needs to be discussed. If others disagree with me then thats that I guess.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-06 08:39:16)
Colour allocation change in WCH round robins
Hi again Garvin, I must say I didn't even know the Berger pairing tables, very interesting to pair 6,8,10,12... players, but maybe not so interesting for 5,7,9,11... as there is a bye.
Anyway, I may try to code it for these cases!
On the original topic, the discussion should continue on the question: Must we reverse the colors in WCH round-robin groups so that Seed #2 play White against Seed #1, as the tiebreak (TER: Tournament Entry Rating) is an advantage for Seed #1 already.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=9097
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=9093
As I explained in the other discussions (you can find some statistics in the first one), the whole idea of the chess championship is to find the best player, and rating is an important element in the process IMO. By the way I'm not sure if such an update would change the results significally.
Reverse or not reverse the colors in WCH groups, we need your opinion on this point!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-06 14:20:56)
Colour allocation change in WCH round robins
Just noticed that Berger pairing tables for 8 players really look like the way 7 players tournaments are made at FICGS... Seed 1 plays White against Seeds 2, 4, 6, 8 while Seed 2 plays White against Seeds 3, 5, 7, 8 and Seed 3 plays White against Seeds 1, 4, 6, 8. Not really different and not a solution to solve the disadvantage of Seed 2.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-06 15:29:07)
Colour allocation change in WCH round robins
No table, only a simple algorithm (with eg. $p1 = 0,1,2,3,4,5,6...) :
for ($p1=0;$p1<$players_count;$p1++)
{
for ($p2=$p1+1;$p2<$players_count;$p2++)
{
for ($round=1;$round<=$rounds;$round++)
{
if (NOT $reverse AND ($round+$p2-$p1)/2 is EVEN) OR (YES $reverse AND ($round+$p2-$p1)/2 is ODD)
{ $player[$p1] plays White against $player[$p2] }
else { $player[$p1] plays Black against $player[$p2] }
}
}
}
Games are created the order they appear in the tournament. (may be hard to read, the idea may look like obvious to you though)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-08 15:11:13)
Colour allocation change in WCH round robins
Okay, not exactly an algorithm, this is mostly simplified PHP. The result for a 7 players with 1 round (single round robin) tournament is:
White : Black
1 : 2
3 : 1
1 : 4
5 : 1
1 : 6
7 : 1
2 : 3
4 : 2
2 : 5
6 : 2
2 : 7
3 : 4
5 : 3
3 : 6
7 : 3
4 : 5
6 : 4
4 : 7
5 : 6
7 : 5
6 : 7
So here is the table for 7 players single round robin.
Garvin Gray (2010-10-08 15:29:24)
Colour allocation change in WCH round robins
Now that I have seen the full list of pairings used on this site, I can not see any difference between the berger pairing tables that I have listed and the pairings used here.
The order of games is different, but this is because Berger Pairing Tables are normally used in otb tournaments, whereas on here all games are played at the same time, so no need for separate round game allocations.
Rolf Staggat (2010-10-12 16:09:10)
Road to Grandmaster
William,
in the same time you need to become a GM you could learn ten languages perfectly or promote in different sciences. It´s a waste of time. You do not live for a thousand years.
I organized some open-tournaments in earlier years. The older GMs taking part there all had only little money. If you are rich by birth, then just do it, otherwise better not.
Garvin Gray (2010-10-13 15:20:35)
Lightning time control
Hello Thib,
With the freestyle tournaments having a time control of 30 minutes with 15 second increment, could you change the lightning time control also to 30 + 15 so we can practice at that time control.
Would be appreciated and I think a good practical change.
Scott Nichols (2010-10-20 20:06:33)
Freestyle Fun
Freestyle tournament is only 11 days away and already it promises to be an exciting event. Hopefully more will join, especially our friend from India, :)
We have an exciting array of players already though...,
Yuriy Perikov-a new player from Russia who has raised his rating almost 100 points in just two games.
David Evans-Last years winner. I am sure he will be looking to repeat. A definite threat.
Uh-Me-I'll be trying, :)
Marcel Jacon-I don't know anything about Marcel, but I'm sure he will be a tough opponent!
Garvin Gray-A longtime player with much experience. He seemed to improve dramatically after his computer went into the "shop" for a week towards the end of our 24 game drawn match. He will have to be watched out for.
Ruben Comes-What can I say? He is a definite favorite in this event. With his powerful openings, middlegame and unerring endings, he will be hard to beat.
Robert Mueller-I don't know Robert, but I hope to one day if I can ever get up to his level. Another strong favorite here. With an 80% win rate against top level competition, how could anybody bet against him!
Jose Moreira-Another strong unknown to me. Very experienced and I am sure a threat.
Thibault de Vassal-Our glorious leader! If his connection can hold out, we all know Thib is as strong as anybody. It would be nice to see him pull this off.
Sebastion Boehme-Don't be fooled by Sebi's relatively low Advanced rating. He is very strong, experienced Freestyle player. Another shaky connection cost him last year. I consider him to be right in with the favorites of this event.
So there it is "so far". Exciting huh?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-20 21:32:25)
Freestyle Fun
You said it all Scott, thanks for this very nice presentation :) Let's hope that a few of our italian freestylers will try to shake the tournament! The prize increased to 150 Epoints + Entry fees this time, not so much yet but always trying to offer more & more Epoints in all tournaments...
A small word about the connection, I noticed that when http://www.ficgs.com is not available, the internet access providers often let you reach https://ficgs.com , think about it if you encounter such a problem (whenever by the way), just like it happened to Mauro who courageously played half the tournament on a smartphone during the last event, the trick may have helped him :/
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-21 10:31:12)
Connected players :
Sorry, I meant rapid "tournaments", not blitz games.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-22 10:25:55)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Hi to all the FICGS players! In the last few days there has been in the works a strong tournament on the Rybka Forum. I know that most of you play a lot of games not only here but on others sites. I have been looking into the interest of having a type of World Chess Corr Blitz Championship. With the time controls being 2 to 3 days per move. There will be a time out or some kind of extra time system in place to get you a chance to AN critical positions. As of now there are discussions on the Rybka Forum for a Tournament Format that would be comfort to most of the players who play. I have been talking to the person who does the web design there and would are working out a new sub forum to keep this tournament organized and working a clock system so everyone can keep track of there time. I'm also having a prize fund organized to the top 10 finishers. Not so much for give money to the players, but as more a means to keep all the players interested and not have any problems with aborted games. This tournament will have 3 TD's to help with any problems that may come up. We are planing on having the tournament just after the new year. I have the interested of Wayne Lowrance and Ruben Comes has said he will play. If any are interested in playing in a World Chess Corr. Blitz Championship or if you have any questions or comments. Let know on here or your can leave a message on the rybka forum my user name is "thehug"
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-22 11:13:09)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Now I have the interest of Harvey Williamson
Garvin Gray (2010-10-22 16:59:29)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
You now have interest of Garvin Gray :)
Garvin Gray (2010-10-22 17:01:57)
Freestyle Fun
Deadline : 2010 october 30 - 13:00 server time
Thib- Can you please confirm that the times mentioned above are accurate for when play will be occurring for the upcoming freestyle tournament.
Also would you be able to post some time zone conversions for major cities, so all of us from all over the world can work off those times.
Cheers,
Garvin
Daniel Parmet (2010-10-22 19:44:39)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I'm interested.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-22 20:56:57)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Hi,
Gary- Thanks for your interest, I do remember to some of your replies to the FICGS vs Rybka Forum match. As you are a guy who likes some order in the matches. When I make the the pairings for the tournament I will be taking into account of ratings. And will make them fair. There are a couple of people who may not have official rating on the rybka forum, but I have a good idea of there strength :) One of them is actually playing reben a great game in the B90 a variation.
Daniel Parmet- Thanks for your interest I have you down.
Daniel Parmet (2010-10-22 21:16:49)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
When would this start and how many games/rounds?
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-23 02:39:34)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Just after the new year, It will be flexiable as I will give all the players a chance to make it the games. It will be something like a 1 to 1 1/2 week window to get all the players sign in and know what the groups would be. As of now I'm still working on how many games will be played. I will be caping it around 30 people or so give or take a couple. So I will update you on how many games. For rounds Im going to say right now it will 2 rounds as I know most don't want to drag it out to long.(If there is interested I will look into having a semi final, and championship match if people would want it.) The number of games will be flexiable for the FICGS players. As I know most of you have a lot games going on.
Sebastian Boehme (2010-10-23 02:41:41)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I would be interested in playing, in case
such details as time control (especially how this shall get done on a forum software like Rybka forum, i.e. keeping track of the time used up for a move) and tournament mode are clarified in beforehand.
Cheers,
Sebi
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-23 04:04:54)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Thanks for your interest Sebi. This is being talked about now. I will send you a link. this will be the post for the discussion about time contorl
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=19220
As we speak Dadi Jonsson the person who works on the forum. Is working on the details for a clock system. Not only that but we are going to make it a sub forum by itself so people can find there games easier. Let me know your opinion on here as we are working out all the details so it will be comfortable to all. I will being submitting the 1st proposal shortly. Thanks for your interested!
Jimmy
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-23 23:57:41)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I have the interest of Gino Figlio and a couple of other strong FICGS players Im still trying to find out witch ones they are. The FICGS side is starting to look very strong if all players will play. The tournament format is coming a long. And when I have an update I will post.
Wayne Lowrance (2010-10-24 22:57:48)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Jimmy I am following your progress. I continue my interest in the Tournament. We have discussed my thoughts via PM, but to review here are the things of concern to me. First I do not want to overload my chess obligations in Tournaments I am involved with at FICGS now. I have a hunch that a Start date at or shortly after the year will work out provided it is possible to have no more than one (1) game running at a time.
Other features of interest to a lesser degree are management/monitoring of matches to make sure that excessive time outs are infrequent. A player should not be allowed to go on vacation so to speak during a match. In the event of hardware problems a player should have to live with the timer obligations and not making a unfair match delay.
Player ratings could be considered in pairings. Somewhat like board seeds. Top rated sits at board #1 etc.
I think this can be sorted out easily.
Your have excellent inputs from others such as Vytron etc regarding timer details. 2 days/move sounds good to me Jimmy.
So continue your good work, I would be proud to participate god willing.
Wayne
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-25 01:30:27)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Thanks for your continue interested Wayne! Yeah as of now. I think we are doing a two game per round(1 white and 1 black) set. And I think there are players who will being playing a one game at time approach. And to help with the time difference we are working on a quicker format to help offset the time difference. I still believe that Havery Williamson will still consider playing if the gameload is not that great. Even if he still declines I think with yourself I have 3 or 4 players that are inside the top 25 on this site. I'm hopeful that devassal thibault can help me get the word to the other top players in a effort to get a couple more of the top 50. It will help when I finally can have a 100% idea of the format. I'll you posted on here or on the Rybka Forum. When we finally have more or all the details worked out.
Jimmy
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-25 02:42:33)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Hello Jimmy! Sure, I keep an eye on the discussions... I may spread the word when all this will be a little clearer to me (maybe I'll consider to play if I'm not too busy and if the tournament is open btw, will it be a round-robin tourney? what happens if you have too many players?) Feel free to use the chat before that though.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-25 08:28:18)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Thanks Thibault, My hope is to finish the details within the next 2 weeks. No not a round-robin, because that would simply be to much and to long. So I have gone with Vytron idea of a type of Elimination/Knockout tournament that is currently being discuss. As you are good about getting tournaments formed if you can read the current discussion and give some feedback on here or the rybka forum I would be grateful! It is in the corr chess section on the rybka forum.
Here are some of the key points and some interesting ideas that are being thrown around.
As I know most of the FICGS players play a lot of games so I have made a system that you play a 2 game match per round (One white and One Black). This would usually be a bad idea because of CC high draw rates. But we are thinking of using a unique draw odds system. Thought to many this may sounds a little strange its actually a great idea to inspire fighting chess for both sides. The idea was given by FICGS player Gino Figlio
"The scoring system idea- to draw with white (0.4), draw with black (0.6), win with white (1.0), win with black (1.1), loss with white (-0.1), loss with black (0.0)"
Another thing we are working on is the pairing system. As of now the only idea is to use a swiss pairing system after the first round.
Time Control- Since this is going to be called a "World Blitz Correspondence Chess Championship" The time controls are going to be a little faster than normal corr chess. It will be 48hr per move. But there will be a bluff time in here to help AN critical positions. This is also being debated. Right now we are looking at something between 1 weeks to 2 weeks(168 hours to 336 hours).
I had announce on the Rybka Forum in the last couple of days that a prize fund was being offer. I haven't had all my sources comeback to me yet. But as of know the fund is $1500 USD. It could be more, but I'll make official amount known before the tournament will start. I would say the winners share will be between 500 to 750. It all depends on what info I get back. I'm going to try and make all the prizes reasonable. And try and make it for the top 8 or 10 players. Also the winner will be announced the "World Blitz Correspondence Chess Champion"
I will be trying to finalize the details of the tournament in a quick fashion so I can figure out if the players interested would want to play or not. The tournament will begin just after the new year. It will be flexiable so get all the players in and know who they are playing.
The final details are that we are working hard to make the Rybka Forum really to play this kind of tournament. There is a new sub forum that will be made to help with out the traffic that would be going on with all the games. There is almost plans on getting a clock system work out. As at these time controls that would be critical.
Thanks in advance for any feedback form Thibault de Vassal and any other FICGS player!
Jimmy
Scott Nichols (2010-10-25 21:07:25)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Hi Jimmy, I left a message on your forum. That format very new to me, :)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-25 21:16:09)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Well, I still do not understand how a scoring system can exist in a knockout tournament... but let's take an example, what the tournament will look like if you have 16 players? Best is to do a complete simulation.
As I just posted on Rybkaforum, I suggest several double round-robin class tournaments of 5 players with a longer time control (on forums I suggest 10 days + 3 days per move). The whole tournament would be played in 1 round, with less stress for everyone as I really think that 30 days + 1 day/move is the fastest acceptable correspondence chess time control.
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2010-10-25 23:43:59)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I also do not understand scoring system, most probably both games will end in draw, is there a talk about an even faster time control for tiebreakers?
Gino Figlio (2010-10-26 00:55:48)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
The proposal was based on the assumption that it was a double elimination knockout, meaning you get dropped if you lose 2 games. Since there may be a lot of draws, the new scoring system may allow to drop players with the lower scores after 2 rounds and will give more weight to better results with the black pieces. This is experimental but may stimulate more fighting chess.
Daniel Parmet (2010-10-26 01:04:19)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Wait what? You are going to drop a player that drew 2 games because they might be rated 1 pt lower? Insanity. What horrible logic.
Gino Figlio (2010-10-26 01:08:19)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Where did you read that?
Daniel Parmet (2010-10-26 01:10:12)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
oh my apologies I thought it said lower rating not lower score. You'd be surprised some people are in favor of such crazy ideas.
Gino Figlio (2010-10-26 01:17:26)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
not a problem, I'm known for my crazy proposals :)
Peter Marriott (2010-10-26 03:00:51)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I'm in.
Scott Nichols (2010-10-26 05:33:11)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I very much like the idea of giving more weight to Black, whether it is a win or draw. I agree it will make for fighting chess and possibly make White (or Black) try some different variations to go for the win.
Garvin Gray (2010-10-26 18:53:19)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I am not a fan of the Double Elimination concept for this. Does not mean that I would not participate. But since DE is being used, why not just have it as an open swiss instead?
With an open swiss, those that do not want to continue can just withdraw, instead of being eliminated. Those that want to finish the tournament can keep playing all rounds to enjoy the experience.
A couple of issues with DE that need to be explained further:
1) After round one, are the first round losers seeded to the other half of the draw so they can not meet their first round opponents again till the preliminary final.
2) For the person who gets to the Grand Final without losing a match, do they stil have to be beaten twice to be eliminated ie the winner of the preliminary final has to beat them twice to win the competition.
I have wondered how long an open swiss would actually take in competition like this and would prefer to play in that rather than a DE.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-26 19:27:17)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
An open swiss should be at least 6 rounds long, that's the main problem. I still don't get how this tournament may run, a complete simulation with 16 players would help me, definitely.
Garvin Gray (2010-10-26 19:37:21)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
TDV- An open swiss would take just as long as a DE.
In regards to your comment about not understanding how this tournament will be run, are you asking about the concept of double elimination formats as a general idea, or you do understand about DE formats and are wanting more information about this tournament specifically?
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-26 19:38:21)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Thanks to Thibault, who has what given his input into the tournament. As to the last two replies. The tournament format is an on going process. But I think the time control that has been stated by myself in just the last few hours. Is pretty reasonable to have a blitz control. 25 days per side + 10 days after move 40. That would be 60 days total. So that would be within 2 months. To be honest even if you see the games I post on there. You see even if you don't have serious tournament conditions all games were very close to finishing within 30 to 60 days.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-26 19:44:18)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Two more quick announcements.
1.The new forum for the WBCCC-->World Blitz Corr Chess Championship has been made as of last night my time. But has not been up to everyone yet. It will be soon, I'm still talking to my Technical TD about that.
2.I'll be capping the tournament very soon as to keep the numbers reasonable and to have a tournament done in a more timely fashion. I'm going to guess when its all said and done. The finally number will be between 24 to 28 players that will play. I'll being posting a list here shortly
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-26 20:11:52)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
The players that have said they would play or are interested are as follows
For FICGS-
Wayne Lowrance
Garvin Gray
Daniel Parmet
Sebastian Boehme
Thibault de Vassal
Gino Figlio
Kevin Plant
Scott Nichols
and one guy called "Djevans" on my forum still trying to get a name. He has said that he is a FICGS__CHESS__FREESTYLE_CUP winner and twice finalist in the freestyle tours on chessbase. So a pretty strong player.
Wayne Lowrance (2010-10-26 21:03:53)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Yes I have committed to Jimmy, I am in
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-26 21:29:20)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
"Djevans" is David Evans, he won the FICGS__CHESS__FREESTYLE_CUP__000002
Peter Marriott (2010-10-27 00:01:33)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Hey Jimmy! I would like to play.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-27 01:07:49)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Ooooook... just read this interesting article on double elimination "knockout":
http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/sonas010704.html
I must admit I did not hear about this one before, very interesting idea even if it looks quite unnatural (I mean not "beautiful") to me and longer than the usual knockout. Anyway IMO it is probably too long for a correspondence chess tournament.
Garvin Gray (2010-10-27 03:10:37)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Now Thib sees why 6 or so round swiss would not be any longer than Double Elimination :)
Also with the DE format, the player from the winner's side has to wait a full round while the two remaining losers play their preliminary final two games.
In regards to tie breaks from second round onwards, the person who has the better score from previous rounds could have draw odds.
To explain- lets say in round one Player A wins 2-0 and Player B wins 1.5-0.5. In round two Player A and B meet. In this scenario Player A would advance if their match was drawn.
This method of tie break would count no matter what round it was. So in the Grand Final, who ever had scored the most amount of points previously would have draw odds.
Kamesh Nookala (2010-10-27 03:22:31)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Where am i? :-p
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-27 03:34:59)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Sorry Kamesh, I didn't know if you was really to play mores games or not after reading your email. I'll put you on the list now.
Also sorry to Peter Marriot who I have on the official list on Rybka Forum :)
Kamesh Nookala (2010-10-27 03:38:48)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Lol Jimmy,
It was more like "I am lost!" haha. AS of now, i have stopped all stuff. Just enjoying. But as your tour is scheduled somewhere in the new year, who knows I may jump in.
As of now, banging my head as to whether I should check IN into the current FICGS Freestyle or not :)
Regards
Garvin Gray (2010-10-27 04:13:32)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Kamesh, stop banging your head and enter the freestyle comp.
Kamesh Nookala (2010-10-27 04:22:51)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
lol Gray,
i might :-o (still banging) :-p
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-27 04:37:36)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Well Kamesh, the game load is going to be pretty low. I won't pull your leg or anything :) lol
Kamesh Nookala (2010-10-27 04:38:22)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
hahaha
Sebastian Boehme (2010-10-27 04:42:52)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I wonder whether Eros and Alberto will join this.
Might be there will soon be more interesting participants!
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-27 04:58:50)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I would love to get these two great players to play! It would be helpful that the tournament conditions be clarified. With the kind of money that could be on the line. It maybe of interest to them. But I don't think that would be the most important thing to them. I know Eros has account on the Rybka Forum, but I haven't hear form him on there so I don't know.
Scott Nichols (2010-10-27 05:17:18)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
May I ask who may we thank for putting up the prize fund?
Daniel Parmet (2010-10-27 05:21:09)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
what is the prize fund?
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-27 05:53:42)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
@Scott-Myself and a couple of other friends who love chess. By the way I send you a message on the Rybka Forum to help with game details. If you have other questions let me.
@Daniel- Right now I its 1500 USD total, but I don't have all my sources bact to me yet. So it will probably be more. I'm planing on having prizes down to 8 to 10 players, with the winner most likely will win 500 to 750 depending on final numbers. Also the winner will the World Blitz Corr Chess Championship or so I dubbed.
Kamesh Nookala (2010-10-27 06:16:34)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Who is Eros? I don't care about names when it comes to strong chess. What I see is blood on board and fear in my opponent's eyes. May be with IDEA technology, I may have to think again :)
But, come what may, I am prepared
Oh forgot (baning my head again)
And also btw, to whom it is intended ............. :-o
Kamesh Nookala (2010-10-27 06:24:22)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Banging*
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-27 06:28:36)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Well Kamesh, maybe playing on the Rybka Forum has brought you luck :), BTW interesting game between you and Vytron
Kamesh Nookala (2010-10-27 06:35:12)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Well not really.
I am sorry if am being candid in stating that my first access to corr world is FICGS. It created the best impression which even ICCF could not. I am confident that your efforts will bring a great change to the rybkaforum. Keep the spirits high my friend, come what may :)
As far as my game vs Vytron, I am not sure where it is leading me
Garvin Gray (2010-10-27 06:37:02)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
The games could always be played on ficgs :)
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-27 06:48:42)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Not at all my friend, Kamesh. I was joining you with humor. I can understand the feeling of playing in your first place like this.
@Garvin- With all the efforts to play it on Rybka Forum I don't know if I could change it. If the tournament is successful I may consider playing the next one on here. Of course I would have to talk to Thibault about that.
Kamesh Nookala (2010-10-27 06:53:20)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I just expressed my opinion Jimmy. You are trying to organize a major event. Am commending ur efforts. Keep pushing. Especially, am flattered when ya said ya and few others wud be sponsoring the prize fund. Who does that? So, ya too made ur impression.
All the best Jimmy, go go go go ....
:)
Scott Nichols (2010-10-27 19:47:48)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Thibault is also offering a generous prize for freestyle tournament this weekend. We would welcome any Rybka forum players to come and compete!
Kamesh Nookala (2010-10-27 20:15:05)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I will only play to win if the prize is an EVGA SR-2 mobo and 2 Xeon processors :-p
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-27 21:07:22)
Freestyle Fun
Gino Figlio entered the waiting list, Jai Prakash Singh as well and another player is obviously to follow... This should be a nice tournament, come on :)
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-27 22:24:14)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Tho this is only a minor note the new forum was made and is open now. Look for WBCCC on the front page of the forum
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-28 05:16:30)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I've been given it some thought the last couple of days and have came with an update. My last proposal was to do a 2 game a round swiss tournament. I've post it here
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=19220;pg=3
Look at the bottom of the page for all the details. You can give your input here. Or if you have an amount you can post it there
Wayne Lowrance (2010-10-28 05:22:18)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
the above url does not seem to work,
Wayne
Peter Marriott (2010-10-28 05:44:56)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
it works for me...
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-28 05:46:01)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
If not this one works go to pg 3 and its on the bottom
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=19220
Garvin Gray (2010-10-28 16:46:58)
Freestyle Fun
Sebi still in the bottom half, harsh tournament this one coming up.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-29 05:21:56)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Just to let everyone know I've added a standing page and an unique commentary and recap page for fans and players a like a chance to look at all the game a little deeper. I'll invite any of the strong players to comment on the games as they go. As long as they don't give moves away that may affect the game. I thought this would add to unique style of the tournament.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-29 11:40:25)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
The tournament format has been decide. It will be a 2 game a round swiss tournament. Now my working on a pairing system as we spoke. I've been told by garvin gray that he is an official FIDE arbiter who has the latest programs to be used on swiss tournaments. I'll keep that in mind going forward. As everyone here has official rating. It will be my job to work something out with the other players on my forum who don't have ratings. This being a Swiss tournament with having a chance to play with both colors. I should be about to just do subjective pairings and be fine. I have a pretty good idea of were the players stand rating wise. I hope everyone is really for an competitive and enjoyable tournament!
Jimmy
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-29 12:27:09)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
That's better than a DE knockout IMO! .. and finally what about the time control?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-29 12:38:29)
Freestyle Fun
Great to see you in Kamesh, definitely this tournament will be tough :)
Garvin, good question! Last time I did it regardless... Best is IMO to decide just before the start, if only one player (maybe two, depending who) is not connected, I'll include him in the list. If three players are not online and if I'm not sure they'll play, I'll send an email to them, wait a few minutes more, then we'll start without them. Not so easy to optimize anyway :) Actually that's a good point, I'll probably add that players must be connected before the start of the first round in the freestyle rules.
Garvin Gray (2010-10-29 12:48:08)
Freestyle Fun
I think only those that are online at 1300 should be paired in round one. This ensures that the tournament gets started on time.
The only exception would be if someone has let you know that they will be turning up, just will be a bit late.
Players can always be paired starting from round two.
I ask for this for two reasons:
1) It allows you to cover any last minute points and you know that all players have seen the messages because they are actually online. and
2) Not everyone is playing this tournament starting in the afternoon. The tournament starts at 9pm for me, so it will finish each day late enough as it is. I will certainly not be happy at all if I have to wait around for late comers and will not mind saying so.
It will mean that I get 'punished' by not starting on time because of those who could not make it on time without letting you know beforehand. How is that fair?
Garvin Gray (2010-10-29 12:50:29)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
With it being two games and a swiss, the initial ratings do not matter so much.
Players will get sorted pretty quickly. With using total game points as the first pairing criteria, each score group will have less players, meaning that most of the time there will only be two or three players in each score group, rather than 10 or twelve like in an over the board tournament.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-29 12:54:10)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
well to keep within a 2 month point I thought of 25 days a side with 10 more days after 40 moves. That seems pretty reasonable even with 2 games with the same person. As a interesting side note Kevin Plant has sent an email to ICCF GM Arno Nickle if he would have any interests in playing in this event. I doubt that there not many people who don't know who this very strong corr player is.
Garvin Gray (2010-10-29 13:38:24)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Are the 10 days repeating, so after 80 moves the players receive another 10 days?
If not, then I can see major issues with players running out of time in long games, if for the only reason of time difference between countries around the world.
I would advise a time control of something like 14 days plus 2 days per move.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-29 13:58:51)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I must say that 25 days a side with 10 more days after 40 moves is really frightening to me, even with a single game... but maybe I'm really slow. I agree with Garvin, but of course the nature of the tournament (6 rounds) is in question again then.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-29 14:00:52)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
so 10 days for every 20 moves after move 40?
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-29 14:03:40)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Even that would probably keep it with in something like a year.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-29 14:10:20)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
25 days for 40 moves is too fast, definitely... In my game at Rybkaforum (with SpiderG) I had to take 5 days (maybe more) for a single move sometimes, and unfortunately that was not always to analyze it.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-29 14:18:04)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
well I guess something like 25 days for 30 moves could be possible as only to think that most of the 30 moves could be opening book depending on which opening is choice. Then 10 to 15 days per 20 moves after that. I guess I should follow the time controls here a little closer
Garvin Gray (2010-10-29 14:33:12)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
The rapid tournaments here use 30 days plus 1 day per move ie person starts with an initial 30 days, then for each move they receive an extra 1 day.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-29 14:33:16)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I've trying to look at the other players games for the Rybka Forum match. I got the feeling that most players made there moves fairly quickly. I would say there are players who think that 5 days a moves isn't blitz time controls.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-29 14:38:24)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
The problem is: Sometimes (Scott knows it), it is possible to play a complete corr. game [more than 60 moves] in about 30 hours! But sometimes it takes 8 months... Believe me, if I chose 30 days + 1 day/move as the fast time control at FICGS, it is because faster was not possible. And that's why there is a WCH cycle every 6 to 8 months, no more.
Garvin Gray (2010-10-29 14:42:27)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Jimmy- I think it is extremely unlikely that any kind of correspondence tournament can finish in one year, unless you have an extremely short time control and are willing to have many games time out. It is just the nature of the beast with players from all over the world.
Also, what Thib means is that a new WCH cycle starts every 8 months, not that the WCH cycle takes 8 months to complete.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-29 14:46:09)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Sure, sorry... I meant one round takes 6 to 8 months.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-29 14:48:56)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I see the flexiable of playing something like 30 days + 1 day/move. My intend was to try and make a tournament within say 60 to 70 as a max. But that probably means this is more a tournament for players that make a move 1 to 2 days at a time
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-29 14:50:06)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Sorry quoted per round of 60 to 70 days
Garvin Gray (2010-10-29 14:54:31)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Each tournament is slightly different and if a faster time control is used, then players will adjust. Just like playing rapid time controls in otb chess.
It is advertised as a blitz tournament, so of course the time controls will be shorter than the normal type of corro time control. All I have been trying to do is point out issues relating to players competing from different parts of the world.
I am certainly one of those who would be seriously affected by using the 40 move time control you have suggested previously.
I live in Brisbane Australia, so most of my opponents will be at least 4 to 8 hours at least behind me, so it is very common for me to receive moves in the middle of the night, or have a whole batch of moves awaiting me when I wake up.
This can mean that I already start with losing about 8 hours on the clock before I even get to look at a position.
I accept this in the time controls on here because that is just how it is and I am not that disadvantaged as it works the other way where I reply and my opponents are asleep/at work.
But under the 40 move time control posted, I would be severely affected and my only 'crime' would be living in Australia.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-29 14:58:17)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I would agree with your assignments. I was thinking about 25 days to 30 moves as most of that is possibly opening then 10 to 15 days for 20 moves?
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-29 15:11:05)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I know Wayne has told me that he is trying to draw some of his games. Before my tournament starts. What he is doing is honorable. But I don't wish for others to have to do drastic things to play in this tournament. So I'll try to adjust the best I can.
Daniel Parmet (2010-10-29 19:58:13)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
of course you talked about this tournament starting in Jan correct? so we all have time to finish some of our games before then.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-30 01:02:41)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Your right Daniel, some players will have games finish by then. By now I understand what is being talked about, by not having time on the end to have for the endgame. I'm thinking of some kind of adjustment like after the 30 move mark to have something like 15 days per 20 move after that so players don't get kill by the time
Ramil Germanes (2010-10-30 10:30:27)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Sir Jimmy: Please include me if I'm qualified. I want to join the tournament. Thanks!
Ramil Germanes (2010-10-30 10:50:47)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
What will I need to do so I can join the rybka tournament?
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-30 11:24:51)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
go to the rybka forum http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/forum_show.pl Get a user name and leave me a post on the forum with WBCCC or just sent me a message
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-30 11:27:56)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
my user name is Thehug, The tournament will begin in January. Be prepare as the name subjects its going to be a Blitz Corr Tournament. So most players will make a move a day or over other day
Ramil Germanes (2010-10-30 12:15:28)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
ok thanks!
Ramil Germanes (2010-10-30 12:29:44)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
@ Sir Jimmy: Already sent you a pm at the rybka forum. My name at rybka forum is "ralunger". Hope you will include me in the tournament. Thanks!
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-30 12:35:35)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Your in I wrote you down
Ramil Germanes (2010-10-30 12:37:57)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Thank you sir!
Garvin Gray (2010-10-30 12:38:50)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Hope my name has been written down lol
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-30 12:41:38)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
It is, I have official list I just edit it on the rybka forum I'll update it today sometime
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-30 17:19:19)
Freestyle round 4, careful winter clock!
To all players involved in the Freestyle tournament, important : Tomorrow it will be 1pm. 1 hour before !!!
So do not miss the start of Round 4 at 1 pm. while taking account that France (like most countries) goes to winter clock...
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-30 21:32:50)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Jimmy, will you apply strict rules during the tournament? What happens if a player suddenly takes 2 days, then 3 days, then 4 days for each move? Will there be a flag applied by the forum software or by the tournament director?
As there may be obvious problems in both cases, I'm really curious to know how you'll handle it. Also will players have a few days of vacation?
Robert Mueller (2010-10-31 09:26:02)
Freestyle Fun
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__FREESTYLE_CUP__000003
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-31 13:27:35)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Your right Thib, there are going to be some risks in playing in this kind of tournament. I had to think about a lot of things. I would love to do a round robin system as this is probably the most flexible of all of them. By a majority was against it because there would just be to many games to play and not enough time to go around for all of them. I to have a lot of ideas to make a swiss system work. I believe with the input I have gotten back. That all the players that are playing are going to play and if they couldn't that wouldn't play. I know as well as you that in the end there really isn't one system that is 100% prefect. And you just have to make adjustments. Dadi Jonsson is working very hard to get the time system to work 100%. So yes the flag will be in. If not then such a tournament probably couldn't happen.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-31 19:00:19)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !
Congratulations to Eros Riccio who convincingly won this 3rd Freestyle Cup !!
As for me I'm really happy with this result... I could have lost the last game on time (connection lost just after the draw), and time pressure decided in a lost position vs. Sebi... :/
- The standings :
Place Name Score Berg.
1 Eros Riccio 4.5 - 15.25
2 Thibault de Vassal 4.5 - 14.25
3 Kamesh Nookala 3.5 - 11.5
4 Robert Mueller 3.5 - 10.75
5 Gino Figlio 3.5 - 10.5
6-7 Ruben Comes 3.5 - 8.75
6-7 Yuriy Perikov 3.5 - 8.75
8-9 David Evans 3 - 6.75
8-9 Sebastian Boehme 3 - 6.75
10-11 Richard Bitoon 2.5 - 5.5
10-11 Jai Prakash Singh 2.5 - 5.5
12 Scott Nichols 2.5 - 5.25
13 Garvin Gray 2.5 - 3.5
14 Marcel Jacon 2 - 2.5
15 Xavier Pichelin 1.5 - 3
16 Jose Moreira 1 - 2
(the score is the one shown in the software, it may be not the same in the FICGS tournament page)
Finally we avoided the connection problems (really lucky), this was a really nice event, I would like to thank all players & especially Garvin who was up very late to play!
Lots of fun, definitely... I'll try to organize the 4th edition in about 3 months!
Jai Prakash Singh (2010-11-01 05:10:26)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !
Congrats to Kamesh too for getting 3rd position in this strong tournament.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-02 09:18:34)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Oh ok here is another Time Control proposal. 25 days per side to move 30 and 15 days per side for the next time control. Would move 30 be good to reach the time control? As most books should get you to move 20 or so and would you have enough time. If this blitz corr chess.
Garvin Gray (2010-11-02 09:25:13)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
The issue is not whether extra time is added after move 30 or 40, that is kinda irrelevant compared to what appears to be a final 15 days after move 30/40. That is the biggest issue and something that needs to be solved before the tournament can go ahead until any reasonable conditions.
Either after move 30/40, there is a re-occuring amount of time just like from move 30 ie 30 moves in 25 days, followed by 30 moves in 25 days repeating, or like we use on here for rapids, 30 moves initial plus 1 move per day increment.
The final time period can not be guillotine for all the reasons previously discussed regarding time zones.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-11-02 09:33:25)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I agree with Garvin there.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-02 09:46:20)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Oh ok I have talk about about 30 days+ 1day as an option. As talking to you two. You have given me a lot of input. I think you Gray are a pretty fast player by most measures so on avg oh long can your games go at this time control? I really don't mind corr games going 2 or 3 months or so. As Thib pointed out some games at this control can go 8 months which to be honest isn't an option. I think I heard Gray say once something about 14days + 2days per move. Would that be a blitz control?
Again one to point out there not going to be a flag or something for taking 4, 5 days. The times will go as usually.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-11-02 09:56:22)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !
@Jai Prakash: do not be too deceived, we all (or almost) know the connection issues, I lost many bullet games including in freestyle tournaments because of this... the aim is always to organize more freestyle tournaments, so you'll have your full chance early or lately, just like in the WCH cycles (the chancy factor is everywhere)!
@Garvin: let's continue to discuss it, the first tournament was played in 1 hour + 15 sec/move, I feel that the quality of engines improved enough so that the brain can take fully part of the game [less time to navigate into the game, more to understand the position], by the way everyone agrees that the book is more important than to have 64 cores (that was not true a few years ago)... an increment of 20 seconds would be better though, but it is no more 2 hours per game :/ .. in my opinion, if we have players enough like this time, a 7th round (or even a 8th) would bring more benefit than more time to find the best player, and I must say I was quite frustrated not to play a few players during the tour. :) Finally... with 6 rounds only, the best player won, most probably. All opinions are welcome here.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-02 10:05:38)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I know most of the players that have said they would play usually move pretty fast.
Garvin Gray (2010-11-02 10:28:10)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
At 30 days plus 1 days, I think about 3 months is a fair average.
I am not sure if I am a fast player or not. I do use most of my time across all games, but that does not mean I am looking at all games all the time.
For just a two game match, I would have no issues with 30 days plus 1 day increment and it would not feel fast to me.
14 days plus 2 days per move I think is a better time control for a few reasons.
It will let the organisers know for certain early who will lose their games on time ie two weeks from when the round starts, so decisions about whether to let them continue or kick those players out can be made earlier.
With a 2 day increment, it does give some opportunity for players to analyse for a bit of time in endgames.
If you are wanting to avoid unnecessary delays, the easiest way to it to have rule that as soon as a game reaches a 6 man tablebase position, the result will be declared.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-11-02 10:33:17)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
14 days + 2 days / move is much longer than 30 days + 1 day / move. Maybe 20 days + 1 day / move, or 10 days + 1 day / move could be ok... 1 day increment is the strict min. 10 days initial clock is min as well IMO. So a game could last ~180 days at most = 6 months anyway !
Honestly, maybe you should give up the idea that everyone (eg. me) should be able to play, if you think that most players interested are ready to play a really fast corr. time control, maybe you should do it this way but IMO an increment less than 12 hours may lead to many losses on time.
Garvin Gray (2010-11-02 10:42:21)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
TDV- Honestly, maybe you should give up the idea that everyone (eg. me)
GG- Who is you? in the quote above?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-11-02 10:44:26)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
You = Jimmy (does the whole sentence mean something? sorry my english still weak :/)
Garvin Gray (2010-11-02 10:46:48)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Its alright. Sometimes I just like to clarify matters. In this example, I was not sure if you meant me or Jimmy as you had replied straight after my post and so could have been directing the YOU at me, instead of Jimmy.
Probably the best course of action to avoid confusion in multiple person replying topics is to refer to people by name, rather than just using you or he.
:)
Garvin Gray (2010-11-02 10:47:06)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
And, I am sure your English is better than my French :P
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-02 10:50:48)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I can always say you have a very honest opinion. I can bet even if you decide not to play. You will be watching with interest. I know players like Wayne Lowrance liked the idea of a little faster controls. Gino, Scott, and David Evans like to play a little bit faster controls. And they will make this a very strong tournament anyway. And yes the add one day per move looks to be the min. It will just be looking at the total time.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-02 10:53:01)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
My above comment was at Thib
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-02 15:37:29)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Your doing a good job Garvin, everyone thought your idea of ending the game at 6 man tablebase positions was great 100%. And you more or less suggested the 2 game a Round Swiss was taken very well to. Maybe I should let you be my TD lol. I think I can let you do my Pairings to if you want. My only question to you is what rating list would be the best to use? As far as the ratings of the Rybka Forum players I'll have to give you my ideal ratings for them.
Wayne Lowrance (2010-11-02 16:33:06)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Nice idea Garvin, (6 man). It means a lot of work for some one to check it. Not all players I think have very many six man, including me (about 30 of em). How would that workout ?
Wayne
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-02 16:57:23)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I don't think this would be as hard as you think. There as 6 man tablebases online that can easily do that. Here an example
http://chessok.com/?page_id=361
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-02 16:58:34)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Sorry for my horrible english sometimes. The above link would work well for it.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-11-02 20:48:21)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
For 6 man tablebases, there is also:
http://www.shredderchess.com/online-chess/online-databases/endgame-database.html
Wayne Lowrance (2010-11-02 22:18:30)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
yep, I am aware of both sites. That is not the problem as I see it.
Those sites are good if you have arrived at 6 man positions. The problem occurs far before that during analysis. Example player(a) in deep analysis with his hardware/programs determines that a 6 man tablebase will occur and player (b) with his hardware/program is unable to verify that and thus will object to 6 man ruling as He cannot verify it.
Not much time will be saved I am afraid if the game continue until the current position is a 6 man position.
Of course a lot of communication can resolve it for player (b) but that is a big work load for someone. So I am very much in favor of the idea, but do not see clear solution to it.
Wayne
Wayne Lowrance (2010-11-03 18:28:57)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Okey Dokie, Garvin & Jimmy. Sounds good. It will save some time.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2010-11-03 17:52:48)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Finally I added a "last post" link for Garvin & deleted the other thread that could bring some confusion in the discussion...
Garvin Gray (2010-11-03 11:16:59)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Wayne, not sure much can be done about the situations you are talking about. I guess they are just how it is when games are being played with tablebases.
I still think my suggestion will knock off some time from each round.
Perhaps, what could occur is that one player claims either for win or draw and the arbiter investigates by asking the other player how they plan to get their desired result.
I know this sounds rather wishy washy instead of being a nice formulated rule, but I am not trying to post a forumulated rule at this stage, until I know if I am going to be person responsible for pairings, being arbiter etc.
Garvin Gray (2010-11-03 11:17:16)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
By the way Jimmy, you have a pm on rybka forum.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-03 11:47:37)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Yeah you will be helping me with it. I would say that to make things easier just remember you will be my arbiter. I sent you an PM that will explain somethings. I will change the words to make it easier for everyone to understand
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-03 11:59:49)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
All is explained now between my message back to you and I edited what was on the forum. Thank you for you help
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-04 13:15:38)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Garvin I sent you another PM. Maybe you can give me your 2 cents worth
Garvin Gray (2010-11-05 02:09:05)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
The last pm I got from you was about the order of players and who has entered.
I have received nothing since then.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-11-05 23:12:32)
Magnus Carlsen drops out of FIDE WCH
An interesting interview of Magnus Carlsen on the FIDE World Championship cycle and privileges of the world champion.
Always the same question: Should the reigning world champion play the next cycle in the same conditions than the other players... (no IMO, by the way the 16, 32 {whatever} who would play this tournament do have privileges the same way)
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6789
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-06 03:44:55)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Well Thib it looks like a lot of people like the idea of doing 30days + 1day per move. That may open the door for you to play if you wanted to.
Garvin Gray (2010-11-06 06:19:34)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Jimmy,
Possible slight change to start date proposal.
I would like to see the competition either start on December 1 (one month earlier), or on about January 14.
The reason for this is to try and reduce the impact of Christmas. If the competition starts on January 1, games could time out without people even knowing that they started due to being on holidays.
Perhaps starting earlier might be helpful as it means the competition starts while there is the current momentum for it.
But middle January is also good as it will give a chance for the new ficgs ratings to be used.
I think it would also be prudent about a week before the start of round one to personally contact all the participants and get them to confirm they are playing. Only those that confirm their participation will be paired for round one.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-06 07:30:29)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
You make a good point about Christmas and even sometimes people do things on the New Year. I have to probably go with the January 14th idea. If only because I would like to give Dadi as much time as he needs to get the clock system to work. By I will leave a line on the Forum and see what people say. As for the give a week to get play to reply. I had already decide on that. I will be so much easily to do it that way. As to have to repair 2 or 3 times.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-06 14:42:22)
FREESTYLE CUP POKER
I would like to play in a poker tournament like that
Thibault de Vassal (2010-11-06 15:00:19)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Hi Jimmy, good news! I'm sure that this format will attract more players.
Mircea Hrubaru (2010-11-06 15:05:31)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I am also interested in participating.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-11-06 15:08:49)
FREESTYLE CUP POKER
Hi all, yes I was to post something on that topic... I'm not sure if we have poker players enough, but it would be interesting to already know who would play such a "live" poker tournament with about the same format than the chess Freestyle -> 6 games (swiss system) played in 10 mins + 10 seconds per move, one game every 2 hours or so.
Of course the number of moves may vary from ~10 to ~1000, some games may be quite long but it's worth a try anyway :)
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2010-11-07 16:33:07)
FREESTYLE CUP POKER
I would like to play this tournament if I have time.
Maybe we can use 10 min and 20 sec per hand as a time control. Thibault, is that technically possible? I think "hand" is a better unit than "move".
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-26 05:47:52)
If you plan on playing in the WBCCC
In my opinion the tournament rules and issues are done. You can read about it on the main page at WBCCC.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-12-06 20:53:07)
Eros Riccio vs Eros Riccio in WCH 5 ?
He did it... Eros Riccio qualifies for the 5th chess WCH final match (all games drawn against Alberto Gueci in the candidates final, knockout/round-robin rule decides, not TER here), and obviously he has "some chances" to meet himself at the top !! (of course he will not have to play the 12 games match in this case)
The crown will be probably very... very hard to take these next years, but I can predict that the winner, whoever he is, will have very tough matches to play to defend the title in the 6th (Alberto's revenge?), 7th and 8th edition... so many exciting games :)
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__WCH_CANDIDATES_FINAL__000005
Congrats Eros!
Jimmy Huggins (2010-12-06 23:31:19)
Eros Riccio vs Eros Riccio in WCH 5 ?
Well Thib, Although I'm not one to change your system. I guess you will see what these faster time controls are like form my tournament. As I have some of your top players there. It maybe a good measuring stick. Like I had talk about... Its like a longer Freestyle.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-12-07 20:33:27)
Who's the favorite in the WBCCC?
One note I forgot to mention... I can bet this will add some spice to this tourney. I'm going to talk to the rybka team about a chance for the winner of the tournament a chance to play a 2 game match against the rybka cluster. You can call it some kind of Centaur Champion vs Cluster Grand Championship. Of course there is still work to be done for this to happen. By I thought the players would be interested to know that.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-12-07 22:53:20)
Who's the favorite in the WBCCC?
Good idea! So one more correspondence chess event to come...
Hi Sebi, I don't know Ruben's play enough that's right, but I guessed that his preparations for advanced (blitz) chess may be sort of trap for himself, corr. chess is really different. The point is IMO that for some reasons Wayne will play correspondence chess in this tournament while many others may play something between advanced chess and correspondence chess... Question of time also... But as Jimmy said, this would be a "slight" advantage after all, everything can happen and you have good chances too!
Wayne Lowrance (2010-12-08 01:05:03)
Thib can you make this more clear
Eros seems confused, and for sure I am. is this the quality statement ?
Knockout tournament winner will play round-robin cycle winner in a 8 games candidates final match (stage 4). In case of equality (4-4), the knockout tournament winner is qualified for stage 5 if all games are draw, the round-robin cycle winner if not all games are draw.
Wayne
Jimmy Huggins (2010-12-08 01:20:40)
Who's the favorite in the WBCCC?
Its interesting. When I talked to Wayne about playing in this tournament. He said he could play if it was faster controls and the game count was low. I manage to do both. It seems he has played at this time control before.
To me the player with the lowest draw rate will win. And with the format winning with white will be a premium. Of course a long with Wayne. There are some dark horses to. With the elements of both Advance chess and CC play. David Evans and of course Ruben will both have to get some consideration.
Garvin Gray (2010-12-08 01:29:56)
Thib can you make this more clear
the knockout tournament winner is qualified for stage 5 if all games are draw, the round-robin cycle winner if not all games are draw.
Makes sense to me- If all eight games were drawn, then the KO tourament winner advances.
If some games were decided by win/loss, but the result ended up as 4-4, then the RR cycle winner advances.
Scott Nichols (2010-12-12 00:20:51)
Who's the favorite in the WBCCC?
"IMO that for some reasons Wayne will play correspondence chess in this tournament while many others may play something between advanced chess and correspondence chess..." (Thibault) That is a brilliant quote Thib. It got me to thinking, I played corr. by mail back in the early 80's, no computers, we had to think and replay each game constantly. I reached a respectable rank. Now, with the machines, I think we take their play to much for granted. I mean, we think, this prog. is 3000+ rated, it has to be the best move, but in many many positions where sacrifice is involved, or complicated endgames, these machines don't have a clue. I think it is time to get back to playing "real" corr. chess again. Thanks Thib!
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-12-16 09:54:53)
Preparation in sicilian
Another game I remember, the typical win by preparation (I was absolutely not prepared in this variant yet) in a blitz game - Eros & Alberto made it well with this line during the 1st Freestyle tournament.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=15363
I don't remember what move is the point exactly at a first sight, somewhere around Qxe5 but Black did not expect what kind of endgame will happen after the next 20 moves, btw many are forced but the line may be too long for most engines. The game was lost already, and I'm not sure if engines choose the right way (wouldn't be a trap anymore)...
Thibault de Vassal (2010-12-17 17:36:47)
7 players tournament with fee & prize
Hi, 2 players recently asked for a 7 players tournament with entry fee & prize... Initially there were one in waiting lists but no players enough to play it, but it was years ago.
Would you be interested to play it? (just trying to see how many interested players one can find)
Scott Nichols (2010-12-17 18:07:34)
7 players tournament with fee & prize
I would play in a second, I wanted this long ago...
Jimmy Huggins (2010-12-17 19:16:31)
7 players tournament with fee & prize
How is this any different than a normal round robin?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-12-17 20:43:24)
7 players tournament with fee & prize
Ah, good question actually... well now that there is an Epoints prize in several free tournaments, the interest is a bit different.
The prize would be near 100% of the entry fees, so about 70 Epoints for a tournament with a 10 Epoints entry fee. As the rules state that players have to win a tournament/game with an entry fee to cash out a prize in real money, this is the other interest. Well, the main thing is probably always the "stakes" as an excitement after all.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-12-17 20:45:40)
7 players tournament with fee & prize
... and there wouldn't be any rating range there like in class tourneys. So another question is : must these tournaments be rated or not.
Scott Nichols (2010-12-17 20:59:08)
7 players tournament with fee & prize
Make it "not rated", just play for the cash, :)
Jimmy Huggins (2010-12-17 21:06:59)
7 players tournament with fee & prize
By the way Thib I've read a few threads here today about prizes and classes for tournaments. And how you would want to win a tournament to move up in a tournament class or that was the debate. With that thinking, I wonder if that is part of the reason. Why my tourney is as popular as it is. It gives some players of lesser rating a chance to play higher rated players. An as you said in your next line. My tournament will technically not be rated. Even tho ratings will be used for pairing purposes. With the system in place. I believe a lot of the lower rated players will get a chance to play players 200 rating points or higher at some point in the tournament. Anyway thanks for the explanation. Getting excited with less than 2 weeks to go before pairing and 3 weeks after that before the tournament is underway. I've had a couple more names to my list and was happy to hear kam was going to play.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-12-18 20:22:34)
7 players tournament with fee & prize
Good luck with the tournament Jimmy, definitely I cannot play, but be sure that I'll keep an eye on it! I'm quite certain that it will be very instructive.
Patrice Gosteli (2010-12-22 14:35:43)
7 players tournament with fee & prize
Hi!
I wonder since my ''initiation'' to your site if a lot of members enter the fee systen. I have belived it was mostly for the poker fans.
I supose you think of a tournament with fee & prize to the big majority of chess players.
What about a GO tournament with same conditions?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-12-22 14:50:42)
7 players tournament with fee & prize
There are GO tournaments (2 players matches) with entry fee & prize, not really (or really not) popular yet, so we probably do not have Go players enough for such 7 players tournaments :/
Saurav Mahato (2011-01-01 09:48:12)
Free tournaments with prizes
how can we ask for money? By requesting through paypal
Thibault de Vassal (2011-01-01 23:18:48)
Free tournaments with prizes
Hello Saurav, all explained here :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#prize
In a few words, just send an email by specifying the tournaments with entry fee & prize you won you'd like the money prize for.
Peter Unger (2011-01-03 00:26:00)
Private messages to the webmaster
I cant get to the following tournament - why - the accepted participants have no ELO 2300+
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_SM__000008
(type : rated round-robin, time : 30 days, increment : 1 day / move)
7 players, 6 game (1 game against each opponent)
entry fee : 0 , prize : 20 (E-Points)
elo : 2300+
POL Broniek, Mariusz Maciej 2106
SVK Gazi, Miroslav 2289
USA Nichols, Scott 2200
Thibault de Vassal (2011-01-05 09:57:34)
WBCCC Pairings for Round 1 will be here
Tough tournament, good luck everyone!
Thibault de Vassal (2011-01-18 15:24:39)
Houdini 1.5 leads TCEC comp. chess tourn
Advanced chess "centaur" players should be interested by the following:
A "super" tournament for computers, named TCEC, just started. Premier Division finals started with the participation of the world's top engines.
Tournament format: double round robin
The participants:
1 Houdini 1.5
2 Rybka 4.0
3 Shredder 12.0
4 Stockfish 2.0.1
5 Naum 4.2
6 Ivanhoe B47cB
7 Hiarcs 13.2
8 Critter 0.9
I don't know much on this tournament, actually it may be a CCRL/SSDF system-like but as a tournament (and without rating list?), anyway thus it was able to reach the chess news in Chessdom & Susan Polgar blogspot.
The point is that the supposed "possible" Rybka-clones Ivanhoe & Houdini (both based on Ippolit, just like Firebird) entered the race... and Houdini is leading already, ahead of Rybka.
It is announced that Rybka 4 is playing, does anyone know who's behind this version of Rybka and what is the hardware? Does Vasik Rajlich know about that?
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2011/01/houdini-15-leads-tcec-computer-super.html
http://www.chessdom.com/news-2011/computer-chess-live-2011
http://www.tcec-chess.org/
Thibault de Vassal (2011-01-18 21:19:47)
Following the WBCCC games Round 1
Thanks Jimmy for posting the links. Good luck everyone... and to the tournament directors too! (I know this must be quite stressful to make a 1st edition with a new software)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-01-21 21:57:28)
Houdini 1.5 leads TCEC comp. chess tourn
Houdini 1.5 : 24 pts, Rybka 4 : 23 pts
Things are still unclear in this engines tournament...
Don Groves (2011-01-23 07:43:59)
How to play in here..
Welcome Mitha! Go to Waiting Lists and enter a tournament according to your rating.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-09 20:28:47)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Okay, after another long thinking on the different effects of the possible changes, I think that we should try in a first time the following (something between proposals 2 & 4 plus minor improvements):
"All 2150+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) will play M & N class groups at stage 1. The two players with the highest scores (or TER in case of equality) of the M group will qualify for the round-robin final, while the player with the lowest score (or TER in case of equality) will be eliminated, the others will qualify for stage 2. The winner of the N group will qualify for the round-robin final and at most half the players in the group will qualify for stage 2, the others will be eliminated.
Also the new members declaring to use a chess engine when registering will get a provisional rating of 2000."
Let's see the effects during the next cycle, if things are not ok we'll reconsider the idea to prevent the provisionals to enter the wch waiting list. I don't like complex rules but I like the idea of "progressive" rules. Any argument in another way is always welcome.
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 :)
Paul Valle (2011-02-03 01:27:33)
Creating an Opening book
Hi guys,
a couple of chessbase/rybka questions that I hope you can help me with:
-how do you create a completely new opening book?
-How do you start en engine tournament from a set opening position?
Paul
Josef Riha (2011-02-04 22:37:18)
Creating an Opening book
A little correction: Click on tournament not on enginematch!
Scott Nichols (2011-02-17 00:38:10)
request again tour
Hi Thib, I thought I'd take another stab at this. I would like to request a new tournament format. It would be UNRATED WITH entry fee using E-points. Time control a total of 10 days with NO INCREMENT. Winner gets all the points.
This is working very well at the WBCCC. People use their time more wisely with no increment, instead of always waiting till the end and playing fast using just the increment.
And since it is unrated WITH entry fee, your argument about time losses from before seem irrevelant.
Thanks, Scott.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-17 02:10:17)
request again tour
Looks like a very interesting idea!
Any other takers for such hard style tournaments? :)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-17 12:15:42)
request again tour
Stressful, for the least... In my opinion such tournaments are quite inhuman but I'm not sure if I could resist to play it myself :)
Anyway there may be a few points to discuss yet... With the use of the current vacation system, such tournaments may last a few months in the worst case.
I agree with Kamesh that Freestyle tournaments should probably be the priority, by the way I'll open a new thread for the next one soon. Finally the main difference is that round-robin tournaments don't ask any work (or so few) from my own, but I just wonder how many players are ready to play this format.
David Ang (2011-02-23 22:20:35)
How long does it take?
Thanks Thib, I seen him in a tournament now.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-24 18:49:15)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
If it is a problem with unrated players. Is it possible to have all players have to play at least 1 tournament before they enter Wch, I know that is not a lot of info to go on. But a provisional is a lot better than no rating at all.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-26 22:44:09)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Okay, I'm really thinking about a solution but right now I'm not completely satisfied with this option of having these groups of provisionnaly rated players. I really think that it just moves & postpons the problem while losing some advantages, by the way many established ratings are still underestimated...
I would like to try to explain again my whole point of view on the current wch rules. The way I've been thinking this championship is purely statistical, the idea was to find the best chances to see ALL the best players in the final rounds about each 2 years. It worked quite well so far IMO, actually my main regret is not to be able to extend the knockout tournament of 1 round (we would have 16 players instead of 8), that's why it is not possible anyway to have less than 5 rounds for the whole cycle. Each one is 30 to 40 months long, it could be worse. So the whole cycle's aim is not only to find the best player of the cycle but to give chances enough as quickly as possible to the new underrated players for the next cycles!
On this point, I'm quite glad to see players like Wayne who made it the very hard way, starting from ELO 1400 (!) to reach 2540 in about 3 years only. The WCH cycle helped many other players to find their place quite quickly in the rating list, also over 2400, and I have no doubt that the best players of the round-robin cycle play the round-robin final. Usually none of these new underrated players play the RR final, they have less chances than 2200 ones to play the 2nd round because of the TER rule but they win some elo points during the 1st round. That is fair IMO, some logical improvements now protect the ratings of 2200-2300 players but I agree that it is still hard to cross certain rating ranges because ratings do not inflate the same way than advanced chess, Go or poker ones.
In summary, let's say that it is unfair that 2200 players play 1 or 2 underrated players + one player rated about 2000 who may be worth 2100 or 2200, 2300 & more... He will probably lose some rating points during round 1. However he has more chances to reach round 2 with few chances to win but more chances to get some/many elo points back.
I do not say that there is no "problem" with the current WCH rules set (there will always be border effects, whatever the rules) but my point is that I'm not sure that any change that will have heavy consequences will have good effects enough.
Finally, if the most is favourable to such a change, it looks more logical to me to forbid the provisionnaly rated players to enter the wch waiting list. By the way we will have less forfeits during round 1, so the quality of the results may be improved. What do you think?
Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-27 00:40:41)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Do you have to have played at least one tournament. To not be a provisional?
Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-27 00:41:45)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Or to put it another way. Would I be able to play? I think I played in 2 tournaments I think.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-27 01:06:30)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Starting with a non-FIDE/ICCF/IECG rating, one need to have finished 9 games to get an established rating. 2 tournaments should be ok.
Garvin Gray (2011-02-27 09:28:07)
Plea for classical rating help
I do not have a solution for what I am about to whinge about, but it is a situation I am getting a little tired of on this site and I see the situation as rather terminal to my participation here.
For the last 12 rating periods, I have had a rating between 2100 and 2200. In the one tournament where I got to play a field with consistent 2200's, I scored 50% or better.
What I am noticing more and more is that for me it is impossible to get opportunities to find out what my true standard is on here.
I am continually having to play people rated around myself or below and these includes those who are provisionally rated 1800 or 2100. When these games are drawn or lost, my rating is dragged down quite a bit.
I do not ever get the opportunity get those points back by playing people above 2200.
It is an issue that I am so sick of and I feel that my progress is being stunted because of it. My rating progress is certainly being stunted.
We do have the higher ticket idea, but that still takes six months to win one and that does NOT help a persons rating all that much.
With the WCH cycle as it is, I also do not have an opportunity to qualify straight through to group 2, like those with higher ratings do.
As I said, this is a bit of a whinge, but I really am sick of this issue and would like some more opportunities to try and find out what I am like against higher rated opponents.
It is part of the reason why I have also asked that the top rateds in the WCH are not segregated from the lower rated as they are atm. I think they should be made to start from stage 1.
Only the defending champion and possibly the defeated previous finalist should receive preferential treatment.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-28 04:38:07)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Thib I feel for you :) Making a good tournament format is very hard. I know I pulled teeth to try and make my format. I had to do two things for my. 1.Make few games as possible and 2.Make it a reasonable time table for a blitz world championship. I believe Garvin did a great job with this in the parings. Lucky we didn't have a lot of unrated players. So Thib I would like to help, but can I ask a favor to you. Is it possible to get a breakdown of the ratings of the players for the last Wch? I think this would be helpful to maybe coming up with a solution. So maybe like..
What was the number of.
2300's+
2200's
2100's
2000's
1900's
1800's
below 1800's
provisional's
I know this maybe some work, but this breakdown can give us a picture of what you have. Personally speaking I think Garvin's idea is decent. Were you can put the highest advance provisional player in the lower stage round 2 bracket and the same for the lowest provisional player to go to the higher round 2 bracket, by performance of stage 1. I guess when you talk about statistical merits for your Wch tournament. You are trying to get the lowest error rate, but get the best value to it.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-28 16:05:47)
Plea for classical rating help
My point is that you never entered a class M waiting list while you were able to do it during maybe 6 months... During this time you entered many Rapid M & Class A tournaments (you play many games) so there may be also a rating management question into the problem IMHO. The same way you played 3 rapid silver tournaments, 2 against players with low ratings and 1 against Eros (good opportunity!) that you lost. These times many ~2200 rated players enter this waiting list.
Anyway I'll make other proposals in the other discussion today.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-28 21:02:18)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
@Garvin:
I suggest that all 2200+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M group at stage 1 OR that all 2100+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M group at stage 1 with the new rule that only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2 and still 1 for stage 3. This combined to another new rule that would allow new members declaring to use a chess engine (not so many so far, maybe 20%) when registering would have a provisional rating of 2000 would solve IMO this issue (2000-2100 players would lose less points to those strong provisionally rated players during the wch) and would help to somewhat inflate the ratings that would be a logical thing when seeing the whole correspondence chess standards at the other sites (some already use this 2000 prov. rating). The ratings may even deflate due to the 10 moves rule. Actually I think I would be very favourable to one of these changes.
@Jimmy:
Fortunately there are players like Garvin, Scott, Gino & others who really helped to build the FICGS rules :) On the numbers of players by rating range, it is quite different from a cycle to another, sometimes we have 2 M groups, sometimes there is no M group at all so I'm not sure if it would be representative. Still I'm not favourable at all to have groups of provisionally rated players.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-28 23:37:33)
Plea for classical rating help
I guess that is one reason why you like my tournament. You get a chance to face strong players at every point, almost.
Daniel Parmet (2011-02-28 23:50:22)
Plea for classical rating help
yes this is exactly why I love your tournament ;) losses do not bother me. I learn from them. This has been my philosophy ever since I picked up chess a mere 3 years ago. What bothers me is all the restrictions people put into to place to prevent players from improving. Most do it unintentionally. However, many US organizers do it intentionally. They either cap their event sections strictly for 2200+ or they make insane rating determine entry fees. For a non 2400+ player to enter a GM norm swiss event it can cost $400. Or for an expert to enter a 2200+ section will cost you an extra $50 at the Goichberg style events or an extra $100 for the National Open.
It is this kind lunacy that makes improvement hard. You can have all the time and money in the world and still find through no lack of effort or skill that you are not allowed to improve.
I find most of the otb tournaments I am allowed to play in now... I usually end up being seed 1 or 2. Not exactly encouragement for me to use my whole weekend is it? I would dream to be able to enter a swiss where I am the bottom seed. But for this to happen I have to break the barriers without the extreme advantage of being allowed to play strong players.
FYI, I practice what I speak. The local tournament I am running next in my area will feature 5 masters (1 IM, 2 FM and 2 NM) - and it has a low entry fee. This is the type of event I wish was more common...
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-01 11:17:27)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
The idea of this championship was to have a tournament looking like the old classical FIDE WCH, so it would be a non-sense to me to make such changes (the chess world will always be divided into 2 categories on this point :)), I'm not opposed to create something like a Cup tournament (the Freestyle tournament is one example) but it would be probably too much already for the addicted players that we are, so the WBCCC is a good alternative.
Glad to see that Daniel agrees on the 2000 prov. rating, does anyone have any opinion on the suggestions I made just after "@Garvin:" in my previous post?
Scott Nichols (2011-03-01 16:59:35)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Ah, I see what I suggested would be a different "style" tournament. You do a great job Thib with all your tournaments. They are always fun and enlightening.
Garvin Gray (2011-03-02 14:59:29)
Plea for classical rating help
Thib- The tickets system also allow you to enter the CLASS M (2200+) waiting list for 10 Epoints if your rating is above 2150.
====================
Apologies for the slow replies. From looking at both threads on these items I wanted to wait to see if there were any trends. Not so far.
On to the comment I have picked out above, I just looked at the SM Rapid group and I notice three players who I think have accepted the 10 euro scheme into a tournament with 2300 players.
When I saw your comment about the ticket system, I was concerned that it could mean that a few 2150 ers enter the tournament and it ruins the experience for all.
This seems to have occurred where the scheme is in place to give the opportunity for a person to play higher rated opponents.
In fact, rechecking the SM rapid, no player is above 2300.
Perhaps the 2150 scheme should be limited to one acceptance per 2300 group. When that tournament fills, another 2150 person can accept.
So as it stands, I will not be joining that tournament as it will acheive nothing more than I am getting now, and I would be paying 10 euro for the privilege of getting nothing more than what I get now.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-02 15:44:26)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Hi Garvin :)
The main point is IMO this suggestion:
"All 2100+, 2150+ or 2200+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) could play the M groups at stage 1 with the new rule that only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2, while the winners will qualify for stage 3 as before.
Combined to another new rule, that would allow new members declaring to use a chess engine (not so many so far, maybe 20%) when registering to get a provisional rating of 2000, it could solve this issue.
Indeed 2000-2100 players would lose less points to those strong provisionally rated players during the regular wch groups, while they keep more chances to qualify for round 2, and it would help to somewhat inflate the ratings that would be a logical thing when seeing the whole correspondence chess standards at the other sites (some already use this 2000 prov. rating).
The ratings may even deflate due to the 10 moves rule."
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-03 14:26:01)
Plea for classical rating help
Sorry as well, I missed your last message in this discussion. So...
1) On tickets for class M ("...if your rating is above 2150"), that was my point, nothing prevented you to use this trick when your rating was above 2150.
2) On the next Rapid SM, only 2 players used it, Marius was above 2300 then lost many elo points as he had to forfeit several games, Miroslav also was above 2300 and lost a few points. That's a border case and it may happen. Anyway only 2 players under the rating limit can enter a waiting list.
3) To clarify, there is no 2150 scheme! 2150 is for the case of Class M, for Rapid SM you have to be rated 2250-2299 or to win a Rapid M event to use the ticket system.
4) You are probably right on the Rapid SM case anyway, maybe the ticket system rule should allow players to use a ticket only if there are no more than 2 players (including players not using a ticket) under the rating range.
5) Anyway you couldn't enter the Rapid SM waiting list unless you win a Rapid M tournament. But my point was only that you could have joinded a Class M several times (with most players rated above 2200)...
Garvin Gray (2011-03-05 11:48:40)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
I do not think the proposed idea of TDV solves anything at all. Instead all it does is move the issue from the 2100's to the 2000's.
I am not in favour of this idea that a rating is dependant on whether a person declares if they are using a chess engine or not. What happens if they do not declare, then start using one? Are they kicked out of the tournament? How do you prove the issue?
I think that solution creates more issues than it solves.
More and more I am in favour of the idea from a couple of others than players need to have an established rating before being able to enter the WCH.
Garvin Gray (2011-03-05 11:51:24)
Plea for classical rating help
Been thinking about this issue a bit more.
I think the only solution is that more tournaments are specially run where players from the different rating bands meet more often.
So there should be a couple of more tournaments where there are no special divisions where the top players are put together against each other, rather than having to fight it out from round one with the rest of the riff raff.
This idea seems great, but the old question comes up, it only works for the intended purpose if players from the top end of the rating list actually participate.
Would they? I am sceptical.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-05 13:43:30)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
There is no similar issue for 2000's IMHO, it is probably easier to cross the 2000-2100 barrier than the 2100-2200 and of course 2200-2300. And once again they would lose much less rating points against these new 2000 provisionally rated players (that's mathematical).
On provisional ratings depending on if players declare if an engine is used, even ICCF (as far as I know) grants a 2000 prov. rating to some players, I was not convinced so far but finally... Of course new players can "lie" or change their mind on using an engine, they'll not be kicked out of any tournament but such a rule is surely better than nothing to get ratings more coherent, btw it is just an improvement of the current rule (new players who have no rating anywhere can choose their first rating between 1200 & 1800, and of course I fix it if e.g. the player declares to play with an engine with a new rating of 1200).
Anyway the idea of players needing to have an established rating before being able to enter the WCH is also fine to me. Let's just try to have more opinions on this.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-05 14:03:29)
FICGS chess WCH : choose your rule
Hi all, we need your opinion to choose a new rule for the next FICGS chess WCH, here are the proposals:
1) All 2200+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M groups at stage 1 while only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2. Winners will qualify for stage 3 as before.
2) Same than 1) but also the new members declaring to use a chess engine when registering will get a provisional rating of 2000.
3) All 2100+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M groups at stage 1 while only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2. Winners will qualify for stage 3 as before.
4) Same than 3) but also the new members declaring to use a chess engine when registering will get a provisional rating of 2000.
5) Players need to have an established rating (9 finished & rated games) before being able to enter the WCH waiting list.
6) Same than 5) but also the new members declaring to use a chess engine when registering will get a provisional rating of 2000.
As for me, I think that 2) & 4) are ok for all reasons I mentioned before. 5) & 6) are ok as well but it's a pity to reduce the number of players in the wch cycle :/
Garvin Gray (2011-03-08 12:12:37)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Thib, originally I asked about the situation with the provisionals, so as the conversation has branched almost to a point where making any changes, I think for this one the issue of the provisionals should be dealt with first.
On the other issues, I have no real issue with the structure as is for the WCH, as long as other tournaments offered better opportunities to play higher rated players.
Put those in place and most of my concerns from this and the other thread are alleviated.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-03-14 17:39:50)
WBCCC Round 2 to be a short delay
I'm sorry about this, but the tournament will be delayed by a day or 2, because of a withdrawal at the top of the pairings. If it was a lower point group, we could have probably winged it. For more details players please read this.
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21227
Me and Garvin will work hard to get this fixed as soon as possible, follow this thread or here and I will get it corrected. When we have things fixed pairings wise I will post ASAP.
Paul Valle (2011-04-02 21:59:27)
Conditional moves
I don´t know how difficult it is to implement conditional moves (I´m sure Thib has a short list of pending improvements with priorities). If it´s easy - I vote for including it. I can´t really see any major problems with offering it. On gameknot you can enter a long sequence of moves and I´ve had a game go the first 15 conditional moves before my opponent deviated. If something similar was implemented here, it would cut the average playing time for any tournament significantly.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-04-03 01:53:04)
FICGS Birthday?
Ah! You challenge me Sebi :) I was not even able to find an april fool joke good enough this time... but I'll try! A special tournament wouldn't be a good idea right now though :/
Don, I can do this! Cheers at 00:00 April 5th!
Thibault de Vassal (2011-04-13 14:07:34)
CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000009
Hi Peter. It should be closed in 2 days from now, all replacements and/or new groups will be done then.
I must say I am quite surprised to see several very strong players entering the waiting list after the tournaments started. Too bad that other matches cannot start in the knockout tournament :/
So I may include you in another group M in the round-robin tournament, if you wish!?
Peter Unger (2011-04-19 23:34:25)
You can't enter this tournament
Why? There are players with 2145etc. in the waiting list?
See the following?
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_SM__000008
(type : rated round-robin, time : 30 days, increment : 1 day / move)
7 players, 6 game (1 game against each opponent)
entry fee : 0 , prize : 20 (E-Points)
elo : 2300+
You can't enter this tournament :
Your chess rating : 2166 , is out of the restrictions.
Waiting list :
POL Broniek, Mariusz Maciej 2152
SVK Gazi, Miroslav 2272
USA Nichols, Scott 2184
DEU Wosch, Arkadiusz 2145
KAZ Alaguzov, Maxat 2415
PRT Pessoa, Francisco 2528
Jimmy Huggins (2011-04-19 23:57:03)
You can't enter this tournament
They may have brought a ticket to get to this higher tournament.
William Taylor (2011-04-20 00:53:23)
You can't enter this tournament
Or they may have had a higher rating when they entered, though Jimmy's suggestion is more likely.
Peter Unger (2011-04-20 16:35:11)
You can't enter this tournament
How can I buy a ticket to enter this tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-04-21 11:53:57)
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000041
The tournaments leaders/winners are not updated in real time. Now it should be ok.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-04-21 11:55:57)
You can't enter this tournament
Hello Peter, all explained here:
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#tickets
Thibault de Vassal (2011-04-24 12:03:10)
Active rating lists
Hello Harshil.
It is mathematical, actually. Your rating cannot reach 2000 if you play only class D tournaments (players rated 1400-1600), which is your case. By the way you played only 3 chess rated tournaments, that is still quite few...
High correspondence chess ratings take always 1 full year to be reached, every strong player knows that.
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2011-04-26 03:22:43)
Active rating lists
Hi Harshil, when I joined my ranking was 1400, now it is over 2000. I only played one class d championship. If you try to play chess rapid tournaments or the ficgs world champion with players whose ranking is higher than yours, you may progress faster. About the ranking system used here, it is pretty standard, you will find it in others chess sites or clubs.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-04-29 14:45:26)
WBCCC-New stuff and Round 2 Update
The last round was very exciting! And this round has had some great games as well. To speak of there is just 4 games left. Here is the report of the most important games this round.
Starting at the top boards. We have have...
B1-Loboestepario (Gino Figilo) vs CumnorChessClub (Kevin E.Plant)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21163-
This game followed a Catalan. Gino makes ambitious choice to go with 5.Nbd2! I gave this move a ! Not because of its theoretical standing. But because it will lead to a position were white will give up a whole pawn for rapid development. Never the less, black is equal to the task and managers to hold on to the pawn for most of the game and keep the game balanced. With my human eyes, I thought for sure white had an advantage! After move 20.Be4, It looks like white has 2 racking bishops. While black has one black locked in! But in depth analysis shows, that black can hold on. And shows great defensive technique. Down the stretch. Well played by Gino and Kevin. On of my favorite games to follow.
B3-Mark Eldridge vs David Evans
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21165-
David has gotten tested in both his black games in this tournament. And this game was no different. We had another B90 line in this game. And ...8.h5 was used. This is becoming a common line in this tournament. Mark's treatment on the white side was great! I think his future opponents will think twice before trying this line again. At move 22, the game reaches the sharpest point. After move 22.fxe5! I thought that Mark had a chance vs David. But David founds some good moves to exchanges pieces and hold for a draw. The best of which was the combo of ...33.Rf3 and ...36.Rxg3! This was a nice find by him. Great job to David and Mark! I look forward to seeing both these players again.
B4-Stephanie vs Fulcrum2000
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21166-
I would normally just post FICGS member games here. But this maybe one of the top 2 or 3 most important games of this round. In what turns out to be the most exciting game of the round IMO. White has shown that they are quite good in the opening phase. At move 18 they choose 18.b3 which was suggested as being the novelty move. White gets a very strong game and after a king tour to capture the pawn. It looked like a win for sure!, but it seems a mistake was made at move 38. Instead of 38.Qc1!? the move 38.Qe8! seems to be a near winner. I thoughts on why this move was missed is because, White was in time trouble in both games. I have to believe this was a favor. As we speak Stephanie is close to defeat in the other game that I will talk about shortly. I would watch her for the reminded of the tournament. I think they will learn form this experience and be even stronger going future. Well done by both players.
B5-NATIONAL12 vs Kamesh
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21167
Two of my good friends battling here. This was a B90 battle. The novelty move was the straight forward looking 27.h4, but after some exchanges. White has to settled for equality. A good match to follow, the one other note made was this was a line pioneered by Eros Riccio.
B7-Wayne Lowrance vs tomski1981
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21169-
Wayne plays a good line vs the french vs tomski. In fact by the database expert, it was in a 100% win line!! But after the queens come off the board. It burns out to a quiet draw. Wayne has had good opening results, but has yet to get in the winners column. I have faith that Wayne will win a game very soon. Good game to both in this one.
B8-Uly vs indrajit_sg
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21170-
This was a nice game to follow. A french defense was chosen. The point in which it gets interest is the choice to play 19.bxc3!? Which leads to 21.Nh6+!? I loves this sires of moves! 27.Rh3! was also a good move here. But its seems black has just enough resources to hold the balance. ..54.Bxg6! was a good finally touch. Well played by both players.
B9-Balabachi(William Fuller) vs Sebastian Boehme
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21171
What was talked about as a drawish Ruy position. I found to be quite a game with all the early fireworks. I also liked the material imbalance in this game. Sebi has a rep of being very difficult to beat with the black pieces. This helps when you have the Ruy and the Posion pawn line of the Sicilian. As two of your best weapons. ;)
B10-Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein) vs Weirwindle
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21172-
This was an interesting Richter-Rauzer game. 15.Qf4 was the novelty move, Form there it got crazy. 21.Nb3 seems to invite a pawn race. Which in the end white loses. This was a tough game for white. I think he should have been able to hold it. But it was still a good game to follow.
B11-donkasand vs Ruben Comes
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21173
This was a nice positional game by Mike (Donkasand), This was a 6.h3 Sicilian. And we get the usually good defense here. ..7.h5 White gets great positional pressure for the whole game and even gets a pawn, but Ruben wholes for a draw.
B12-natmaku vs ralunger (Ramil Germanes)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21174
This game was a Petroff with 5.Nc3. This kind of move gives white rapid development. Its seems black equalize pretty quickly. And on move 21 a draw was agreed on.
B13-Scott Nichols vs Omprakash
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21175
This was an interesting King's Gambit game. I think Scott didn't study his opponents rep. :) The King's Gambit is Om's specialty. So this was an easy draw for black.
B14-Keoki010 (George Clement) vs deka
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21176-
In this game black returns to his pet line of the Sicilian with 2.a6(Which he played in the last round) I believe this is called the O'Kelly variation. This time around he goes for ..7.Qb6 which looks a little better than ..7.Bb5!? A draw probably should have been possible, but George was able to grid out a win. Well played by both players.
B15-parmetd (Daniel Parmet)vs SpiderG (Peter Marriott)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21177
This was a King Indian by black. And white does a good job of out playing his opponent in this game. Unfortunately it seems Peter has gotten busy in his life. This game was decide by time.
B16-Banned for Life vs TheHug(Jimmy Huggins)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21178
I face off against Alan who has the white pieces. And is consider to be one of the best players when playing 1.b3. It was a difficult game for me as I decide before hand to play a dangerous line. Needless to say I lose this game after a few small mistakes on my part. I am founding that all the players in the WBCCC are good, I maybe better off being a commentator lol, but no one would have that.
This was the first set of games.
Here is the 2nd game of the 2nd round in the next post.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-04-29 18:36:20)
WBCCC-New stuff and Round 2 Update
B1-CumnorChessClub (Kevin E.Plant) vs Moz
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21180
Kevin makes an interesting choice here with 2.a4!? vs the Silicon Defense. Not exactly sure what he wanted out of the opening. I can only guess he wanted to mix it up here. Anyway, black equalizes fairly quickly and is better. But after 18.a5! He finds the best way to equalize and both agree to a draw.
B2-jitan vs Loboestepario (Gino Figilo)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21181-
The somewhat unknown Jitan has had a good tournament. And is given his ICCF SM opponent all he can handle. In a game that is still going. Gino is down a pawn, but it appears to be a draw and I would guess the game is about to finish. This was an interesting approach by Gino who gets in b5 and h5 very early in this game. And Jitan plays the most naturally looking sac. 13.Nbxd5! it looked like for a long time Gino was in trouble, but he has found enough resources IMO. A well played game by both players.
B3-Fulcrum2000 vs Mark Eldridge
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21182
This was a nice French game to watch. The novelty move was ..11.Na5, OTB I would like white in this game and I had a feeling that white possibly could have risked an attack, but this game came down to endgame play and White was able to outplay black in the end.
B4-Kamesh vs Stephanie
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21183-
In my opinion this is the most important game the round and it is reaching its fianlly stages. I believe Stephanie to be one of the top players in this event. She has been doing well, but Kam has played the near perfect opening and got her in trouble. If you remember my previous post you remember I talk about Stephanie was in time trouble. Which has not help the cause. The one move I enjoyed the most so far in this game was 36.Ra5!, this was a nice exchange sac. And its given Kam nice pass pawns on the Queen-side. I would guess this game will be over soon. It has been a nice game to watch.
B5-David Evans vs National12
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21184
A battle of the English Countryman here. :) This was the Open Defense of the Ruy. Form the comments I got, it seems that the opening was played about as perfectly as you can get. David posed some problems to Paul(National12), but it ends in a fairly easy draw. One finally note ..10.d4 IMO is a very difficult move to beat.
B6-ppipper vs jitan
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21168-
This is one of the finally 4 games still playing. What looks like to be a draw here. The white black has been dancing for a few moves now, but blacks back rank is weak. That equals a drawish game. :)
This game started out form B90 and so has a ton of theory.
B7-indrajit_sg vs Wayne Lowrance
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21186
I fairly quiet B90 game. I don't think white got much out of the opening. Well played by Wayne here.
B8-tomski1981 vs Uly
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21187
A battle of good friends here. IMO I thought white played the this Queens pawn opening passively. And so we had an early draw at move 26.
B9-Sebastian Boehme vs Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21188-
This is one of the 4 last games. And I have to say its been a good game. We had an interesting Sicilian position. I had thought black was in trouble. But after he tripled up on the d-file. Then got massive exchanges. He looks like its headed toward a draw.
B10-Weirwindle vs donkasand
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21189-
This was a nice positional Sicilian game. Although it ends in a draw. Its a must see game! Watching the drawing combo at the end is very beautiful. It starts with ..27.e4! and you can watch it form there.
B11-Ruben Comes vs Balabachi(William Fuller)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21190
Ruben opened up this rep with 3.h3!? and we ended up with a closed type of Sicilian. But his opponent stayed strong. Though out the game. Even if it looked like Ruben had some pressure. In the finally position.
B12-ralunger (Ramil Germanes) vs keoki010 (George Clement)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21191-
This game saw the Exchange variation in the Queen's gambit. It has a high rate rate. But to Ramil credit he manage to give George a couple of weak pawns in the endgame, but not enough for any real advantage.
B13-Omparakash vs natmaku
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21193-
I would have hoped for more in this game. As I'm a lover of the 6.Bc4 (Sozin) Sicilian. After 14.e5!? this forces unneeded exchanges. After which, the game looked like a draw. And that is how it ended.
B14-deka vs Scott Nichols
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21194
Usually the Exchange Slav is pretty drawish. And this game was no different. But both players did try to mount some kind of advance. Both had good posts on each others side of the board. But a drawish opening is a drawish opening.
B15-TheHug (Jimmy Huggins) vs parmentd
(Daniel Parmet)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21195
I tried my luck in an opening that was not something with e4. And it didn't go as well I had hoped, Daniel was able to get a equal position fairly quickly. In my try at making new theory in a very uncommon line vs the King's Indian Defense.
And finally we have this last game.
B16-SpiderG (Peter Marriott) vs Banned for Life
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21196
This would have promised to be a nice Larson Attack game. By alas Peter timed out in this game as well. I would have loved to seen this attacking game with both sides castled on opposite sides.
Well that would do it for my reports for this round. This was a great round, and the next promises to be great as well. I will post info for the next round after the last game is over with.
Any feedback is welcome!
Scott Nichols (2011-04-29 18:54:35)
WBCCC-New stuff and Round 2 Update
Jimmy, you are THE reason this tournament is so exciting. It is very much appreciated. If word gets around like I think it will for next year, we may even have some OTB GM's in there. Thanks again for all your work, Scott.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-04-29 19:39:52)
WBCCC-New stuff and Round 2 Update
Well promotion is going to be important. And I have been talking to some people about it and seeing what I can and should do. After this tournament is over, there is a good chance we will have a top tier freestyle event after that. It will be before WBCCC II. It will be a good way to promote a nice tournament. I know a some of the FICGS players would like to play in such a tournament. As far as OTB GM's maybe lol. :) I think getting more titled players form ICCF, here, and other sites is possible. I have about 5 to 6 sources I will promote heavily. Add a couple of others. I'm going to be ambitious and say we can get 60+ players in next year. And maybe more. It will be a great 6 round tournament next time. Since it will probably go the whole year. I will try and add something for vacation time in there. If we go over by a month or something. That would be oh ok.(For WBCCC II) and thanks for the compliment. :)
Paul Valle (2011-05-03 23:40:03)
Starting Rating
First of all: This is a great site, and love the fact that the Thib interacts with users to improve the site. Many decent chess sites out there, but this is rare.
When it comes to starting ratings, I would like to add some ideas for improvement:
The point of ratings is that they should reflect playing strength.
Likewise, the goal with starting ratings is that it should reflect actual playing strength.
Rules for both should be as equal and fair as possible.
Assumption:
I) the composition of «Active Players» and their ratings here on FICGS, are a valuable source in guesstimating a new players rating. Most players here play aided by an engine and the site is free, so players here should reflect what comes in the door.
(BTW My minimum definition of an «Active Player», is someone who has made at least one move in the period leading up to the official rating list.)
II) Lightning rating is a good estimate of Correspondence Rating.
I further believe that any choices or complications made to the FIDE rules of one starting rating fits all, should mostly be done to aid good Advanced Chess Players, and good OTB-players. Such complications might not be fair, but essential for FICGS to be relevant to the elite.
My proposal:
«Newly Regs» have a choice of THREE options upon starting to play correspondence CHESS on FICGS:
A) Start with a set rating. I would suggest this be set at the average or median off all Active players. Or a fixed numerical constant times this average. You could of course set up all kinds of formulas, but the main point in should reflect the current composition of FICGS members and not estimates based on unverifiable data given by the player.
Some players might feel that they are way better than this and might be discouraged to join and fight for a long time to reach the top tournaments they feel they are entitiled to play. The seccond option is created to encourage these players to join, and give them a choice to prove their skill relativly quickly and accurately.
B) Play 10 preliminary lightning games (starting with the same rating as in A), and then using the end lightning rating as the starting rating for normal tournaments. These players will get a much more accurate starting rating, and may be well motivated to put in the effort if they care. (If all the 10 games went close to 60 moves, and both players used all their time, the playing time would be around 16 hours)
Then there are the top international correspondence or Over-The-Board players. Why bother these with 10 lightning games?
C) Titled players can start in Master with a higher fixed rating (same as in option A, but multiplied with a higher constant), but must register by credit card to prove identity.
Possible drawbacks and problems
1) Assumption I and/or II is flawed
2) A poor player might be highly overrated choosing option A)
3) Players can dump lightning rating points to a friend
4) Implementation cost – development
-What ya think folks?
reg, Paul
Thibault de Vassal (2011-05-10 12:09:36)
Big Chess championships 1 & 2
Hello all,
Finally the 2nd Big Chess championship started, with 3 players who should replace forfeiting players within 15 days. You still can enter the waiting list for replacements. Sorry for this month late :/
The final tournament of the 1st championship started as well... There was kind of a dilemma as I'm not comfortable with the idea of inviting myself to complete a tournament, but best was IMO to follow the current rules (tournaments of at least 7 players) so I had to invite 2 players. For the 2nd one, with 4 groups only I'll have to invite 3 players (most probably 2 players with 5 points out of 6 and the highest Big Chess rating when the tournament starts).
Jimmy Huggins (2011-05-15 13:08:49)
WBCCC Round 3 links and more
Here are the links for Round 3. Plus I have a quick announcement. I have talked to Garvin and I'm in the running to consider adding a 2nd tournament to the WBCCC. Probably called the WBCCC Inv. -> Invitational. This will be more of the standard style of blitz tournament. Something like 14d+1d per move, I don't want to set exact time control yet, I will probably open this discussion up after WBCCC 1 is over. What details I will give is this. What over the prize is next year will split with the other tournament plus a plaque to the winner. My hope is to have another drawing card for the WBCCC and I know this will probably bring more top players in.
Anyway here are the links for you to follow the games you wish to watch this round.
As always we will start at the top boards and work are way down. This time I will just do both of each board at the same time.
B=Board
B1- CumnorChessClub (Kevin D. Plant) vs Fulcrum2000- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21828
B1- ppipper vs CumnorChessClub (Kevin D. Plant)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21814
B2- Kamesh vs ppipper- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21829
B2- Fulcrum2000 vs Kamesh- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21815
B3- jitan vs Sebastian Boehme- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21830
B3- National12 vs jitan- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21816
B4- Loboestepario (Gino Figilo) vs WeirwindleX- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21817
B4- David Evans vs Loboestepario (Gino Figilo)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21831
B5- Sebastian Boehme vs David Evans- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21818
B5- Weirwindle vs Banned for Life- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21832
B6- ralunger (Ramil Germanes) vs National12- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21833
B6- donkasand vs ralunger (Ramil Germanes)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21819
B7- tomski1981 vs donkasand- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21834
B7- parmetd (Daniel Parmet) vs tomski1981- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21820
B8- Banned for Life vs Ruben Comes- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21821
B8- indrajit_sg vs parmetd (Daniel Parmet)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21835
B9- Keoki010 (George Clement) vs Indrajit- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21822
B9- Mark Eldridge vs Balabachi- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21837
B10- Wayne Lowrance vs Stephanie- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21838
B10- Balabachi vs Wayne Lowrance- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21823
B11- StephanieX vs Mark_Eldridge- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21824
B11- Omprakash vs Keoki010 (George Clement)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21839
B12- natmaku vs Scott Nichols- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21825
B12- Ruben Comes vs deka- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21840
B13- deka vs Omprakash- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21826
B13- Scott Nichols vs Schachmatt (Matt O'Brien)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21841
B14- Schachmatt (Matt O'Brien) vs TheHug (Jimmy Huggins)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21827
B14- TheHug (Jimmy Huggins) vs natmaku http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21842
Before I get off, I would like to thank Thib for letting me ask his great players to play in my tournament. Best wishes to all and enjoy this next year!
Jimmy
Jimmy Huggins (2011-05-15 13:34:12)
WBCCC Round 3 links and more
After 2 rounds FICGS has 5 of the top 10 places in the standings in the WBCCC 1. With Kevin #1 and Kamesh #4 at the top with 3 points and Gino #6, David #7, and Sebi #10. Well Rybka Forum has 4 of the top 10. Fulcrum2000 #2, ppipper #3, WeirwindleX #8, National12 #9.
Many of these players are facing off against each other. Here are just a few games you that are must watch for this round.
Banned for Life vs Ruben Comes- Banned for Life (Alan) is one of the best with 1.b3. It should be interesting to see how Ruben combats this expert with the Larson System.
Sebastian Boehme vs David Evans- These two have crossed paths before on the freestyle field before. I took great interest in this match because Sebi has 1 on the highest winning % with the white pieces in the field and hasn't last a white game on FICGS. That I have seen. I can bet on some fireworks in this game.
Kamesh vs ppipper- Kam put on a good show with the white pieces vs one of the toughest opponents in the field (with my human eyes) and ppipper has done great with the black pieces. With both of his wins coming with the black pieces! O_o Should be fun :)
jitan vs Sebastian Boehme- Jitan is showing to be one of the top tier players in this event. I truly enjoy the tactical opening he played in his only win in the tournament so far in round 1 vs George. And gave Gino all he could handle in Round 2 (With my human eyes again) :)
A lot of the other games speak for themselves. Also keep on eye on Board 1 with Kevin. :)
Wayne Lowrance (2011-05-30 18:23:03)
I am exhausted
Howdy Kam. Gosh I did not know about your illness. So pleased your feeling much better. Thank you so much for your prayer, helps me to know it. My future does not look promising Kam. The Doctor has told me my arthritic conition is advanced, only offering me drugs, which help some. I am for sure thru with chess Kam, I just cannot any longer do it. I could always just make engine moves, but I would NEVER be able to enjoy that.... I am proud of your play in the Jimmy Tournament, attaway to go Kam
Well b4n
Wayne
Jimmy Huggins (2011-06-22 06:54:36)
The rise of freestyle chess again.
Hello to all my FICGS friends! I was wanting to post here to let people know about a live broadcast later today. Me and ICCF GM Arno Nickel will be having a match later to help promote freestyle chess. In truth this is another practice match to try and test a server for freestyle chess. He had own 1st match yesterday. And it was nice to see it being followed. I hope some of you come watch the event. Comments are welcome! :) The match will be at 6:30am Central Standard Time/7:30am Eastern Standard Time/12:30 GMT/ 11:30 Rybka Forum time. Look for a thread in the Rybka Forum/ Computer Chess subforum. The thread will be up several minutes before the match. The time control will be 60min+15sec, which is a common time control for freestyle chess.
For those of you who don't know ICCF GM Arno Nickel. He is in the top 10 in the ICCF and is one of the leading people to promote and bring freestyle chess to the fore front.
I hope to see you today and I'm sure there will be other matches to follow in the future. This will all lead up to a great tournament later on this year. :)
Jimmy Huggins (2011-06-23 05:04:22)
The rise of freestyle chess again.
Yes this was what we was hoping for. The results of the match were not as important to me. The broadcast was good, there will be a tournament later on this year. And I will invite my FICGS friends to play. :) My hope is the that system will support all the games for the broadcast and we get good commentary (I will most likely be one of them :) ). My aim for a date is between Nov-Dec. As this will be in between the first WBCCC and the next. The server is easy to handle once you have a first games under your belt. You are able to run everything though the server. So you can run your engines and books in there. The first freestyle event will be probably be a smaller tournament around 30 people maybe. But my hope is by the 2nd or 3rd edition the we will have good size tournament.
Anyone wishing to try the server and play a game let me know and we will work something out.
Lalit Kapoor (2011-06-28 10:39:04)
When a player declared winner?
The following tournaments are finished with no unfinished games but site does not declared the winner so far:
1. FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_A__000093 (last game finished on June 16, 2011
2. FICGS__POKER_HOLDEM__TOURNAMENT_C__000049 (last game finished on May 24, 2011.)
Please let the players know about the rules upon this issue.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-07-01 02:50:07)
When a player declared winner?
Hello Lalit,
Tournament winners/leaders are updated about once every month only.
It should be done today.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-07-05 11:20:45)
WBCCC Round 4
Just wanted to let everyone know that the next round of tournament will start on July 9th 11:00am GMT. Game links will follow.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-07-14 23:54:45)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
Hello all,
I'd like your opinion on this special case in a WCH tournament (that did not happen yet, as far as I know). Currently rules do not allow to change anything there but I'm not even sure that something should be changed. Please note that I consider that correspondence chess is not all about chess, so resignations in equal positions are most often wins like other wins.
The case: Player A draws or wins a game in a round-robin WCH tournament, then resigns all his other games in equal positions.
Of course this is not good and maybe unfair for the player who offered/accepted the draw or lost the game against him. If player A resigned some other games in equal positions before, the rules allow the referee to adjudicate the game for the other player, but not here.
While I'm writing these lines, I feel and realize that the referee shouldn't be able to change such a result as the limit is unclear (what about 2 games, 3 games, 4 games or 5 games before those resignations in equal positions), but this may be worth to discuss anyway.
Gino Figlio (2011-07-15 07:17:43)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
Finishing games early in a tournament can cost you if the player you agreed to draw ends up losing interest and either resigns many games or withdraws.
Having said that, resigning games in equal positions could be grounds to a complain to the TD who may then question the player. If there is a valid explanation (health reasons for example) the player could be given the chance to submit games for adjudication instead of resigning.
I think the system should be ready for a change of results in these rare circumstances.
If the player does not have a valid reason for resigning games in equal positions the he should receive a penalty that prevents him from joining tournaments for a period of time (2 years maybe). The games should be sent to adjudication also. It's a lot of work but the effort provides a sense of added value to the site
Don Groves (2011-07-15 19:56:40)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
I agree with adjudication in these cases. It seems to be the fairest solution for all concerned.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-07-15 22:39:40)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
The current rules on this point are 11.6 : "Any player who forfeits (by resignation or silent withdrawal) his games in an equal or winning position, without giving an explanation to referee in a rated chess tournament could lose his other games in the tournament, get a limited access to the server and couldn't enter waiting lists anymore during a period of 2 months, at the referee's discretion."
Any suggestion to improve it?
Don Groves (2011-07-16 07:51:33)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
How about this:
"The game result of a resignation or silent withdrawal in an even or winning position will be adjudicated by the referee. In addition, the player who resigns or withdraws in such positions may face punishment by ... etc."
Don Groves (2011-07-16 07:55:09)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
Insert: "... or withdraws in such positions [without a valid explanation to the referee] may face ..."
Don Groves (2011-07-16 07:57:17)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
Or maybe: ... without an acceptable explanation...
Thibault de Vassal (2011-07-16 11:23:35)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
You're right Don, there was already things to fix :) But what about the point discussed here, a possible re-adjudication as a loss of the game(s) finished before these withdrawals?
Don Groves (2011-07-16 12:21:27)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
I don't think that is necessary if the withdrawn games are adjudicated since the problem pointed out earlier will not occur. The player(s) who earlier lost or drew a game with the one who withdraws from the tournament will not be penalized by everyone else getting a full or half point unless they earned it.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-07-16 16:50:44)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
"will not be penalized by everyone else", I don't follow you there... half a point or a full point less is penalizing by itself in a WCH tournament, right?
Don Groves (2011-07-16 17:52:35)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
I thought the original point was that those who lost or drew with the dropout would be penalized when the other players got the full point, even if they were losing or only even against the dropout. But if the referee adjudicates those remaining games, the full point will only be awarded if the dropout was losing anyway. Right?
Garvin Gray (2011-07-16 18:02:39)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
Thibault- I think I can offer you a solution to this from the fide laws of chess, tournament rules section.
These types of situations are already covered: http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=20&view=category
11. Where not all games are played
(c) When a player withdraws or is expelled from a round-robin tournament, the effect shall be as follows:
(d) If a player has completed less than 50% of his games, his score remains in the tournament table (for rating and historical purposes), but the points scored by him or against him are not counted in the final standings. The unplayed games of the player and his opponents are indicated by (-) in the tournament table and those of his opponents by (+). If neither player is present this will be indicated by two (-).
(e) If a player has completed at least 50% of his games, his score shall remain in the tournament table and shall be counted in the final standings. The unplayed games of the player are shown as indicated as above.
(g) Articles 10(e) and (f) also apply to team events; both unplayed matches and unplayed games must be clearly indicated as such.
Gino Figlio (2011-07-17 18:03:24)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
There is a big difference between OTB and cc where unplayed games are rarely seen when a withdrawal occurs since all games are played simultaneously in cc. Thst's why adjudications are needed.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-07-18 13:04:52)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
@Don: The rules try to make tournaments (particularly championships) & ratings coherent as much as possible (to "protect" results & ratings), in other words if a player resigns several games in a tournament without giving a valid explanation, even the games he won or drew in these tournaments may be adjudicated as losses in this aim. The only question is: should it be extended to games (in these tournaments only) finished before the first resignation...
@Garvin (& Gino): Thanks for the information! Would you know what ICCF says about it?
Gino Figlio (2011-07-18 13:53:39)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
http://www.iccf.com/rules/ICCFTournamentRules01-01-2011.pdf
Scroll down to find "6.Withdrawal and Substitutions"
It doesn't specifically address the issue though...
Thibault de Vassal (2011-07-18 14:28:19)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
Thanks a lot Gino!
Thibault de Vassal (2011-07-23 01:45:13)
No more draws (over the board)
An interesting idea by Rustam Kasimdzhanov to avoid draws in classical chess tournaments...
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7387
Thibault de Vassal (2011-08-02 15:04:21)
A strong Opening Surprise
Could be an interesting future thematic tournament...
Thibault de Vassal (2011-08-02 20:15:54)
Gaetano Laghetti wins IECG Cup 2006
Italia strikes again, congratulations Gaetano for winning this IECG Cup started 5 years ago! It is funny to see how correspondence chess has evolved during this only tournament...
The crosstable:
http://lss.chess-server.net/tournaments/crosstable/tourid/19644
Jimmy Huggins (2011-08-10 03:42:40)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
I have been pretty busy lately, and have been thinking about a lot of different things chess related. Some of you know that I have talked about and planed for a freestyle chess tournament in the near future. Here is a few notes for it and I would like to pass on some ideas and get some opinions. I can safely say that we can have a freestyle event between Nov-Dec and the 2nd part of it is that it won't be around Christmas. Oh ok here is what I would like to get an opinion on. 2 questions
1) What tournament timeline sounds better? (a) A Saturday-Sunday tournament or (b) Saturday-Next Saturday. I would say that 5 or 6 rounds is what we would go with. That should be plenty for a 20-30 person first tournament. That is what I'm predicting I don't know for sure.
2nd Question- What is a reason time control?
Oh ok the leading time control idea for me is 60min+30sec per move. Anyone see a problem with this one? I like this because its not a huge time spent and there is still room for the human element in the freestyle game.
All comments are welcome thanks for any input! :)
Jimmy
Scott Nichols (2011-08-10 03:51:08)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
#1. I vote for (b)
#2. (60 min+30sec) I would vote for.
#3. (my suggestion) NO anonymous players.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-08-10 04:02:33)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
Thanks Scott, I didn't really throw all a lot of ideas for time controls. I'm open to hear other ideas.
Of course No anonymous players.
Garvin Gray (2011-08-10 04:25:32)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
I vote for no anonymous players. Can I vote early and often on that one? :)
The time control needs to be long enough to make it a real centaur battle. Quite a few freestyles have been held where the time control has been short and it is just humans mainly putting in engine moves.
I think 60 mins plus 30 secs is fine, but would prefer 90 mins plus 30 secs.
If we did 60 plus 30, then running it over three days with 3 rounds per day would be better, in my opinion.
The biggest and number one issue is starting time.
Don Groves (2011-08-10 04:47:14)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
Yes, how do you handle all FICGS time zones?
Alvin Alcala (2011-08-10 05:23:24)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
60min+30sec per move is reasonable for me and two rounds per day. The time schedule will be critical as you know all of us are in different time zones.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-08-10 11:00:24)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
Round 1 in the latest freestyle cup started at 1pm server time. Looked not so bad...
With 60 mins plus 30 secs, a few players will spend the whole night or almost but I agree this is best for freestyle.
Alvin Alcala (2011-08-10 11:30:23)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
In free style cup section why not make an option of a freestyle tour so anyone online can immediately arrange a tour with entry fee of say 10 e-points or even bronze. Then the format would be minimum 2 players or even number of players. Money prizes will be broken down accordingly. I loved to play advance chess a lot but it will be more exciting if you will play more people.
Garvin Gray (2011-08-10 11:40:07)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
Alvin, this is going to be hard enough to organise with only one concept and a few straight forward ideas to sort out.
It will not help if we start talking about a whole lot of different formats and other ideas.
I just do not want to see this thread branching off into tangets and variations and the few ideas that Jimmy has raised not being discussed much.
Alvin Alcala (2011-08-10 14:30:59)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
Correct. sorry for the off-topic.
Gino Figlio (2011-08-10 22:33:36)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
If it will be a 2-day event why not play the second day +12 hours start time compared to the first day?
This way players on different time zones may not have to wake up too early or stay up too late both days.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-08-11 00:10:16)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
@Gino- That sounds like a decent idea. I kind of liked the thought of playing on back to back Saturdays. Maybe I'm wrong, I find it easier sometimes to give a few hours on one weekend day than to do it on a Saturday and Sunday. Of course if we agreed to Sat-Sun I could do it as well.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-08-11 00:17:07)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
Here is around idea that could help some. Would anyone be in favor of closing the entry a week or so before the event to know what the 1st round pairings are and possibly give a little time to prepare for an opponent.
This has the advantage for the organizers to get everything ready. I know we will have something to discuss, before the event starts.
Garvin Gray (2011-08-12 16:22:08)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
I think if you are going to close entries early and post pairings for round one, then there will need to be a decent entry fee.
If entry is free and pairings are posted early, it is extremely likely that one or more people will pull out through dis-interest, when in all likelihood they were not that interested in the first place and as soon as the pairings are posted, they realise the full magnitude of having entered the competition.
While an entry fee will reduce the total number of entries, it will certainly make your life easier in actually running the competition.
Another idea is to introduce a bond system. Everyone pays a set amount up front and then those who have played all rounds get their money back. Those who do not complete the competition for any reason do not get their money back.
Especially relevant with more than one night competitions.
Thinking more about time zones, for what I favour depends on number of days and number of rounds.
If just two days, then I favour Saturday/Saturday. If more than two days, I favour Friday/Saturday/Saturday.
Alvin Alcala (2011-08-13 11:11:47)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
Also can we have a voting for the timing? We can make a survey of the best timing possible.
David Evans (2011-08-13 15:12:03)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
I hate to play fridays hated the last freestyle that played fridays as i work it becomes a pain.
If played on a friday i would not enter simple really good luck with this....................
Garvin Gray (2011-08-13 18:07:21)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
With so many competing interests and ideas, I think the best idea is for Jimmy to just set the format, time control and all other conditions way in advance and then let all players decide if they want to play.
If then quite a few players start flagging the same issue for non-participation, then that issue alone could be looked at.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-08-13 23:38:58)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
Oh ok if I had to swing in right now. It would be a Sat-->Sat event. 5 or 6 rounds depending on how many want to play. The time control at the moment would be 60+30sec. It seemed to work for FICGS freestyle cup. I guess the question is how many hours are we willing to go for a day.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-08-13 23:41:04)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
I guess the only real difference at the moment form my tournament to the FICGS freestyle cup is doing it on 2 Saturdays instead of Saturday and Sunday. I feel like this is a slight benefit that most seem to agree with.
Garvin Gray (2011-08-14 03:11:54)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
6 rounds for me, more the better. Feel free to have three Saturdays for nine rounds if you wish :)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-08-19 11:43:45)
Rybka banned from ICGA
Clone or not clone, I'm not sure if this question is worth something in computer chess but ICGA did it: Rybka was banned and stripped of titles...
I just partly read RybkaInvestigation document, a few points are particularly ridiculous (like 2.2 "Sudden Strength Increase"), I have no idea on the other ones and I'm not sure if this is really important in the real world.
Finally, the punishment:
- to strip Rajlich of all ICGA Tournament Titles and,
- force the return of trophies and prize funds to the ICGA and,
- ban his programs from future competitions until he can satisfy the ICGA that they are no longer derivatives and that he has satisfied the conditions of any other penalties the ICGA imposes.
- encourage other tournaments (Leiden, Paderborn, CCT, TACCL, etc.) to disallow the entry of Rybka until it is proven “clean”.
ICGA Panel Members
The Secretariat members:
Robert Hyatt - (Crafty, Cray Blitz, World Computer Chess Champion in 1983 and 1986)
Mark Lefler (author of Now)
Harvey Williamson (part of Hiarcs Team)
Panel members:
Albert Silver (software designer for Chess Assistant (1999-2002); currently editor of
Chessbase News (2010-present))
Amir Ban (author of Junior: World Champion 2002, 2004, 2006, World microcomputer
Champion 1997, 2001)
Charles Roberson (author of NoonianChess)
Christophe Theron (author of Chess Tiger)
Dariusz Czechowski (author of Darmenios)
Don Dailey (author of Cilkchess, Star Socrates, Rex, Komodo)
Eric Hallsworth (part of Hiarcs Team, Publisher of Selective Search magazine)
Fabien Letousky (author of Fruit)
Frederic Friedel (Chessbase.com)
Gerd Isenberg (author of IsiChess)
Gyula Horvath (author of Pandix, Brainstorm)
Ingo Bauer (Shredder team)
Jan Krabbenbos (Tournament Director of Leiden tournaments)
Kai Himstedt (author of Gridchess and Cluster Toga)
Ken Thompson (creator of Belle Chess Machine, World Computer Chess Champion
1980, Turing Award winner 1983, creator of B and C programming languages,
Unix and Plan 9 developer).
Marcel van Kervinck (author of Rookie)
Maciej Szmit (assistant professor at Technical University of Lodz)
Mark Watkins (MAGMA Computer Algebra Group, School of Mathematics and
Statistics, University of Sydney)
Mark Uniacke (Hiarcs, World Microcomputer Champion 1993)
Mincho Georgiev (Pawny)
Olivier Deville (Tournament Director of ChessWars)
Omid David (author of Falcon)
Peter Skinner (Tournament Director of CCT--the major annual online computer chess
tournament)
Ralf Schäfer (author of Spike)
Richard Vida (author of Critter)
Richard Pijl (author of The Baron)
Stefan Meyer-Kahlen (author of Shredder, multiple world champions from 1996-2007)
Thomas Mayer (author of Quark)
Tord Romstad (author of Stockfish, Glaurung)
Tom Pronk (ProChess, Much)
Vladan Vuckovic (Axon, Achilles)
Wylie Garvin (game Programmer at Ubisoft Montreal)
Yngvi Björnsson (The Turk)
Zach Wegner (author of ZCT and Rondo, an upgraded version of Anthony Cozzie’s
Zappa program, which was world champion in 2005)
ICGA Board
President - David N.L. Levy
Vice-President: Yngvi Björnsson
Secretary-Treasurer: Hiroyuki Iida
Programmers Representative: Rémi Coulom
WCCC Tournament Director
Jaap van den Herik
http://www.chessvibes.com/plaatjes/rybkaevidence/RybkaInvestigation.pdf
http://www.chess.com/news/rybka-banned-and-stripped-of-titles-3798
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQshTNJ4pSM
Gino Figlio (2011-09-27 17:09:09)
Italia & Eros strike at ICCF team champ
When that tournament first started many people were worried about the high draw rate. The first board results show how even when an event has a draw rate >80% a player can win with a +3 result
Jimmy Huggins (2011-10-05 19:44:45)
Official WBCCC freestyle cup 1 to begin
I'm ready to announce, that the first tournament for the freestyle cup will begin 10 days form today on Oct 15th. The first tournament will be 20m+30s. Since right now we have a large number of American players we will probably start in the early morning in the Americans. I figure this to be the best. So 5-7am Central standard time Or 6-8am Eastern Standard time. I would like to get in at least 3 rounds in on Saturday and see how everyone is. We may do one, but 3 is a safe bet. Then we will finish the tournament next Saturday at the same time. There will be some time between for a break probably 20 to 30 minutes. In the next post I will explain what you need to do to get the the free server and what to do once you get it. A lot of you have a user name and password already (WBCCC) but if you don't I will help you with that. One thing I will say is important is to make sure you leave open a chat window with me. In case you run into any problems. I can answer most problems, if not there will be someone there to help assist me. If I need it.
Don Groves (2011-10-17 00:47:50)
One more request
Salut, Thib:
At the bottom of a tournament page is a "download all games" button. Could you add a "download my games" button which would download only one person's games from the tournament?
Thibault de Vassal (2011-10-28 01:20:25)
Official WBCCC freestyle cup 1 to begin
...btw what happened in this tournament?? any news?
Thibault de Vassal (2011-10-28 22:16:09)
4th FICGS freestyle cup
Hi all,
The 4th FICGS freestyle tournament may happen on december 3 & 4 (2011) - three rounds each day at 13:00, 15:00, 17:00 server time. The format should be the same (30 minutes + 15 seconds per move) than the previous one.
That's quite a good moment IMO, just before the start of the next championship cycle.
What do you think? Any suggestions?
Thank you,
Thibault
Jimmy Huggins (2011-10-29 07:10:16)
4th FICGS freestyle cup
If you get this in, than I'm sacing my last tournament and probably just do the 60min tournament.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-10-29 07:11:38)
4th FICGS freestyle cup
Its to hard to try and do a 90min tournament and do more than 1 game a weekend. People just didn't want to do it.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-10-29 07:12:46)
4th FICGS freestyle cup
Well let me retract part of that. They DO want to play in a 90min type tournament. But getting to do more than 1 game a weekend was like trying to pull teeth.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-10-29 07:14:58)
Official WBCCC freestyle cup 1 to begin
Thib I'm not one to cut into others opportunities. I'm good for just running the 60min tournament over 2 weekends. probably the 5th and 12th.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-10-29 21:23:06)
4th FICGS freestyle cup
We shouldn't talk about several tournaments at the same time... quite confusing. So this is a thread about the next FICGS freestyle tournament only. Who would be interested to play this week end (december 3, 4) ? (starting with me, of course :))
Thanks :)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-11-03 09:48:27)
4th FICGS freestyle cup
Yes Garvin, see the tournaments list. Thanks Robert, it's fixed now :)
Andres E. Leon (2011-11-03 22:08:51)
Chess world championship #8 Question
Hello Thibault, I was playing the FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_04__000008, which recently finishes. I would like to ask you, if I still have possibility to qualify to the next stage. Thanks you very much.
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_04__000008.html
Thibault de Vassal (2011-11-04 17:49:07)
Chess world championship #8 Question
Hello Andres, as 2nd co-winner this is "possible" but I cannot say it right now, sorry. It will depend on the results in other tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-11-16 19:21:56)
WCH_SEMI_FINAL_000009
Hello Robert,
As we cannot go faster than music (I mean round robin tournaments) it will start on january 1st, 2012.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-11-28 10:38:22)
WBCCC 2 sign up and WBCCC 1 review
After an exciting WBCCC 1, Own Champion ppipper (José Sanz) wins with a finally score of 7.5 out 10. FICGS top players were in a tied for 2nd with Timothy Cookson, Sebastian Boehme, and Ruben Comes. Credit also has to go to David Evans who had ppipper as White in the last game. And went all out to beat him. In the end Jose pulled out the win with black. For those interested I highly recommend you read this article. About the champion talked about his tournament games.
http://www.chesscafe.com/chessok/chessok.htm
Now I wanted to go a head and open up the sign up for the 2nd edition of WBCCC and tell everyone about the improvements and add ons.
The first major improvement on WBCCC is that it will have a simple to use conditional move system. With our easy downloadable client we use. There is also going to be a 2nd tournament for those who prefer a little more time than own standard tournament of 30days per side. In the 2nd tournament that is going to be called Rybka Forum Grand Prix. Is going to be 30day for the first 40 moves and 30 days Sudden Death after that. So basically you get 30 more days for 40 moves on your clock. Now here is a few more things to know about the tournament. After each move, if you request it. You can have your move noticed to you by email. This is good for the busy person who doesn't check the game forums all the time. The other thing added to the tournament is that there will be a file on hand for everyone to check to see what sites everyone plays on it a head of time. This is good for guys who like to prepare for there opponent. As for other fun things offered. I finalize with chesspublishing.com that they will help for own best game per round and the winners will get there games analyzed by the top players there and will publish them on the forum. Which I can expand to here and the other forums I promote at. For some were scared of the time control, but in truth we only had 2 games time out, but this was because they left there games. Which was a disappointment, but 2 games over a whole tournament was very good! If you maybe interested, but are unsure about the time. I recommend talking to me and when can have a test game to see if you can handle it. Most know with in a week or 2 if they can do it or not. Thanks for the support of Thib and everyone that played this year and anyone that will try this next year!
Jimmy
Jimmy Huggins (2011-11-28 10:40:12)
WBCCC 2 sign up and WBCCC 1 review
I should also add to the people who haven't read some of my material in the past. The tournament as a 6 man tablebase rule. If a position is reach that is a in a 6 man tablebase. They can claim a draw or win to the TD. This was a great rule that only got used a few times. But is a good way to prevent people of trying to expand games that are clearly over.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-01 19:20:12)
4th FICGS freestyle cup
Hi all, as a reminder the tournament starts this saturday, december 3 at 1pm. / 13:00 server time !!
Good luck :)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-04 18:42:53)
Final standings
After round 6 we have a sole winner!
Pos. Name. Score. (Berg.)
1. Alcala 5 (14.5)
2. Dolgov 4 (13.25)
3. Gray 4 (12.5)
4. Perikov 4 (9.5)
5. Mueller 3 (7)
6. Singh 3 (6.25)
7. de Vassal 2.5 (6.75)
8. Lowrance 2.5 (6.5)
9-10. Figlio 2.5 (4.5)
9-10. Bitoon 2.5 (4.5)
11. Nichols 2.5 (2.75)
12. Eldridge 1.5 (4)
Congratulations to Alvin who played really great chess during the whole tournament...
Many thanks to everyone for having played (we'll try to have less forfeits next time), particularly to Alvin, Wayne & Garvin for their efforts due to time...
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-05 16:31:24)
Who wants a Freestyle GO tournament soon?
Hi all, this discussion to see if we would have players enough to organize a first Freestyle GO tournament...
You can see the rules in "Waiting lists" > "Go freestyle cup"
Any players interested to play such a tournament for example in january? (I'm one of them of course :))
Graham Philips (2011-12-05 17:22:45)
Who wants a Freestyle GO tournament soon?
Yeah, sounds like a good idea, not sure enough how the timing works for them though ?
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-05 17:28:11)
Timing
About the rules:
"All games are played in 30 minutes + 10 seconds / move. Komi is 7.5 points. The first three rounds will start at the date indicated as "deadline" at 13:00, 15:00 and 17:00 server time. The last three rounds will start at 13:00, 15:00 and 17:00 server time the next day. It is possible to enter the waiting list until the end of the tournament (please also warn the tournament director). Please do not try to create any game by yourself as all games will be created by the tournament director."
Server time is french time...
Graham Philips (2011-12-05 18:15:49)
Who wants a Freestyle GO tournament soon?
Mmmm, yeah, ok, won't be able to do it during the middle of the day I suspect, hope it happens anyway though!
Don Groves (2011-12-07 05:06:13)
Who wants a Freestyle GO tournament soon?
Rated?
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-07 13:40:00)
Who wants a Freestyle GO tournament soon?
Yes. And there is only one rating list for Go freestyle & correspondence Go.
Garvin Gray (2011-12-13 10:09:29)
From Gambit Thematic Tournament
Thib,
Do you really mean f6 or d6 as black's second move?
Cheers,
Garvin
Bogoljub Teverovski (2025-02-25 22:56:30)
Next thematic tournament
It is time for the next thematic: 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-13 22:39:42)
From Gambit Thematic Tournament
f6 ... just another tough line to try :)
Garvin Gray (2011-12-14 08:52:43)
From Gambit Thematic Tournament
Thanks Thib. Was hoping for d6, but ahh well.
Garvin Gray (2011-12-14 08:57:09)
5 player double round robins
I am wondering if tournaments would be easier to start if instead of needing 7 players to enter to get a tournament going, this could be reduced to 5 players and be offered as a double round robin.
This would mean that everyone would have to play 8 games instead of 6, but I think that would be ok in return for getting tournaments started more often.
This change would also mean that colours are now irrelevant, so your starting position in the field does not matter.
Entries do slow up across Christmas, as I am noticing by being the only person to enter the Standard M tournament for over a fortnight now.
Don Groves (2011-12-14 10:35:28)
5 player double round robins
The same idea should be tried in Go also. Some Go tournaments can be very slow to fill up to 7 players.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-14 15:39:33)
5 player double round robins
Hi Sebi, sure it's an interesting system! I've explained why I was not favourable to this here though (I did not find the discussion, quite old one). In brief less excitement (IMO), games influenced by each other result, this is just too confusing & different.
Same for double roound robins, I like this format much but it would slow down even more the other tournaments... Be patient guys, let's play bullet games :)
Garvin Gray (2011-12-14 16:23:23)
5 player double round robins
Not a big fan of the idea of games starting at different times as more players join the tournament.
I could see that after a while and if a player is involved in a few tournaments, that it just feels like they are playing in different individual games, and new games join the list at random times.
With the way things are done at the moment, a new set of games are started when a new tournament begins, so it is obvious that the tournament you entered has started.
Garvin Gray (2011-12-14 16:25:12)
5 player double round robins
Thib: Same for double roound robins, I like this format much but it would slow down even more the other tournaments...
Garvin: Can you please expand on this? I am not sure how it would slow down other tournaments.
William Taylor (2011-12-15 10:51:25)
5 player double round robins
Presumably because if people are entering the double round robin tournaments fewer people will be entering the others (so it would slow down the start of the normal tournaments even more).
Garvin Gray (2011-12-15 11:50:39)
5 player double round robins
Thanks William, I was not sure how Thib's comment was to be interpreted. Either the way you have, or that players will take longer to sign up to the next round robin because they have more games to play in the current tournament ie DRR 8 games, SRR 7 players 6 games each.
The concept that I had envisaged is that for the higher rated divisions, at least, they would all change over to 5 players. I am not sure if there is a particular issue in the lower rating divisions, but if the same issue exists there, then they could change as well.
I was not considering in my original concept that only one, either standard or rapid, would stay at 7 players and the other as 5 players.
Garvin Gray (2011-12-15 18:10:53)
5 player double round robins
Thib, are you saying that you are considering creating a whole new third category of chess tournaments?
We currently have standard and rapid, all seven player tournaments. Are you proposing that we have a third category, which are five player double round robins?
If you are proposing a whole new third category, then I am not in favour of this idea. We are having enough issues filling the tournaments we already have, I think adding a whole new set of tournaments will just make this situation worse, where players are sprinkled around the three events, but not enough join one particular one to get any of them started.
We have enough players on this site that tournaments should be able to start. So it is not like we are completely short of players in certain categories.
Don Groves (2011-12-16 05:24:46)
5 player double round robins
We are short of players in some categories, such as the Go Dan tournaments. It might be a good place to experiment with the double round robin idea.
Garvin Gray (2011-12-16 12:06:21)
5 player double round robins
I think it could be trialled in one of the two sections we have atm. So all divisions in either standard or rapid moves to 5 player double round robin.
Could give some useful information.
Btw, changing the SM tourneys does nothing for me at this stage, which was one part of the reason for suggesting this change. It would also have to apply to the M class tournaments too.
Daniel Parmet (2011-12-17 00:29:00)
From Gambit Thematic Tournament
I would love a From with d6 but if f6 bloody well forget it.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-18 19:04:45)
From Gambit Thematic Tournament
There will be one soon for sure :)
Garvin Gray (2011-12-21 03:20:56)
5 player double round robins
Oh btw, my standard group m tournament could have started if it was a 5 player drr ;) :P
instead of having to try and drum up two more opponents :)
Stephane Legrand (2011-12-21 10:27:59)
5 player double round robins
Of course it is a good idea adding tournaments reduced to 5 players and offered as a double round robin!
Effectively, it would slow down even more the other tournaments... but because it is actually a better solution!
Garvin Gray (2011-12-21 16:51:54)
5 player double round robins
DRR's are especially important in the thematic tournaments where sometimes the thematic is not a good one and one side gains a guaranteed advantage.
The current thematic of f4 e5 fxe5 f6 could be a good case in point.
Don Groves (2011-12-22 06:57:24)
5 player double round robins
I second Stephane's comment. If all tournaments were 5 person DRRs, tournaments would begin sooner and very likely more games would played on the site. It also eliminates any perceived white/black advantage or disadvantage.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-22 18:47:03)
5 player double round robins
I agree that more regular games would be played on the site (on the white/black advantage also), but wouldn't it mean less players in the championship cycles?
It would be somewhat more difficult to control the number of total running games and IMO it's less fun also but anyway I'm ready to consider a change for the whole tournaments structure (for chess & maybe Go) if most players think it's a good idea, I'll send an email to all players about that (and other things) very soon.
Garvin Gray (2011-12-23 00:24:35)
5 player double round robins
Thib, the proposal is only talking about the general standard/rapid and other all entry tournaments (thematic for instance).
My proposal is not about changing tournaments like the ficgs world champs to 5 player drr's as they have no issues with getting players to join.
Alexis Duenas (2011-12-24 03:00:03)
money prize tournaments
by paying 30 euros entry fee a tournament should be created with 11 players and 2 prizes,ficgs could take a % and earn money
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-24 17:42:57)
money prize tournaments
Hello Alexis,
Yes, it would be very easy to create such tournaments. We had no players with Epoints enough a few years ago for this. Maybe it is time now.
Who would enter such a waiting list among these possibilities?
1. Rated 7 players single round robin tournament, no rating range, 20 epoints entry fee
2. Unrated 7 players single round robin tournament, no rating range, 20 epoints entry fee
3. Rated 5 players double round robin tournament, no rating range, 30 epoints entry fee
4. Unrated 5 players double round robin tournament, no rating range, 30 epoints entry fee
Both rated & unrated options have inconvenients IMO... Any better idea? The prize would be about 96 to 100% entry fees.
(by the way, this may partly solve the problem of the other discussion about double round robin tournaments)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-24 18:29:54)
From Gambit Thematic Tournament
Okay, I just changed the From gambit line for the next thematic. Now it is with d6 !!
Daniel Parmet (2011-12-24 19:33:09)
From Gambit Thematic Tournament
awesome! Thanks!
Garvin Gray (2011-12-25 02:20:10)
From Gambit Thematic Tournament
And have entered this one too
Garvin Gray (2011-12-25 15:42:00)
Achieving playing norms
I have just started playing in tournaments on here that are able to earn norms and looking at the score for getting a norm, they seem rather high.
For getting a FEM norm, with a field of 2200+, the score is 4.5/6. Considering how many games are actually won between players over 2200, achieving a score of 4.5/6 seems very difficult indeed, unless someone forfeits all their games, or some games are somehow otherwise affected.
I am wondering, do others think that score is too high and 4/6 might be more realistic for one norm.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-26 15:14:54)
Achieving playing norms
I did not invent the process, that's just unlucky for this tourney... In another tournament with a slightly higher rating average, it will be easier...
Scott Nichols (2011-12-28 21:21:04)
5 player double round robins
Another idea which I brought up a while back is to replace the unpopular Rapid_Silver 2-man with a Rapid_Silver tournament. There would be an entry fee, say 10 E-points, with the prize money going to the winner or the top 2. It would be unrated, only need e-points to join. No rating restrictions. Players like me and Ruben and others would jump right in. It would give lower rated a chance to play the top guns. I bet a lot of them would go for it, even if it cost them some money, it could be considered like a "lesson". Plus, I'm sure the top players would go for it also, easy money! You could make it from 5 up to 11 players.
Scott Nichols (2011-12-28 22:48:20)
5 player double round robins
I do think it would, at least in part solve the main problem, nothing is 100% as we are finding out on that forum tournament. I think these days, seriously, if you put 10 Chessplayers in a room, you would have 9 different opinions. Maybe we could have a test to see if any of these ideas work. We need more input... If these ideas don't work, it's no big deal. This is still the best site out there IMHO, :)
Garvin Gray (2011-12-29 10:30:09)
WBCCC 2012 Binding Poll:
Over at www.rybkaforum.net, World Blitz Correspondence Chess Championship begins in a couple of weeks.
There is now a poll out at http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=23854 which is to decide how many rounds will be played (10 or 12) and also when round times will be announced (start of tournament or near end of a round).
For those players who are thinking of entering, played last year or are interested and knowledgeable spectators, you can vote as per the instructions below.
The four options are:
1) 10 games, 30 days initial time plus 1 hr increment AND all scheduled round times are confirmed before the start of the tournament
2) 10 games, 30 days initial time plus 1 hr increment AND all scheduled round times are confirmed a few days before the end of a round
3) 12 games, 30 days initial time plus 1 hr increment AND all scheduled round times are confirmed before the start of the tournament
4) 12 games, 30 days initial time plus 1 hr increment AND all scheduled round times are confirmed a few days before the end of a round
As this preferential poll covers both options and will be binding, as in the final vote will be what format we will be using for WBCCC 2012, I am going to ask all voters to write in their votes.
As a write in system is be used, everyone has the option of choosing only one option if they want, or can allocate as many preferences as they want, up to 4 numbers in total.
So if a person only wants to vote for one number and does not want to allocate a preference, that is acceptable.
The reason for using write-in votes is three-fold:
1) All twenty four different options are evenly allocated
2) A voter can choose to allocate only one preference
3) It gives me the opportunity to see if all votes are genuine, rather than possibly the results being skewed by people who have no interest in playing in the tournament.
If a person does not feel comfortable posting their vote in public, but does want to record a vote, they can send me a private message, which will be counted in the total votes.
Voting will close Thursday January 5.
Garvin Gray (2011-12-29 15:56:04)
money prize tournaments
My vote is 3,1,4,2
Garvin Gray (2011-12-29 16:11:44)
Different tournament format
Thibault has touched on an issue that I have thought about for a while, so time for a new thread.
Regularly it is discussed about the issues regarding the rating bands, getting to play different players and all sundry similiar issues.
In my opinion I think what this site really needs is more events run under the correspondence style format (not freestyle cup style), where players of significantly different ratings are playing against each other.
Here is what I envisage:
Qualification Stage:
All players of all ratings enter. Groups are divided up similar to Ficgs, except that no players are segregated, so the highest rated player is in Group A, second highest rated player in Group B and so forth.
Even numbers in each group, with a maximum of nine players in a group. There are no substitutes after a group begins.
There are no special groups for the highest rated players or knockout matches. (this is most important to distinguish this event from the WCH)
Final Stage(s):
The winners of each qualification group advance to the final stages, everyone else is eliminated. If there is a tie for first, then all tied players advance. If only one group is required, then this is the final.
If two groups are required, then it would be semi finals and normal round robin pairings would be used and the cycle repeats to get a final group of .... players.
To encourage the highest rated players to enter and to give everyone else a chance to win something substantial, e point entry fee would be 10 epoints.
Scott Nichols (2011-12-29 16:37:53)
money prize tournaments
I also vote 3,1,4,2
Don Groves (2011-12-30 02:36:43)
money prize tournaments
I would enter either 1 or 3.
Sebastian Boehme (2011-12-30 03:01:59)
money prize tournaments
Yes I also think, if such tournaments are held then they should be rated in my opinion. So 1 or 3 ....if not then I prefer option 4 to option 2
Cheers,
Sebi
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-30 20:27:13)
Different tournament format
Well, let's see if the rated double round-robin tournament with entry fee works well, it will be a good start to discuss it.
I think this is a very good idea in theory, but it is quite hard to predict how many non-titled players (who would pay an entry fee) and how many titled players (invited or paying an entry fee as well) would play...
Maybe I can create a waiting list later and see how it goes, without the guarantee that the tournament can really start.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-30 20:28:59)
money prize tournaments
Thanks for your answers :)
I think we'll try option 3 very soon....
Garvin Gray (2011-12-31 12:22:16)
Different tournament format
I think if it is advertised, then it needs to run. If it is not a success after a couple of tries, it can be not be held again.
If there is a proviso that it might not be run, then that makes it so much harder to get people to commit.
Alvin Alcala (2012-01-01 01:25:49)
money prize tournaments
I go for 3 ;)
Don Groves (2012-01-02 00:12:02)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts
The rules allow a player who has entered a tournament to play in that tournament even if his/her rating drops below the minimum due to losing one or more games before the tournament begins. I agree that this is a good rule. However, if a player loses many games and drops more than 150 ELO (for example), maybe this rule should no longer apply to that player and he/her would be removed from that waiting list. This might prevent the situation described above.
Garvin Gray (2012-01-02 02:05:43)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts
I do not agree at all. I think there needs to be consequences for a person's actions, not just let off with no consequences, perhaps even get an advantage.
If there are mass time-outs, their rating should be returned to where it was (that is their correct playing standard), which means they can not enter the lower waiting list.
The idea that losing on time is part of the game only applies if the game was about 100 moves long and the game was short of time and someone used too much time on one or more moves.
But mass timing out of games is not a general part of the game at all. It is poor form and disrespectful to the site and the other opponents in the tournament and should be punished as such.
If they remain on the same rating, then they should certainly not be allowed to play in the event where they previously entered.
If a player has a legitimate reason for timing out so many games, they can take it up with the site administrator. That option always exists.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-02 14:08:37)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts
Statistically playing 1 game in a tournament against an underrated player is not so much while losing 200 or 300 pts means a lot... And once again, quite often underrated players because of a mass forfeit will forfeit again! There are well known examples (very strong players rated 1900-2000) here. IMO it's the only way to prevent mass time outs!
I played at IECG and I was very disappointed to see games with an advantage simply cancelled after 30 moves or so, because of a time loss or just "forfeit". That is a non-sense to me. Rated games have to be rated!
So you suggest to simply punish players by not allowing them to play tournaments anymore (during 1 year or so)!? On the other hand, if players do not lose rating points what to do if a player has recurrent problems and has to resign his games once every year. Then many ratings will be hustled.
At last what will be a legitimate reason? It is so... so complex.
Don Groves (2012-01-03 07:29:49)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts
Thib wrote: "So you suggest to simply punish players by not allowing them to play tournaments anymore (during 1 year or so)!?"
Who suggested this? Certainly not me!
Garvin Gray (2012-01-03 15:12:04)
Different tournament format
I am surprised Daniel Parmet has not replied to this topic considering my proposal should be much more acceptable to him than the current ficgs world championship design/format.
Where are you Daniel?
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-10 23:07:31)
Ratings UpDates
Correspondence chess ratings (that are taken in account when a new tournament starts) do not change after every game, but yes you can see your provisional "future rating" as George says.
It is different for Go to allow strong players to climb faster the enormous ladder (2500 points for Go at most). For Poker the difference is less obvious but the game is less serious than chess and it is quite exciting to see this rating list evolving each day :) At the end I wouldn't change anything now.
George Clement (2012-01-12 17:59:39)
money prize tournaments
Heck, I'll go for 3,1
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-12 21:04:58)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
Finally, this discussion to replace the two following discussions that ended on about the same conclusion and to have opinions on this new chess tournament : CHESS STANDARD OPEN (rated double round robin for 5 players, with entry fee 30 epoints & prize 145 epoints, no elo restriction)
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=10165
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=10127
Garvin Gray (2012-01-18 16:52:39)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
And to add, I really am disappointed about the general direction this whole discussion has taken.
It was not my intention to create a tournament of this style when I asked for double round robin. It was my intention to get one of the standard or rapid's to change over to Double round robin, which has not occurred.
I am really starting to get the feeling that this site is starting to move away from the free part and is moving towards a paid site.
More and more tournaments are having entry fees attached to them, which is fine, but then if that is case then the free part of FICGS should be dropped.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-18 17:03:41)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
Well, I really don't mind if the entry fee is 10 or 30 euro... it could be even free, but would it work? As we had silver & gold games, I just tried to find something between (and it had to be of interest for strong players to play lower rated ones).
The path towards a paid site (as far as I know, much more Epoints are given than taken) will be very... very long :)
The reason for this tournament was mainly that you asked for such a tournament so that more games can start & more quickly, it is also a good experience before to make such drastic changes to modify a whole tournaments category. I'm still not sure it would be a good idea!
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-20 16:11:36)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
I meant 2400+ players, those who will surely lose elo points against you in this open tournament :) Epoints had to be a kind of compensation for those players (if they win btw), that was the idea. And 10 Epoints is really few for 8 standard games, meaning much efforts. Just my opinion of course...
Garvin Gray (2012-01-20 17:45:57)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
I do not think a few e points either way are going to make a difference to the 2400 players. What most likely matters to them is winning tournaments and titles.
So either way they were not going to enter these events.
Just to start stratching the record ;) my original idea was for these double round robins was for one of the divisions to be replaced with them, not to create a whole new division.
As it currently stands, I really do not see the point of this change as it feels like duplications of other areas of the site.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-21 15:26:16)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
I partly agree with you Garvin, but if only one of them is interested in money, it will make these open tournaments quite interesting. I'm still not sure which entry fee is best but it's worth a try with 30 Epoints IMO. By the way I don't think that these tournaments will start so often due to the time control. Let's wait and see.
About changing a whole division, I'm still not so favourable to this. Actually best would be to have 4 divisions (rapid DRR, rapid SRR, standard DRR & standard SRR but we have no players enough for this) but I'm not even sure if class DRR tournaments would be a good thing.
I prefered single round-robin from the start because it was the best way to prevent cheating, it is really hard to win points even with 3 or 4 accounts.
Still thinking about it anyway. (I know, it means delayed for a few months but I don't have a better idea right now :/)
Scott Nichols (2012-01-23 17:29:37)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
Another thought: With 30 E-points invested it makes you think before entering. The only reason is if it takes a while for the tournament to fill up, that 30 points could be tied up for a long time doing nothing.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-02 00:47:23)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
Well, finally the most seems to want a change of the entry fee & prize. I'm not sure if it's a good idea but let's do it...
For technical reasons the entry fee & prize for the 1st tournament will change too, the 5 players just got back 20 Epoints each.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-02 15:28:34)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
Why naive? Actually I saw many many cheaters on other servers before to run FICGS, that's why I preferred single round-robin tournaments and I hope that is the reason why cheaters are rare here!
Anyway the answer is yes, a few players had several account and as far as I know they realized very quickly that cheating would take them more time than becoming GM :)
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2012-02-04 12:16:56)
From Gambit Thematic Tournament
After the From gambit, what is next ?
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-04 14:54:47)
From Gambit Thematic Tournament
Let's go for the Lasa gambit (1.e4 e5 2.c3 f5) :) we'll try a more classical opening after that
Mario Andreoni (2012-02-07 13:53:02)
From Gambit Thematic Tournament
Thibault,
could a player start (or propose) new tournaments (especially thematic ones)? If so, how?
Sorry if I cause you to reply to these questions for the one-millionth time :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-07 14:51:01)
From Gambit Thematic Tournament
Hello Mario,
Sure, feel free to suggest new thematic tournaments in this discussion or by email, we always need good ideas :)
Garvin Gray (2012-03-19 12:54:51)
Slow tournament entries
George, I have said before that I think that the best time control on here is 30 days initial time plus 3 day increment.
Paul Campanella (2012-02-26 19:44:53)
New Player Ratings
I started at a 1600 rating. Personally, I find it completely UNACCEPTABLE that new players start at 1800 because it is a misrepresentation of their poker skills.
I started playing poker approximately a year ago on this site and I had to work exceptionally hard to make it into the top 20. As a past low ranked 1600 player... it was not easy to advance my elo to 1800+. It took considerable time and dicipline to hone my skills and get to the B-Level Tournaments. Playing those lower ranked players developed my skill because it taught me to expect the unexpected and learn all about odds and player styles.
Allow me to present some examples of players in relation to starting point and current rating:
A) I started out as a 1600 player... there were many people that were low ranked. As of now, the only 2 players that I recall advancing from a low rank to the top 20 are Paul Campanella (#16) and Dmitriy Panov (#17).
B) Slobodan Ilic (#6) and Trond Amile (#11) are both high rated good players but the reality is that it is much easier for people like them who entered in as 1800 elo to advance to the top compared to people who entered in at 1600 elo.
Now it seems that all new players get a "free ride" to the B-Class Tournaments and 200 elo points for doing absolutely nothing!
Starting at 1600 elo and advancing through the ranks is the true definition of skill. In order for players' ratings to accurately represent their skills, EVERYONE should start at 1600 and WORK their way up!
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-27 02:22:02)
Folding in Poker
Well, mathematically poker ratings below about 1900 mean something of a different nature (level of course but also the number of games played) than ratings over 1900 because it is much easier to win points below 2000 (see rules) and it was even easier before february 2011, so it would be much easier after the change asked by Scott. A player who starts at 1600 will need to play more games than a player who starts at 1800 to reach 2000, but not necessarily to make more efforts. In addition there are ways to manage ratings to enter certain waiting lists more quickly. Also, considering the slow inflation that exists the contrary of what you say is true in a certain measure as well, new players will have to play more games than you to reach the top, actually the whole thing is really complex.
But... anyway I'll try not to change the rules again/too many times to avoid such (logical) reactions and that's why I take time to think about this one again.
I think that this change would make the poker ratings more attractive but less realistic and accurate so...... any other opinions? :)
Also, new players DO NOT get a free ride to the B class tournaments, many still start with 1600 according to the level they pretend when registering. So the difference is not so much, actually it may help you to climb the scale faster if you can beat a 1800 player easily... Really complex as I said but anyway I think that ratings are more accurate when players can start at different levels, because more players in the different categories mean more games in each one (players will find their rating faster) and because everybody do not lie every time. Everybody will not agree with this but I have a certain experience with the chess ratings now and I'm quite certain that most changes were good ones, so probably for poker.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-27 14:29:11)
Folding in Poker
I'm not sure if a freestyle poker tournament would tell us better than ratings who is the best player, but it would be nice to have one soon anyway! I'll try to do this.
On the money/free poker issue, that's a very complex debate, in my opinion starting to play money poker is just like starting to play another game... But professional players play money poker just like we play free poker, the value of money evolves when playing.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-04 22:08:50)
FICGS poker ratings
Let's continue the debate that started in this discussion:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=10306
I'm still not sure of what is best but our top ranked poker player for a while (Nelson Bernal Varela) obviously participated to the discussion his way by resigning all his poker games to show us how much time it will take to regain his points.
His rating was about 2200, now 1924 and the date is march 4th, 2012.
As we're playing single round-robin tournaments only, the rating list was not so distorted but this is not at the advantage of class B players. Of course I do not encourage this behaviour in any way!
However, following the current rules on general forfeits I think that Nelson should continue his experiment so that we can learn from all this. In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess.
This would actually justify - in my point of view (maybe Nelson's one too but I'm still not sure of what he's thinking about that) - the current poker rating system, so let's wait 1 month or 2 before to decide to make this change or not.
As a reminder, the initial proposal was: "should we change the poker rating rules so that we win or lose twice points after each game compared to now ?"
Paul Campanella (2012-03-05 00:11:09)
FICGS poker ratings
Correction, Scott... you shouldn't count your chickens before they hatch because the number one spot will actually be mine one day! :)
I entered my first poker tournament on February 14th, 2011. In barely over one year, I have managed to raise my poker elo from 1600 to 2071 ... an increase of 471 points in, what I consider to be, record-breaking time!
Here is my proof...
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__POKER_HOLDEM__TOURNAMENT_D__000036.html
Considering the current situation, I am curious to know if there is anyone else that has managed to increase and maintain their rating by 471 points in such a short amount of time?
Not only do I have a winning record against you of 60%-40%, I also have a 50%-50% record against Nelson, which is better than almost everyone else on FICGS.
Regarding the experiment, Nelson will have to get by me as well. Since I am one of the only people on this site that does not have a losing record against him... it's not going be an easy quest. :)
Garvin Gray (2012-03-04 23:47:06)
FICGS poker ratings
I am more alarmed than anything that a person's selfish actions, regardless of who they are, are not only tolerated, but are encouraged by statements like this:
However, following the current rules on general forfeits I think that Nelson should continue his experiment so that we can learn from all this. In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess.
His actions now affect many players, which includes denying a place to someone in a tournament that he otherwise should not be allowed to enter ie class B tournaments where by all reports he is too good for.
How about we all do this to see how the rating system goes? I find his actions appalling and he deserves to be banned.
If this was done in chess, would the response be the same? If so and someone did it and the same response was given, I would be looking for another site to play at.
I believe people who act like this deserve to have their rating re-set and then spend quite a lot of time on the sidelines. They should forfeit all their games, but not lose any rating points.
What does this site stand for, I think that is one of the main questions? I play poker on here for something to do in the middle of my chess games, even though I am not particularly interested.
My playing of poker will stop if it is treated with such contempt.
Paul Campanella (2012-03-05 20:37:13)
50+ Poker Games
Personally, I think that a person should be allowed to have more than 50 poker games running at once.
I think it's unfair for people to be banned from playing in new tournaments just because they have too many old games running due to the fact that some people take forever to make a move and others purposely will delay to make any more at all in a losing game.
What does everyone else think?
Paul Campanella (2012-03-06 17:13:22)
50+ Poker Games
Keeping games running so long is a detrement to everyone!
For example, it is unfair to be denied admission to a new poker tournament just because a player has over 50 games running, when some of those games started over a year ago and people take forever to make moves or purposely delay moving in certain games due to the fear of losing rating points.
I have a fair proposal that I would like to make...
"If the poker game(s) started over one calendar year ago, then it should not count toward the 50 game limit".
Does anyone agree or disagree? Or perhaps someone has a better suggestion about the time frame? I am curious to know what people think about this.
Don Groves (2012-03-07 05:51:00)
50+ Poker Games
That's a good rule but I'd rather see games over one year old adjudicated with the leader declared the winner. This applies also to Chess. It is incomprehensible to me why one game should take that long.
Another good rule would be to prohibit very slow players from entering more than a certain small number of tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-11 13:25:46)
Riccio & Evans win Infinity freestyle
Eros Riccio & David Evans win the 1st Infinity chess freestyle tournament 2012!
Congrats guys, you win every tournament :)
http://scacchi.ilcannocchiale.it/2012/03/10/1st_freestyle_chess_tournament.html
More details on this tournament?
George Clement (2012-03-14 16:11:57)
Slow tournament entries
It sure looks like the tournament entries are going down in almost all classes.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-14 22:28:13)
Slow tournament entries
That's right & I'm working on... Let's see the next month.
Garvin Gray (2012-03-18 10:50:34)
Slow tournament entries
WBCCC and infinitychess have had competitions starting in the last couple of months, so from previous comments on here some players have reduced their playing load to accommodate playing in those competitions.
Also the after Xmas period is usually quieter.
George Clement (2012-03-18 16:16:34)
Slow tournament entries
I think part of the problem is the slow play on the standard tours. Why not cut the increment time from 40 days to 20 days? That would greatly increase the speed of the tour.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-18 17:30:29)
Slow tournament entries
Rapid tournaments are fast enough... anyway I'm working on another solution, please be patient!
George Clement (2012-03-19 17:52:20)
Slow tournament entries
Garvin, are you saying 3 days for each move?
George Clement (2012-03-19 17:53:40)
Slow tournament entries
@Thibault, ok I'll be patient! Can't do anything else anyway, You do good work!
Scott Nichols (2012-03-20 17:39:19)
Slow tournament entries
3 days increment! It would be more fun to watch paint dry or grass grow. Some players, and we all know there are plenty of them out there, could keep a totally lost endgame going for over a year, just out of spite.
Which brings up another subject that would help immensely to speed up games without hurting quality.Install the 6-man tablebases on here, or at least let a player claim a win, draw etc when 6-man is reached. In this age of computer chess, if you have the equipment to even sign on to ficgs, you have the ability to go to a tablebase site and see the result. Plus, even the oldest computers, (like mine, :), can find the mate in under a minute in 6-man positions. So for someone to be able to drag the game out just for spite, for me, is a reason not to sign up in the first place.
George Clement (2012-03-21 00:48:39)
Slow tournament entries
I totally have to agree. When you have people that are dragging games out just becuase they have time left but it is a clear draw, win or loss; 6 man tb's should be able to handle it.
Garvin Gray (2012-03-21 12:55:15)
Slow tournament entries
Regarding 6 man tb's. This has already been discussed before.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-21 14:15:34)
Slow tournament entries
Yes, the main reason is that not all players use engines and certain want to end games that way (it may be instructive to play some 6 man, even 4 man endgames).
Also if this is a way to last a game, it is quite easy to last it before to reach such endgame. So it will not change things much.
Scott Nichols (2012-03-21 15:05:51)
Slow tournament entries
Yes, and I thought later in the cases I pointed out, there is always the "call the referee" option.
Michael Rogers (2012-03-21 21:57:53)
Slow tournament entries
A player's games on ICCF and SchemingMind can be accessed directly from the Chessbase interface. Has FICGS considered installing this feature? Also, would an "Open" tournament, allowing all ratings, help?
Garvin Gray (2012-03-23 11:16:48)
Slow tournament entries
SN: Call the referee option is probably the best compromise, partly for the reasons Thib mentions.
SN: On the issue of 3 days per move increment, I think this is better than 10 moves in 40 days cause at least it keeps the games moving along.
I do think 10 moves in 40 days is wayyy too long a time control on here and as already mentioned 10 moves in 20 days might be better.
Is it possible to have a combined time control of say 10 moves in 30 days repeating, followed by 3 days per move from move 61 (or 41)?
Costantino Proietti (2012-03-24 09:03:40)
Slow tournament entries
I suggest to limit the vacation period to 30 days in a year with a maximum of two vacations in a month.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-24 20:42:07)
Slow tournament entries
@Michael: there is now an open tournament but epoints are needed.
About a way to play games directly from Chessbase, this is unlikely to happen, it has been discussed before.
Finally the main problem at the moment is that we have no new players enough but... I'm working on!
Don Groves (2012-04-03 14:16:41)
Go Dan tournaments
It seems time to make 2000 the cutoff point for Dan tournaments. Otherwise all 7 Dan level players must sign up to have the next group. This is an unlikely occurrence.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-04 13:10:43)
Go Dan tournaments
There is another way... Give me a few more days/weeks!
Don Groves (2012-04-05 03:54:15)
Go Dan tournaments
OK.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-11 05:08:52)
poker tournaments
I was wondering, to decide placings in tournaments on here, are tie breaks used?
Would seem obvious to use the game score to split ties, as everyone is playing best of 5.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-12 14:25:46)
poker tournaments
I'm not sure... a game is a game, a round is a round, a hand is a hand (the following justifies :)) if we consider that winning 2-0 (rounds) or 3-2 is a question of luck more than the result of the full game itself (like a hand is a question of luck more than the result of a full round), the tie break would be matter of chance more than e.g. the TER that is the result of many games.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-18 17:53:19)
Slow tournament entries
To add to this, I think another reason for STE is that the first entrant shown in a 2300+ event is a player rated 2100.
Surely that can not help to attract players over 2300 or higher.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-18 18:08:24)
Slow tournament entries
That's right. It is a fact that the current rules allow (in extreme cases) that all players in a waiting list be below the low rating range.
To partly avoid that, the tickets may be used to finish to fill a waiting list only (e.g. when 4 players at least entered it already)... It's just a trick of course.
But it would be unfair IMHO to retire players who lost elo points from waiting lists, so it does not completely solve the problem.
George Clement (2012-04-18 18:35:14)
Slow tournament entries
Only 2 entries in over a month in current standard M. Their are quite a few tours that have only 1 or 2 games to go that are right at the 1 year mark and mostly the same players holding up the finish.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-18 18:40:04)
Slow tournament entries
I think the standard time control is wayyy too long and unnecessary. 10 moves in 20 days would seem more appropriate.
Michael Rogers (2012-04-18 20:10:17)
Slow tournament entries
I would like to see optional faster time controls as George C. suggested. At GameKnot ( no engine use ) their monthly tournaments attract over 2000 players and the time is only 2 days per move, increasing to 3 days in the final. I suspect that many players here lose interest in a game when there are several weaks between moves.
Don Groves (2012-04-19 01:38:09)
Slow tournament entries
@ Michael: You got that right! Not only losing interest but also losing track of what your plan was after weeks of waiting for your opponent to move.
I agree with Garvin that our standard time controls are too long. Another problem is that some players have so many games running simultaneously that they can't keep up. I've noticed two different kinds of these players:
(1) Some players will ignore their new games until they've finished older ones. Thus they don't move at all in new games until they are forced to by the clock.
(2) Others will ignore their older games to play the new ones (openings are fun) and return to the older games only when their clock demands it.
In either case, this kind of behavior is what leads to games lasting 6 months to a year in some cases.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-19 15:16:13)
Slow tournament entries
We must no forget IMHO that playing correspondence chess here has absolutely nothing to do with playing chess at Gameknot...
Playing with one's real name is really not the same as playing with a casual name, the involvement is different. The rapid time control is really hard enough IMHO when analyzing 10+ games seriously. Time controls at ICCF are longer than our standard's one as far as I remember. Times have changed though, engines as well but not everyone can play 1 move in each game a day.
FICGS will never compete with Gameknot in the number of players or games played, but the quality of chess games may be higher in average.
Let's not try to fix a problem too quickly by creating another one. The main problem right now is that no games enough are starting each month, I'm working on!
If once this problem is fixed you still think that standard time control is too long then we can debate it and envisage a change of the time control or to create a new tournaments category.
Ramil Germanes (2012-04-20 05:19:16)
Slow tournament entries
In my almost two years of playing here in FICGS, I have observed one major factor why tournament entries are going down.
For me, it's because of the large difference of the rating brackets in a certain tournament class.
For example, in a standard class M tourney (2200-2400), if I have a rating of 2300-2399, I will not play because possibly almost all of my opponents there will be around 2200+ and the thing is it's very hard to win against these players now and I may lose rating points even if I draw with them.
But by decreasing the difference in the rating brackets, let's say 2300-2400 or even 2300-2350 for example of a certain tournament class, will encourage me to play in these tournaments because the possibility of losing rating points by drawing is minimal.
With these new bracketing, it will also give us an easier way to climb the rating ladder thus encouraging us to play more games!
Garvin Gray (2012-04-20 15:24:51)
Slow tournament entries
Thib: I do apologise in advance if this reply is regarded as too strong, it is not meant to offend, but could be taken by yourself or someone else as too strong.
In my opinion, creating ANOTHER division is possibly the worst decision that could be made. Leaving the time control as is would be a better decision.
We have three divisions classical rating sections, plus an advanced rating list and multiple thematic, unrated, epoint and other options.
I think adding another division would just spread things out wayyy too far.
It is not like we have an over abundance of players and need to offer more options to satisfy a wide market.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-20 15:28:37)
Slow tournament entries
Ramil:
When I first came across this site, the rating bands used to be 400 points, and then after a lot of negotiation, debates and cross topics, it was changed to 200, with the even numbers (2400, 2200, 2000) in the standard category, and (2300, 2100, 19000 in the rapid category.
While I understand your point that perhaps these should be changed to 100 point bands as this is what I think the market is trying to say, I think it is an issue of total number of players.
If we had many more players, then each category would fill quicker. Your point is certainly worth discussing and I would not be upset to see it work in practice, but we have had quite a few changes, and another change might just be a bit much for Thibault to consider at this stage.
I could be wrong though ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-20 16:42:44)
Slow tournament entries
Garvin, I agree of course... I said that in the case it would be possible and reasonable only... we're far from it :)
Anyway, no need to envisage such changes right now, we'll discuss it when we have players enough...
Ramil Germanes (2012-04-21 00:49:35)
Slow tournament entries
Garvin and Thib:
The way I see it, the problem is not how many registered players here in ficgs but how many wants to play.
Look at the case of the ficgs world championship. why there so many wanted to play? the waiting list fills up quickly. because they know that there is more to gain than to lose in the championship.
Not like in a tournament that higher rated players tend to refrain in joining due to possible loss of rating points with very little to gain.
Also even if more players registered here, but if they waited very long for others to fill the waiting list then they might lose interest and might not play or even come back again. (This is also what I felt before when I first join here.) And we also see many players in the rating list without games played and not connected here for a long time. Maybe this is the reason why.
Anyway these are just my observations and not pushing Thib to change the way I see it.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-21 01:30:16)
Slow tournament entries
Well, about the WCH that's quite hard to say, maybe the last rules changes (in this way but everyone may not agree) helped to have more participants but actually I'm not sure at all. But it is clear that those WCH games take a lot of time to all players, so less registrations for other tournaments...
But you're probably right about the time to fill waiting lists... so more players would help anyway. It is true also that many registered players do not actually play, any idea to motivate them is welcome :)
Thanks Ramil for sharing your views!
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-21 01:34:43)
Slow tournament entries
Well my reason for not playing at FICGS (despite the fact it is the best site out there!) has been that I can't play the stronger opponents. The rating restrictions have forced me to ONLY play unrated events here or seek other places to play.
However, other than ICCF which costs money there are no other places to play strong players. I just had the most horrendous chess experience of all time at LSS. So my conclusion is that I have probably reached the end of my correspondence career altogether save the ocassional unrated ficgs game if I notice a strong cue up in one of them. I certainly won't be playing my rating class ever again.
The problem IS NOT the time control. The time control here is lovely. I am curious what Thib's solution might be.
Ramil Germanes (2012-04-21 01:42:02)
Slow tournament entries
Another thing:
Why only tournaments?
Why no option for only one or two games where you can challenge a player of your choice directly in a longer time control? (what we have now is we have no control of who our opponent is, as long as the fee is met anyone can challenge anyone, but that is not attractive to higher rated players. see it's mostly about rating points!)
Often newly registered players don't easily see how to play correspondence chess here (many asks in the chat bar how to play) because they are expecting they can play a game instantly but here you have to wait for the waiting list to be filled for the tourney to start and that may take weeks or even months. And that's kind of turn-off to them even for me before.
Ramil Germanes (2012-04-21 01:44:52)
Slow tournament entries
In this way you can play a game to the players at your rating level and that's more exciting!
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-21 01:48:03)
Slow tournament entries
FICGS strengths:
Free
Well Managed
Friendly
Well Programed
Easy to Navigate
User friendly
Great rules
Great vacation settings
Great Time controls
Great variants / choices
Problems:
Lack of players
Lack of ability to play stronger players.
For all the awesome things here.... the one weakness makes it hard to continue to find people to play.
Ramil Germanes (2012-04-21 02:01:43)
Slow tournament entries
Daniel:
If we have the option to challenge a player of our choice then your second problem is solved.
Your first problem is partly due to negative reactions of players here due to not able to play stronger players but if that is met we all be satisfied and might give good overall reactions about ficgs which might help to attract more players in the long run.
The more important part is the current players here must be satisfied for the site to attract more players.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-21 02:21:24)
Slow tournament entries
"Why only tournaments?" : Because rated 2 players matches may lead to easy cheating (silver/gold ones makes it possible). I'm not sure if unrated 2 players matches would be interesting...
About Daniel's main reason for not playing anymore at FICGS, I'm working on and I'll let everyone know when it's solved!
Ramil Germanes (2012-04-21 02:34:13)
Slow tournament entries
ok thib good luck!
hoping for a better ficgs
Garvin Gray (2012-04-21 09:27:58)
Slow tournament entries
I have proposed previously that a new tournament should be created for all players, similar to the current ficgs world champs, except that ALL players need to start from round one. No knockout series, or separate m groups.
All players of all ratings start from round one.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-21 15:47:02)
Slow tournament entries
Yep, that would solve the problem Garvin. That is the problem with the WC cycle event.
George Clement (2012-04-21 16:39:58)
Slow tournament entries
That would indeed be an interesting tournament to play in.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-21 16:42:15)
Slow tournament entries
I am a fan of the ficgs wch and I think it has many positives. One negative I am starting to notice is that since I am now above 2200, I am getting exactly the same opponents (give or take one or two) who I play in the normal tournaments.
So the groups start to blend into one and it can be difficult to remember if I am playing a wch game, or a normal game, against the same opponent.
I think it would be an interesting exercise to see if the same person can win both events.
The ficgs wch could be held twice a year, and this idea could be held in the other quarter of the year (twice a year also).
Then after some time, see which format gets the most entries and positive reviews.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-21 16:48:24)
LSS is the worst Corr server
I previously erroneously had this as a sidebar chat.
I will post the story here.
I had 22 games running on LSS. All of a sudden a game disappeared. I checked and found the administrator had decided to resign for me in a game where I had a cleanly winning position and 43 days on my clock. I contacted the administrator politely to inquire why he had done this. He answered rudely explaining that he did not care about my problem. After his uncalled for rudeness, I explained to him I was no longer interested in playing further games on this "joke of a server" so please remove me from a tournament that was about to start. He responded with pure insults and a memberships suspension but *did not* remove me from that tournament. When the new tournament started, I explained to him again that he was supposed to have removed me. I was only interested in finishing my current games out of respect for my opponents. The administrator then went and forfeited all currently running 19 games and placed a ban on me playing there again until 2013. I told him that was disrespectful not just to me but to my opponents as well. He then deleted my account entirely (which doesn't bother me as I would have asked for this after my 19 games finished). There you have it... Ortwin Paetzold - the bat shit crazy administrator.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-21 16:49:34)
Slow tournament entries
I won't play in the ficgs wch because I am the top seed and this is disgusting to me. Not only does it mean I won't get strong players, it also means I will lose massive ratings points which will in the future ALSO prevent me from playing strong players. Two awful effects!
Scott Nichols (2012-04-21 17:34:46)
LSS is the worst Corr server
I have decided to quit offering my opinion here, but this one I will answer. I was very surprised by this, as I have many games on LSS and have had some limited dealings with Dr. Paetzold and they have always been prompt and courteous. LSS offers a wide variety of tournaments including my favorite, 10 days with 1 day per move increment. This is much more my style, I have tried too many times to get something like that here, but to avail. I have just renewed my membership for five years on LSS. The only thing I'm sorry about Daniel is that we had a recent draw on there, but if I had waited a little longer, obviously I would have got the full point.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-21 18:05:09)
Slow tournament entries
The FICGS WCH is held every 8 months, so about twice a year. I'm still not opposed at all to organize a "CUP" event but it would take many rounds as well and I'm afraid it kills regular tournaments, so we probably need more players for this.
@Daniel: your current rating is 2080, I cannot believe that it is not possible for you to win points in CLASS A... If you win one (or reach 2150) you could enter a CLASS M with 10 Epoints, seems far from impossible.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-21 19:04:37)
Slow tournament entries
Thib: The FICGS WCH is held every 8 months, so about twice a year. I'm still not opposed at all to organize a "CUP" event but it would take many rounds as well and I'm afraid it kills regular tournaments, so we probably need more players for this.
Garvin: I understand what you are saying, but currently numbers for each of the divisions are small and taking a long time to fill, if at all.
The 'cup' could even attract a few new players, or at least drag a few inactive players out of the woodwork.
I understand your point about the number of rounds. I think this could be alleviated by having nine or eleven players per group.
One of the biggest issue, which feels like it is starting to plague the ficgs wch, is a draw rate of about 95 percent.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-21 19:35:42)
Slow tournament entries
I agree about the draw rate... unfortunately there's no solution there :-/
On the cup format, you may be right after all. I'll have to think about it again, if a CUP cycle starts 4 months after each WCH (between 2 WCH cycles), with 2 rounds of 11 or 13 players tournaments (rapid time control, only 1 qualified for next round), this would be ok for 121 to 169 players, but it is a lot of rapid games (as for me I couldn't play it) and we may have less players for the next WCH... Anyway, thinking about it, it will be worth to open another discussion.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-22 06:47:38)
Slow tournament entries
yes the draw rate. Realize if I enter a section as you suggest. I played 5 1900s. And I must score 5 to maintain my rating and 5.5 or 6 to gain points. This is difficult to do against anyone... Such rating bands are preposterous and only lead to a constant shedding of points as often 4 is enough to win a tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-22 15:03:40)
Slow tournament entries
Sure but I don't get it, all players in next class A (or previous one) are over 2000 !?
Peter W. Anderson (2012-04-22 15:39:16)
Slow tournament entries
Let me start by saying that I really like this place. The software is reliable, the interface is clean and people are generally polite. Thank you Thibault.
I don't buy Daniel's argument about the bandings. It is quite possible to score 5 or 5.5 in a class A, and it is quite possible to move swiftly through class A.
I am trying to move through Class M. I may or may not suceed. If I don't, I won't be complaining about not being able to play stronger players, I will blame myself for not playing better.
My only concern is what happens if I do manage to reach 2300. The rapid time control suits me (I am retired) and I would not have the patience for the slower time control. As far as I can see no-one over 2300 enters rapids. So I might end up having nobody to play apart from in WCH.
There are two solutions that I can see. One is to adopt Garvin's mixed ability group suggestion; this could be in addition to the existing banded tournaments.
The other is simply to get more members, so that there are more people willing to play in a particular category. I for one will try to do my bit to recruit some people onto here.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-22 17:08:16)
Slow tournament entries
It is my fault that I don't get to play stronger players? Interesting... logically impossible but I'm curious how you drew such a wrong conclusion.
Of course, whether or not you accept my argument is irrelevant because my argument is why I don't play. It is why others don't play. It is also why many don't sign up. I showed my roommate this site when he wanted to start corr chess and he saw he would be forced to play weak players for years before he'd get ONE decent game. He decided to join chess.com instead.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-22 18:49:49)
Answer from Ortwin
Well, here is the answer from Dr. Ortwin Paetzold (LSS/IECG) that he asked me to post here. I'm glad to do it of course so that we can hear from both sides and make our own opinion with:
>>>>>>>>>>
Daniel Parmet is twisting the reality a bit. I take the right to quote my full answers, however as I do not have the permission to do so, I will not post the notes from Daniel to me, unless he quoted it here himself already.
Fact 1 is that Daniel has not read the rules of LSS or forgot about them. There is a function in LSS which lets the webmaster check this esp. in case of rule questions. Therefore he might not have known about the rule, however, when registering on LSS each player is asked to study the rules and to play according to them. I am sure, the same holds for FICGS and any other server.
Fact 2 is that on 4th April Daniel Parmet has lost a game on time by violating the 30-days-rule. The server automatically stopped the game and awarded the point to the opponent, independent from the position. The server also imposed the two week suspension to start a new tournament. The 30-days-rule was installed at IECG more than 10 years ago and I had included it into LSS right from the beginning. Daniel Parmet asked politely why the admin has cancelled his game (which I had not).
Fact 3 is that in my answer about the query why the game was finished, I have answered with reference to the rules:
“Your game was forfeited, because you did not move for 30 days. This is the maximum number of days to be used per individual move, independent of the total amount of time you have left. See the Rules and Usage Section under "Violation of Time Control". This is also the reason of your two-week-suspension. “
In his response Daniel Parmet called the LSS “a joke of a site”.
Fact 4 is that I answered to this insultation:
“Well, it is not my fault that you have not read the rules during the past five years you have played here! To be honest, this is impressing!”
I do not think this is more rude than insulting me/LSS because one has made a mistake!
Fact 5 is that I did not remove him from the waiting list of the LSS Anniversary 2012 as requested, because I thought that – once Daniel thinks reasonably about the case – he might want to continue, esp. as he wanted to continue all other games. Furthermore LSS has a feature where each player can remove himself from the waitinglist of this tournament. This all happened on 5th April! I then forgot about the matter.
Fact 6 is that on 19th April the LSS Anniverary groups were created including Daniel Parmet to one of the groups. As he was no longer suspended that time I missed that he still was on the waitinglist. I would otherwise have tried to get a replacement, which I did in other cases . When he claimed not to play in the anniversary on 20th April, I decided to remove him from all tournaments he was playing. As the tournaments were in an early stage (start date 15th Feb, Parmet finished only 3/10 and 1/12 games in them), I believe it makes less impact to withdraw a player then letting him influence the outcome, esp. as e.g. he would not use a potential qualification to the LSS WC Semi-Final or the Consolation Finals. I commented that action with the following message:
‘I have withdrawn you from this "joke of a site" (your own - wrong - words. It is not my fault that you have not read the rules!)
Thanks for playing here.’
The answer was unfriendly so I decided to cancel the membership permanently.
I would like to thank Thibault for the opportunity to express my view. I do not intend to comment anyfurther in this matter, as I think the two different versions are speaking for themselves.
George Clement (2012-04-22 19:19:23)
LSS Move Rule
" violating the 30-days-rule. The server automatically stopped the game and awarded the point to the opponent, independent from the position. The server also imposed the two week suspension to start a new tournament. The 30-days-rule was installed at IECG more than 10 years ago and I had included it into LSS right from the beginning."
I like the idea behind this rule on LSS, IMHO it would solve some of the slow entry problems by making players move faster, which is a big part of the entry problem. I think anyone can make a least 1 move in 10 days, using todays hardware/software and communications. What do you think fellow members? I have no problem with players using time off thier clock but why wait 30 days make 10 moves then wait another 30 days?
Peter W. Anderson (2012-04-22 21:27:28)
Slow tournament entries
That wasn't really my point, but as you rasie it, it is a combination of two factors that prevent you from playing stronger players outside of the WCH - the banding rules and your perfornmance. That is just fact.
My point was that it is possible to get good rating results against weaker players and it is practically possible to move up a category in months not years. Equally you should not fear playing in the WCH on the same basis. Win your group and then you will get plenty of strong opposition.
I accept that if someone is finding it hard to break through the top of one category then they will not get practice against much stronger players outside of the WCH. That is a disadvantage of the current banding rules, and might prove frustrating to some people.
However, the alternative has disadvantages. If you remove the banding you will end up playing not only stronger players but much weaker ones too.
Perhaps the best answer is to offer a mixture of both types of tournaments.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-24 15:01:32)
Ficgs World Cup
Following discussions about slow tournament entries, bracket and band rating issues and many other topics, a common item that came out of those discussions is that trying a modified version of the ficgs world championship is worth a trial.
So Ficgs World Cup sounds like a good name.
Format:
In the Ficgs world championship, there are many different qualifying stages, depending on your finishing position from the last cycle, your rating at the time of entry and the strength and total number of the other entrants.
While this format is very good for the concept envisaged when it was created, I think a ficgs world cup, with a format that will be explained below is required to cover a few gaps that are in the ficgs world championship.
The ficgs world cup will work as follows.
1) Everyone enters before a certain date, say June 1st 2012.
2) As soon as entries close, that is it. Entries are not taken after this date and there are NO replacements. The groups are meant to be of equal strength. Adding a new player can distort this.
3) Entrants are then divided into groups of roughly equal strength. Highest rated person is seed 1 in Group A, 2nd highest rated person is seed 1 in Group B. Serpentine pairings are used to allocate all players to each group.
4) How many players and how many groups is determined after the entries have closed. I would think that there will be probably 11 groups of 11 players (121 entries in total). It might be likely that we have to have three stages, depending on total number of entries.
5) 1 person from each group qualifies for the final stage. This is determined by total score, total wins and then TER. This does differ from the tie break formula of the FicgsWCH.
Pros:
1) Everyone gets a game against players of different ratings, no segregated groups or players
2) Everyone starts from stage one
3) The format is clear to understand
Cons:
1) May not be as tempting to the highest rated players (fear of loss of rating points)
2) Might take longer to finish
In my opinion, this is a format that deserves a couple of trial events to see if it is successful
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-24 17:06:41)
Do the cards really matter?
Ah, okay. So to answer your first question: yes, I guess I could call it cause I wouldn't have entered such a tournament without envisaging to lose (and I may lose without calling as well)...
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-24 19:30:14)
Ficgs World Cup
Ah, I assumed that the rapid time control was the only solution but actually we can envisage something else... maybe to have tournaments of 13 players if it is successful.
Or maybe we can have a limited number of places!? (so that the most motivated enter it first, and it would solve the total number issue)
I'm not so favourable to the Epoints fee here, but that's probably worth to be thinked twice.
Peter W. Anderson (2012-04-25 08:59:48)
Ficgs World Cup
Either 2 stages of 20 or 3 stages of 11-13 would work for me. 20 is my personal limit for the number of games I play at once, but for this format I would make an exception and take on the group of 20 even if I had a few games running.
Like Garvin I am against banding on this, as it is against the original objective. I guess you could put a lower limit in, but I think it should be much lower than 2000. Maybe 1800 or even 1700.
One way of dealing with casual players and minimising the likelihood of drop outs is to only open the tournament up to someone who has already completed (a much better test than started) a certain number of games on FICGS. Perhaps 30 games which equates to 5 normal tournaments, (or even higher, at the risk of me not being eligible!).
Garvin Gray (2012-04-27 04:16:52)
Ficgs World Cup
Please, no replacements. If people can not organise themselves to add themselves to the entry list before the close of entries, they do not deserve to enter.
I think it is fairer to have one or two players not participate in a group than it is to add players after the event has started.
Please do not use replacements. This concept is meant to be the opposite in almost every way to WCH, and the main idea is to keep it as simple as possible.
Having replacements add a complication that is not required. It will also distort the balance on ratings of each group where forfeited players occur.
How do you ensure that each group where a forfeited player occurs and get a replacement? Otherwise you have filled some groups and not others.
See the hornets nest that is created by using replacements. Please do not use replacements, just let the normal standard tournament factors decide the final placings and people in the final stage.
Goran Guichsen (2012-04-29 11:08:29)
Slow tournament entries
Wouldn't it speed up entries if you could start playing as soon as there are two entries in a group? Then you know that you could start play almost at once. Now it could take quite some time before you may start playing because you have to wait until the group is complete.
It could also support speeding up finishing the group unless the slowest player is the last to enter (in case it will be the same as now).
Does it have to be exactly the same rules for low resp high rated players? Guess that lower rated players are not so concerned about the rating (as higher rated players are) but to play.
To prohibit to have too many games going could also stimulate to end lost/draw games quicker.
Don Groves (2012-04-29 13:59:38)
Slow tournament entries
The groups could also be made smaller in those categories that are hard to fill. Maybe a group of 6 or 5 would be better. It can always be changed back as the situation improves.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-29 15:18:06)
Slow tournament entries
The concept of reducing the groups down to 5 players to get tournaments moving was discussed in detail a few months ago and gave birth to the standard open division.
So that item has been done to death. FWIW, I am in favour of changing the main list groups to 5 DRR's, but Thib is not, so it is what it is.
The idea of starting games asap and letting the group fill as it goes has also been discussed previously (like almost all ideas).
Scott Nichols (2012-04-29 23:37:18)
Slow tournament entries
Maybe not all ideas. Have you ever thought of a "swiss system" tournament Thib? Make an open tournament with as many players as you can get. And then pair it according to the swiss system, :) 5 or 6 rounds would be plenty to achieve a champion.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-29 23:59:06)
Slow tournament entries
Hi Scott! Of course I thought about it, but swiss system is really too slow for correspondence tournaments, and it is difficult to automatize (I don't even know if this would be possible to figure all cases).
Don Groves (2012-04-30 05:23:35)
Slow tournament entries
The only idea that seems to please everyone is penalizing slow players. But not everyone agrees on what "slow" means. The current rules say it is 60 days per move. But others think it should be 30 days or even less.
My own feeling is that having too many games causes most slow play, so slow players should not able to begin new games until all their games over a certain age are finished.
Perhaps a better method would be to put an upper limit on the average number of days between moves in a game.
Goran Guichsen (2012-04-30 09:38:32)
Slow tournament entries
As I understand it (I am new here since 3 days ago)the problem is not players using the time allowed in a game. It is more spending a lot of time deliberatley when the result is obvious.
I really think Don Groves has some very good suggestions.
Another way could also be (probably already discussed) to "Claim" the result Win/Draw when the result is obvious (eg TableBasis says draw). Perhaps some higher rated players could be assigned to be arbiters.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-30 13:25:51)
Slow tournament entries
Hi Goran and thanks for participating into the discussion, that's always useful to have more voices here :)
There are already rules that allow a player to claim a victory before the end to shorten a game. There is no perfect solution to the famous "DMD" (Dead Man Defense) but IMO this remains a minor problem here.
Don's suggestion is interesting. There is already such a rule (max 50 games running)... I don't know what better criteria, not too complex, could be used instead. I really think that things must avoid to get more complicated at the end.
Anyway once more the real problem right now is the too low number of new members, and I'm working on.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-30 14:20:00)
Slow tournament entries
I think the players complaining about the time they have to wait for a move are really just impatient. The reality is most have picked correspondence chess because they want extra time to think about moves. If you do not want extra time, then go play OTB or ICC. The honest answer is that while a move returned every day is the norm for best players -- is not a requirement!
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-30 14:20:46)
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov in Chessbase news
I am actually in that photo strangely enough. I was paid to be the Tournament Director for the blitz tournament he played in.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-30 16:32:04)
Slow tournament entries
I think most players do not mind if others are taking their time, it is the unnecessary time wastage that can be an issue.
Maybe Thib can answer this- What is the average number of games that players have going at one time across the different rating ranges?
George Clement (2012-04-30 18:12:41)
Slow tournament entries
I think Garvin hit the nail on the head. It is the unnecessary time wasted that is the problem. Noone is saying not to take all the time needed to make a move, but waiting until your time is about out and making just enough moves to get the new increment is a problem!
Garvin Gray (2012-04-30 19:16:14)
Slow tournament entries
I think it is ridiculous that any player can accumulate 74 days in total on their clock and they can still get another 40 days.
That seems like a completely unnecessary amount of time to have.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-30 20:32:31)
Slow tournament entries
I really have no idea if something can be improved there. One thing is sure, the average time for a game is not the same according to the rating... I guess that it would be not reasonable to set a rule for each category so...
About the standard time control, if a player has 74 days on his clock and is to add 40 more days, he'll never have more than 100 days anyway.
Maybe this limit can be changed but once more players are free to choose the rapid time control and as for me I really appreciate not to feel too much time pressure in my games and I know that many share this view.
Let's not forget that the FICGS Chess WCH is (as far as I remember) much faster than e.g. IECG or ICCF Championships...
Scott Nichols (2012-04-30 23:03:10)
Slow tournament entries
Is it that you are not familiar with swiss system pairings Thib? Garvin and Daniel are TD's and I'm sure they would help. The wbccc is a swiss. At least it would eliminate a 2300 playing an 1100. Top half plays bottom half right? And winners play winners, I just don't see why it wouldn't work.
Daniel Parmet (2012-05-01 00:50:29)
Slow tournament entries
Scott is correct. I would be most happy to help.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-05-01 01:36:08)
Slow tournament entries
Well, sure swiss system is great (FICGS freestyle cup is a swiss tournament too) but IMHO it is quite bad for the correspondence chess format (because of the number of rounds and the human factor)... Of course it would have some advantages but I think that inconvenients are more important, added to the fact such tournaments couldn't be 100% automatized.
Garvin Gray (2012-05-01 02:34:43)
Slow tournament entries
I would rather just get ficgs world cup started than worry about swiss system tournaments.
Scott Nichols (2012-05-02 14:26:47)
Slow tournament entries
What I was hoping was that the World Cup could be a swiss system.
Garvin Gray (2012-05-02 18:46:59)
Slow tournament entries
So would I Scott, but unless it was to be played at a time control and format similar to WBCCC, it is not possible, unless it was run over 3 years :o
Scott Nichols (2012-05-02 20:33:06)
Slow tournament entries
The WBCCC is very successful with a time control of game in 30 days with a 1 hour per move increment. We could easily play 6 games in a year.
Gino Figlio (2012-05-02 23:16:16)
Slow tournament entries
Thib,
FWIW I don't see anything wrong with your current setup. Good work and do what you think is best.
Garvin Gray (2012-05-03 04:23:36)
Slow tournament entries
Gino: That is because you are high rated and so play only other high rated players.
Which is good for you, but I am not sure if that is in the best interests of the site as a whole when it is one of the only formats offered.
Scott: I would like to use swiss pairings and have one game paired a time with a time control of something like 20 days plus 1 hour increment. It short, fast and with only one game, the time control should be long enough.
It will take more than 1 year, but that is not so much of a concern here.
I proposed the group and final idea to fit in with existing arrangements on here.
I would also be willing to do swiss pairings on here, like I do on WBCCC.
Daniel Parmet (2012-05-03 04:30:30)
Slow tournament entries
That time control is impossible (20 days plus 1hour). 30 days plus one hour was barely playable! Minimum increment needs to be 12 hours to cover for sleep/work times but more like 24 hours. The WBCCC was awful directly because of its bad time control. The only reason I played the WBCCC at all was to play strong players.
Garvin Gray (2012-05-03 04:31:45)
Slow tournament entries
Daniel, but in WBCCC you are playing 2 games at once. In my post above, it would only be 1 game at a time.
Gino Figlio (2012-05-03 04:36:12)
Slow tournament entries
Garvin,
You imply that I look out for myself only while you attempt to find the best for the site.
Either you don't know what you are talking about or you got it right but inverted the roles.
Daniel Parmet (2012-05-03 04:38:02)
Slow tournament entries
That doesn't matter... there was an IMMENSE drop in the quality of games from 30+1 day to 30 +1h now imagine the drop from 30+1h to 20+1h. The game quality would probably not even be better than an over the board tournament at that point.
You have two major problems 1) the poor time control driving the quality of games to utter crap and 2) the increment is not even enough to cover your sleep/work zone. So you are actually losing massive amount of time that had nothing to do with your number of games but rather your daily functions of survival.
If you think about 20+1h you are effectively saying the entire game should be played in 23 days per side.
Don Groves (2012-05-03 08:28:00)
Slow tournament entries
Here is another way to improve speed of games:
Look at Game 59984. My opponent in this game is a slow player and has the maximum of 50 games in progress. His next move is about as obvious as any move can be. He offered to trade queens and I accepted. His next move is clearly to recapture at b3. Any other move is suicide.
However, I made my last move on April 16th, a full two weeks ago and he has yet to respond even though his move is obvious!
I don't always make a move in every game every day, but at least I LOOK AT every game every day to see if any moves are obvious. If we all did this, the games would proceed at a better pace.
Garvin Gray (2012-05-03 13:45:17)
Slow tournament entries
Yes, for conditionals :)
George Clement (2012-05-03 17:21:48)
Slow tournament entries
Garvin, I'm for conditionals; but the slow players still wouldn't use them.
I still think that an increment of, let's say, 20days is better then the current of 40 for 10 moves. It would force the people that are gaming the system and waiting 25-30 days to move after getting the 40 days to at least make faster moves. They would still have plenty of calculation time. Now they make 10 moves in 10 days. Thus 40 days plus 20 days for 10 moves.
Peter W. Anderson (2012-05-03 18:28:20)
Slow tournament entries
Of course there is no perfect time limit. What is too slow for one person will be too fast for some others. The current Rapid speed seems to get the balance about right - quick enough to allow a sensible length to the tournament but slow enough to allow some real thought even if you are working or have significant family commitments.
But perhaps the acid test is how many people are prepared to play at that speed. It does not seem to put people off playing in the current WCH, so whilst it will not be everyone's favourite, it does seem to have a broad enough appeal.
In terms of format, I think large groups (say 11+ people in each group) work well and I think better serve the idea of giving people a chance to play stronger players better than a Swiss, which is fine for a game or two and then flattens out.
In summary, I think Garvin's original suggestion works well.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-05-03 22:57:23)
Slow tournament entries
Many interesting things have been said in this discussion, thanks to you guys for defending sometimes opposite views, that's constructive.
I'm still thinking about all this (not so easy!), I should make a clear proposal within days.
Don Groves (2012-05-04 13:52:49)
Slow tournament entries
I wasn't suggesting conditionals, just making forced moves when they occur. That game could be several moves along if my opponent would just do that.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-05-09 21:54:16)
Xiao Tong on his win in 6th FICGS Go WCH
I agree also... Well, I should add some words on that when new players login for the first times. But many are quickly discouraged as they do not find any opponent. But maybe we just need (much) more players.
As for me I'd like to play more live Go games, I only need more time mainly because of my correspondence tournaments :/
Any other ideas are welcome...
Thibault de Vassal (2012-05-12 13:41:03)
Playing poker for e-points
Epoints system for chess is the same than participating in an OTB chess tournament with an entry fee & prize. I guess (I hope) that this is authorized even in US.
But anyway you're right Peter, it took me much time to be sure of what it was possible to do or not. Actually FICGS could have started about a year earlier without that problem :/
Anyway there are many ways to turn around laws, e.g. if prizes are not money & so on... Maybe I could envisage something like that.
Garvin Gray (2012-05-12 17:26:45)
Playing poker for e-points
Paul,
In general parlance, poker is regarded as a gambling game and so the idea that poker is also played in classic tournament fashion, just like every other sport, has never really caught on in legal terms.
The general version is more of the casino style with players joining in whenever they want and leaving whenever they want (or have lost their cash), rather than tournaments where everyone pays an entry fee and there is a winner at the end.
Combined with that is that chess has never been associated as a 'gambling' game or sport.
Remember also that in quite a lot of countries chess is a full recognised sport, or at least mindsport. So in those countries if playing for money in chess was illegal, then so would playing for money in all sports.
Thib- I wonder if playing for epoints in classic tournament fashion is legal, just like in irl poker tournaments?
That could be one option.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-05-12 23:26:19)
Playing poker for e-points
Actually the problem really exists in the opposite way... You'd be surprised! French departments really tried to discourage me to organize chess tournaments with money prizes, by making comparisons to gambling games! (and actually I also think that the limit is not so clear) - The problem is that there is no clear law on that issue.
I also know that the previous french government (Sarkozy's one) was to try to make it even harder to do that because of the success of some sites that offer skill money games. So I try to follow all this...
Thibault de Vassal (2012-05-13 14:18:28)
Ficgs World Cup
... still thinking about it.
Sometimes it seems to me that such a championship would look like too much to FICGS WCH round-robin groups & could make regular tournaments entries slower (also not all interested players could play both WCH & CUP). Sometimes I'm more optimistic & see it mainly as an event more.
Any opinion after these few weeks?
Garvin Gray (2012-05-29 11:54:54)
Ficgs: Number 1 freestyle chess site??
Title is deliberately provocative :)
Was looking to see how many other freestyle chess sites there are and came across this wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess
The trend might be changing as Advanced Chess is offered on the correspondence chess server at FICGS as the default mode of play, with special, unrated, "no engines" tournaments being the exception, rather than the rule. http://www.ficgs.com/
Garvin Gray (2012-06-01 20:20:07)
Second match v Rybka Forum
I have been informed that the conditional move system of xfccplay can not be removed just for one tournament, so if we use xfccplay for at least half the games, conditionals will be in operation.
I still think we can go ahead with using xfccplay, just that the half of the games that are played using xfccplay will have conditionals, and the ones played here will not.
While it is an issue, it is not a big issue, or a showstopper.
Everyone will still be playing two games against the same opponent. One here and one with xfccplay at RF.
I will give a couple of days for feedback. If there is no discussion, I will formalise details and then we will move on to official collection of entries, getting players familiar with xfccplay and then on to the games proper.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-07-28 00:10:50)
FICGS IS BACK !!!!!!!!!
First of all, I've added 15 days to all players in running games because of the delay and the fact that many of us may have no access to internet during the summer vacation (this time is added to the 46 days, 13 hours and 20 minutes since the crash for players expected to play), this issue was discussed at Rybkaforum, of course it may be unfair to few players in certain games where their opponent had few time but I did not find a better balanced solution, sorry about that :(
Among other consequences, the current championships cycle will last 10 months instead of 8, and july correspondence chess ratings will be updated very soon.
Well, how to start... fortunately such an event is rare but possible, and following the Murphy's law, it happened (first time for me), the server's hard disk crashed and the least I can say is I've not been lucky, even if I obviously did some things wrong.
Of course I had enough data at home to rebuild all games until a few hours before the crash but I thought it was worth it to pause the server during a few days/weeks to recover more moves, and if possible ALL moves. I really hoped that it would work and at the end it did, but not completely... for unknown reasons. I had also other data to recover from the server, including some FICGS data that were not backuped correctly (my bad), because I did not think far enough 6 years ago when I coded the first FICGS scripts... That will be fixed very soon.
So, because the DDrescue process did not work -unlucky- just after the crash, my server provider (OVH in France) had to send me the hard drive and it took sooooo much time already :/
Then I tried to recover some files and the databases by myself and I learnt much on how to save a hard drive but each process was really long, it took several days again...
Finally none process completely succeeded, few sectors of the hard drive remained unreadable and unfortunately the FICGS database is divided into very numerous parts written everywhere on the disk.
At the end, I brought the disk to the very best professionals able to save it... the process was quite long again and it did not completely worked as well, for an unknown reason the current database was still not readable but they did much better than me at the end.
Finally the whole process was worth it, but I did not expect it could take so much time.... 46 days, 13 hours, 20 minutes. And that's a shame :(
Of course, I could have used a RAID 10 server, I was not favourable to this choice because it is not 100% safe as well, I don't know it enough and it's much more expensive. I'll reconsider it though.
But the other things I did wrong are clear anyway, I lacked of experience in such a situation and most important, I'll do now better backups also on another server every hour. Next time (if any), we'll lose at most 1 hour of moves but the server will be able to restart within 1 day.
One thing is sure, internet was really empty for me without FICGS during this long month and a half and I missed our tournaments too much so that happen again! Have no doubt, FICGS would not have stopped in all cases but once again I'm really sorry about that and all consequences... I can only hope that you'll enjoy your games as before.
Thanks for your understanding.
Best regards,
Thibault
Michael Aigner (2012-06-11 08:58:16)
Chess WCH Schedule ?
Does somebody know when the next stage of the chess WCH tournament is planned to be started.
Have a nice day, Michael
Sebastian Boehme (2012-07-28 17:26:23)
FICGS IS BACK !!!!!!!!!
Many thanks for Thib on the hard effort put into making FICGS run again and on the surface look again as it used to.
Now may the rumbles and big tournaments continue.
Right in time with the big games of the Olympiad in London! ;-)
Garvin Gray (2012-07-29 10:12:48)
Reset tournament waiting lists
I think it might be a good idea to reset the tournament waiting lists, rather than keeping the ones we have now.
The reason being that with it being so long between when they entered and now that it is highly likely that a lot of the players are going to forfeit games.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-07-30 00:53:25)
Reset tournament waiting lists
Well, honestly I think that to reset or not to reset is about equally justified....... as many tournaments take a few months to start, it is not so different this time. Any other opinion?
Peter W. Anderson (2012-07-30 09:42:51)
Reset tournament waiting lists
I would prefer them not to be reset. As the rating list has been updated since entering, I could no longer rejoin the the same waiting list, and nobody seems to play in the alternative.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-07-30 10:18:51)
Reset tournament waiting lists
That's a good point indeed.
Yoppy Paulus (2012-08-23 17:44:11)
money prize tournaments
I want to join this tournament please
Michael Rogers (2012-08-24 20:47:47)
money prize tournaments
Very good idea, Thibault. This would certainly create more interest in the tournaments. I prefer one and two but would accept three and four.
Garvin Gray (2012-08-25 20:44:17)
money prize tournaments
Hello Michael,
This concept has now evolved into the standard open tournament and has been running for a few months.
Daniel Parmet (2012-08-25 23:43:21)
money prize tournaments
3,1,4,2.
I would definitely pay if it was a strong tournament.
Peter W. Anderson (2012-08-26 14:07:57)
money prize tournaments
Any of these as long as they are rapid speed. My preferance would be for 1 or 3.
This would be an interesting development. Would we get some of the 2400+ players playing at rapid speed I wonder?
Garvin Gray (2012-08-26 14:40:22)
money prize tournaments
Would be? This tournament is already offered. It is called STANDARD OPEN!!!!!
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-20 17:17:14)
5th Kolkata Open Grandmasters Tourney
Just forwarding an announcement...
"Alekhine Chess Club under the aegis of All India Chess Federation is organizing 5th Kolkata Open Grandmasters Chess Tournament, recognized by FIDE and Government of India, from 3rd to 13th December 2012 at Gorky Sadan, Kolkata, India.
The details of the meet are available at : http://www.alekhinechessclub.com/5kolkata/detailsfinal.pdf and the details of the last meet of this edition are also available at : http://www.alekhinechessclub.com/4kolkata/index.html (we attache a few picture from that meet)."
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 19:16:42)
WCH Final match
No problem, I understand your concern... well I believe that these short draws are just a problem instead of another, at least we have a clear champion! What will happen when round-robin WCH tournaments (ICCF format) will be decided by Soderborn or whatever because of several winners with 6,5 or 7 out of 12 points, as it seems to happen in some tournaments... Though there is no better way to encourage players to win than RR tournaments.
Roy Shapland (2012-10-24 14:00:23)
How to amend rating?
Signed up in last 24 hours. Just noticed now that I'm 56 fide points higher then I remembered. The rating is used in tournament pairing so feel that making it correct is helpful to all. How do I get this fixed?
Robert Knighton (2012-12-02 04:33:02)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
"Round-robin tournaments are groups of 7, 9, 11 or 13 players, there may be double round-robin tournaments in case of groups of less than 7 players". . .
The first group might be pushing it a little bit with Alexander being a bit low rated compared to the other two... but the rest looks ok to me. What do you think?
3 Man Double Round Robin
AUT Rada, Hannes 2465
USA Johnson, Bobby 2412
ISR Blinchevsky, Alexander 2206
3 Man Double Round Robin
CAN Deline, Ralph 2179
GBR Soszynski, Marek 2143
DEU Wolf, Bernd 2113
11 Man Round Robin
ITA Bonoldi, Fabio 2049
POL Nig, Piotr 2028
BEL Pepermans, Toon 2000
ITA Fabris, Alberto 1995
UKR Simashkevitch, Mykola 1987
USA Batal, Jean 1960
USA Knighton, Robert 1950
ARG Reboredo, Daniel 1941
GBR Burrows, Nick 1935
DEU Lommler, Jan Peter 1860
COL Rey, Eduardo 1800
3 Man Double Round Robin
BIH Dautovic, Dzenan 1653
GBR Hancock, Sarah 1614
USA Lovelace, Randy 1504
3 Man Double Round Robin
FRA Estieu, Frederick 1383
FRA Satonnet, Patrick 1351
ITA Piantadosi, Angelo 1319
3 Man Double Round Robin
USA Davis, Mark 1192
UKR Malish, Dmitriy 1146
UKR Bromo, Alexis 1129
Thibault de Vassal (2012-12-02 12:45:42)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
Robert/Stephane, it is also mentioned in the WCH rules: "Groups are built grading all players by rating and distributing them to obtain similar elo averages."
By the way all similar groups must have the same number of players, otherwise it would be impossible to be fair when building the next round tournaments.
@Don: Yes, the deadline does not change but there are a few lines in "My messages" that explain that it is still possible to enter the waiting list (without guarantee to be included in a tournament).
Nick Burrows (2012-12-02 13:09:34)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
I think people are getting a bit too uptight!
Allowing new players hardly affects anyone's chances of progressing in the tournament, yet it allows the late players who didn't have the opportunity to log in a chance to play in the most enjoyable of all tournaments on Ficgs.
Robert Knighton (2012-12-02 14:45:47)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
My computer broke down on me about 2 1/2 months ago. I have been without a computer until a couple weeks ago.
I could not have signed up on time :/
And I'd be willing to bet most late signups were for lack of knowledge of the tournaments available, how they work, or that they exist at all. This site is not exactly new user friendly. Getting games is confusing until you understand the unique system being used here. Same goes for finding and entering tournaments.
If I cant get in then so be it; no hard feelings, but if I can get the chance to play, that would be wonderful.
What I really want is the chance to play stronger opponents. I'm still stuck in the sub 2k rating bands until more of my games finish.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-12-05 19:02:36)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
Hi Wayne,
Of course this is a very coherent opinion... but there are reasons why I created these new groups since the very first championship:
There may be several players who cannot be included into tournaments when I create them (because of the number of players per tournament). To exclude nobody, I had to wait for a few players to enter it... but of course there was always too few or too many of them, with too high or too low ratings. So I decided that the prioriy was to start as many tournaments as possible to make it as competitive as possible.
Robert Knighton (2012-12-05 21:34:02)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
Wayne Lowrance said: "Robert Knighton. You dont understand me. I was saying it is unfair for the two strong player having to compete against a much weaker player. It would have cost him point 4 sure. "
Yeah I see what you mean there. Even if I could compete at that level then those players at a higher rating would suffer for it.
Also, no offense taken. We can peacefully agree to disagree on issues and perhaps we can settle it with a game one day :)
Seems like there should be a provisional tournament that new players coming to FICGS enter into automatically to determine rating, but that is a discussion for another place.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-12-21 00:56:41)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Dear chessfriends,
I just received this proposition to play a "Chess Server Team Tournament" that would be played on ICCF web server:
Any opinion? Who would be interested to play such a tournament?
____________________________
Dear Thibault!
In recent years many friendly matches between different chess servers have been played. It has become a good tradition to organize such matches. A very good idea is to organize a round-robin tournament to find out the strongest team of a chess server.
We invite a team of your server to take part in the first unofficial correspondence chess championship for chess servers.
The championship is unofficial, because ICCF Officials do not head it.
The Organizer and Tournament Director is Pavlikov Andrey Nikolaevich who is experienced in organizing and directing both domestic (Russian) and international correspondence chess tournaments.
Invitations have been sent to administrators of the following chess servers:
Bestlogic – http://www.bestlogic.ru/
Chesshere – http://www.chesshere.com/
FICGS – http://www.ficgs.com/
GameKnot – http://gameknot.com/
LSS – http://www.chess-server.net/
SchemingMind – http://www.schemingmind.com/
Chess Planet – http://chessplanet.ru/pages/game-zone (to play chess on this server one must have a client program which is free to download at main page of the site)
If you have a proposal to add any chess server, it will be taken in consideration.
Regulations of the event
http://www.mocorrchess.narod.ru/wccstc/en/regen.html
Information on the event may be seen at http://www.mocorrchess.narod.ru/wccstc/wccstc.html
Best wishes, Andrey Pavlikov,
Russian Correspondence Chess Association Vice-President,
The Organizer of the event
Daniel Parmet (2012-12-21 01:19:29)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I would gladly play for FICGS. Is this ICCF rated? How many boards in the teams?
Garvin Gray (2012-12-21 03:27:48)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I would like to know about the rules and regulations for the event.
Alvin Alcala (2012-12-21 09:50:32)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Please count me in, I'm very much interested.
Garvin Gray (2012-12-21 09:51:28)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Having read the regulations :) I think there could be a few improvements.
1) The time control is wayyy too long and unnecessary. Our time control of 30 days plus 1 day increment is suitable
2) Only able to contact the tournament director through your team captain contravenes the laws of chess and also is ridiculous.
If a player has an issue with their game, they should be able to contact the td themselves. It is their game afterall.
3) Will the teams play in rating order?
Bogoljub Teverovski (2012-12-21 16:54:43)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I'm ready to play any board for FICGS team. My ICCF ID# 862003.
Nick Burrows (2012-12-21 18:19:55)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Hi guys, I would like to play if I qualify.
I noticed from previous conversations I had with members of other servers about a match, that longer time controls are usually preferred. Personally I would prefer quicker limits, but will happily play at any control. A slow match is better than no match!
Alvin Alcala (2012-12-24 08:13:18)
Chess Server Team Tournament
How we will be shortlisted in this team tournament to represent FICGS?
Bogoljub Teverovski (2012-12-24 12:14:22)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Who'll serve as Team Captain for FICGS?
Wayne Lowrance (2012-12-24 19:06:57)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I am in if FICGS wants me to play...Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2012-12-28 01:16:01)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I have no answers yet... I'll let you know as soon as I know more!
Thibault de Vassal (2012-12-29 22:46:10)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Well, actually many answers are in the tournament regulations...
If I understand well, each player should play from 8 games (!) to 16 games according to the number of servers participating (from 4 to 8), which is a lot...
- Is this ICCF rated? It seems that it is.
- How many boards in the teams? I read 30, which is a lot! Maybe too much.
- Will the teams play in rating order? I have no idea.
If we have players enough to enter this tournament then we can vote for a captain if several players want to be. As for me, I won't be able to play it.
The real question is who will be able to play 8 to 16 games on the ICCF server... As far as I can remember, we never found 30 players for a team event so far, without counting the forfeits.
So far, it seems that 2 servers accepted to participate while Chess.com declined the invitation.
Regulations:
http://www.mocorrchess.narod.ru/wccstc/en/regen.html
5.1. No less than 4 and no more than 8 teams to play the event. The teams represent chess servers. No one server is allowed to enter the event with no more than 1 team. Teams play each other in an each-to-each round-robin tournament.
5.2. Each team plays each team in a team match on 30 boards. Each player of a team plays 2 games (one with White pieces, one with Black pieces) with one player of the other team. Reserve players are prohibited to begin the games.
5.3. The team consists of 30 players. No more than 5 reserve players may be added in a team squad.
5.4. The games are rated for ICCF rating.
5.5. Time control is 30 days for 10 moves (with duplication after 20 days is used for a single move).
5.6. 30 days of leave per year are available for each player.
5.7. The team mates and captain can see the games live. Live transmission for public is delayed by 5 moves.
5.8. ICCF Playing rules are applied for the event. The playing rules may be seen at special page
Nick Burrows (2012-12-29 23:41:07)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Yes, a team of 30 boards is way too ambitious.
Garvin Gray (2012-12-30 03:11:59)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I think the 30 boards could be made up of 8 players each play four games, so that would be 32 boards.
Asking for 30 separate players seems too unlikely, and rather unwieldy for a first concept try.
Bogoljub Teverovski (2012-12-30 13:00:10)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Imho, if certain server cannot enter a team of just 30 players, it becomes clear this server has a very weak resource. Therefore FICGS should enter 30 players without hesitations.
Daniel Parmet (2012-12-30 17:45:46)
Chess Server Team Tournament
While 30 might be a high number... let us count that 9 have already responded t othis thread (and only Thibault has declined to play)... so finding 22 more shouldn't be so hard?
Neel Basant (2013-01-04 05:29:26)
Chess Server Team Tournament
If FICGS wants , i will play willingly..
Ostap Hladky (2013-01-04 22:58:52)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I will play for FICGS.
Bogoljub Teverovski (2013-01-05 23:40:48)
Chess Server Team Tournament
So, we'll enter a team or not?
Thibault de Vassal (2013-01-09 00:01:09)
How to amend rating?
I've updated your rating (56 points more only), but it will make about no difference after a few games. Also it does not change your TER for the WCH tournament.
Niklas Hallqvist (2013-01-10 00:20:41)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I will play for FICGS, no strings attached. I have ICCF id 451419.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-01-10 00:21:28)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Finally, I sent an email to all players about this tournament... we'll see if we can find 30 players. Not so easy IMO.
Arkadiusz Wosch (2013-01-10 00:28:05)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I'm interested to play
Daniel Blike (2013-01-10 00:59:04)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I'm interested in playing!
Josef Zmolil (2013-01-10 01:10:40)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I'm interested to play.Thanks.
Jiri Mach (2013-01-10 01:14:16)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Yes,I interested.
Jose Moreira (2013-01-10 01:15:57)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I'm interested to play
Om Prakash (2013-01-10 01:33:36)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I'm interested to play...
John Worthington (2013-01-10 02:14:04)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I am interested and would love to play. :)
Garvin Gray (2013-01-10 02:19:36)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I am in
Alvin Alcala (2013-01-10 04:16:28)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Count me in. thx
Arnab Sengupta (2013-01-10 04:37:11)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I am Interested
Ray Downs (2013-01-10 05:22:33)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I'm interested in playing.
Valery Nemchenko (2013-01-10 05:22:51)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Dear Thibault!
I am willing to participate in the team event of FICGS e server. My rating ICCF-2465. Please let me know who else from our server will be played on a board which I claim? Best regards, Valery
Dinesh Bhandarkar (2013-01-10 05:47:43)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Iam interested
Shih-Chu Liao (2013-01-10 06:53:28)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I'm interested to play
Frits Bleker (2013-01-10 08:56:11)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Nice initiative that is worth to go ahead. I'm in without conditions!(ICCF rating 2395)
Thomas Hasyn (2013-01-10 09:51:55)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I am interested to play.
Sergey Demchenko (2013-01-10 09:55:59)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Я могу играть в турнире
Neel Basant (2013-01-10 10:00:44)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I am to fool to understand ...!!!!!!!!!!
Maxim Genchev (2013-01-10 11:21:29)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I'm interested to play
Maxim Genchev (2013-01-10 11:42:45)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I agree to play, if the average reytig tournament chess server team tournament from ICCF will be at least 2300.
Maxim Genchev (2013-01-10 11:47:06)
Chess Server Team Tournament
My rating ICCF-2309.
Sergey Demchenko (2013-01-10 12:02:20)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Я могу играть. ID ICCF-142224
Mathaios Vardoulakis (2013-01-10 13:18:55)
Chess Server Team Tournament
"I'm interested to play".Count me in please.
Happy new year to all!
Claudio Cabrera (2013-01-10 13:25:59)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I want to play
Kieran Moore (2013-01-10 13:52:21)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I have a full ICCF registration number and I would be interested in playing.
Neel Basant (2013-01-10 14:40:30)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Confirmed( Interested) Players according to replies.
1.Daniel Parmet
2.Alvin Alcala
3.Bogoljub Teverovski
4.Nick Burrows
5.Wayne Lowrance
6.Neel Basant
7.Ostap Hladky
8.Niklas Hallqvist
9.Arkadiusz Wosch
10.Daniel Blike
11.Josef Zmolil
12.Jiri Mach
13.Jose Moreira
14.Om Prakash
15.John Worthington
16.Garvin Gray
17.Arnab Sengupta
18.Ray Downs
19.Valery Nemchenko
20.Dinesh Bhandarkar
21.Shih-Chu Liao
22.Frits Bleker
23.Thomas Hasyn
24.Sergey Demchenko
25.Maxim Genchev
26.Mathaios Vardoulakis
27.Claudio Cabrera
28.Kieran Moore
29.
30.
Wow..
What a response!!!!!
sure Within 2/3 days will be more than 100 players.
Thib will have a headache while selecting 30 players..
Dmitry Tsimbalenko (2013-01-10 16:20:33)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I'm interested to play. Take me to the team
Rich Pinkall Pollei (2013-01-10 17:15:52)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I can play. My ICCF member # is 515095.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-01-10 17:59:37)
Chess Server Team Tournament
William Fuller is also interested to play. (received by email)
So, I accepted the invitation!
Now we need a team captain... Any volunteers? :)
Daniel Parmet (2013-01-10 18:11:49)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I volunteer to be team captain. But we now have 31 players wanting to play. Also I would point out that we will probably get slaughtered on the lower boards as things stand right now. I saw at least one person wanting an ICCF team average of 2300. I would point out that I think a 2000 player here is 2300 over there but as things stand our FICGS rating average is 1964 based on the top 30 players ratings. For the 9 players that do have ICCF ratings our rating average is 2235.
Here is what information I could collect on our team so far:
Name FICGS Rating ICCF ID ICCF Rating TITLE Comment
1 Ostap Hladky 2527 941012 FIM
2 Valery Nemchenko 2521 940836 2465
3 Frits Bleker 2313 220159 2395
4 Garvin Gray 2281 30503 1993
5 Alvin Alcala 2237 896046
6 Wayne Lowrance 2194 FIM
7 Maxim Genchev 2187 940752 2309 Wants ICCF average of 2300
8 Arkadiusz Wosch 2169 89923 2307
9 Neel Basant 2138 280279
10 Daniel Parmet 2098 514938 2300
11 Om Prakash 2091 280243
12 Bogoljub Teverovski 2083 862003
13 Niklas Hallqvist 2082 451419
14 Kieran Moore 2042 260252
15 William Fuller 2033 514688 2350
16 Dmitry Tsimbalenko 1959 142268
17 Sergey Demchenko 1955 142224 2077
18 Nick Burrows 1944 212164
19 Rich Pinkall Pollei 1900 515095
20 Daniel Blike 1874 515250
21 Jose Moreira 1831 Are you the IM Jose Moreira id#399007, Rating 2390?
22 Thomas Hasyn 1808 865001 1922
23 Mathaios Vardoulakis 1800
24 Dinesh Bhandarkar 1707
25 Shih-Chu Liao 1660
26 Josef Zmolil 1632
27 Ray Downs 1536
28 John Worthington 1510 515287
29 Claudio Cabrera 1462
30 Arnab Sengupta 1340 280192
31 Jiri Mach 1010
Sergey Demchenko (2013-01-10 18:19:59)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Возможно ещё более сильные игроки подадут заявку на участие в соревновании.
Nick Burrows (2013-01-10 18:30:03)
Chess Server Team Tournament
yes I think some of our ratings are way under the actual level. My rating is 1934, but would be more accurate at 2300.
We should simply take our 30 highest rated players at the deadline for registaration in order to do Ficgs justice.
Neel Basant (2013-01-10 18:56:15)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Wait..
There will be entries from better players.
as within 6 hrs we have already 31 players..
More better players will reply as FICGS has too many good players..
Stefan Haack (2013-01-10 19:24:02)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Im interested to play on iccf server
Stefan
Daniel Parmet (2013-01-10 20:37:23)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Thib... I know its a lot of games but it is also a very long time control! It would be great if you played. We need strong players and its your server we're coming to represent! I will volunteer to take captain duties so you don't have that work load.
Nilson Pereira (2013-01-10 20:45:48)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I play. Count on me!
Daniel Parmet (2013-01-10 20:51:37)
Chess Server Team Tournament
right now the top 30 responses by ficgs rating average to 1998. 10 of those 30 have ICCF ratings which average to 2166.
I'd like to us have a 2100 FICGS rating average so we can be a competitive team...
Thibault de Vassal (2013-01-10 22:26:30)
Chess Server Team Tournament
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Dear friends,
I'm very sorry, it seems that only 8 teams can play the tournament and they just found 8..... So we cannot play it.
Maybe 2 parallel tournaments could be possible but well, it wouldn't be the same thing, I guess.
That's my bad, I didn't think this would be a speed race and I was not so confident to find so many players interested. Obviously I was wrong :/
My apologies to all. Anyway, that's a good thing to know that server team tournaments played at ICCF web server are popular in the whole correspondence chess world. We'll be there next time!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Daniel Parmet (2013-01-11 00:31:14)
Chess Server Team Tournament
How sad that they did not bother to tell us there was a hard deadline. Seems quite improper. They send an invite then rescind it!
Nick Burrows (2013-01-11 01:05:29)
Chess Server Team Tournament
boo!
Garvin Gray (2013-01-11 03:31:52)
Chess Server Team Tournament
They were after eight teams and they received that number before the hard deadline of Jan 15.
As they received the maximum number, they are right to close it. No point waiting when you are already have your maximum number.
Alvin Alcala (2013-01-11 04:49:37)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Very sad news! So many interested players from FICGS wanted to join.
Charlie Neil (2013-01-11 19:55:38)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Thibault,
If you need a lowly 1133 FICGS graded player to play count me in , Current ICCF grade of 1700, ECF 111. I have an ICCF ID as well.
And if not I don't mind. I enjoy my FICGS games.
Bogoljub Teverovski (2013-01-11 22:06:09)
Chess Server Team Tournament
What a shame for FICGS!
Mykola Simashkevitch (2013-01-11 22:20:15)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I'm interested to play
Garvin Gray (2013-01-12 04:32:55)
Chess Server Team Tournament
You really should read the thread guys before offering to play :(
Maxim Genchev (2013-01-12 10:54:08)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Respected organization FICGS!
Please tell me, have you an official invitation to the participation in the team competition of the servers?
The fact is that until now, I was told, there is no agreement on this championship with IKCHF.V this case (if one has an official invitation and was later denied participation on the team FICGS) it is reasonable to make a complaint to the ICCF
Garvin Gray (2013-01-12 12:10:14)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Maxim,
Wouldn't it be quite likely that quite a few invitations were sent out with the condition of first eight teams confirmed are in, and the other eight teams had confirmed their participation before us.
I am wondering though, did they have to declare their full team list upon nomination.
We have a full team to nominate and I am wondering how many of the other teams are able to claim the same.
Maxim Genchev (2013-01-12 12:37:39)
Chess Server Team Tournament
The fact that there is still not compatible with the ICCF this tournament representatives ICCF not even aware of its existence!
Horatiu Adrian Petrescu (2013-01-16 00:23:43)
FICGS admin scam me
This admin is a big liar and scammer. I post here all story.
In 2010 I ask him how I cashout if I wish to.Bellow is our conversation :
"Re : cashoutMonday, January 4, 2010 3:25 PM
From: This sender is DomainKeys verified"Thibault de Vassal" - ficgs at yahoo . com - Add sender to Contacts
Hello,
There's no button, you just have to ask me :) How many Epoints do you want to convert in Euros ?
Please specify your email at Paypal or Moneybookers.
Best wishes,
Thibault
Hi!
I don't see the button for cashout! Where is it? "
He didn't tell me nothing about some condition.Why? Because that time
was not specified.
Bellow is our conversation in the present time :
"Hi, I wish to cashout my 7,14 Epoints, to my Paypal account.Thank you.Regards.
Hello ,
You have to win at least one silver/gold tournament to cash out Epoints, feel free to read the conditions here:
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#prize"
...and on chat:
petrescu horatiuadrian :
you are a charlatan
(2013-01-15 23:46:58)
petrescu horatiuadrian :
I lost more than 7 euros,My deposit was much more
(2013-01-15 23:32:03)
petrescu horatiuadrian :
I just ask my money only ,not a profit or an interest
(2013-01-15 23:31:13)
petrescu horatiuadrian :
not crook.
(2013-01-15 23:29:42)
petrescu horatiuadrian :
you think I care about 7 euros ,I have checked you if are or
petrescu horatiuadrian :
you are a bank,but for you only
(2013-01-15 23:26:30)
petrescu horatiuadrian :
you are just a liar
(2013-01-15 23:25:15)
petrescu horatiuadrian :
your rule
(2013-01-15 23:24:44)
petrescu horatiuadrian :
you told me about L511 ,I checked and write nothing about
devassal thibault :
This is a games server, conditions are clear on this...
(2013-01-15 23:17:12)
devassal thibault :
I would have told you to deposit? So, to be a bank for you?
(2013-01-15 23:16:07)
devassal thibault :
This is only a misunderstanding, obviously. sorry about that
(2013-01-15 23:15:09)
petrescu horatiuadrian :
You lied to me to make deposit here
(2013-01-15 23:14:01)
devassal thibault :
.. and let's see what others think...
(2013-01-15 23:13:59)
devassal thibault :
Just publish this email on the forum...
(2013-01-15 23:13:43)
petrescu horatiuadrian :
you think I am naive?then why you lied me then,in 2010?
(2013-01-15 23:12:10)
petrescu horatiuadrian :
ahaha,you are not lawer ,you are liar,liar, liar
(2013-01-15 23:09:24)
devassal thibault :
I'm not lawyer, but a lawyer told me what I can or cannot do
petrescu horatiuadrian :
from the law
(2013-01-15 22:39:35)
petrescu horatiuadrian :
ok ,tell me the article of legislation or give me the link
(2013-01-15 22:39:27)
devassal thibault :
french laws... but I guess that's the same in most countries
(2013-01-15 22:30:41)
petrescu horatiuadrian :
tell me which laws ,yours laws?or what
(2013-01-15 22:25:52)
petrescu horatiuadrian :
which laws?
(2013-01-15 22:24:57)
burrows nick :
ah!
(2013-01-15 22:02:52)
devassal thibault :
as money prize, by winning silver/gold tournaments
(2013-01-15 21:57:38)
burrows nick :
how is money recouped?
(2013-01-15 21:40:31)
devassal thibault :
FICGS cannot be a bank... that's you ask for
(2013-01-15 21:15:02)
devassal thibault :
In one word : because of laws...
(2013-01-15 21:13:32)
petrescu horatiuadrian :
or you don t want because the terms?
(2013-01-15 20:59:26)
petrescu horatiuadrian :
speak clear
(2013-01-15 20:58:33)
petrescu horatiuadrian :
I don t understand why u cannot,because the server?
(2013-01-15 20:58:24)
devassal thibault :
That's the point of this server after all
(2013-01-15 20:40:34)
devassal thibault :
Anyway, winning one silver game would solve the problem...
(2013-01-15 20:40:10)
devassal thibault :
.. but the fact is that I cannot do this & never could
(2013-01-15 20:39:11)
devassal thibault :
We can even discuss it in the forum if you want...
(2013-01-15 20:37:09)
devassal thibault :
That's specified in the conditions... just read it
(2013-01-15 20:36:18)
devassal thibault :
The number of Epoints had to be a multiple of tournament fee
(2013-01-15 20:35:59)
In my country exist many charlatans but I see in France too.France is beautiful country but "there are lees to every wine".
Thibault de Vassal (2013-01-16 12:29:30)
FICGS admin scam me
Dear Horatiu,
Unfortunately for you, I also kept all emails that you sent to me and that I sent to you... Now here are the facts:
I sent 30 emails (!) to you to kindly answer again and again what is explained in terms & conditions and Help section. I explained to you how to use a captcha, how to use the site and so on..........
First of all, you forget one important thing: It is required that you ACCEPT and UNDERSTAND terms and conditions BEFORE you register.... Obviously you didn't understand it, I cannot do anything there.
Second of all, you are of bad faith and here is a clear proof:
Among the very first emails (before the one you mention), here is the answer I sent to you:
<<<<<<<<<<
December 14, 2009 - Monday, 21:22
Hello,
It is all explained at - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html & http://www.ficgs.com/help.html , when you have Epoints, you can play Silver & Gold games, winning Epoints or money according to the results & tournaments...
Best wishes,
Thibault
<<<<<<<<<<
I guess that you kept this one too but you "forgot" to mention it...
Now, I've said enough. I was patient, but now I'll apply FICGS rules (you should read it carefully) and french laws as soon as you act again against me.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-01-16 17:14:06)
FICGS admin scam me
Well, obviously you do not have any idea about what computer chess is... there are thousands of fans all over the world, full forums only about that, even the very best chess players in the world like to play it (Kasparov, Anand, Polgar, Ivanchuk...)
You still do not understand that this has nothing to do with avarice. Noone here wants to see such a system to be implemented.... first of all because it cannot be 100% sure (it would be very easy to cheat anyway), then everyone would suspect everyone to cheat... FICGS is a peaceful place (without counting 2 or 3 players out of hundreds/thousands) so this is fine like it is. For information we also offer NO_ENGINES_TOURNAMENTS for those who want to play with their brain only, but it is not rated... for the same reasons.
We have no problem that a few players cannot understand it at the end, but we do not need to hear again and again that computer chess is "lazy" or "dishonest", that is just untrue and insulting.
About your 7 euros, all has been said, I've nothing to add. This is not a bank, if you want a money prize, you know what to do (starting to read the terms & conditions).
Thibault de Vassal (2013-01-16 18:10:33)
FICGS admin scam me
Of course I meant players who understood what this site is....
If someone registers while thinking this site is a TV shop website, he may claim that there are no TVs enough to buy on here and say the admin that he should ask all players if they want TVs available to buy but well.... wouldn't it be quite ridiculous?
Players who are not aware that the use of chess engines is encouraged are very rare... The message "As a reminder, the use of chess engines (Rybka, Fritz, Shredder...) is allowed and encouraged in standard chess tournaments." is visible when anyone enters any rated chess tournament.
Is it really necessary to have this message blinking in big size on all pages?
Garvin Gray (2013-02-26 14:48:14)
What size groups do you prefer?
I have played in groups on here that have 5, 7 and 9 players and I am interested in seeing what other players prefer for size of a tournament group?
Having played in these sized groups, I am starting to prefer the 9 player groups, where a game time out or not starting has less influence on the overall group.
What do others think?
Thibault de Vassal (2013-03-01 19:13:16)
What size groups do you prefer?
IMO, 9 was a good choice (yours btw?) for the WCH... 7 may be better for regular tournament as it starts faster. The balance seems quite good now.
Just my opinion of course :)
Let's see what others think!?
George Clement (2013-03-01 21:08:11)
What size groups do you prefer?
What about starting the tournament when you have 4 0r 5 entries and capping it at 7. As 5,6,7 enter they could start their games. That could help end all this waiting for enough players to enter to start the full tournament.
Garvin Gray (2013-03-12 16:15:46)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
I think the main question here is: What is vacation meant to be used for?
The original premise for vacation time is that it is in place for people who go away on vacation or are sick and need some time off without having to risk timing out to do so.
This means they can still enter a tournament without having to worry about timing out or being at such a time disadvantage.
This is the purpose of vacation time.
It is not meant to be used to allow players who have chosen through their own choice of time management to avoid timing out games.
Therefore the rules should be changed to match the intention of vacation time.
Hence the proposal of a minimum of 3 days vacation and that it can not be used at all once a player gets under 3 days initial time.
Also, I would probably add that there should be a limit to how many times a player can take vacation blocks, but this might be hard for the server to calculate for each game a player is involved in.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-03-13 13:12:49)
Announcement
Hi all,
The 5th FICGS freestyle tournament will happen on april 6 & 7 (2013) - three rounds each day at 13:00, 15:00, 17:00 server time. The format will be the same (30 minutes + 15 seconds per move) than for the previous edition.
Entry fee : 10 Epoints, prize : 100% Fees + 70 Epoints
Deadline : 2013 april 6 - 12:00 server time
This time, just like other players, IM, SM & GM will have to enter the waiting list by themselves (entry fee : 10 Epoints), but they will recover their Epoints if they play all rounds.
Best regards,
Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2013-03-14 21:29:45)
Freestyle tournament
Hmm, I did not think about what can happen in the 5 or 7 rounds options but anyway it's too late for this time... 5 rounds is really few, and 7 would need one day more. Really hard to find the "perfect" balance.
Bogoljub Teverovski (2013-03-19 14:27:22)
What size groups do you prefer?
First of all, I prefer double-round-robin tournaments with 6-8 participants and, so, 10-14 games.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2013-03-23 13:51:58)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
On other sites vacation can be taken per tournament. That's what I prefer. But I think the current vacation rules on FICGS are ok.
Dann Corbit (2013-04-05 04:16:58)
Thematic tournaments?
Do you hold thematic tournaments here?
I am interested, specifically, in the Orangutan:
1.b4
Jaimie Wilson (2013-04-06 17:04:44)
Thematic tournaments?
Hi Dann,
Yes, under waiting lists - special tournaments. It seems the last Sokolsky tourney was back in 2010. I'm sure there will be another one day - 'good things come to those who wait' could be the motto of this site.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-04-06 21:50:39)
Thematic tournaments?
Hello Dann, thanks for the suggestion... we can play another one soon, sure. Just check the home page from time to time!
Thibault de Vassal (2013-04-07 22:48:43)
FICGS__CHESS__FREESTYLE_CUP__000005
The tournament is over... Alvin convincingly won it, once again.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__FREESTYLE_CUP__000005
Several things to say... first of all, I'd like to apologize again for this catastrophic first round, I just made a bunch of mistakes after a bad click :/
Second of all, I would like to thank all players, sincerely, for your patience & good vibes in this tournament! It is always nice to play & organize in this mood :) Special "big up" to Wayne & Garvin for their efforts to play very early or very late...
Finally, I'd like to thank Garvin for his constant involvement in FICGS tournaments... His help is always appreciated!
See you for the next edition (before next year, I hope)...
Wilhelm Schuett (2013-04-11 01:04:47)
Thematic tournaments?
Marshall Attack
Attila Ba (2013-04-20 17:40:43)
Poker rating anomaly
I have won a tournament game in poker against a player cca. a hundred points higher rated than me. His rating has dropped a few points but my rating remained unchanged. How is this possible?
Charlie Neil (2013-04-21 19:54:30)
Thematic tournaments?
Yes, Gambits please. Benko, Budapest, Latvian and (my favourite) Evans as a suggestion for future unrated tournaments.
Wilhelm Schuett (2013-04-23 17:31:15)
Thematic tournaments?
It doesn't have to be Gambits all the time.
For example less played like in the third move of Ruy Lopez, Old Benoni, Modern Defence, 1.d4 e6 2.c4 with 2. ... Lb4+ or 2. ... b6, 1. ... Sc6, Old Indian, Morra Gambit , Ponziani.
Daniel Parmet (2013-04-27 01:54:31)
Thematic tournaments?
We've had just about every single suggestion so far at some point in time (not that a rehash isn't a welcome thing).
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.
Bogoljub Teverovski (2013-05-09 13:37:52)
Thematic tournaments?
(1) French: (a) Winawer, (b) McCutcheon;
(2) Sicilian: (a) Kalashnikov, (b) O'Kelly;
(3) Slav: (a) Chebanenko, (b) Morozevich;
Wilhelm Schuett (2013-05-10 00:20:52)
Thematic tournaments?
Sicilian 2.Nf3 Nf6
Sicilian Labourdonnais
Garvin Gray (2013-05-10 04:42:58)
Thematic tournaments?
I think one idea that could be worth exploring with these thematics is to set up some kind of opening position that is topical, or could help to explore a bit more.
I think just saying lets have a french, or sicilian does not mean much as players get them in their normal games.
These thematics should have some goal more than just more games, like contributing to expanding opening theory.
Some kind of endgame thematic could be worth exploring as well.
This being said, I do fear that we could have too many options, so playing resources are spread too thin and very few can get regular corro games.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-05-10 12:26:09)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Nice try :) Just joking... luck is part of the game, indeed... but one can't achieve what you're doing (here and in other tournaments) without something other players do not have. Well, good chess first.
Attila Ba (2013-05-10 14:50:30)
Thematic tournaments?
Good point. Thematic tournaments would help to find out whether some radical ideas like Brooklyn defense ( 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ng8 ) can be defended against engine play.
Eros Riccio (2013-05-12 01:55:59)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Ok, I have never played that time control. I think that would be a little too fast for my tastes, as I am used to take some long pauses between the moves quite often.
That's one reason why I have never joined the WBCCC Tournaments on rybka forum, as they had that kind of time control.
Robert Knighton (2013-05-26 18:03:03)
Playing activity top 20 players
maybe they dont want regular running games to deal with when major tournaments come around?
When starting a game means a potentially multi month commitment then I can understand why top players would just save their effort for major tournaments to maximize their concentration on those games.
Mladen Jankovic (2013-05-26 21:36:20)
Playing activity top 20 players
Speaking of big tournaments, there was no new WCH for a while now, and there used to be 2 starting per year.
Neel Basant (2013-06-03 06:48:54)
Playing activity top 20 players
Will there be rating update before starting of the tournament ?
And i think it is not fair to advance to the next stage .[To the player with the strongest tournament entry rating]
As per FIDE tournament standing ( final Rankig)the lower rated player with the equal points wins because.
Robert Knighton (2013-06-06 22:58:06)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
@Thibault: a 2 day minimum is bad because what if I only need 1 day this time? I must lose 2. Maybe I need 1 day only 5 seperate times and I need 40 days straight around christmas/new years.
this scenario my/Garvin's suggestion works (20 blocks split however) and yours leaves me with only 30 days for christmas/new years; just as an example.
I dont think this is complex at all.
You may take vacation up to 20 more times this year.
You have a total of 45 days of vacation you may use.
20/45
No more complex than a chess clock ;)
@Michael: I think the specific complaints were probably sent privately but I can use my imagination to come up with some possibility.
Lets say you're playing a difficult opponent in a close game in some major tournament maybe.
In order to get a time advantage your opponent goes into vacation mode immediately after you make your moves.
While in vacation mode he can still view and analyze the game without running down his clock which effectively gives him 45 extra days of clock time. This can be a significant advantage (more time = more analysis)
People can argue that it works both ways but what if the victim in this story has used his/her vacation for legitimate reasons?
Maybe the person exploiting this technique only plays a few tournaments a year to make sure he has that 45 extra days if he runs into a hard game?
As for how to solve this issue... well that is the topic of the discussion. How to prevent vacation abuse without hurting legitimate vacation needs.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-06-07 01:01:26)
Playing activity top 20 players
Hi Daniel,
There are other ways to play 2200 players and gain rating points: class M tournaments (if you win a class A + ticket, or if you are rated 2150+ with a ticket as well), rapid M (2100-2300) tournaments, also the standard open tournament.
Building its rating is not all about the championship.
Daniel Parmet (2013-06-07 01:07:26)
Playing activity top 20 players
Thib, I already went from a 2100 rating to a 2372 rating (and my rating is still CLIMBING FAST) with to SIM norm events on ICCF in a mere 32 games. While I have played over 200 games on FICGS and have yet to have a SINGLE opportunity to play a strong tournament. My strength grows but my rating does not grow because this site has gone out of its way to establish rating barriers. Why should I push myself to unbelievable lengths to try to break this site's barriers when I have another site that will happily let me play players of my own strength or slightly stronger without any such herculean effort?
Thibault de Vassal (2013-06-09 01:46:15)
Playing activity top 20 players
I guess there are more strong players at ICCF to build rapid tournaments with more rating ranges, sorry for not being able to do that here :/
Finally, many players got a 2400 rating while starting at 1800 or even less... so maybe than playing a few games at standard time control would have brought you faster results than playing 200 games at rapid time control.
Sorry about that in all cases.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-06-10 00:16:11)
Playing activity top 20 players
I do understand that you choose the stronger opponents (like most strong players), that's why you could have chosen the class M tournament with the ticket opportunity... That's the point I still don't get.
Thanks for your words and your proposal... I'm always looking for ideas to spread the word about FICGS in the chess world. The more players, the more fun for everyone!
Thibault de Vassal (2013-06-10 22:25:14)
Playing activity top 20 players
If I remember well, that was a request to help players to reach the next rating band (200 points is a lot when most players who enter waiting lists are near the low limit).
Anyway, now I cannot find any argument to have the same rating ranges for rapid and standard tournaments (maybe "coherence" only).
Attila Ba (2013-06-11 10:10:18)
Playing activity top 20 players
As to 'create your own site of you are not satisfied' I'm seriously considering setting up a big chess site of my own. I like the idea of engine free chess very much but I can't get a tournament running here for half a year or so.
My site is not fully working as yet but has fragments that work (you can sign up, modify your profile, create challenges, view the board and make moves on it etc.).
Should you have any comments on the design it has a forum.
you can find it here:
baatti.com
Thibault de Vassal (2013-06-21 19:48:27)
Playing activity top 20 players
@ Alvin: you mean Iccf events?! what are Fide rapid events if not games played in less than 1 day?
@ Robert: for 1v1 we have rapid silver tournaments, but there is a stake of 10 epoints (or it would be unrated for obvious reasons).
@ Scott: 10 days + 1 day/move does not seem very different from 30 days + 1 day/move, I doubt it can bring more players. Standard time control remain even more popular here. On large cash prizes, I agree for sure :) ...
Peter W. Anderson (2013-06-22 18:45:26)
Playing activity top 20 players
At the risk of intertwining two separate threads....
10+1 would be very different from 30+1 if your 10+1 clocks kept running whislt you were on vacation (i.e. effectively no vacation in 10+1). This might appeal to people who like a fairly quick rate of play.
If it were done like that I would most likely play in a few 10+1 tournaments.
Robert Knighton (2013-06-24 14:59:21)
Playing activity top 20 players
20 days removed is a lot of time.
A tournament class which disallows vacation time would in itself be interesting.
combining the two would make for a very different tournament class.
Garvin Gray (2013-07-01 13:35:39)
Wch cycles possible changes?
I guess no one else wants any changes.
Oh well I am proposing a small change in regards to the TER rule.
As it stands=
The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage.
In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage. If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account.
I would like to see these reversed, so it is the rating at the end of the event that decides who goes through.
The logic of this is based on the theory being used.
The theory is that the reason for highest rating moves forward is that it helps to ensure that the next group is as strong as possible.
Well surely then that the most current information is the best guide to strength of play, so in my opinion the TER criteria should change to reflect this.
So the new rule would read:
The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage.
In the case of equality, the player with the highest rating when the next stage begins will be qualify.
Should their ratings be equal, then the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-07-02 19:29:35)
Wch cycles possible changes?
I chose the TER so that every player know what result to achieve in a tournament... with the current rating, the result of a match or tournament may change if a player uses the dead man defence. It would be quite terrible IMO :/
Robert Knighton (2013-07-03 19:02:38)
Wch cycles possible changes?
TER is the only fair way to decide other than tie breaker matches (time consuming) or pushing forward to the next round every player with the same score.
I can see where TER could be frustrating though.
If PlayerA TER 2049 and PlayerB TER 2050 both score 5.5/6 in round 1 then this does seem fairly unjust for player A because playerB only had to fight for a draw to win the round where PlayerA must get a win.
this gives PlayerB a strong advantage over a measly 1 elo.
1 elo also says nothing meaningful about which of the two players has a better chance in the tournament.
Factors such as number of games played or percentage of loss on time would be far better indicators than a single ELO point.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-07-15 14:16:39)
Interview with new FICGS Go champion
Yen-Wei Huang, winner of the 8th FICGS Go championship, kindly accepted to answer a few questions for this very interesting interview!
_______________________
- Hello Yen-Wei and congratulations for winning the FICGS Go championship! Xiao Tong was obviously a tough opponent, yet you won 5-0, what happened
during this match?
Hi Thib. Thanks again for your kind invitation. Xiao is definitely one
of the strongest Go players on FICGS, and I was really, really lucky
to have won all five games. In fact, I was behind in three of them
until Xiao made some mistakes late in the games: in game 69092, I
forced a tough ko fight which jeopardized my lower group. Xiao made a
mistake at P2 as he missed my T3 could force another ko. Game 69093
was very close towards the end but I think the move at C13 caused him
the game. Game 69096 was even closer that I won by half a point thanks
to the big 7.5 komi. The other two games were not easy either and I am
glad I could have hung on to the lead. Overall I really enjoyed our
match and I would love to have a rematch with Xiao in the future.
- You're from Taiwan, could you tell us a bit more about you? At what age
did you learn Go? Do you have any other ranks (e.g. at other sites)?
I learned Go when I was 5 and I have always enjoyed playing all my
life. I used to play on servers like KGS and Tygem and I was around
6-7 dan on these sites. Recently I don't have that much time to play
so that's why turned to turn-based server like FICGS.
- What do you think about the world of Go these days? Who is the very best
player in the world according to you?
I think the past two years were the "warring period" in the world of
Go. I would say Lee Sedol was the best player two years ago, but he
seems to have lost his dominant position recently. There are many
rising stars that are winning the world champions. I am especially
keeping an eye on Yuta Iyama, who I think is No. 1 in Japan and has
started to threaten the dominance of Chinese and Korean players.
- What about computer Go and its future? How many years do you give to the human before losing to the machine?
As a software engineer I foresee the computer Go beats the world's No.
1 player in two decades. Crazy Stone already beat Yoshio Ishida with
four handicap stones earlier this year, and I believe it wouldn't take
long for computers to beat pros in two handicap stones. The real
challenge will come when computers need to go from handicap games to
even games since they need to advance from defensive mode to attack
mode. I am really excited to see how Artificial Intelligence can
surprise us with its "creative" moves when the time comes.
- Do you use engines or databases? What advice would you give to beginners (and to your future challengers :))?
I know there are many useful Go engines and databases that are being developed these days, unfortunately I don't really know much about
them. I do use http://ps.waltheri.net/ if I need to look something up,
and I go to http://tom.com for commented games (they're in Chinese,
nonetheless). Advice to beginners: just go to any search engine and
you can easily find all the free resources you want. Advice to my
future challengers: just try the new variations since I know none of
them :)
- What new features would you like to see at FICGS?
Firstly I'd like to thank Thib for maintaining such a wonderful site.
I enjoy playing Go and Poker here and maybe I'll start playing Chess
sometime (I really suck so I'm not ready to embarrass myself yet). The
ability to play different games is what makes FICGS unique. As Thib
mentioned earlier, we need much more players, and I think FICGS simply
needs to host much more tournaments, probably some with shorter time
settings. With more games and more player engagement, more people will
stick around. Another feature I'd really like to see is FICGS client for
cellphones/tablets. The main advantage of turn-based servers is that
it allows people to play wherever for whatever period of time: a 1-min
ride in the elevator, a 10-min wait at the bus stop, or a couple of
hours at home. If playing on FICGS is made easier, I know I will be
more addicted to it :)
- Thank you very much and good luck in the next final match...
Thanks! And please go easy on our Poker match...
Attila Ba (2013-07-18 10:12:31)
Looking for big chess partners
Looking for big chess partners
I like very much the idea presented by this site of chess played on a bigger than normal board. Since Chess960 destroys theory but does not destroy engines (playing Chess960 for an engine is easy as pie) the only anti-engine way is to go for bigger board sizes. In this way you can measure your true correspondence chess skills independent of engines (on one hand no professional would go and write an engine for a game that is played by very few, on the other hand the number of possibilities soon grow out of hand on bigger boards making the tree search very difficult).
Out of my 18 big chess games on this site I have won 17 and lost 1 making it my most succesful type of game here. But with low player turnouts I simply can't get a tournament running (for half a year or so).
In order to have the possibility to play I have created a site solely for the purpose of playing rated big chess games on a single game basis with wide choice of timers and board sizes.
If anyone is interested please come to baatti.com and let's play big chess.
Jose Carrizo (2013-07-19 23:13:11)
Anyone play Semi Slav Botvinnik as black
Hi Garvin, I play Semi Slav Botvinnik as black. A thematic tournament is a nice idea.
Ilmars Cirulis (2013-07-29 10:17:42)
Thematic tournaments?
"... Latvian and (my favourite) Evans as a suggestion for future unrated tournaments." (Charlie Neil)
If you want to experimentally verify that Latvian gambit is unsound then why not? :P
Also I like suggestion of Evans gambit. (giggle)
Thibault de Vassal (2013-07-30 23:34:39)
Thematic tournaments?
Okay, let's try Evans gambit again as a thematic! Always a success :)
Mladen Jankovic (2013-07-30 23:54:17)
Thematic tournaments?
How about
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7
It makes for some weird play.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-07-31 00:02:01)
Thematic tournaments?
Ah, that's a nice one too... does it have a name?
Dann Corbit (2013-07-31 00:51:10)
Thematic tournaments?
"The unsound gambit". Black wins.
rnbq1bnr/pppp1k1p/8/8/4Ppp1/5N2/PPPP2PP/RNBQK2R w KQ - acd 35/52; acs 1558 ; acn 7330987122; ce -165 ; bm Ne5+; pv Ne5+ Ke8 Qxg4 Nf6 Qxf4 d6 Nf3 Rg8 0-0 Qe7 d4 Qg7 Rf2 Ng4 Re2 Nc6 c3 Be7 Na3 Bd7 Bd2 Kd8 Nc4 Kc8 Rf1 a6 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Bc5+ Kh1 Qg6 Ng5 Qd3 Qe4 Qxe4 Nxe4 Be7 Nf6 Rf8 Bg5 b5;
Peter W. Anderson (2013-07-31 09:54:45)
Thematic tournaments?
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 is the Lolli Gambit.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-07-31 11:34:54)
Thematic tournaments?
Thanks a lot Peter, indeed I knew the name :)
Sorry Dann, I tried to include this FEN in a PGN in the discussion but it doesn't work well :/
Ilmars Cirulis (2013-07-31 12:41:09)
Thematic tournaments?
Ilmars Cirulis (2013-07-31 12:42:58)
Gossip about Evans gambit
Damn, and now I don't know if I may discuss my thoughts because of Evans gambit thematic tournament. :) May I? :D
Thibault de Vassal (2013-07-31 14:21:45)
Thematic tournaments?
That's your own analysis of the line Ilmars?
Ilmars Cirulis (2013-07-31 14:31:28)
Thematic tournaments?
<< Sorry Dann, I tried to include this FEN in a PGN in the discussion but it doesn't work well :/ >> (Thibault)
I included it as PGN. At first try I started it from FEN (after 5th move), but then I thought that all moves from start position are better.
Mladen Jankovic (2013-07-31 19:14:38)
Thematic tournaments?
I encountered it playing here, the interesting part is that it enables the black king to go on the attack early.
I've played it in game 2032, where I withdrew my king from the center even though pressing on did not seem impossible.
https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=2032
Dann Corbit (2013-07-31 20:22:59)
Thematic tournaments?
It takes guts to play that opening as white, because it looks like a serious disadvantage to me. Of course I like the Orangutan, which is theoretically weak for white as well. I will examine game 2032 to see how it came out
Ilmars Cirulis (2013-08-01 17:00:15)
Gossip about Evans gambit
So about the thematic tournament:
with black I am going to play 4... Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 and hope to get to this position/variation:
With white I plan to play or check my skill/luck against other retreats of bishop from b4.
Scott Nichols (2013-08-02 20:54:08)
Next WCH Stage start
That's fine Thib, I entered late. Please take my name off the list so I don't have to worry about it.
On another subject, but still Wch. I saw in the round robin final that Kamesh was entered. I don't think he has played a game on here in about 2 years. He made it clear to all of us that he was quitting online chess because of his 2 new kids. My point is this, the final RR just takes too long to reach. My suggestion: Have a single qualifying swiss tournament. The top eight players then can have a final RR to determine the winner. Have an entry fee, this will eliminate Most of the looky-loos and forfeits. I think quality, not quantity is more important.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-08-06 00:42:13)
Next WCH Stage start
Yes, there will be a replacement for Kamesh very soon!
How do you organize swiss tournaments at correspondence time controls?
Well, the original idea was to give a chance to everyone (including to climb the elo scale)...
Peter Unger (2013-08-12 18:49:37)
tournament finished but no leader
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_03__000010 is finished but there is no leader. Why?
Will be a stage 3 tournament?
Rolf Staggat (2013-08-13 15:11:11)
tournament finished but no leader
Thibault trägt die Sieger manuell ein. Er kann halt nicht ständig alle Gruppen im Blick haben.
Wait a minute !
Peter Unger (2013-08-15 18:31:23)
tournament finished but no leader
thx! Rolf
Garvin Gray (2013-08-31 09:27:36)
New my games feature requested
I would like to see an additional heading item added to the my games page.
Currently I have a heap of games going. Some of them are class time control and some are rapid time control.
I think it would improve the site and make 'things' much easier if in the space between each tournament games, a new heading was added telling you either:
1) The actual name of the tournament those particular games belong to
or
2) Just a listing of class or rapid.
Because currently a game says 10 days remaining, but 10 days and 8 moves to the time control in a class event is different to having 10 days remaining in a rapid.
This would then make it easier to prioritise games.
Garvin Gray (2013-08-31 19:08:25)
New my games feature requested
Thanks Alvin. After my post I also realised this addition is especially useful as quite a few of us having multiple games against the same opponent, so it makes it much easier to work out which tournament it comes from.
For instance I have events from Round Robin Final to standard open. Would be beneficial to know at a glance which one is which :)
Thibault de Vassal (2013-09-02 00:33:42)
tournament finished but no leader
It should be ok now, sorry for the delay!
Thibault de Vassal (2013-09-04 00:43:00)
New my games feature requested
Kind of vacation, sorry :)
Just read the whole discussion (at last)... Currently, the name of the tournament appears by leaving the mouse on a game in the list. I'm not sure which choice is best, as for me I prefer to have more games available on my screen but an option may be ok I guess.
Please be patient, I should be back to code in a few weeks.
Paul Campanella (2013-09-15 13:03:20)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Will this rule apply to poker and GO tournaments or just chess?
Thibault de Vassal (2013-09-16 00:40:34)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
It applies to all games (as far as I remember :))
Garvin Gray (2013-09-20 09:25:56)
Poker for e-points?
I see this debate/topic quite often. In most countries the only way poker can be played for currency is if it is in tournament style.
Just like chess, tennis anything. As long as the prizes at the end go to the best performers.
Wayne Lowrance (2013-09-25 07:16:13)
My tournament activity
Thib I dis like having to post this msg.
Thib I have tried very hard to continue these tournaments. Somehow I have over committed Tournaments. I am competing in away to many tournaments. I am not able mentally & physically to play active chess. it is not fair to me and my opponents.
I am very satisfied with results. I currently have no negative results. My mind no longer has memory capacity for chess at my level.
My wife Dorothy has asked me to discontinue chess
She knows what it means to me and how hard this is for me to take this course of action.
Thanks to you and especially to all of my partners.
God bless all.
Wayne
Wayne Lowrance (2013-09-25 07:18:15)
My tournament activity
PS please remove me from all aactivity. TKU Wayne
Alvin Alcala (2013-09-25 12:40:11)
My tournament activity
Its ok Wayne, please keep in touch in any case :)
George Clement (2013-09-25 22:16:46)
My tournament activity
Wayne it has been a privelige to know and play you. I hope you do alright if life.
Paul Campanella (2013-10-01 00:14:47)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
It's really not fair because the previous people worked their way through the ranks in order to get their ratings instead of just entering into a tournament the easier way.
Bogoljub Teverovski (2013-10-01 12:10:10)
Tablebases and no-engines tournaments
I wonder if usage of the endgame tablebases are permitted or prohibited for n0-engines tournaments?
Bogoljub Teverovski (2013-10-03 13:04:46)
Thematic tournaments?
I offer 2 further tematics: Sicilian Labourdonnais or French McCutcheon
Philip Roe (2013-10-03 21:01:42)
Tablebases and no-engines tournaments
Bogoljub,
When you enter the tournament by clicking on the waiting list, you are told that "chess engines, databases and opening books are strictly forbidden". I guess the idea is to reproduce OTB conditions as closely as possible.
Bogoljub Teverovski (2013-10-05 00:38:01)
Tablebases and no-engines tournaments
To reproduce otb conditions and to tell them from correspondence (analytical!) chess is not possible with the time controls in days. The key difference is thinking in mind instead of pushing pieces during analysis.
Sebastian Boehme (2013-10-06 11:54:52)
Tablebases and no-engines tournaments
Engines do calculate moves within a game, tablebases already have these moves available, but where calculated before by some super computers.
In my understanding tablebases should be forbidden in non-engine chess then too.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-10-08 11:17:13)
My tournament activity
Health before everything (and particularly chess), Wayne!
Say hi to wise Dorothy for me and take care, anyway you'll always be one of the strongest players having played here :)
See you, wherever on the internet...
Cheers,
Thib
Thibault de Vassal (2013-10-08 11:19:10)
Tablebases and no-engines tournaments
Yes, it is forbidden too... maybe I'll have to specify it in the rules.
Scott Nichols (2013-10-08 16:52:38)
Best Freestyle Site
This site is still IMHO the best site for Freestyle. The interface is easy to understand and everything is clear, that's important to any site.
That's why I don't understand why the traffic has dwindled so. I'm sure we could come up with something to increase the Freestyle on here.
I'll start with my idea, :) Have a monthly Freestyle OPEN tournament. The only requirent is a 2 E-point entry fee. The winner gets 90%, FICGS gets 10%. The time controls would have to be bullet, 5 min with 15 second increment. If 8 players or less, it could be a round robin. 9 players or more, even up to a hundred!, would play a swiss style. Make it unrated so anybody could join. Have it on the first Sat. of the month. It would have to start at least by 1800 server time to get all the rounds in in ONE DAY.
Lazaro Munoz (2013-10-14 15:43:45)
Tablebases and no-engines tournaments
But most endgame books (I assume books are allowed) these days use tablebase results, for that matter so do many opening books on computer analysis results.
Bogoljub Teverovski (2013-10-18 12:10:38)
Tablebases and no-engines tournaments
If books and databases are forbidden too, so, these events should be entitled as "zero-knowledge" tournaments instead of no-engines.
Garvin Gray (2013-10-20 12:50:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Was attempting to find the thread on allowing players to enter the next section up by winning the lower section.
Time for a review of this practice I think now that it has been going for a year or so.
I think it has had some benefits, I certainly have benefited from it ie have helped moved me up the rating list faster than otherwise would have occurred, I have noticed a couple of large issues.
In some groups, the waiting lists are taking much longer to form when two players from a lower rating group have entered early.
For instance a 2300+ group can be showing players with ratings of 2150 or so. This is possible when two players buy their ticket after winning a lower division and then their rating drops. This situation has occurred.
From then on for that group to form, it requires another 5 2300 players to join the group. That is a long and tedious process.
I think the rules on the upgrade ticket process need to be re-written to as follows:
A player, who has won the lower division, can only use the higher division ticket, once five or more places have been filled in that group.
The purpose of this rule change should hopefully show to keep 'strong' players that if they get in quick they can get a group going full of players of the ratings they want.
The market can then choose by entering quickly and watching the rating lists.
With the current situation of difficulty getting divisions started due to the number of wch groups started at the same time, some changes are required.
I think this rule is one area that needs to be reviewed urgently.
Eduardo Alex Baeza Ibanez (2013-11-06 20:21:23)
FICGS__BIG_CHESS__TOURNAMENT__00
i need some help!!, i was confused, and don't read very well, and then i accept to invitations to play big chess, how can i cancel this? because i don't have time to play a so long game like this, sorry about that, was my mistake.
the name of this tournament is FICGS__BIG_CHESS__TOURNAMENT__00
Thibault de Vassal (2013-11-13 23:24:28)
FICGS__BIG_CHESS__TOURNAMENT__00
That's not possible... it happens sometimes, you just have to resign these games.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-11-13 23:31:38)
About the players
Well, you can play bullet/lightning games with connected players but you may use the waiting lists (standard tournaments) to play correspondence games.
The Help section may help as well.
Garvin Gray (2013-12-05 01:44:30)
WBCCC 2014 Entries Open
Entries for WBCCC 2014 are now open at www.rybkaforum.net.
For those not aware of our event, quite a few of the players here can speak about their experiences in the event, but as organiser I can say that many of the regular players have gotten a lot out of their participation, have improved their play and a lot has been learnt about freestyle correspondence chess in the three years that this event has been running.
Prize money is offered, but how much is determined by players and others willingness to sponsor.
Feel free to contact me by replying to this message, sending me a pm at rybka forum or private message here. A private message here is the least reliable.
Full tournament rules:
1) Tournament will be single round robin, meaning every person will play each other once.
2) A players seed position will be determined by their order of entry. The earlier you enter, the higher your number. The first person to enter will receive number 1. The seed position determines which number a player is in the round robin.
3) Entries open December 1 2013
4) Entries close January 6 2014
5) Play begins January 13 2014
6) Each round will be paired at the start of the event, with the pairings for the entire year published at the start.
7) Each round will have a maximum of four games, most likely two games (just like 2011, 2012 and 2013). The number of games will always be kept to a bare minimum
8) There will be a maximum of six paired rounds.
9) The minimum time control will be 30 days plus 1 hour per move. If the number of games per round needs to increase from 2 to 3 or 4, the time control will be lengthened. For instance, if we have 21 players, so needing 4 games per round to keep the number of games even and use five rounds, instead of the six rounds in 2013.
9) Pairings for future rounds are subject to change due to withdrawal of players and unforeseen circumstances.
10) If a player withdraws, or their games time out without an explanation that is accepted by the arbiter, all their games will be removed from the event. In effect they are no longer a participant in the event and no effect on the final placings.
11) There will be an official entry form that all players will be required to fill out before their entry will be accepted. This is so in case of emergency the organisers have a method of contact outside of Rybka Forum. It will include also include a person other than yourself to contact. Whilst I understand this might seem unnecessary to some, I do hope that events from 2013 (death of Salvador Signes and our inability to get in contact with the family) do show the need for better communication methods.
12) Xfccplay- Xfccplay is the official software provided for WBCCC 2014. Xfccplay is provided for the free use for participants whilst in the event. A user name and password will be provided once registered. Also download instructions will be provided by private message and these must be followed to install the program. The program is provided by chessok and is not to be passed on to anyone and is provided for the sole use of playing in WBCCC. All moves, draw offers etc in WBCCC 2014 must be played on this software.
13) New entrants will be required to play a couple of test games on xfccplay before entries close so that the arbiter is certain that all players are familiar with the software and its features. The organisers do not want to see players withdrawing after the event has begun because they find that they are unfamiliar with the software and get upset because their clock is running. Entries are open from December 1 to January 6. That is over a month to become familiar with the software. The organisers will not accept entries from players who have not tested the software.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-12-15 00:56:10)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Hi Garvin, sorry for the (very long) delay!
You're absolutely right here. Actually, I tried to work this way already in some cases but it was not enough, obviously...
There may be disappointments in some cases but it's probably worth a try, so the rule will be rewritten that way!
Garvin Gray (2013-12-15 10:33:57)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Another suggestion :) I notice you have said the rule has been re-written, but where it is displayed. To make the 'ticket' rule etc more obvious, it should be contained on the page when someone clicks on the link that takes you to entering a divisions. Say I click on class sm 19 (the current division in question), it would give the ticket rules.
So, when does the new ticket rules start?
Thibault de Vassal (2013-12-16 18:44:40)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Right now, it is fully displayed in the rules page only.
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#tickets
The ticket option is reminded (with a link to rules) in each email specifying that a tournament is won and on the "My messages" page. I'll probably add it to the Waiting list pages soon.
By the rules have been updated!
Alvin Alcala (2013-12-17 17:47:32)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Is it possible under "preferences" we have a message we earned a ticket?
Thibault de Vassal (2013-12-23 20:59:07)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
Well, as for me I still like very much this time control... It enables me not to accumulate too much stress (mainly because of periods -added to vacation- when I cannot play chess enough) while accumulating a few tournaments.
But I understand for sure your feeling! People do not play at the same rhythm, that's all and that's why we have rapid tournaments (that seem to be about as popular as standard tourneys).
Josef Riha (2013-12-24 09:38:06)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
Hello Garvin, in unrated tournaments the same problem exists.
But another one is this: After a few moves they wait until timeout or resign also in a winning position. I found this very unrespectful and boring.
I can name this persons too.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-12-26 23:48:23)
FICGS World Chess Championship results
Oh ok, so it may not be the right date in all cases because of additional groups that started after the usual date, indeed. To avoid mistakes, all quarter finals in the knockout tournament started at the correct date.
Costantino Proietti (2013-12-30 21:35:15)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
Garvin, I totally agree with you. The answer is: Change the time control. In rapid tournaments too.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-01-01 21:38:29)
Thematic tournaments?
Let's go for a McCutcheon :)
Bogoljub Teverovski (2014-01-01 22:25:10)
Thematic tournaments?
New year and new thematics!
Charlie Neil (2014-01-01 22:44:54)
Thematic tournaments?
McCutcheon good idea! And Steinitz Petroff 3. d4
Wilhelm Schuett (2014-01-03 01:15:04)
Thematic tournaments?
Sicilian: (a) Kalashnikov, (b) O'Kelly;
Don Groves (2014-01-24 03:51:05)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
IMHO, the answer to this problem is to not allow any player to enter a new tournament if that player still has more than X ongoing tournaments. The determination of X remains to be resolved. It needs to be low enough to eliminate players from entering a new tournament and then not making any moves until their clock runs low. This is completely unfair to the other players!
Thibault de Vassal (2014-02-13 13:30:26)
Standard time control abusers
George, the main reason why no tournaments enough can start is that the number of new players slowly decreases for a while... I tried several things to solve this problem and it didn't work, now I'm trying other things but believe me, I'm doing my possible. The thing is that it takes time (particularly for Google) :/
Thibault de Vassal (2014-02-26 15:19:34)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
Just a matter of taste... As for me, I really enjoy it. Rapid tournaments are probably a good compromise, no need to make standard tournaments look like it too much.
George Clement (2014-02-27 20:11:20)
Standard time control abusers
Doesn't help if you want to play in a rated tournament!
Peter W. Anderson (2014-02-28 08:36:07)
Standard time control abusers
True!
There are advantages to how the FICGS world champs are organised, but one disadvantage is that you can end up playing lots of Wch games and not really have time for normal tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-02-28 16:36:56)
Standard time control abusers
This statistic/percentage will increase with time, most probably (quite logical)... It is probably quite the same at ICCF.
Wch is always a problem with standard tournaments, that's one reason why I was not favourable (so far) to add another cycle (cup). But I think there will be more players registering soon, things are evolving in the right way with Google.
Garvin Gray (2014-02-28 17:15:22)
Standard time control abusers
ICCF code of conduct 2: Extremely slow play in a clearly lost position is not proper behaviour in CC play, and is subject to a warning from the TD, and will result in disciplinary action if it continuous or is repeated in other games
Playing Rules- Server
3) Failure to Reply- a. The ICCF Webserver system will automatically generate an Email reminder when a player has not
made a move for 14 days and another, after 28 generated after 35 days of silence by a player.
b. When a player is sent a final reminder after 35 days of response time, he/she must either move or report to the Tournament Director and to his/her opponent, the intention to continue the game, within 5 days of that
reminder. If a player does not move or otherwise report his/her intention to continue, during the 40 days of response
time for the same move, the game may be scored as lost by the Tournament Director.
My own words- The number of days set above are based on 10 moves in 50 days, so for our site we would use a much shorter time period.
I can not answer what happens in practice on iccf as I do not play there.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-01 23:51:05)
Standard time control abusers
Here is a proposal... I'll post a new topic asking who is favourable to close the class A, class M & class SM tournaments, promoting regularly this new topic in the chat bar.
Then let's wait 7 days exactly. If there are more players wanting to close (temporarily, at least) these waiting lists, then it will be done.
Does it sound acceptable to you?
Garvin Gray (2014-03-02 04:03:47)
Standard time control abusers
I see the idea of a vote as ridiculous and a waste of time. What it could lead to is people voting to keep the class A, M and SM tournaments open because they do not want to deprive the opportunity of someone to play in them, but the status quo remains that no one is joining them.
And what happens if you only get a couple of responses, which is exactly what could happen because of general site apathy?
If you want knowledge of how people feel about these matters, but do not want to publicly speak about the matter because they are afraid to offend the site administrator because they are afraid.
I have given you the absolute 'rounds of the kitchen' repeatedly and often on this issue and have not let up over a number of weeks.
It is natural on the internet that when someone is pushing that hard against the efforts of a volunteer site admin that there will be blowback and the 'pusher (me)' will cop criticism in return.
So far there has been little to none. In fact some of the regulars have been stating that there is an issue as well.
Instead of calling for votes that could just leave all of us in the same ridiculous situation, take the feedback I have provided, and also the inactivity of the groups as the votes that really count ie the marketplace has decided that they do not want those groups, and close the class SM, class M and class A groups immediately.
Josef Riha (2014-03-02 10:21:48)
Standard time control abusers
As I said earlier in this thread, look at chesshere.com. There are no tournament classes here.
You have three possibilities to play a game in CC:
1.) Start your own game and decide the time control and elo-range of your opponent or enter a game at the game list.
2.) If you are a teammember the teamcaptain assigns an opponent to you.
3.) You can apply a Championship with different elo-classes.
In all cases the time control range is mostly between 3 or 7 days. No extra days are added after a move.
If an opponent ran out of time you can remain your opponent to do a move or finish the game immediately. After each game your elopoints are updated and you can see your success (or failure).
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-03 11:22:35)
Class A, class M & class SM closed
Hello all,
Waiting lists for chess class A, class M & class SM tournaments are temporarily closed as an experiment, following the discussion in the thread:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=11507
My sincere apologies to players who entered it already, but anyway you all know that class & rapid tournaments are difficult to start for 2 years now, so we're working on different ways to improve the situation.
Of course, you can send me an email if you want to remove your name from these waiting lists.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2014-03-03 18:14:56)
Standard time control abusers
Why do you think that a serious player would join FICGS if he cannot play serious correspondence games here? He hasn't done it during the last two years, so he will not do it after this restriction of tournament structure.
IMO time control 30/+1 is only suitable for correspondence cafe chess games. It's enough time for poker games, maybe even go games, but chess? That's enough in no case, if you have to work or want to play on others sides too.
I don't play normal chess on this side because the class tournaments are not attractive enough. At least I should climb the next class level if I win a tournament. With this ELO-driven classification that is not the case. And in the WCH there is not enough time to play a serious game.
Furthermore, I don't like the preferential treatment (own groups) for the "better" players. I think that many players feel the same way.
By the way I think it's terrible that chess players are condemned here because they spent their time (or vacation) as they need it. According to the rules that is their right.
Jing Huang (2014-03-04 00:14:15)
Standard time control abusers
I agree with this - "I don't play normal chess on this side because the class tournaments are not attractive enough. At least I should climb the next class level if I win a tournament. With this ELO-driven classification that is not the case."
I also like the cup idea :)
Don Groves (2014-03-09 22:26:32)
Standard time control abusers
I have long ago stated my opinion that, if a player cannot make one move per week (or maybe 10 days) in each game they are playing, then that person is playing too many games. I have come up against the same problems Garvin is talking about many times and invariably players who do this are playing 30 or more games at the same time. My solution is to restrict the number of tournaments a player can enter. No player can enter a new tournament if he/she has more than two tournaments already running.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-12 13:44:36)
Standard time control abusers
Even a 10 days limit per move would not solve the DMD problem... And we had debates on the number of tournaments each player can enter, such a (big) change would not satisfy everyone (for the least, I think).
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-25 23:05:39)
Thematic tournaments?
Let's go for a Sicilian O'Kelly :)
Bogoljub Teverovski (2014-03-26 11:43:37)
Thematic tournaments?
Good choice, I'm in.
Wilhelm Schuett (2014-04-02 16:19:15)
Thematic tournaments?
Me too
Thibault de Vassal (2014-04-09 13:18:35)
Alvin Alcala in Freestyle Battle 2014
It seems that Alvin still some chances to win the gigantic freestyle tournament named "Freestyle Battle" played at InfinityChess server :
http://www.infinitychess.com/Web/Page/Public/Article/DefaultArticle.aspx?id=141
He is now second, Anson Williams is first... Wish him good luck for the last 2 rounds :)
Peter W. Anderson (2014-04-10 11:14:59)
Alvin Alcala in Freestyle Battle 2014
Yes, excellent performance by Alvin.
Anson Williams is interesting. I can't find him on any correspondence sites. I believe he is English but I cannot find any record of an English Chess Federation or FIDE rating for him. The only type of chess he seems to play is freestyle and he seems to do very well at it. He must have a lot of natural talent because there are some strong OTB and correspondence players in that tournament.
Good luck Alvin for the last round :)
Michael Sayers (2014-04-19 17:05:02)
remove from non-started tournaments
Is it possible for a player to have himself removed from the waiting list of tournaments which have not begun if he might not be able to complete the obligations and if he doesn't make this mistake again?
(specifically
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_B__000205,
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_C__000210,
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_B__000217,
FICGS__CHESS__NO_ENGINES_TOURNAMENT__000071,
and
FICGS__CHESS__UNRATED_TOURNAMENT__000037
- these are many!!!).
Much appreciated if possible :)
Michael S.
Michael Sayers (2014-04-19 17:05:55)
remove from non-started tournaments
I am hoping to have myself removed from those lists, with apologies for having entered too many!
Michael S.
Michael Sayers (2014-04-19 20:45:06)
remove from non-started tournaments
If the games in one or more, or even all the tournaments, initiated before I can be removed this is fine, but hopefully I can be removed prior to the start of the tournaments.
Michael S.
Michael Sayers (2014-04-20 09:23:00)
remove from non-started tournaments
A previous post on the subject mentioned to email to the site director about removals. Maybe someone here knows where to locate the email address? I tried and failed to locate it.
Michael S.
Michael Sayers (2014-04-20 16:30:34)
remove from non-started tournaments
I found the email and sent the missive.
Wishing everyone here a happy holiday weekend!
Michael S.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-04-23 00:19:10)
Standard time control abusers
A problem with starting with only 10 days is players who may start a new tournament late.
Garvin, I must say I sometimes play this way myself when I have few time during a few weeks... I play easiest moves while delaying hard ones, then I concentrate on these difficult games during a short period and play several moves... Everyone may have his reasons.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-04-27 19:07:11)
remove from non-started tournaments
Yes, you found the right way :)
As a reminder, the email is : info [arobase] ficgs [dot] com
Thibault de Vassal (2014-05-13 23:01:16)
Class A, class M & class SM closed
It is now about 70 days that these waiting lists are closed, time to make a point.
The situation was the following on march 2 : "Rapid SM 12 is now empty, rapid M 71 has one player & rapid A 158 has three"
Now, Rapid SM 12 has one player , rapid M 72 (one started) has two players & rapid A 161 (three started) has one.
However only one player rated above 2200 entered the Rapid M tournament that started, and another one the current waiting list. On the other hand, respectively 2, 3 & 4 players rated above 2000 entered the Rapid A tournaments.
My conclusion is that closing class SM & class M tournaments waiting lists was not really useful while it was more useful for class A. Finally, probably one or two rapid A would have started during this period if class A was not closed.
Of course the main problem remains the lack of new players.
I now re-open the class SM, M & A waiting lists. Let's see how it evolves.
Jing Huang (2014-05-25 11:44:03)
Class A, class M & class SM closed
To attract the new players, I have some suggestions:
(1) A league format might be interesting. (e.g. littlegolem)
(2) The way of displaying the tournament results matters a lot. You can try something different and see the effects:)
Garvin Gray (2014-06-01 14:57:20)
Class A, class M & class SM closed
I agree with both of these points.
Point number 1 has been thrashed around a lot.
Point number 2 needs to be embraced. Currently the site really does feel like just one game to the next. It is very difficult to work out how each game fits in to the grand scheme of things.
As Thib has just had to point out to Neel, next stage starts Nov 1. This should all be displayed clearly as part of the wch section on the left hand side.
Perhaps what is required is a full site overhaul to change the layout so the tournament results can be displayed more clearly.
Gregory Kohut (2014-06-04 15:57:28)
Thematic tournaments?
For the next Thematic tournament I suggesst Double Fischer Random. Double Fischer Random for when Fischer Random is not random enough for you.
Peter W. Anderson (2014-07-13 10:54:56)
FICGS WCh results summary updated
I have given the question of the format of the WCh matches a lot of thought.
There is no doubt that having the advantage of the draw is a huge advantage at correspondence chess, much more so than at normal chess, simply because the draw rate is so high amongst strong correpondence players.
However, there are disadvantages to other formats. It is true that a tournament final gives a better chance of having a new champion. But the outcome is dependent upon the results of players who are not necesarrily fighting hard for the prize (perhaps they have an early loss, perhaps other parts of their lives become too busy). You might hope that in the final this would not happen, but if you look closely at the games in the round robin finals you will see some strange results, clearly drawn games being lost etc. If it can happen in the round robin final it could happen in a championship final.
Having more games in the final is a very logical option. However, as Thib has pointed out, this will create a big workload. It would make it almost impossible for a serious challenger to enter consecutive championships without having to withdraw from later ones if they reached the final (this is already very difficult witouht more games!).
Another option would be an advanced chess play-off. I would be concerned that this would be too dependant on who had the biggest hardware with less chance for human skill.
Finally, there is the chance to decide a tied match with a toss of a coin. Not a great way of picking a champion.
This problem is not so much an issue with the format as with the game itself - chess is almost certainly drawn with sensible play and as engines get stronger it is going to become harder and harder to win games.
All in all, I think the current format is very reasonable, perhaps the best.
One final observation re Neel's comment that a top player can draw a game if he wants. Perhaps, and if this is 100% true then the draw problem is realy severe. However, I am a little more hopeful. Eros Riccio sometimes beats even very strong players playing the same openings he plays - it is not as if the openings he plays are guaranteed draws in practice. He finds ways of putting them under pressure and sometimes they make a mistake. Perhaps eventually he will do so too (we may have to wait for him to get old!). Or to put another way, chess is almost certainly drawn but it is not an easy draw even at correspondence if white plays really well!
Bogoljub Teverovski (2014-07-25 19:29:12)
Thematic tournaments?
It's time for new thematic. Let's play Budapest Gambit
Joerg Moormann (2014-08-01 00:47:42)
Thematic tournaments?
Budapest with reversed colours:
1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4
Don Groves (2014-08-15 01:54:11)
Standard time control abusers
My position has not changed: the main reason for slow play is players who have too many games in progress for the amount of time they can devote to chess. The current level of allowable games is far too high, in my opinion. No one should be allowed to enroll in another tournament if they still have several uncompleted tournaments going on! How many is "several" needs to be decided, but 50, or whatever the limit now is, is way too many!
Nick Burrows (2014-08-26 20:06:27)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
Garvin: This is the paragraph Thibault referred me to -
b) "When a player wins a tournament with an entry fee (not null) and prize, he can choose after the game(s) to keep E-Points (by default) instantly added in his FICGS account or, if he has E-Points enough in his account, a money prize. Entry fees and prizes in E-Points are published on the tournament page in "Waiting lists". If games in such a tournament have not been really played for a win, for example if a participant obviously lost quickly one or several games only to allow his opponent to get the money prize (and particularly if it happens several times), these tournaments will not be considered as win and the player showing this behaviour may lose his E-points involved in the tournament at the referee's discretion."
looking at it now, this doesn't even seem to cover my specific circumstance, as is this an instance of a player "not playing for a win"?
I always thought Thib was a nice guy, but his greed in this instance has really surprised me, and left a bad taste in my mouth.
Garvin Gray (2014-08-30 07:46:33)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
Had some more time to think about this. Read the rules, read them again. Especially about where if a person asks for a financial payout from e points to Euro (and then converted to their currency.
They receive 75% of the stated e point amount.
So by my calculations-
David Evans paid 100 euro to enter the waiting list.
Nick Burrows paid 100 euro to enter the waiting list.
The advertised prize for winning the match is 196 e points.
So lets say that this match was played on merit and Nick won 2-0. He would receive 196 e points in his account. That is already 4 e points that FICGS is keeping for itself.
Then if Nick decided to 'cash out' those 196 e points, he would receive 75% of that- so 147 EURO.
This means that FICGS has received 200 EURO originally from these two entries, and paid out 147 EURO to Nick for his win.
Now, in the circumstance that has occurred here, the rule mentioned is more designed for multiple player tournaments to stop rating manipulation (sandbagging and the like), not for this circumstance.
Also, this rule states- For example if a participant obviously lost quickly one or several games only to allow his opponent to get the money prize (and particularly if it happens several times). This would then be saying that David Evans deliberately lost both games on purpose to attempt to give Nick the prize (even though David paid the money out of his own pocket). Why wouldn't David just give the money straight to Nick?
If FICGS really does believe that part rule I have quoted has been violated and that David has engaged in game fixing, will FICGS be taking strong against David Evans, including suspensions or banning him from this site. It would be the logical conclusion for game fixing. Since this is the rule being quote to deny a payout.
Now the only other circumstance that I can think of why FICGS has attempted to deny a payout if that FICGS believes that Nick only entered the GOLD match, believing that David would not play the two games. That is a risky strategy for Nick to take, considering David is an active player, especially for 100 euro and 2 games.
Considering that even if FICGS pays out the money on this two game match, the site still makes 53 euro from a 2 game match, and I do not see a rule that justifies not paying it out, this money should be paid out.
A further question now is- Are these fees fair? A 53 euro profit from a 2 game match?
Thibault de Vassal (2014-08-30 22:44:50)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
I have to specify here that the rule mentioned is absolutely not about rating manipulation (by the way, there is already another rule for this), it is about money prize in 2 players matches only, maybe with 3+ players in unlikely cases! It was added when a player got a money prize after getting a few free Epoints and without playing any move... Of course, that was not acceptable (the prize was paid though, following the rules) as games recorded -especially silver/gold tournaments- should be worth to watch. So these are the reasons for this rule: To avoid empty games, to punish the player who didn't play (by taking Epoints, which is a obviously strong act in this particular case) and to redistribute Epoints to players who deserve it. Just like the rating rule, why a player should get a money prize by winning games without fighting?
I don't think that suspension or banning is necessary here (it would be really hard according to me, anyone can have good reasons for a long absence, but I'll consider this option if many players complains on this point).
To answer the last point, I don't and I cannot know if Nick entered this match believing that David would not play and I don't think that should be the point. As always, we need undisputable rules, as fair as possible, and I do think this one is a good one.
One important thing: The site does not make 53 Euro from this match, at most the site makes Epoints (on the other hand, most are offered by the site, by far). That makes a big difference!
Finally, if I understand Nick's point well, the way to understand "if a participant obviously lost quickly one or several games only to allow his opponent to get the money prize" may be ambiguous so it could be not possible to make the decision (who can know if David really wanted to play these games, wanted that Nick or anyone else get the prize?). So I probably should make it more clear to avoid such situation - even if I doubt that players realize about this rule before entering a silver tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-08-30 23:00:22)
Standard time control abusers
Definitely I'm in trouble with this problem. I still don't get why rapid tournaments (and a bit of patience... e.g. the case described by David) should not be a solution enough when many other players are ok with this standard time control, including DMD in the limit of the rules. Once more, there is no known way to avoid a Dead Man Defence that will always find a way to get around the rules, so...
Garvin Gray (2014-08-31 10:37:06)
Standard time control abusers
As for the idea of the rapid time control- I love the rapid time control, it is just that for my rating, and those around my rating range, very few tournaments start at all.
So to get our fix, we have to look to the standard time control events, and then we run into these issues.
I maintain that you stopped the trail of closing the standard time control divisions wayyyy too early.
Nothing at the top is really starting at this point in time, even though players on this site are active, or trying to be.
Garvin Gray (2014-08-31 10:53:40)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
From what I have read here from your response Thibault- I see no grounds AT ALL to not pay the prize.
The rating rule is there for the best interest of the site, because ratings are meant to be the way we all judge what standard of play we are and what divisions we can enter.
So comparing a rating argument with this argument is drawing a rather long bow indeed.
Just like the rating rule, why a player should get a money prize by winning games without fighting?
Already answered about ratings. About winning games without fighting (or playing), Nick entered under the conditions believing the match would take place.
If he entered the match believing it to not take place and David did play, then Nick has taken a risk that has backfired.
The point is that it is not Nick's fault the match did not take place. From my reading of the rules, there is nothing clear that says you can not pay out the prize.
Remember, you are making an absolute ruling here that applies FOREVER. This means that in effect you have taken 100 epoints at least out of Nick's account, his original stake, for just entering a match.
I would ask as site admin. Why would ANY player on this site want to support paid matches after this event and circumstances?
When the site admin can in effect, I was not happy with your match conditions that it was played under, I don't really have anything to point towards, but I did keep your cash anyways.
I for one will not be supporting any matches or tournaments from now on whilst this practice remains in place. I do not want to enter a match, have it not take place and then the site admin say, tough luck, not your fault the match did not take place, but I am keeping your cash.
The more I look at this and type, I am finding it hard to not say that Nick Burrows has been robbed of his cash. These events are real.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-08-31 13:23:45)
Standard time control abusers
We had so many discussions here about the rules that concluded that no decision should be made involving any human feeling on a chess server... I remember ICCF/IECG tournament director(s) going this way as well and that's the way time/DMD rules were thought and written.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-08-31 16:36:03)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
Once again Nick, you didn't buy a particular match, you bought Epoints without any certitude to play this match (that could have started without you, then you'd have asked a refund, I guess)...
And saying FICGS keeps Euros on this case is not exact, FICGS keeps Epoints just like those that are distributed in free tournaments prizes.
You seem not to realize that FICGS is not a casino and cannot be one. When you participate at a tournament over the board and cannot play the opponent you wanted to play, there is most probably no refund. If there is no other participant showing, there could be a refund (because no other match would be possible) but I doubt that you get the whole prize, nevertheless the tournament would probably keep some fees. That's quite the same spirit with this rule.
Finally, I think that players may want to buy Epoints to really play games and casually win and get a money prize. As explained in the rules, the 25% rake should be balanced with the results after a certain number of games. Things can go very fast with bullet or lightning games. If you really want to get a money prize, it can take a few hours after you find an opponent... Didn't you think about it?
About business models, believe me: FICGS is not a good one in France. I did not make it and I don't run it for money. By the way, as far as I know, even poker sites have difficulties under french laws.
Nick Burrows (2014-08-31 18:11:33)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
I bought E-points believing they would be instantly purchased, and I could instantly start the match. There was no warning it would take several hours - so I did buy them for the specific match.
It may not be "exact" or "technically correct" to say that Ficgs (you) keeps Euros; but it is "essentially" true, although you "technically" cannot admit that you are actually running a casino under a different name due to French law.
These games are NOT modeled on any o.t.b chess tournament in existence, but they ARE modeled EXACTLY on a heads-up poker match. Which are run by CASINO companies and who ALWAYS pay the winner (me) and pay your money back, when you request it.
No I did not consider playing bullet for money, as that is a pure hardware contest.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-08-31 20:50:58)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
That's wrong, it is specified in the My account page (within days):
"Please send us a message through the form below after any payment on FICGS account, mentioning your name, address, country, account (email) at Moneybookers, the number of tickets you bought and the amount transfered. Your account in E-Points at FICGS will be updated within days."
Anyway, definitely I do not have to know that you bought it for this specific match or to act according to this view.
On the casino-like point, I invite you to contact the french government like I did, they will explain you why it is either the same or different in so many ways that it is impossible to know for sure at the end. At least I'm sure that the part of random is not the same in poker than in chess and that I have no right to act like a casino: all prizes must be related to tournaments, there's no possible "cash out" there.
Nick Burrows (2014-08-31 21:45:24)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
Whether I read every single aspect of your terms and conditions is not really the point is it?
Whether you believe me or not - I DID purchase the points for that one specific match. If I buy some virtual currency for a particular tournament, then that tournament (after a 2 month wait) becomes unavailable, why can the money not be returned?
Thibault de Vassal (2014-08-31 22:21:31)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
Because the product sold is Epoints, not tournaments.
By the way I just remembered that this is also specified in the rules (membership.html) :
"Tickets in E-Points can't be sold to other members or paid back."
Bogoljub Teverovski (2014-11-30 22:05:00)
Thematic tournaments?
Yes, let's play reversed Budapest since January 2015
Dominique Geffroy (2014-09-03 22:09:00)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
I will jump in, even though I have no affiliation with either party, and do not even know FICGS that well, having played only a handful of games here. But my background is finance, and I have decent training on fight against financial crime. What Thibault is trying to say, if I understand correctly, is that his business is running under some legal constraints, and in particular, I guess he has to prove to the regulator that in no way may his operation be used as a money laundering scheme by organized crime.
This is why the business would never be allowed to turn epoints into cash, except when there has been a real *unpredictable event*, i.e. a real game, a real tournament, which triggered such cash payment.
The reason behind this is that as soon as you have a failproof, 100% safe way of turning money into goods and back into money, there is room for money laundering activities on the back of such practice. The money becomes clean, because it acquires an identified source: FICGS in this instance. Even with a 25% cut, that is something very interesting for organised crime: cleaning the money has a price. By imposing that un *unpredictable event* happens, this opportunity taken away from would be abusers.
I understand your frustration, but once again, as an outsider with no stake whatsoever in this, I am pretty sure that if Thibault were allowed to do differently in this instance, he would.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-09-13 23:04:25)
Thematic tournaments?
Still waiting for the waiting list to be filled before to start this Budapest.
Bogoljub Teverovski (2014-10-12 21:04:33)
Thematic tournaments?
Stop O'Kelly! Start Budapest!
Thibault de Vassal (2014-10-12 21:48:52)
Thematic tournaments?
The Budapest Gambit is on (at last)... next one will be Budapest with reversed colours!
Have fun :)
Thibault de Vassal (2014-10-27 20:44:31)
Tournaments rating ranges
Hello all,
As you may know, certain top tournaments are really too long to start... After a long wait, I finally decided to test this new rule:
12. Tournament rules
(...) Please note that the referee may change the rating ranges if a tournament takes too much time to start (such cases are quite rare).
As an example, for the tournament chess class SM, I just changed the low rating limit to 2300 only to find the 7th player. The rating limit will return to 2400 after that. This is not a good thing according to me but it may be the "less worst"... To be continued.
Feel free to tell what you think about this.
Garvin Gray (2014-10-28 23:52:30)
Tournaments rating ranges
The top class sm rating division should be abandoned. There are not enough players to fill it. It only started due to two ticketed players and dropping the rating limit.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-10-31 15:38:43)
July 1 2014 Fide laws of chess
FICGS rules are based on current FIDE rules so I don't see any major change except I should specify this "default time" (which is the total time here, but in the WCH tournaments). Do you see anything else?
Thibault de Vassal (2014-10-31 15:40:17)
Tournaments rating ranges
Maybe a new low rating limit for class SM should be 2350... Any opinion?
Thibault de Vassal (2014-10-31 19:46:59)
July 1 2014 Fide laws of chess
I asked because you started the topic. I'm not sure why you did it in this context... but thank you anyway. I'm sorry to have disappointed you so many times but not applying some (most or not) suggestions doesn't mean it was not worth to study it, but you know my thought on all this already. Good luck with your tournaments!
Garvin Gray (2014-11-01 22:51:23)
July 1 2014 Fide laws of chess
There was no context other than a very simple request. With the new rules now in operation, I was asking where do we find a copy or further information on what changes have taken place for this event that flow on from the changes to the laws.
The areas I was mainly concerned with are in relation to:
5 consecutive repetition of moves and 75 moves without a pawn move or capture. The arbiter can now step and force the draw, there does not need to be a player claim.
So will the server be updated to match this? There are quite a few other changes as well where current server practices do not match the new rules.
But as I said, it is your responsibility to make sure that the competition complies with the new rules if you advertise that your tournament follows the fide laws of chess where possible.
The reason for my stance is a very simple one. Over the years, on almost every single occassion, when I have made suggestions or recommendations to you, you have gone in the opposite direction in pretty much 100 percent of cases. Or even when you have claimed to 'agree' with my recommendation, you have then given the trial period such a short time to make it practically worthless.
The last saga in relation with Nick Burrows said to me that, except for the wch, I will no longer be playing on this site.
I can tell you directly, your handling of that issue lost you a long time member.
On the format of the wch, if I actually thought this format was fair and even gave me a shot of winning it, rather than being so heavily biased in favour of Eros Riccio winning it every time, to the point of being fixed, then I would use that as sole motivation to win it.
Garvin Gray (2014-11-01 22:53:27)
Tournaments rating ranges
And to carry on from the other thread to make my point, even here, you just can not bring yourself to say, ok Garvin, I agree with you. The division can not get begin, so lets get rid of it, but because I have suggested cancelling it, you decide to take a less drastic action.
Even though ALL THE EVIDENCE says that the event can not start.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-11-02 14:40:08)
Tournaments rating ranges
Well, usually I always ask for opinions (even if I don't get so many)... but it does not mean I can't agree with you... seriously :) .. I can make drastic actions (some tournaments have disappeared or appeared), it all depends on the context and experience. So, to be continued.
Jing Huang (2014-11-08 12:02:55)
How is the WCH challenger decided?
In the (unfinished) tournament GO__WCH_TOURNAMENT__000011(http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WCH_TOURNAMENT__000011),
Ruzin, Praz and I all have exactly the same points, but it seems that tournament GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000011 (http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000011) has started with Ruzin as the challenger.
Does anyone know how this is decided? Thanks :)
Jing Huang (2014-11-08 12:14:21)
Registered for Go WCH 12 but excluded
I have registered for the GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000012
(http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=entry_tournament&tournament=ficgs_go_wch)
However, in the started tournament (http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WCH_TOURNAMENT__000012),
there are only 9 players despite that 12 players have registered.
Sasa Radojcic, Angelo Piantadosi and I are somehow excluded. Does anyone know the reason?
Thibault de Vassal (2014-11-08 21:05:19)
Registered for Go WCH 12
Hello Jing,
The reason is you entered the waiting list after that the tournament started (deadline was november 1st)... You may have played it in case of a replacement but it seems there will be no spot this time, sorry about that.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-11-08 21:07:10)
How is the WCH challenger decided?
In this (rare) case, the "TER" (tournament entry rating) decides... Mikhail was the highest ranked player. It's all explained in the tournament rules - see waiting list page.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-11-09 18:17:28)
Registered for Go WCH 12 but excluded
Regular tournaments are in a way part of the championship, increasing rating allows players to qualify for this tournament. The other reason is that 8 games is not too heavy, and generally the 9th player has a much lower rating. If there were only 3 or 4 ranks between top seed and last seed, then the process would need to be reworked, I guess.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-12-01 01:17:16)
Thematic tournaments?
The waiting list is open :)
Bogoljub Teverovski (2014-12-01 12:51:13)
Thematic tournaments?
I mean 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 c5 3.e4
Thibault de Vassal (2014-12-01 15:56:08)
Thematic tournaments?
Ah, the "famous" Norfolk Gambit of Nimzovich Attack, right?
Very interesting opening, indeed... So, next time!
Charlie Neil (2014-12-01 23:43:42)
Thematic tournaments?
I have lived in Norfolk UK for 26 years. So let's have that Norfolk gambit as I have never known anyone from Norfolk to give anything anyway! . . . B-)
Thibault de Vassal (2014-12-07 22:23:55)
6th engine masters: A. Alcala shares 1st
Another freestyle chess tournament just finished, and Alvin Alcala did it great again, sharing 1st place!
All details at InfinityChess:
http://infinitychess.com/Web/Page/Public/Article/DefaultArticle.aspx?id=191
Thibault de Vassal (2014-12-20 23:21:25)
Thematic tournaments?
Norfolk Gambit of Nimzovich Attack is in place... a very funny opening :)
Thibault de Vassal (2015-01-09 20:46:20)
Eros Riccio on his win in 9th chess WCH
Eros Riccio kindly accepted to answer a few questions after his win in the 9th FICGS correspondence chess championship. Once again, his answers are worth to read... including probably a few surprises and valuable informations for most of us!
_____________________________
- Hello again Eros. Congratulations for this new win! So you played Jeroen for the second time in a row, this time in the 12 games format. There were 12 draws but it does not mean a lot. How did things go?
--> Hi Thibault! Nice to answer your questions again :-) I managed to resist again Van Assche's assaults, this time he was well-determined to win, as he made me really suffer in a couple of games. The first game was a semislav, me as Black. He played a rare variation (starting with 14.Be2 followed by 15.Qd3) that was new to me. At first the engines were giving 0.00 evaluations, but after the move 22.Qg3 they started to realize that Black's position was difficult, and they kept increasing their evaluation in White's favor move after move. That was quite a scary thing to see, and I really thought that I could have lost the game. I had to use all the thinking time (leave included) to be able to resist. This new variation impressed me so much that I decided to use it as White myself as a surprise weapon, and in fact it allowed my engine on autoplay on my old I7 980x to win a lot of games as White and a 500 dollars prize getting first place in a strong tournament on Infinity Chess. The second game was a Spanish, me as White. After his 7...0-0 I decided to avoid the Marshall (that would have probably happened if I had played 8.c3) trying the AntiMarshall variation 8.d4. I am now convinced that this variation gives nothing good to White, but I didn't know that yet when I played it! Already after the rare strong move 11...c5! things were starting to get difficult for me. He simply continued with c4 and d5, getting space advantage with his Pawns on the Queenside, while I could find no attack at all on the Kingside. Again I had to be very careful to escape with a draw.
- What can you tell about your other results this year, particularly at ICCF where you're now ranked #9 with an outstanding rating of 2639 ?
--> My ICCF elo in the past few years has raised. Slowly, but it has raised. I had no defeats and a couple of wins in the Olympiads and European team tournaments started in 2012. I am satisfied of that, as winning nowadays in top correspondence tournaments is very difficult. Important is to remain undefeated.
- Last year, you said that you felt like your play was getting weaker each day because your machine was getting older, did you finally upgrade it? But maybe this is a secret...
--> No. As I wrote earlier, I haven't updated my machine. Fortunately cpu's general speed has kept increasing not as quickly as in the past, so my I7 980x can still compete.
- Did your vision of computer chess evolve after these last 18 months? What do you expect for the next years? Do you plan to become a chess cyborg? ^^
--> Fortunately for our hobby, computer chess isn't rushing towards the "all draws" situation that I talked about a couple of years ago. That's because, fortunately, increasing cpu's power and engine's strenght is getting more and more difficult. Yes, some main lines already lead to all draws often, but chess gives so many openings options that to avoid that, you can simply play subvariations. When played a lot, also subvariations will become main variations. Then again, when the draws rate gets too high, you just pick another less played opening. It will take many years to cover every opening to a high draws rate.
- Your next challenger is Peter W. Anderson, who made a convincingly path through the round-robin cycle before to defeat SM Igor Dolgov 5-3 in the 10th candidates final (by the way he's also playing the 11th candidates final). It seems that you never played him before. How do you feel this match? Do you have any words for your opponent before that the games start?
--> I am happy to play a new player! We have just started our match, again, all my first moves as White were 1.e4. What to say... it's up to him to avoid main lines as Black (he already did it answering with 1...g6 in three games) if he wants to try to win with the black pieces. But the real challenge for him of course will be to try to win with the White pieces. It will be interesting to see if he can find holes in my Black repertoire like Van Assche was able to do. Let's wait and see!
Garvin Gray (2015-01-10 17:24:43)
Class GM 3 and Rapid SM 12 entry rules
Currently I believe there are two players who have been allowed to enter two divisions who under the current rules are actually ineligible and their entries should be withdrawn.
The current rules state:
Tickets for a higher class tournament : However, when you win a rated tournament (only after that you receive an email specifying it or when the tournaments list shows your name as winner or co-winner of the tournament) or if your rating is at most 50 points below the low rating limit of the next class tournament's waiting list, it is now possible to buy a ticket for the next class tournament's waiting list (for example if you win a chess class A tournament, you may ask for a ticket for the next class M tournament) for 10 Epoints if the following conditions are filled : 1) No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise. 2) The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the tournament's waiting list. 3) At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list. 4) Five players at least must have entered the tournament's waiting list already so that you can buy a ticket for this tournament. 5) The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 1 year after the end of the won tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament]. 6) As the price for any ticket is 10 Epoints, the player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
The key regulation- and I recall this because I had it included for a specific reason- is: 4) Five players at least must have entered the tournament's waiting list already so that you can buy a ticket for this tournament.
The reason for this regulation is that the division is meant for the players of those ratings and it is clear that having to players with ratings significantly lower than the minimum rating will reduce the chances of them entering.
So those using tickets are entered last, in positions 6 and 7, only after it becomes clear that the division can not be filled without them.
So under the published regulations, both players should be removed and put in their correct divisions.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-01-11 01:07:34)
Class GM 3 and Rapid SM 12 entry rules
You're absolutely right Garvin... Thank you! Looks like I'm not used to this new rule yet :(
There was a ticket a few days ago for the rapid SM tournament, so I made the necessary here. The entry in class GM seems older but anyway this tournament may not start before a while, or at all. This waiting list is closed for the moment.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-03-09 01:26:15)
FICGS freestyle chess superstars
Looks like our freestyle chess champions made it again at InfinityChess in a very tough engine-team tournament (finished 2nd tie but very near):
The team named "Freestyle Chess Superstars":
* Dracodaatson, GM Eros Riccio
* Spaghetti_Chess, IM Alberto Gueci
* Ultra-d, David Evans
* Maximus, Alvin Alcala (Team Captain)
Results and round-by-round results:
http://infinitychess.com/Web/Page/Public/Article/DefaultArticle.aspx?id=208
http://www.infinitychess.com/Web/Page/Public/Article/DefaultArticle.aspx?id=205
Congrats guys :)
Maurice Ellis (2015-03-27 17:34:51)
Thematic tournaments?
What about my gambit: 1.e4,e6 2.d4,d5 3.Nc3(Nd2),dxe4 4.Nxe4,e5 the Ellis Gambit in the French Defense
Thibault de Vassal (2015-03-28 22:10:17)
Thematic tournaments?
Seems tough :) Ok, let's do this.
Bogoljub Teverovski (2015-04-01 15:56:05)
Thematic tournaments?
I'd prefer Noteboom
Charlie Neil (2015-04-01 18:48:59)
Thematic tournaments?
Yes, good idea. The Noteboom was played at the last Super GM tourney.
Wilhelm Schuett (2015-04-13 01:24:39)
Thematic tournaments?
I prefer the triangle setup with the knight on c3: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 . It can lead to noteboom, but offers more choices.
Bogoljub Teverovski (2015-04-14 14:28:18)
Thematic tournaments?
Triangle setup is fine because it offers a very wide range of options to play, but this circumstance means that it is not good for thematic tournament. A series of Slav thematics might be reasonable: (a) Winawer gambit 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e5, (b) Slav gambit 3...e6 4.e4, (c) Noteboom 4.Nf3 dxc4, etc.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-04-15 14:17:15)
FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000010
Hello Andrew.
Well, just like Eros Riccio in a few chess championships, Yen-Wei Huang won both preliminary tournament and previous final match, so he didn't have to defend his title (he should have played against himself).
Wilhelm Schuett (2015-04-18 01:12:14)
Thematic tournaments?
But I would play 4.e3
Wilhelm Schuett (2015-04-18 01:16:57)
Thematic tournaments?
I always play 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 or perhaps 3.e3. After 2. ... e6 I play 3.Nc3!
Thibault de Vassal (2015-04-24 23:38:09)
Thematic tournaments?
Noteboom will be the next thematic tournament (once this waiting list is filled).
Thibault de Vassal (2015-05-03 01:25:37)
Chess tournaments rating ranges
Hello all,
As you probably noticed, we slowly have more and more difficulties to fill some tournaments waiting lists (mainly chess SM ones).
No change seem to solve this, actually all major chess websites seem to have less and less activity. Anyway I made a minor change (step backward) with the chess waiting lists rating ranges: brackets are now 400 points again. Looks more logical to me according to circumstances and players behaviour.
Let's wait and see. To be continued.
Alvin Alcala (2015-06-29 17:57:28)
3rd Infinity Chess Centaur Weekend Tour
Tour will be held on July 3, 4 and 5 at Infinity Chess server. For details see below link, good luck!
http://infinitychess.com/Web/Page/Public/TournamentUserView.aspx?TournamentID=1399&IsDialog=False&TournamentStatusID=1&IsTournamentView=true
Bogoljub Teverovski (2015-05-04 14:04:57)
Thematic tournaments?
Current thema (French) has no entries. It's time to replace it and to announce Noteboom (or Winawer gambit).
Thibault de Vassal (2015-05-04 23:59:05)
Thematic tournaments?
New thematic tournament: Noteboom variation (after move 4).
Thibault de Vassal (2015-05-15 00:02:50)
Alcala wins 1st Centaur Weekend Tourney
Our freestyle chess champion Alvin Alcala just did it again at InfinityChess server by convincingly winning the last freestyle tournament that took place on May 8th, 2015. Frank Karl Werner finished 2nd, half a point from Alvin.
All details are reported by GM Arno Nickel... One notable thing is that all players used either Stockfish 6 or Komodo 9, most probably the strongest chess engines these days.
Congrats once again Alvin, your results are definitely not the fruit of chance :)
http://infinitychess.com/Web/Page/Public/Article/DefaultArticle.aspx?id=215
Peter W. Anderson (2015-06-14 17:52:04)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
I recently played in an Infinity Chess freestyle event and was impressed by one of their tiebreak rules. If scores were tied a player got a bonus if he had stalemated an opponent.
I would like to suggest this is adopted in the matches (not tournaments) in the FICGS world championship and that is it the first tiebreak rule applied, i.e before ratings and whether wins or only draws have been played. I would also suggest it is adopted for the title matches too. Perhaps it could be introduced from the 15th cycle onwards or even in existing cycles (11 to 14) where a match has not begun.
This seems a very fair tiebreak rule to me, which would normally reflect who overall played better (came closer to winning) in a drawn match, especially where all games are drawn.
The only disadvantage I can see to this rule is that it would prolong games as some that would currently be agreed drawn would in future be played through to stalemate.
On the other hand it would get us thinking hard about which drawn endgames lead to stalemate and which don't and that in itself is quite interesting.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-07-05 14:11:09)
A couple of questions
Hello Nathan,
1) On the waiting list page, these rules are combined to the playing rules that you can find here:
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#general
2) Yes, I'm late for the other tournaments 'cause my internet provider decided it :) I'll make my possible if it works well today. Sorry about that.
Peter W. Anderson (2015-07-09 09:35:12)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
I have avoided commenting further on this idea because I wanted to see what other people had to say. But now I will reply to the points made.
“Giving a bonus for stalemate is almost like playing for stalemating your opponent, which is not the aim of the game and this would change the game deeply.”
As I said I am against a points bonus, but am in favour of using stalemates for tie breaks. The real question is would someone start a game aiming for stalemate as opposed to start the game trying to win? I am not sure how you would do that – either way you have to try to build up an advantage and if it gets big enough it will lead to mate and if it is not quite big enough it might lead to stalemate. Anyone who gets the choice between a win and stalemate will presumably always take the win.
The one way I think this will really affect the game is by discouraging some very deeply analysed defences that are known to drawn or close to drawn but will almost certainly lead to stalemate. Personally I think this is a good thing, but I accept that the opposite view could be taken :)
“I think you overlooking a little that a good defense leading to stalemate means showing great skill. It´s not all about luck.”
Reaching stalemate as the defending side can be very simple (e.g. king and pawn vs king) or can indeed show great skill. It is almost never down to luck. In the case where great skill is shown that skill earns you half a point instead of no points. Nonetheless, the very fact that you needed great skill to save the game shows how close you came to losing, so I see no reason not to use this as a tiebreak rule.
“And stalemating gamepoints definitely will favour stupid engine playing and not human thinking with endgame skill”.
Like Pablo, I think quite the opposite is true. In fact one of my motivations for suggesting the change was to increase the human element in the game.
“According to me, stalemating an opponent (or having King + Bishop vs. King) reflects who played better ONLY IF rules say it before the game. In some cases, it actually reflects a better play, but in some others, it only shows that the stalemated player (or naked king) found a clever way to draw the game by giving the opponent the illusion of an advantage. Isn't it quite subjective after all?”
I have some sympathy for this viewpoint. If we could play perfect chess and at the start of the game someone decided to take the draw by allowing themselves to be stalemated then that would be a very good example supporting that view. However, I think the reality is different. In most cases when someone gets stalemated (or would be stalemated if the game was played through to its conclusion) it is because they have got a worse position and have little choice if they want to save the game.
If the defending side could achieve a draw by stalemate or by other means, then under today’s rules they could choose either way. Under my proposed rules they might be wise to choose the other method, unless of course they were confident of achieving more wins in the match.
“Maybe the games become more interesting if instead give small extra score for win with black!? Encourage black to play for a better score, just as UEFA do in football.”
This might be helpful for tournaments but I don’t think it helps at all for match play. In reality, if you can win just one game in a match you will most likely win the match. Therefore you don’t need a bonus to play for a win with black in a match situation.
However, I think this point indirectly touches on an issue with match play and how hard people try to win, and I do think the stalemate tiebreak rules would help a little with this.
The problem as it stands is that the higher rated player (or the champion in the case of the tile match) knows that if all games are drawn he will win the match. The higher rated player (or champion) can therefore take a low risk approach to the match, with both black and white (actually I think the low risk approach with white is just as much a problem).
If the higher rated player (or champion) was not certain that all draws would win them the match then they would probably try harder to win. This would give a better chance of decisive games in matches.
One way of a achieving this would be through a toss of a coin if the match is tied with all draws. Personally I would not find this satisfactory.
Whilst the likelihood of stalemate is quite low, it will nonetheless be there, so this rule might encourage the higher rated player or champion to try harder for a win.
I will speak from personal experience on this matter. In most of my recent matches I have been the higher rated player. I still play some relatively risky defences as black (e.g. the modern against 1.e4) and I always try to win with white. However, I have to be honest, if I am the higher rated player, I do not always play the very sharpest lines as white and I do not often play some of my riskier defences to 1.d4. If the stalemate tiebreak rule was in place, I would be taking more chances with both white and black.
So whilst I accept that it is not perfect, I still think the stalemate tie-break rule is a good idea. However, as nobody else has spoken out in favour of it I accept that it is very unlikely to be implemented and I won’t write any more on this matter unless someone asks me a direct question. It is time to concentrate on my matches under the existing rules! :)
Scott Nichols (2015-07-10 20:56:39)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
IMO the only true tiebreak is a playoff with the time controls shortening after each 2 games until one side wins. I know this is not possible with most tournaments. Certainly someone who "tied" for first, but lost the prize on tiebreaks is not going to tell people they finished second. Lots of sports have playoffs, golf, football etc. Because for the romantic, a tie is like nothing, it's not a true win.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-07-11 01:43:15)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
I hope the "test" tournament will occur at ICCF, it should be more pertinent than any opinion after all.
@ Scott: I agree, this should probably be the best option, particularly over the board... but I always feared that a match be decided on a computer or internet issue, like it regularly happened during freestyle tourneys.
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
Thibault de Vassal (2015-07-17 01:53:49)
Alvin Alcala again in 10th Engine Master
Alvin makes it again in another engine tournament at InfinityChess:
http://infinitychess.com/Web/Page/Public/Article/DefaultArticle.aspx?id=231
http://infinitychess.com/Web/Page/Public/Article/DefaultArticle.aspx?id=233
It's becoming an habit :)
Stephane Legrand (2015-07-18 11:38:04)
Team tournment
And FICGS team tournament?
Bogoljub Teverovski (2015-08-03 09:46:39)
Team tournment
Team tournament should be nice, say, 4 boards. Besides FICGS should sponsor it's own team for the next season of ICCF League.
Alfonso Di Giandomenico (2015-08-18 13:20:00)
Team tournment
Yes, I mean FICGS team tournament :=)
Sorry, for my English
Alfonso Di Giandomenico (2015-08-18 13:28:05)
Number of tournament won
in statistic (FICGS statistic are great!), I think, this item is not clear.
I think is an important element.
Scott Nichols (2015-08-24 00:07:26)
Number of tournament won
We need more stats! :) Like all the stats you have, plus, the same stats but just for the last two months. This will tell us what has been going on LATELY, not since the beginning of time, :) Biggest rating gains, etc. Love stats!
Thibault de Vassal (2015-09-07 22:29:30)
Number of tournament won
Right, right, right... Okay, let's try something.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-10-08 18:11:38)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
Your idea is attractive Garvin! But, it is a question of time also, and organisation of championships cycles... I don't see a satisfying solution with this one.
Scott's idea looks like the original FICGS cup's idea... and ICCF WCH. Just one more correspondence chess RR championship.
Alvin's idea is exactly what a correspondence chess champ. should avoid (IMHO), I mean server or internet provider problems... It would be a shame that it decides a winner (like it may have happened in freestyle tournaments). Also, this is just not correspondence chess anymore.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-10-08 18:14:00)
Alvin Alcala wins Ultimate Chess Champ.
Alvin just won another freestyle tournament, congrats :)
http://www.chessclub.com/ucc
PGN available!
Thibault de Vassal (2015-10-15 01:04:01)
Number of tournament won
A first update done on the tournaments statistics page (bottom)... before something better. Example:
http://www.ficgs.com/players/nichols_scott/tournaments.html
Alfonso Di Giandomenico (2015-10-15 09:09:14)
Number of tournament won
Great!!!
Thank you!!
Thibault de Vassal (2015-10-16 01:12:10)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Hi all,
The recent discussions on FICGS chess wch tie break rules just gave me an idea...
Obviously, there are no satisfying solution (for everyone I mean) for a change in the wch rules. In my opinion, wch rules are great already, even if there are too many draws in matches.
The idea of a cup tournament is here for years but I didn't see any way to include it, in a several rounds version at least, in our calendar because of the wch cycle, the slowly decreasing number of active players, and so on...
But what do you think about this cup format:
An enormous round robin tournament with the 33 (1 player for each piece on the board, it's a symbol but the number is to be discussed) highest rated players who entered the waiting list. It is 32 games per player for 1 round only, duration of games could be the standard one (because there is one round only), longer but maybe fits more the number of games and additional games in other tournaments.
Looks like a great challenge and a real alternative, with very few risks of draw odds, cheating or whatever... It may be the biggest correspondence chess round robin tournament on the internet.
Any opinion? Would you play such tournament?
Thibault de Vassal (2015-10-23 22:10:19)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Could someone copy-paste Garvin's original idea for the cup tournament? I'm not sure which thread deals with it (even if I think I remember the main scheme)...
By the way, I agree with your points Garvin, finally question is what tournament do we want? ... Surely we'll have many different answers. Multi-rounds tournaments bring many problems (first is IMO that next rounds start-date still surprise many players), that's what I thought one round could be interesting. Also, it looks like a big challenge with a fast result. But I agree that many top players would think twice before to enter it, but wouldn't they do the same in a multi-round similar event? To be continued.
Garvin Gray (2015-10-23 13:11:56)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
I think this whole discussion has missed the original point of why I made the original proposal for the ficgs world cup.
It was to give players who were in the 2100 to 2200 and below more opportunities against players rated 2300 and above, whilst still also giving the top players something to play for ie the tournament win.
So the original concept was that there was no knockout groups, or starting final match, but instead that all players started from round one, and then everyone had to qualify for round two from there, with only the winners to advance at each stage.
The format above could have even taken over from the waiting lists we currently have, which struggle to be filled, as they give more purpose.
Instead, what is being proposed now, is just one big round robin. As someone who has just organised a round robin event, I can assure you, soon after the games have started, the players will soon forget which games are for the world cup, and which are their World championship games, and which are their Rapid SM, or Rapid M games.
Next, the strength of the field. For this event to work with the monster round robin, it really does need most of the top players competing. How can this be ensured to make it a worthwhile event?
Related to this- the time control. Very few serious correspondence chess players are going to sign up to a time control of 10 days initial time when they potentially have 31 games.
Remember, this is meant to be one of FICGS main events on the calendar. That is at least how I view it.
The time control should be 30 days plus 3 days per move if the format is single round robin with 32 or so players.
I still believe the original proposal of mine is the one that should be adopted, not the single round robin that is being discussed now.
I will not be playing in the single round robin.
Stephane Legrand (2015-10-23 17:52:07)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
I really prefer Garvin's proposal.
It looks like a real cup and not the enormous round robin tournament first proposed.
Sebastian Boehme (2015-10-24 00:57:15)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
What about to make it easier for most players, split the big round tournament into an A and a B group as preliminaries of say 16 players.
And so oh then the final groups the best 8 of each winner group go to the Final and the last 8 players of each group go to the B final?
This in my opinion could ease a lot for players and still would be challenging.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-10-27 23:03:32)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Hi Garvin... Surely not!
Well, just read your cup idea again, here are my thoughts:
- In my opinion, in both ways, top players will probably ignore such a tournament. So, the challenge point may be most important.
- In my opinion, the 33 players round robin is even more simple (and avoiding complicate cases depending on the number of entries), more different from FICGS WCH, faster (no choice to make about playing 2 cycles at once) and with more chances of clear victory, but does it really bring something in both cases? Quite subjective at the end.
Alvin Alcala (2015-10-29 16:55:49)
5th Centaur Weekend Tourney (CWT)
Announcement
5th Centaur Weekend Tourney (CWT) November 6-8 at Infinity Chess Server
Grand Prix Series (8 tours)
Swiss System.
7 Rounds.
Time control: 45m + 15s.
Play modes: centaur + engine only.
Rated tour for centaur vs. centaur games.
Privately sponsored tour, but open to all.
Schedule:
1st game Friday 6th November, 21:00 server time
2nd game Friday 6th November, 23:30 server time
3rd game Saturday 7th November, 17:30 server time
4th game Saturday 7th November, 20:00 server time
5th game Saturday 7th November, 22:30 server time
6th game Sunday 8th November, 17:30 server time
7th game Sunday 8th November, 20:00 server time
Registration requires full and correct name in your profile.
Registration is free of start fee, if you play just for fun.
If you play for a money prize ($400, $200, $100) you have to pay a start fee.
For details see: http://infinitychess.freeforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=243
Registration closes on Thursday 5th November, 23:55 server time.
For reports on previous CWT see our website: http://infinitychess.com
NEXT TOUR DATES
CWT 6: December 4th - December 6th, 2015
CWT 7: January 8th - January 11th, 2016
CWT 8: February 5th - February 7th, 2016
GRAND PRIX PRIZES (sponsored by Jojo & friends)
(GP Points = 4 best tournament results of each player, who paid a start fee for those tours)
1st Prize 600 USD
2nd Prize 300 USD
3rd Prize 200 USD
4th Prize 100 USD
The best 8 centaurs according to the final Grand Prix table will be nominated for the next official Freestyle event by InfinityChess in 2016/2017.
Bogoljub Teverovski (2015-11-01 12:25:11)
Thematic tournaments?
It's time to switch from Noteboom thematic to Traxler or to King's Gambit
Jose Carrizo (2015-11-02 18:07:27)
Thematic tournaments?
King's Gambit
Wilhelm Schuett (2015-11-05 01:27:39)
Thematic tournaments?
Modern Defence, Sicilian Kalashnikov or Sicilian 2.Nf3 g6
Wilhelm Schuett (2015-11-05 01:28:56)
Thematic tournaments?
Old Benoni, Modern Defence, 1.d4 e6 2.c4 with 2. ... Lb4+ or 2. ... b6, 1. ... Sc6, Old Indian, Morra Gambit , Ponziani
Thibault de Vassal (2015-11-10 01:41:18)
Thematic tournaments?
Let's go for a King's gambit for now :)
Thibault de Vassal (2015-11-10 01:43:46)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
This could be an additional option, right (maybe not so easy according to the duration of the tournament though)...
Sergey Zemlyanov (2015-11-16 22:09:27)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Hi all. I try to express my opinion.
The main idea of mass round-robin tournament is good but
I think that the strong players might reject it.
As it seems, I see 2 different ways here:
1st. To have a strong tournament with top players.
2nd. To have a mass tournament just for fun.
In order to organize the 1st tournament you should do the next things:
1. To set up money prizes for winners (more prizes -> more top players might be interested in).
2. To send out invitations for players by email and etc.
3. The time control should not be too fast here if you want a qualitative games
and good tournament.
4. About splitting into the groups.
4.1 Semifinal stage.
I offer to play several qualifying semifinal rounds with 2-3 chessplayers coming into the Final stage.
For example, we have 50 players. So we can create 5 Semifinal groups with 10 players in each with 3 coming out places for the Final.
The time control here I offer 10+2/21 with vacation.
4.2 The Final stage.
I offer 15 players for the Final stage and 14 games for everyone,
or, another variant is 7-8 finalists and 14-16 games with color change for everyone.
About the 2nd tournament my opinion is:
1. To set up money prizes depending on entry fees, for each player.
2. To play mass round robin tournament with 1 game against each player
with faster time control, 10+1/21 for example.
In 1st variant you need to find a contributor to organize the tournament.
But it should be interesting. The 2nd variant with entry fees is interesting too, I think.
AMICI SUMUS,
Sergey Zemlyanov.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-11-17 02:34:49)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Why not a deadline... with a few more opinions, I think it will be possible (if it goes in one direction more than another)!
Anyway, we see that new opinions bring more and more questions and differences :)
On Sergey's points: First of all, I must say that if I could have brought bigger prizes for tournaments, there wouldn't have been such discussions, the whole thing (WCH particularly) would probably work better... but this is not the case, unfortunately :/
As I already said, multi-rounds tournaments are not compatible with longer time controls, and that's a pity. That's why I proposed a 1 round big tourney with a longer time control, but many players seem to be used to the rapid (or even faster) one. Finally, the schedule you propose looks like Garvin's one.
Firhan Firhansyah (2015-11-19 01:02:25)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
I like a tournament with short time control about 1 - 3 days per move. And i more like with big prizes
Thibault de Vassal (2015-12-02 02:48:10)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Finally... after a way too long thought on this FICGS cup idea and FICGS wch format, I think that Garvin's idea for this new tournament should be tried.
1) Eros just won the latest WCH with all games drawn again, but not all games in the knockout tournament are draws (e.g. latest candidates final). I think that we must keep this original format because it doesn't exist elsewhere and because it is a real challenge (and it must be possible to beat Eros in 1 game... one day :)) ! Of course, the other reason is that I didn't find any other acceptable way in case of equality.
2) I still think that there are problems in both my cup idea and Garvin's idea in the current context, but this cup will be different enough from the WCH, so the two formats should probably coexist so that each player can choose (or play both).
Herbert Kruse (2015-12-10 16:31:04)
TER rating calculation
if my opp and i start a tournament with 2400 TER and 2350 TER, but i manage to reach 2420 (from 2350) and he stays at 2400, how will the rating calculated if its a draw?
will i win or lose rating?
Thibault de Vassal (2015-12-16 21:09:20)
TER rating calculation
Not all games were drawn in this match (yes, it happens :)), so rules apply this way:
"Knockout tournament winner will play round-robin cycle winner in a 8 games candidates final match (stage 4). In case of equality (4-4), the knockout tournament winner is qualified for stage 5 if all games are draw, the round-robin cycle winner if not all games are draw."
Arkadiusz is the round-robin cycle winner.
Francois Caire (2015-12-17 05:12:26)
Thematic tournaments?
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.f3 e5 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Bc4 Be6 7.Bxe6 fxe6
1.f4 d5 2.c4!? e5!?
Bogoljub Teverovski (2016-01-04 22:44:52)
Thematic tournaments?
Any offers for new thematic?
I'd play 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 e5
Thibault de Vassal (2016-01-05 17:51:06)
Thematic tournaments?
I'll try to change the next thematic soon... if players do not register too quickly for another king's gambit :)
Charlie Neil (2016-01-07 00:21:12)
Thematic tournaments?
You know 1. b4 would be fun. But how about some "madness"? BDG! 1. d4 d5 2. e4
why not?
Ilmars Cirulis (2016-01-07 14:29:37)
Thematic tournaments?
1.b4 e5 2.a3 d5 3.e3 - I suggest this. :D
Positional fun.
Thibault de Vassal (2016-01-07 19:33:20)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Garvin, we agree on that but I would be surprised if the entry fee would not divide the number of players by a factor of about 2, maybe 3 ... if we have about 70 players in the case without an entry fee, you can imagine the problem with: we would be sometimes able to launch a 1-round tournament (2 RR rounds for from 25 to 32 players would be strange IMO), sometimes not. If we choose no entry fee, the problem is solved, otherwise we must figure out several cases.
Dann Corbit (2016-01-07 22:20:18)
Thematic tournaments?
May as well advance one full move to get variety. Everyone will respond:
3. .. Nf6
followed by:
4. Bb2
That is quite an interesting opening and much more rarely played than the standard
1. b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 e3 d5
Dann Corbit (2016-01-07 23:52:11)
Thematic tournaments?
Analysis for BDG:
rnbqkbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3p4/3PP3/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - acd 37; acs 2548; bm dxe4; cce 35; ce 30; id "gentest-5125"; pm dxe4 {2629} e6 {408} c6 {293} Nc6 {16} c5 {16} Nf6 {14} a6 {1} e5 {1}; pv dxe4 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 c6 Nge2 h6 Bxf6 exf6 Nxe4 f5 Nd2 Bd6 g3 O-O Bg2 Be6 O-O Nd7 c4 Nf6 Qb3 Rb8 Qc3 Re8 Rfe1 Qd7 Rac1 Rbd8 Nf3 Ne4 Qe3 b5 cxb5 cxb5 Ne5 Bxe5 dxe5 Bxa2 Bxe4 fxe4 Qxe4; white_wins 1092; black_wins 1345; draws 800; Opening Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Fritz Attack. ; CaxtonID: 197 ECO: D00;
Ilmars Cirulis (2016-01-11 23:10:13)
Thematic tournaments?
Yes, it's good idea to add 3... Nf6 and 4.Bb2.
About 1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 ... - I believe that 2.a3 is better choice and that after 2.Bb2 have more problems. It's only an opinion, of course.
Garvin Gray (2016-01-12 06:13:47)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
I just want to see the tournament get underway.
I do agree though with larger groups, as in groups with nine or eleven players in each. This then reduces the effect of non players on the end result.
Thibault de Vassal (2016-01-12 18:44:16)
Thematic tournaments?
Before all, let's give a try to François Caire's suggestion: 1.f4 d5 2.c4!? e5!? :)
Garvin Gray (2016-01-17 15:44:55)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
Alexis Alban: I apologise if my reply seems a little bit harsh, but are you entering the conversation half way through and have not read the entire thread and preceding discussions?
This thread deals solely with the FICGS World championship and its format, mainly in particular with what happens with drawn matches in the knockout stages.
No one has suggested AT ALL, that the champion has to start again from the beginning (from round one).
That format, what I really wish Thibault would get started on with starting, is from the FICGS world cup, which is a different tournament entirely. It is a completely different structure, with different aims. If you wish to debate that tournament, please move your discussion to that thread.
I am really am trying to work hard to try and prevent thread drift.
Thibault de Vassal (2016-01-18 02:47:01)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Garvin, a few more questions (do not worry, this tournament will exist & it will start this year!), according to your rules, how would you plan stage 1 & stage 2 if we have let's say 73 players for the first edition, and 103 for the second one? I mean the number of players in each tournament for the 2 stages.
Then, well... maybe this FICGS cup should have started at the very beginning of FICGS. I just didn't think that it would be useful and I'm still not sure but anyway, as a new FICGS WCH starts every 8 months, shouldn't it start 4 months after each WCH cycle? The waiting list for the next WCH will be open in a few days already. Shouldn't we take a few more time and do it best?
Thibault de Vassal (2016-01-19 00:25:30)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Yes, correct. Thanks for this answer!
Isn't it a problem that in a few groups, half players take White one time more than Black? ... and some to have one game/opponent less than in other groups? (by the way, a bit harder to code/launch the games)
These points (equity) were always of first importance to me in all tournaments and I don't remember having seen this elsewhere (but I can be wrong, I'm not used to ICCF tournaments, for example). What do you think? Why is it such a problem for you to wait a few more days to "complete" a waiting list? Please note that I'm not really opposed to this idea, I just want to be sure that not all players disagree with this.
Thibault de Vassal (2016-01-19 20:24:05)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Okay, that makes sense to me. Well, I'm going to write the rules page for this cup tournament, I'll post it here very soon.
One more question, what would be the limit under which there should be only one round (e.g. less than 33 players -> 32 games per player) according to you?
Thibault de Vassal (2016-01-20 22:22:59)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
Answering Stéphane Legrand's question:
If the 8 games are draw: the highest TER advances in the cases of knockout quarter, semi & final. In the candidates final, it is the player from the knockout tournament who advances.
Alexis Duenas (2016-01-21 15:53:15)
Emails from FICGS
but i receive every time i register for a tournament and when the tourneys starts
Thibault de Vassal (2016-01-26 21:40:10)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
One more concern while writing these cup rules: Are norms fair while having one game more with white or black in tournaments? There never was the case before here.
Garvin Gray (2016-01-26 23:35:08)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
In otb tournaments, norms are completely valid regardless of colour balance. So that is no issue.
As I have said before, the tournament can start with 11 players, then someone does not start and that makes it a 10 person round robin, but the norms still count, even though colour balance technically for the actual games played was uneven.
Thibault de Vassal (2016-01-27 00:38:13)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Ok, I agree with that.
Here is a first try for FICGS cup rules:
"FICGS world cup championship is a multi stages tournament. All players who entered the waiting list are involved in single round-robin tournaments (2 stages or more will probably be necessary). All games during the whole cycle are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. As a reminder, the use of chess engines (Stockfish, Houdini, Rybka...) is allowed and encouraged in cup tournaments. Norms are possible according to FICGS general rules.
Round-robin tournaments are groups of 5 to 33 players (most probably 7 to 13). The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In case of equality, the player with most wins (and if necessary the player with the lowest tournament entry rating, then the lowest current rating) among the best scores, is declared winner and qualified for the next stage if any. Groups are built grading all players by rating and distributing them to obtain similar elo averages. There will be no replacements in these tournaments.
In the case of a withdrawal, the games won't be rated if a player warns the referee before the tournament starts and at most 15 days after a new stage started but the first one."
Anything to add?
Garvin Gray (2016-01-27 03:38:32)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
I think I have a different view on a couple of points, based in part in relation to the feedback I read to comments about TER.
Also, it comes from how I view the structure of the first stage, which is only a few groups and large numbers in each group ie 6 groups of 11 players, rather than 11 groups of 6 players.
========================================
FICGS world cup championship is a two stages tournament. All players who entered the waiting list are involved in single round-robin tournaments.
All games during the whole cycle are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. As a reminder, the use of chess engines (Stockfish, Houdini, Rybka...) is allowed and encouraged in cup tournaments.
Norms are possible according to FICGS general rules.
Round-robin tournaments are groups of 5 to 33 players (most probably 7 to 13). The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. If there is a tie for first place in a group, each player advances to the second stage.
Groups are built grading all players by rating and distributing them to obtain similar elo averages. There will be no replacements in these tournaments.
=======================================
Effects- with only a small number of groups, and ties for first progressing, it is possible the second stage final could have 7,8,9 or 13 players. That will be determined.
But what I see is the main factor is that with large groups and ties going through, is all the players know they have to make a decent score to advance from the start. A good TER will not get the job done.
Also, if the scores at the top of a group are close, there is more incentive for players to attempt to get a score from their games as being the only one to advance knocks out everyone else, without any complaints about TER rules.
An entry limit will need to be put on when the final stage is double round robin. If there are six qualifiers to the final stage, then it should be DRR. 7 players in the final would make 12 games. Is that too much?
Roger Llull (2016-01-28 10:11:23)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
I would not like to see groups of fewer than 8 players to remove luck as a factor and to make ties less likely. I would not like to see groups of more than 12 players so they are not overloaded.
Also the tournament should always end in 2 stages so people know it won't be too long, and in case of a tie the winner should be the player with the most wins in the whole tournament.
And one more thing, please implement rules to reduce the number of non players and careless time losses. Like a minimum Elo, a minimum of finished games, and require 2 to 5 E-Points to enter.
Some of this would be valid for the WCH too. For example, stage 2 with only 5 players is ridiculous, because luck can play too big of a role.
Garvin Gray (2016-01-28 23:12:19)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Hello Roger and thanks for your reply,
I would not like to see groups of fewer than 8 players to remove luck as a factor and to make ties less likely.
Garvin- Yes, this is something, at least from my point of view, is what I am trying to avoid. It also reduces the impact of any withdrawals in a group.
I would not like to see groups of more than 12 players so they are not overloaded.
Garvin- Unfortunately, Small number of groups, two stages, and if a large number of entries means something needs to give. So it could be the size of the groups. But hopefully they can be kept to a maximum of 11.
Also the tournament should always end in 2 stages so people know it won't be too long, and in case of a tie the winner should be the player with the most wins in the whole tournament.
Garvin- In my suggested version- I covered the two stage part. I take it your second comment refers to what happens if two or more players end up on the same score in the second stage?
Roger- And one more thing, please implement rules to reduce the number of non players and careless time losses. Like a minimum Elo, a minimum of finished games, and require 2 to 5 E-Points to enter.
Garvin- Quite a few of the withdrawals have come from top players in the past. The most important aspect to reduce the non players is to go from announcement, to closing date of entries, to start a quick and orderly process with no delays.
So after the rules have finally been worked out, have quite a period of time of publicity, then two weeks enter and then Thibault has to close entries straight away, get the draw done and games going.
The longer the lag period between announcement, entries opening, entries closing and games starting, the more chance of players 'going walkabout'.
Roger- Some of this would be valid for the WCH too. For example, stage 2 with only 5 players is ridiculous, because luck can play too big of a role.
Garvin- In the current WCH rules, it is already covered that Double round robin can be used if there are 5 players. I have complained previously to Thibault when he has not implemented this rule when put in a five player group.
In my reworded version for this competition, I asked, at what point should the second stage final for minimum qualifiers move from a double round robin to single round robin?
6 players, 7 players? It does seem like 6 players is the correct number. If only six players qualify from the first stage, then the second stage is DRR. If seven or more qualify, then it will be single round robin.
Practically, this would most likely mean there were 6 groups, and each player won their group outright. Or 5 groups. And 4 groups were one outright, with the other group having 2 players finishing tied for first and both advancing to the second stage.
Francois Caire (2016-02-08 02:30:12)
Thematic tournaments?
I must admit I was drunk when I suggested this. Nevertheless, I think this will be fun.
Garvin Gray (2016-02-09 03:26:24)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
But really overall, I do have to protest, all these discussions I think are having a detrimental effect on the overall tournament.
Most players just want the tournament to begin. Seeing all these extremely small detailed discussions being talked through I know from personal experience irl just drives players away.
The longer they go on for, the more you lose players. This is why I keep saying, get on with it and get the tournament GOING.
Thibault de Vassal (2016-02-11 15:52:20)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Don't worry Garvin, I'm quite used to it :) Anyway, one or several winners after round 2 is ok for me, I only think that we must avoid any advanced chess games or a casual third round.
The tournament will start on July 1st (between the next 2 WCH cycles), the waiting list will be open in June (2 weeks before the start?), but it will be advertised a while before.
Garvin Gray (2016-02-12 01:21:48)
Thematic tournaments?
I believe there is a bit of discussion in the chat bar about Traxler Counterattack for the next thematic. Is that correct?
George Jempty (2016-02-12 06:16:15)
Thematic tournaments?
I suggest the O'Kelly Sicilian: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6
Dann Corbit (2016-02-12 06:19:46)
Thematic tournaments?
Anand plays O'kelly Sicilian:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1315128
Ilmars Cirulis (2016-02-12 12:21:10)
Thematic tournaments?
Traxler Counterattack was mentioned because I remembered about our (me and Thibault) thematic silver games long time ago.
I don't want to play Traxler CA with Black, probably.
George Jempty (2016-02-12 13:12:38)
Thematic tournaments?
Actually Anand was White in that O'Kelly game -- Morozevich was Black. And anyway it transposed into a Paulsen by move 6.
Francois Caire (2016-02-19 21:40:52)
Thematic tournaments?
The theme of tournaments 179 to 183 was the O'Kelly sicilian.
Thibault de Vassal (2016-02-19 23:40:40)
Thematic tournaments?
Let's give a small try to 1.b4 e5 2.a3
George Jempty (2016-02-20 14:34:47)
Thematic tournaments?
OK I will have to search for those O'Kelly games. 3.d4 is not as bad as everybody thinks, if White follows up 3...cxd4 with 4.Bc4. Probably drawish in correspondence but better for OTB
Wilhelm Schuett (2016-02-25 03:32:10)
Thematic tournaments?
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.f3 e5 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Bc4 Be6 7.Bxe6 fxe6 8.Be3! ;
3. ..c6 means that 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.f3 is enough.
1.d4 d6 offers much possibilities.
Scott Nichols (2016-02-26 23:26:02)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
If the match wasn't played and he wants a refund, he should get a refund. Sometimes the tournaments take a long time to start so there should be a "withdraw" button to all events. Sometimes a person's situation changes and he can't play, so he should be able to withdraw instead of being paired and not be able to play any moves. This is bad for both players.
Garvin Gray (2016-02-28 02:30:53)
Chess960
I am wondering, we have big chess and other chess variants, would there be a lot of interest in having a chess 960 world championship and tournaments?
Thibault de Vassal (2016-03-05 16:20:50)
Chess960
We have chess960 tournaments... A new one starts about every 2 to 3 months, I'm not sure if it would make sense to have a championship though.
Mladen Jankovic (2016-03-10 00:49:33)
Chess960
Maybe the Chess960 tournaments hiding in the special tournaments section is a problem.
David Fierry Fraillon (2016-05-11 21:35:58)
Bugs after the server crash
New games times look strange to me :
I guess Thib has put a time increment to avoid the time lost during the server crash.
What i find strange (on my games only of course) :
- a player who it was not the turn to play also get the time increment
- on the tournament FICGS_CLASSE_A_000166 :
the increment seems to be 6-7 days more than it should be
A player who was on vacation get a 7+19 days increment. I think the solution in that case is to increase the number of vacation days instead.
I will check my other tournament and i'll be back
David Fierry Fraillon (2016-05-11 21:46:12)
Bugs after the server crash
Tournament FICGS_CLASSE_A_000170
- i 'm also finding that strange 7 days increment ina ally my games, for both player
The good news :
-that over day increment seems to be a constant
-no moves lost
-As you said the more than 100 days bug does not exist after playing one move
i played one move : it looks to be a good move :-)
David Fierry Fraillon (2016-05-11 21:47:31)
Bugs after the server crash
i think we can wait for the elo evaluation and the tournament winning e-points ...
just kidding ...
Thibault de Vassal (2016-05-26 02:19:21)
FICGS restarts (2016 May 25)
Ratings / norms / tournaments results have not been updated yet, I have to examine codes further before the calculations, sorry for the delay.
Bogoljub Teverovski (2016-06-14 10:56:14)
Thematic tournaments?
it's time for new thematic, say, Trompovsky
Thibault de Vassal (2016-06-15 01:52:14)
Thematic tournaments?
Trompowsky attack, why not... as soon as the current waiting list is full!
Nilson Pereira (2016-07-02 20:43:19)
Chess World CHAMPIONSHIP
I do not consider winner if draws in the final of the chess world, there must be one winner even if a match of the final so I think Eros Riccio did not win tournaments on many occasions. If there are draws have to decide on thematic games or chess 960. It would be fair !!
Thibault de Vassal (2016-07-03 00:12:14)
Rating calculation gain/loss
Hello Aniruddha,
Your current rating and your opponent's TER (Tournament Entry Rating) are taken in account. It's all explained here:
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating
Nilson Pereira (2016-07-03 01:21:19)
Chess World CHAMPIONSHIP
Champions was legitimate until the fourth tournament, I see the hall of fame from 5 tournament no simple champions but draws no point who highlight, hurting the challenger who has not lost even 1
Nilson Pereira (2016-07-03 01:32:09)
Chess World CHAMPIONSHIP
5 -11 tournament Final world championship there was not even a win ?? Absurd!! consider someone to be consecutive times champion .. I totally disagree. There was no merit.
Thibault de Vassal (2016-08-04 14:14:27)
when will Stage 2 of WCH start?
Indeed, the last game finished about 1 month ago, the tournaments will start today!
George Jempty (2016-09-02 10:21:48)
Player of the Year
I've been thinking it would be interesting to have nominations for a "Player of the Year" that FICGS members could then vote on. Qualifications could be listed in a manner similar to the following:
1) 15 wins, 13 draws and 0 losses since Oct 2015
2) Rating increase of nearly 250 points (1904-2152) during same time period
3) As 1904 player finished tied for second with score of 4/6 in tournament where average rating was 2041
4) Won a standard B tournament with score of 5.5/6 and a performance rating of 2332
5) Guaranteed tie for first place in a standard A tournament (currently tied for first and is playing in the one remaining game in the tourney against someone one point behind)
6) Currently leading stage 1 group of 2016 World Championship with score of 5/5
7) Finished tied for first in Rapid M tournament for which it was necessary to buy a ticket because TER of 2077 being below normal minimum of 2100
Yes I'm bragging on myself more than a little bit, but still I think that the listed qualifications are pretty objective
George Jempty (2016-09-09 17:56:01)
Player of the Year
The game I am the most proud of the past 12 months is http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=89124 a draw against Ortiz in the first tournament mentioned above. I got a poor position with a poor opening and around move 30 was down around 0.6 to 0.7.
I took all 45 days of my vacation before December 31st and devoted almost all my analysis to this one game, with a new 8-core, 32 GB RAM machine, as well as buying Komodo 9.3 (I'm now up to 10.1). Ortiz did not play so accurately and by move 45 the engine evaluated me as completely even in a few lines but they were complicated and I was much lower on time than my opponent.
However I found a forcing line of about a dozen moves that the engine thought was inferior, but I knew was a dead drawn ending: R+2P vs. R+3P all on the same side of the board, with me also having a sufficiently active rook. So I went for this simpler solution which also let me gain time on the clock as I'd analyzed everything out beforehand. Finally after about a dozen moves in the ending Ortiz offered the draw.
George Jempty (2016-09-12 15:22:36)
Thematic tournaments?
How about the Four Knights Game?
Bogoljub Teverovski (2016-09-12 23:18:32)
Thematic tournaments?
Yes, 4 Knights or Belgrade Gambit
Bogoljub Teverovski (2016-11-01 11:53:06)
Thematic tournaments?
It's time for new thematic, say, Belgrade Gambit in 4-Knights
Herbert Kruse (2016-11-06 17:46:15)
Chess World CHAMPIONSHIP
All tournaments should start on November 1st, 2016. Next rounds of previous cycles will start as soon as possible after this date.
ok then, lets start
Garvin Gray (2016-11-30 02:01:25)
Future penalties for games lost on time
I know this topic comes up for discussion from time to time, but seeing the results from Rapid A 192, I think a more thorough discussion needs to take place about what should be done about players who lose multiple games on time.
I know on ICCF, they have very strict rules in this matter, and I believe that FICGS should follow the same procedure.
Players should be made aware before entering a tournament that they are expected to complete all their games, not just time out some of their games without consequence.
If players do not want to continue their games and feel that it is ok to let their games time out, then FICGS should take the position that their services are no longer required on this site for a stated period.
The ICCF rules should be followed in this matter.
Peter W. Anderson (2016-11-30 09:19:39)
Future penalties for games lost on time
Yes, too many losses on time.
I generally tend to give people the benefit of the doubt re personal circumstances, health etc but a few observations:
- I have yet to see anyone lose on time in a winning position
- I have yet to see anyone lose on time when they had a level game in a match or tournament they could win
- It only takes a minute to resign a game if you really cannot continue: it is only good manners.
Garvin Gray (2016-11-30 11:16:28)
Future penalties for games lost on time
Since I have referred to the ICCF policies on the matters of players losing on time, I should directly quote their policy:
It is under section 5 of Code of Conduct:
Types of disciplinary action available are as follows:
(i) Formal Written Warning – for breaches in behaviour incompatible with ICCF statutes, principles, or rules. Continuing or repeated misbehaviour will result in (ii) being implemented
(ii) Disciplinary Action with Penalty/Sanctions – for serious or recurring breaches in behaviour
incompatible with ICCF statutes, principles, and/or rules. Immediate penalties/sanctions should be imposed, the degree of which should be related to the severity of the misdemeanour.
The following scale of penalties/sanctions should be used:
(a) A serious behavioural issue, e.g. silent/unacceptable withdrawal from a tournament, unacceptable, or abusive behaviour to players/officials/ICCF as a first offence – ban from all international CC tournaments and activities for a period of 2 years, from the date of decision.
(b) A repeated serious behavioural issue, e.g., repeated silent/ unacceptable withdrawal from a
tournament, repeated abusive behaviour to players/officials/ICCF – ban from all international CC tournaments and activities for a period of 5 years, from the date of the latest decision.
(c) Outrageous behaviour or further repeated behavioural issue, e.g., theft, belligerent action towards ICCF or any of its officials, assault, etc. – ban from all international CC tournaments and activities for life duration. Appeal for remission of sentence is available after 10 years.
(d) Extremely slow play in a clearly lost position is not proper behaviour in CC play, and is
subject to a warning from the TD, and will result in disciplinary action if it continues or is repeated in other games.
When dealing with disciplinary matters and considering penalties/sanctions, care should be
taken to ensure consistency and those penalties are commensurate with the “crime†committed.
In all cases of disciplinary action, an individual has a basic right to express his/her case, with reasoning, before a decision is taken by an official/tournament director or tournament office, etc.
Ilmars Cirulis (2016-11-30 11:48:21)
Future penalties for games lost on time
For defence of Duttagupta:
He has finished all five games in the tournament and lost only two on the time.
I have played 20 games with him and everything was okay (despite him losing 10 games), also.
So I have all reasons to believe that he has some IRL problems.
Garvin Gray (2016-11-30 14:04:30)
Future penalties for games lost on time
Ilmars, did you actually bother to read the ICCF sections I quoted? Or did you just say, I am against any penalties as a blanket statement and stuff the rest?
If you had read the ICCF rules, in all cases of disciplinary action, an individual has a basic right to express his/her case, with reasoning, before a decision is taken by an official/tournament director or tournament office, etc.
So any player in 'question' would be given the opportunity to answer why they lost their games on time and it would be up to the Tournament Committee, or Thibault alone to decide on what action to take.
And I do not believe it is appropriate to discuss individual players when discussing this rule. If we start mentioning individual players, then the potential for a lot of hurt feelings, defamation and arguments can ensue.
People will just start going through everyone's records who might be a 'suspect'. That serves no purpose except to upset everyone.
The topic is a simple one. At least it is to me.
Peter Anderson defined the issue well.
George Jempty (2016-12-23 13:06:42)
Thematic tournaments?
Belgrade Gambit is good. The only reason I would have preferred the Four Knights proper is to try 4...h6!?
Garvin Gray (2017-01-05 01:10:02)
Future penalties for games lost on time
Returning to this issue:
Ficgs already has a policy on this issue from its rules. It is covered in 11.6:
Any player who forfeits (by resignation or silent withdrawal) his games in an equal or winning position, without giving an explanation to referee in a rated chess tournament could lose his other games in the tournament, get a limited access to the server and couldn't enter waiting lists anymore during a period of 2 months, at the referee's discretion.
Herbert Kruse (2017-01-06 17:03:49)
Future penalties for games lost on time
only if "in a rated chess tournament"
other games are private matter
Scott Nichols (2017-01-07 15:31:58)
Defeating Draw Death
#2. Black gives up f7 Pawn, but only has to pay 2 e-points to enter, White will have to pay 10 e-points. We would have the ability to enter the tournament as White or Black.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-01-11 15:38:14)
Defeating Draw Death
The wild 6 first moves idea should be possible with thematic tournaments... Maybe the f7 pawn is possible this way as well. Why not... Scott's 2nd idea reminds me the silver thematic chess (now Traxler).
Jan, I did not miss your ideas in the chat on wins / draws... It may be very interesting and funny to try but it changes really everything, the game is not the same according to me, and the code should be rewritten in good part. And well, isn't it a question of taste before everything? As for me, I'm quite sure I would play it like atomic chess, then would come back to the original game.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-01-18 03:32:56)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
Finally, here is a new interview with FICGS correspondence chess champion GM Eros Riccio, who gives us his (surprising?) impressions on his latest win in the championship, his current match and correspondence chess nowadays... A good matter to think about!
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000012
____________
- Hi again Eros... Once more, congratulations for winning this final match in the 12th FICGS correspondence chess championship. This time, it seems that things went quite differently than in your previous matches (you scored 9 out of 12, which is a huge performance at this level), could you tell us what happened in these games?
--> Hi, yes, finally we have seen some wins after a very long series of draws. I was surprised too, I didn't risk to lose any game and I could even win one as Black... What to say, my opponent was simply not as challenging as the previous ones.
- It's a long time since you won the previous match, would you like to tell us about your other results this year, particularly at ICCF where you now rank #9 with an outstanding 2643 rating?
--> My latest final on FICGS were my only games of 2016. On ICCF I have taken some rest, the too high draw rate didn't incentive me to start new tournaments, also because drawing all games with a high rating means losing points.
- In the next final match (13th cycle), you play Peter W. Anderson for the 3rd time... so you probably know each other's opening book quite well. What do you expect for in this match?
--> Anderson is a very tough opponent, it's not a coincidence that he reached the final for the third time. I tried to win at least one game as White, but he's incredibly hard to beat. I experimented with almost anything possible against his modern defence, but I could never find a single weakness in his repertoire. I will see what to invent this time against his terrific 1...g6.
- As you probably know, another Go champion (Lee Sedol) lost a 5-games match to AlphaGo this year, while chess engines (now Stockfish 8, Houdini 5 Komodo 10...) slowly but surely continue to improve... Still waiting for the quantum computers. How do you feel things should go in the next years? Did your way of playing advanced chess or correspondence chess change these last years?
--> I have said a lot already about the very high draw rate of the recent years... I am surprised that some changes haven't been done already, like switching to chess 960, even modifying some chess rules, or at least giving 1,5 points for one win. Otherwise a lot of players will lose interest in seeing a series of all draws in the tournaments they play. I am one of those players who lost interest in correspondence chess, and even in blitz chess, engine vs engine, as we can see the extremely high draw rate situation there too.
- Finally, what can we wish for you for the next year? :)
--> Wish me to lose the match with Anderson :-) even I got bored of seeing myself there over and over in the final! That will bring some new air and that way I can take some total rest in corr. chess.
- Many thanks for your time, have a great match!
--> Welcome, and thanks.
Roger Llull (2017-01-18 04:33:20)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
I have an idea. Make it more of an spectator sport like engine vs engine is, by letting people offer Epoints to the winners of thematic tournaments in the openings they choose. Let others interested in the same opening add to those Epoints and discuss changes in time controls, starting position and Elo limit. Those studying openings can this way effectively pay for great line analysis, and if this is done well and takes traction, it could even be a source of income for the best players.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-01-19 23:40:00)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
:) Yes... I understand the idea, but it should be unrated IMO, just like thematic tournaments.
Pablo Schmid (2017-01-19 23:45:28)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
Why unrated? The rating would add a real motivation, if you see, there is probably rarely any good game on thematic tournament in this tournament because either a too high level difference or maybe because the unrated game don't gives enough motivations ("no problem if I lose or if I lose interest, it doesn't count")...
Roger Llull (2017-01-20 17:29:03)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
No, you can't mix thematic Elo with classic Elo because you are more likely to lose as black in thematic chess. What you can do is to create a separate Elo for thematic chess. Also I don't think it's good to mix thematic and classic in a championship. I stand by my suggestion to create a system to allow site users to "create" thematic tournaments using our Epoints.
Roger Llull (2017-01-20 19:00:04)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
My point is that your chances are not the same, so Elo mixing is not appropriate. And you can't count on your game with the opposite color because it may be against a different oponent depending on the tournament format.
We have separate Elo for freestyle, so what's the problem with having separate Elo for thematic?
Pablo Schmid (2017-01-20 19:20:36)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
Llull this is why I have said this would be only for the wch final 1vs1 while tournaments must remain free chess to be fair. Thematic on 1v1 with reverse color is fair and I believe the elo could be the normal one.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-01-22 03:11:36)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
As you can see, earlier was probably too early...
Garvin & all who participated into this discussion, what do you think about making the Cup tournament a thematic chess (e.g. King's gambit) championship?
Thibault de Vassal (2017-01-22 18:46:13)
Thematic with lowest chances of draw
This Benoni is probably an interesting choice. After all, maybe we can change from time to time... Maybe even that the thematic should remain a secret before the tournament starts ^^ But it may be less "prestigious" than King's gambit.
Stanislas Gounant (2022-11-23 20:17:39)
I did not win a game since 3 years
The problem with the starting positions in FICGS thematic tournaments, one of the player can open the position and it will be draw. Some years ago, someone show me a youtube video about a game played on TCEC between leela chess zero and Stockfish.
https://tcec-chess.com/#div=sf&game=61&season=15
The engines start to play at move 7, white had more space and black can't open the position
Thibault de Vassal (2017-01-24 02:39:37)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
I started to change the waiting lists page... Most probably, the WCH will not change (for the moment at least), the CUP waiting list will be open next week (rules page should be visible tomorrow), and possibly a "KING supertournament" thematic event may happen from time to time (later) with rules still to be defined (later)... To be continued.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-04-21 22:54:00)
WCh and other ramblings
Thanks for these words & analysis Peter! Yes, I don't know yet if Eros will fight one more time to retain the title but obviously he did it very well during these last years... the strongest engine alone would certainly not have been able to achieve this. Anyway, Herbert (& others) looks like to be ready for the challenge and this could be very interesting to see such a match! Well, let's see how this tough candidates final with Pablo finishes before :)
Well, the cup format was a first step towards a championship with more chances for everyone... the future "King's supertournament" will be another one with a thematic bigger round-robin that should definitely avoid the drawish problem & a new attempt to give sense to correspondence chess. To be continued...
Scott Nichols (2017-05-01 01:05:29)
Ultimate Challenge Tour 2017, USD 20k
This was absolutely the worst tournament atmosphere I have ever saw. I would not only not recommend, I wholeheartedly discourage anyone from this site. But to each his own.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-05-13 19:50:31)
Ultimate Challenge Tour 2017, USD 20k
By the way, why "this was"? The tournament is scheduled to end not before May 20th, but I cannot find any news about it on the site.
Daniel Parmet (2017-07-01 07:48:12)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
I know this thread is old but I feel Garvin made an amazing point that got lost:
"It was to give players who were in the 2100 to 2200 and below more opportunities against players rated 2300 and above, whilst still also giving the top players something to play for ie the tournament win."
I haven't played actively since 2010 for exactly this reason. I did play over 470 games though but found that I was permanently locked into this rating band despite being far beyond the skill level of this rating band solely because I was never allowed to play stronger players. So I moved on to ICCF where I easily was able to compete against 2370+ players all the time.
Sergey Zemlyanov (2017-07-03 22:02:59)
My new match with GM Eros Riccio
Hi all! I just transfer 100 euros to the site in hope to play with GM Eros Riccio in Standart Tournament with 100 e-points as entry fee. I know him as one of the strongest corrchess players of the world, but I'll try to survive in two games. And I'm not going to purposely shut out the game.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-07-08 19:04:36)
WCH_GROUP_02__17 round 2
One tournament is not decided yet, I'm afraid we'll have to wait this last game to finish.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-08-06 17:36:46)
When chess is just beauty
I just lost my chess master.
François Melison was a great friend to me, and a very special chess player as all who played him over the board know.
Actually he was the only one I never saw playing to win, even during a rated tournament (his performances were always 200 or 300 points below his level, often losing on time in winning positions - even when having the time to win, even against fide masters).
It seems to me that his deep motivation was to understand, to touch the beauty and nature of the game... that changed my vision of chess but not only, most probably, even if I was never close to approach his talent and vision of the board. He played correspondence chess when real mail was used, when it was a very special thing compared to this strange time dominated by computers. He was able to play blindfold of course, and some simultaneous games are great memories for a few of his chess friends.
He just played for the beauty of chess, or maybe he played for the beauty only.
He was 54 only. I'll miss him.
Condolences from all his friends at ESIGETEL go to his family.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-08-28 21:56:28)
Kasparovs comeback in chess
A summary of the former world champion's performance in St Louis tournament with Caruana, Anand, Navara, Aronian, Karjakin, Dominguez Perez, Nakamura, Le & a few others... and Garry Kasparov of course.
http://en.chessbase.com/post/kasparov-in-st-louis-a-closer-look
Well, it was just blitz & rapid but maybe a first step before a true comeback? Anyway, he did better than Viswanathan Anand (that's not meaningless) and a few games are worth a glance in my opinion.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-10-09 02:21:20)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
Hello Sergey,
First of all, my congratulations for this score in such a tough match. I understand your concern, but FICGS cannot be a bank and/or a casino, there's no refund or "epoint conversion/cashout"... FICGS organizes chess games with entry fee & money prizes, but players have to win a tournament/match to justify and get a money prize.
My suggestion is to find an advanced chess opponent so that the games do not last days/weeks/months. Surely a few ones would play you!
Thibault de Vassal (2017-10-09 21:29:57)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
Well, I understand and I'm very sorry about that... if it can avoid such problems, be sure that I'll copy this part of the terms in the page "My account" where it is specified:
"Before to buy any ticket for tournaments with entry fee and money prizes, please read the terms and conditions, and more particularly entry fees, money prizes and money transfer sections."
And as you may guess, FICGS is much much more a pleasure to run for me than a money thing... Actually, the money prize part represent about nothing here and has always been a problem more than a solution at the end.
Your proposal is very generous anyway, otherwise many Epoints are free prizes so it may help to add ones, but you may also play other nice games and why not get this money prize at the end.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-10-09 22:08:13)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
I have added the following text on the "My account" page, let's hope it will avoid such problems in the future:
"First of all, please note that FICGS does not work like a bank or a casino, you have to win tournaments to get a money prize, otherwise it is not possible to "cashout" or convert Epoints into money. If you didn't do it yet, have a look at the rules (textlink) on this specific point."
Sergey Zemlyanov (2017-10-09 22:16:24)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
Dear Thib,
Thank you very much!
I donated e-points to the site. Also, I will focus on my games on ICCF. I do not have only 5 points of the rating to get into the tournament with a grandmaster's norm. I need to put pressure on it!)
Daniel Parmet (2017-11-15 16:49:03)
Adjudications & 7 pieces tablebases
1) is not true. All seven pieces have been solved. Some ICCF tournaments at the start specify whether 7 or 6 is used which generally depends on who is sponsoring and directing the tournament (re point 2).
Garvin Gray (2017-12-09 09:09:47)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish
Just to be clear, or a clarification for those who need it. I never stated that anyone from AlphaZero cheated, or did anything of the kind.
All I stated was that because Stockfish is an open source program, they had the opportunity to study how the program works and tune AlphaZero to take advantage of that.
Any opponent should take advantage of any small advantage they can gain.
I also made clear mention of the processing speed differences. This presented AlphaZero a clear advantage. The issue of same hardware being used is not a new topic. It is brought up in almost every tournament when chess engine tournaments are being played. That for a fair and level competition, the engines need to compete on similar strong hardware.
Reading some of the other replies and thinking further about my first post, I wonder how AlphaZero would go if a four engine event was held, with one game per day between Houdini, Komodo, Stockfish and AlphaZero with equal hardware being used?
Little opportunity then to tune AlphaZero to one specific engine and it would be more a test of the overall strength of the engine in long time control play.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-12-16 02:15:04)
DeepZen reached 9 dan (Go)
Everyone is talking about AlphaGo / AlphaZero but I just realized that another Go program reached 9 dan in 2017 : Zen or Deep Zen
It won a computer tournament and beat number 1 japanese player Iyama Yuta 9d, that seems quite significant.
http://senseis.xmp.net/?ZenGoProgram
A way to compare the success of the program by Google Deepmind.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-12-22 23:28:18)
Monte Carlo Analysis
Oh wow, it looks like I have no more idea of what Fritz Gui looks like nowadays... Is there a "Monte Carlo" engine or is it a Fritz option? Or is it the old option allowing engines to play each other in tournaments on various openings & positions?
Actually, I don't see the interest of a 'pure' Monte Carlo method in chess as it just looks like a non-optimized search. But it seems to me that it's a long time that engines use algorithms that look like it when it may be useful (particularly in calm positions & endgames). So, it's just a "plus" if you have some processing time to do it (like AlphaZero, having a much more powerful hardware), otherwise...
Right now, I must say I still have no accurate idea of how AlphaZero plays chess.
Zack Stephen (2018-01-06 13:08:56)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Is it too late to join the World Championship tournament? If not when will the first round begin?
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-06 20:43:12)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Hi Zack,
The waiting lists will be open in a few weeks, all tournaments should start on March 1st, 2018.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-10 22:29:48)
1st King Supertournament
Dear chessfriends, FICGS Android apps are now bringing a really different playing experience!
All 4 apps are now dedicated to either chess, Go or Poker Holdem (or all games) with specific features that make it easier and compliant with laws in more countries, that's why it is now useful to install them all and use it according to your taste at the moment.
Of course, it is more dedicated to "chess for fun", that's why it's a good time to start the very 1st FICGS chess King Supertournament:
- No engines or databases allowed
- Unrated thematic tournament: King's gambit
- Marathon tournament : unlimited number of players / games
- Flash deadline: The tournament will start on January 17th, 2018
Will you dare to enter this much fun and challenging waiting list? :)
Finally, these apps are very good news for FICGS as new players are coming again... It was really time, particularly after the last server crash! Now I'll make my possible to make FICGS great again, or even greater :)
Christoph Schroeder (2018-01-11 00:29:15)
1st King Supertournament
A King's gambit thematic would be great, but as a no engine version? No.
It is fun to search for truth in ancient openings like the King's Gambit, but that obviously requires the use of books, databases and engines.
Moreover, experience on other servers shows that in the so-called "no-engine tournaments" the majority of the players use engines, anyway.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-11 03:13:36)
1st King Supertournament
Hi Christoph,
I agree that engines may be there anyway (I added a permanent warning in the "move_express" page), and also that King's Gambit needs to be analyzed again and again :)
There are several reasons for this choice for this particular tournament...
1. The tournament's format: The number of games may be huge and practically impossible to manage with databases & engines analysis. At least, it could be dissuasive! By the way, there are regularly King's gambit thematic in the Special Chess Tournaments category.
2. The "applications friendly" idea: Unlike most other tournaments, this one will be particulary playable just for fun from anywhere with a phone.
And before everything, this is just an experiment...
Let's try something new :)
Zack Stephen (2018-01-13 12:34:41)
1st King Supertournament
I tend to agree with christoph. The reason to play on this site is because the use of engines is allowed.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-13 18:31:04)
1st King Supertournament
And I agree with that too... but obviously, FICGS also needs to open itself more to no-engines players, hopefully to attract more centaur players (complex equation, Google related). Anyway, that's just one tournament category, things will not change for the WCH that will start in March.
Herbert Kruse (2018-01-18 16:41:35)
Spice up chess? More members
players who lose on time wouldnt play faster tournaments
my main theme in ficgs is waiting - more for poker, but for chess games too
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-18 18:07:57)
Spice up chess? More members
Anyway, if the apps finally attract new players enough, then I'll be glad to open new tournaments categories... This would be the solution to many things.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-22 00:51:19)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments
New topic to discuss what should be done when chess engines are probably or obviously used in no engines tournaments. Not so easy to judge, and it would be easy to make it quite invisible IMHO.
- Elo rating points loss?
- Loss of all games in the tournament?
- Nothing (comments will be enough)
Any other idea or preference?
Garvin Gray (2018-01-22 01:06:01)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments
The penalties have to be similar to players who are caught using engines at otb tournaments.
Loss of all games in the tournament ie they are kicked out of the tournament and then further sanctions are applied.
But working out how the person used engine assistance is the key question?
Most would say, oh the player choose the top or second ranked engine move almost all of the time. But most decent players would do that anyways.
So that is not a good enough standard. And so that then needs a new test.
It is personally one of the reasons why I did not speak in favour of the event.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-22 02:00:23)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments
I did not mean for the King tourney in particular. All no engines tournaments would run under that rule. But you're right, not so easy and many would say such human decision is not good for a chess server.
Herbert Kruse (2018-01-22 09:12:32)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments
where is the point in playing with an engine in no engine tournaments, there is nothing to win
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-22 19:45:30)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments
I guess that some people just like to win games :)
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-23 00:43:23)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments
... at least, for those who think by themselves (a vast majority, I guess), here's some help :)
http://image.farnik.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Think_In_Chess
Good advices here but it will not be enough to save some of my games ;)
Kym Farnik (2018-01-24 09:33:59)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments
Most of that Article above is taken from the writings of C (Cecil) J S Purdy, the first Correspondence Chess World Champion [1950-1953] (a fellow Australian).
His games http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=31309
More information...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Purdy
Garvin Gray (2018-02-26 02:50:10)
Norm qualification criteria, incorrect?
ICCF is the FIDE way. As all events are round robin, each player is told the score they need to achieve to get a Norm before the event begins.
Almost any item can be easily understandable if kept simple, but does this mean it is the best system if it does not produce the most accurate results for player performances?
For Comparison with ICCF: Here you have the point total for all players to get a norm in norm tournaments.
At ICCF: In the Points table, they have columns which show what score each player needs to reach to get that particular norm.
So that information is included in the cross table.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-02-27 20:01:33)
Norm qualification criteria, incorrect?
Thank you very much for information! (I must have forgotten... It's about 20 years I didn't play in a FIDE tournament ^^)
I'll have to think about this but I'm not sure it would be easy to keep coherence here. In all cases, you're right, that's the best theorical way.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-03-14 23:12:38)
A few questions to Nelson Bernal Varela
Nelson Bernal Varela is an early FICGS correspondence chess player, now rated 2277 but also rated 2359 at ICCF (Correspondence Chess Master - CCM).
Last but not least, and as all poker holdem players here probably noticed, he is also our ranked #1 for years, who just reached an outstanding poker rating of 2382, while number two is now rated "only" 2212. A good occasion to ask him a few questions, that he kindly accepted to answer.
-----------------------
- Hello Nelson! You are the 2nd most active player at FICGS for years now. Everyone here probably noticed your incredible results in poker tournaments. "Correspondence poker holdem" was probably a strange idea as it is very unusual and very different from "Internet poker". What's your opinion on this and on the presence of a card game (played without money) at FICGS?
NBV: There are more important things than money and one of those is HONOR; It is honorable to be a chess master, international master, grandmaster, world chess champion at ICCF and at FICGS and to be number one in the ranking. It is honorable to be a FICGS world champion at Go and to be first in the ranking, it is honorable to be poker world champion at FICGS poker and in my case, it is an honor to be number one at poker here at FICGS during the last years, understanding that our general level of play has improved remarkably. None of these activities produces money, but to achieve any of the mentioned titles, it is necessary to have extraordinary abilities.
When I was about 18 years old, I had the opportunity to meet a person with immense material wealth, we spent whole evenings playing chess and then I told him my perceptions about each movement of the game. He thanked me for my chess explanations and paid me with good money. That wealthy man in his turn told me about life and recommended that I should always be proud of the gifts I had, since he knew, with all the money he had and being able to hire the best grandmasters in the world, that it could hardly come at the level of chess master. That person told me that the intellect can be turned into money whenever you want.
Now, by playing poker without money at FICGS, I understood that it was my extraordinary and wonderful opportunity to study-learn-perfect and test my poker theories without costing me a single dollar. In FICGS there is no money, but thanks to the knowledge I gained playing poker in FICGS, today I can go after the money in online poker rooms and probably in OTB poker tournaments. I am studying the possibility of becoming a professional poker player.
- The understanding of your opponent's behaviour is usually quite important at Poker. Do you manage to establish some profiles while playing so many simultaneous hands & games? Did you build any method?
NBV: Today I am sure that the most important thing to raise, and keep raising my level in poker, has been to build a psychological profile of mine, to get to know Nelson Bernal Varela in depth and above all to understand me, accept me, love me and be work every day eliminating my technical errors, strategic, psychological that make me play badly. I am aware that in poker I can play perfectly and still lose, what I can not forgive me is playing badly, which is why I work hard correcting my wrong decisions.
Of course, there is a space in my brain where I have built a psychological profile of each contender, that profile I have been able to elaborate with all the information that is provided to me in each hand we play. The way each of us plays, gives reliable information about our personality.
About my method I can write the following: A few years ago, I created a table in excel, where I had all the games with each contender, I identified them with the FICGS numeration and each movement in each hand (preflop, flop, turn, river ) it I was writing and studying; I started to add technical-psychological variables that seemed important to me, resulting in 20 variables that I had to qualify in each movement. With the passage of time and my effort, I no longer needed the excel table and I did not use it again (it was exhausting and time consuming) because I was assimilating things faster and with greater depth. Today I can say that I evaluate these 20 variables in a natural way, as if I was breathing and that when I am at a poker table, online or real, after a few minutes I get the psychological profile of the table and each of my opponents. In the pocket of my shirt I keep a small paper with the list of variables, periodically reread it and I wonder if I should modify, remove or add something.
- You won 1007 poker games, and lost only 380, with a ratio usually going from 57% to 80% according to your best opponents. Undoubtly you know the mathematics hidden behind poker but that may not explain everything. How did you learn to play?
NBV: Mathematics is an ingredient in poker, in the same way that my psychological aspects and of my opponents (I recommend reading-studying about four times the book “The Poker mindset†of Ian Taylor and Matthew Hilger), it is vital to understand the Law of Large Numbers. Next I make a list of topics that I consider important to raise the level of poker; compete with EV+ cards, you have to know the small ball theory of Negreanu (but not apply it, hahaha) you have to always look at the texture of the board, you have to evaluate your reality and your future, also that of your opponents (act and power), the position to talk is important, the stack, the personality of the table, know who has the panic button on. All these and other variables must be evaluated in the few seconds they have to make a move and the only important thing is to make the right decision according to the circumstances. There is a good list of poker books to read... it is mandatory to have read about 15 poker books.
- As for me, I may be wrong but I can't imagine that you reached such a rating without special techniques & maybe by optimizing it in some ways... Of course, "rating management" is not a problem, and it is only one thing with a limited impact, but maybe you have some other secrets? What about this "+1" technique that I noticed in many of our games, if this is not a secret? :)
NBV: In these years I have used different techniques that I had to read, study, learn, repeat, modify, invent and sometimes eliminate. Poker is a sport that seems easy, with time one manages to understand that it has an amazing complexity, today I consider poker to be as complex as chess and I study them in a "similar" way. As an example, I have tried to create "openings in poker"; based only on probabilities I invented something that I called mirror theory and another "opening" that I called opposite outs. I am fascinated by mathematics and from the mathematical perspective they are perfect "theories-openings", but I have lost tournaments and a lot of money for applying such theories in mistaken emotional moments. In poker it is important to never lose sight of the Law of Large Numbers and be aware that this LAW likes to make fun of each one of us... I am working on giving an emotional nuance to my theories "mirror" and "opposite outs". There are moments when perfect mathematics becomes an unforgivable psychological error...
For the last few months I have modified my way of playing and my results have improved; Today it must be much more difficult to win a game me, thanks to small and imperceptible adjustments that of course only I know, because I have followed my mistakes-successes-evolution in the game over several years.
- Isn't it too frustrating for you to play heads up only (here at least) ? Of course it is a way to improve this important technical case but we know that many complexities come with 3 to 8 players on the table, which is the most common case in professional poker tournaments.
NBV: Currently I spend little time every day playing heads-up in FICGS, thanks to the fact that I have the profile of each contender. The 4-5 hours that I study poker daily, include practice in micro limits in cash tables of 6 players and tournaments in tables of 8-9 players. I think I'm covering the whole range of possibilities, experiencing game situations between 1 and 8 contenders.
- What do you think about computer analysis in poker? Do you think it could make a difference here just like the way we play advanced chess?
NBV: I think the algorithms are ready to be written in machine language and the question is where are those algorithms? Well, in the brains of the best players in the world and in their games compiled in huge databases. But programming language can be accelerated with artificial intelligence brains, making A.I. studying databases of the best professionals, playing with itself millions of games and building an invincible TACTIC-STRATEGIC SYSTEM, similar to chess software and GO... I think preflop and flop play would be very similar between humans and artificial intelligence, but on the turn and on the river artificial intelligence would take considerable advantage, but in the short time the level of human poker would rise because artificial intelligence would teach us to play poker, this event that would diminish the profits of the professionals. It will always be said in favor of poker that because it is an incomplete game of information, to make computer algorithms are quite complicated, but despite that, I am sure that artificial intelligence will far surpass the best human poker player. It is possible that an artificial intelligence that plays a perfect poker already exists, but unlike GO and chess, poker does produce a lot of money. Due to the money factor, in today's world, it is very difficult that there is a Prometheus willing to steal fire from the gods and give it to mankind...
- How would you describe your relation to games in general?
NBV: I can summarize it in one of the first chess books I had the fortune to read, by the great Danish master Bent Larsen, "I play to win"
- When did you start to play chess & poker? Do you play other games?
NBV: My first contact with chess was at the age of nine, it was love at first sight and until death separates us; I must confess that for some years we have been separated, due to my stupidity and my erroneous decisions. I have always been self-taught in any subject, my method is to buy about 10 to 15 books of the subject that interests me and I read them thoroughly, sometimes 3 or 4 times; already with that information in my head and thanks to the constant practice, I build MY SYSTEM (Nimzowitch) according to my personality, my dreams, my desires, my anguish, my fears... I was youth champion of Bogotá, for 4 years , my OTB level was strong, but I had to abandon chess because I had to work and survive; Being an athlete in Colombia is an absolutely difficult thing, but being a chess player is extremely complicated since there is no support or respect from society and you can not live by chess, because it does not produce money.
I met poker in 2009 in FICGS, at that time I was in a terrible emotional situation, trying to get away from a relationship with a woman that I should never approach and where I wasted valuable time and energy. In that context, looking for my thoughts to be occupied, I ended up playing the FICGS C-24 poker tournament and tied the first place with three more players; I kept playing, without understanding what was happening with the cards and obviously, losing, until in 2010 I won the FICGS D-21 tournament with perfect score, 6 out of 6. I had already bought-read my first beginner book: Poker for Dummies of Harroch and Krieger, but my poker was coarse, wild, street, intuitive, amateur, without dedication or study. In the background of this paragraph, the affection and gratitude that I have for FICGS is condensed, a place where I have been able to build-practice-study-test MY SYSTEM in poker.
I play Backgammon, I do not care that it may sound pretentious-petulant, but I have a very strong level and I have not read my first book yet. Hahaha. Any year I register as a participant in the world championship and I will cause disgust to more than one professional. Hahaha. Unlike chess and poker, backgammon does not cause me stress, on the contrary, I feel a lot of joy and pleasure when I play backgammon. I feel something similar with math, reading and music. It's true and I'm proud, I've always been a NERD.
- We all know how difficult it is to reach a number 1 rank but it is even more difficult to keep it during a long time. What is your motivation? Do you have more goals to achieve (chess & other games included) ?
NBV: My motivation in any activity I undertake in my life is to do it with absolute passion (passion is everything you would do to get a breath of air, in the second before dying by drowning or suffocation).
I have several goals to accomplish before December 2021; In the ICCF correspondence chess I must reach the 2400 elo and get the titles of International Master, SIM and Grand Master, also perform outstanding performances in world championships. In FICGS Chess I must complete my Master and International Master titles and overcome the 2450 elo, also snatch the title from our eternal champion Eros Riccio. You're warned Eros, hahaha. On the LSS site where I also play, www.chess-server.net I want to be a world champion.
In POKER I find myself playing micro limits bets in several online sites; in June 2018 I hope I have built some bankroll. In July of 2018 I must be evaluating my poker to know if my immediate goal is to become a professional poker player, that would completely change my chess goals and I would have to dedicate myself to OTB poker. At the moment I study and practice poker every day, about 4-5 hours a day. At this moment my poker is full of errors that I am eliminating one by one. MY SYSTEM needs to win and raise money in the micro limits, so that it can succeed in professional poker.
In chess OTB I should become a great master, but that topic should be left as a goal for after 2021. I could achieve the record of being the oldest human in getting the title of Grand Master OTB. Hahaha.
In backgammon I would like to play some important tournaments in USA and Europe and maybe to be OTB world champion, but at the moment I do not have clarity on how to do it. I must mature that idea.
I hope they invent immortality before I die and that I have enough money to buy it, because time is what I need to realize all these and other dreams...
- Finally, playing so many games on several websites (obviously with serious ambitions in each game & place) may look quite inhuman and exhausting, does your body or brain say "stop" sometimes? Do you train by melting sports and brain games just like Kasparov did in the past?
NBV: It's true, it takes willpower and a lot of resistance to sustain the pace that I carry. To take care of my body, I am doing daily exercise for 60 to 90 minutes, including routines of strength, elasticity, speed and endurance. I also practice table tennis to preserve the agility of my body. I'm also divorced and I do not have a girlfriend... Hahaha
- By curiosity, do you consider playing Go in the future, even after... 2021? (which would surely be an enormous charge more, but the game is really interesting)
I have a kind of commitment with the best Colombian GO player, exchange of classes, he makes me a competitive player of GO and I turn him into a competitive player of backgammon. But the truth is that I do not have time... it could be after 2021...
- Do you confirm that you are not (entirely or partly) AlphaZero or any kind of A.I. (yet) ? :-)
NBV: Hahaha, of course I would like to be a real centaur, human with machine power, I do not care what physical form I should adopt. I offer myself publicly as a guinea pig in projects of technological singularity. Hahaha
- Many thanks for your detailed and instructive (impressive as well) answers! My best wishes of luck in all your games and future tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-03-21 20:37:41)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
[a few posts before & after were edited or deleted]
As I just said in the game thread, that's why I always prefered the knockout format :/ Such suspicions are a cancer in round-robin championships and a pity as this was a real tough & interesting tournament (initiated by Garvin, for the memories).
Of course, this comment is not a judgement in any matter. Systems are the problem, not the problems caused by the systems.
Anyway, let's wait the end of the tournament, then I'll tell and explain my decision, that will eventually open a new debate to change the rules if necessary (I would be surprised though).
Thibault de Vassal (2018-03-30 20:19:27)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Hello Herbert,
I think you may misunderstand what Garvin said there: "The simple explanation is that I had the white rook on h3 instead of h2" ... probably meaning that the analysis was based on the wrong position at one time or another / since one or several moves.
Let's wait the end of the tournament. Of course, losses on time are always bad in such tournaments, but it can happen for many reasons.
Kym Farnik (2018-04-06 16:36:42)
New style? Please revert
No. The old 'My Games' used to show both my time remaining and my opponents.
Now it looks like the App version.
My Tournaments has gone missing as well.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-04-07 03:09:02)
Harold Moye, man of arts... and chess
I'm very sad to announce here that we just lost a chess friend, Harold Moye, who played chess with us while he was involved in a much more difficult battle. My condolences to his family.
Here is the first part of the obituary:
"Harold Anthony Moye, age 62, died on March 4, 2018, wife Linda (Polhemus) Moye at his side. They were devoted to each other for 17 years since vowing their love on a mountain in Wyoming. For 13 of those years, Harold endured bone marrow cancer (Multiple Myeloma) with grace, unusual resilience, and quiet courage.
He loved poetry, languages, art, music, history, philosophy, astronomy, cinema, flying airplanes (actually and with flight simulator) and coffee. Some of his favorites were Shelley, Blake, Rilke, Shakespeare, Norse sagas, VanGogh, Mahler, Bach, Beethoven, and Sumatran and Guatemalan beans. Harold said that Blake taught him the most about art; Shelley was his brother; VanGogh his first cousin; and coffee a major food group (along with pizza and cookies). Above all, he valued imagination, compassion, and generosity of spirit in others. He played Shogi and Chess with friends all over the world online and in person, reaching the distinction of Chess Master when he coordinated tournaments in Wyoming. (...)"
http://www.ficgs.com/moye_harold.htm
Thibault de Vassal (2018-04-09 03:55:44)
Real Poker Game
Hmm hmm, that's an interesting idea to dig! But there are many instant questions, starting with legality :) FICGS cannot organize any poker tournament with money prize, real or not. But there may be other ways.
And such a meeting wouldn't be easy for sure as we're quite far from each other (not speaking about me, out of the top 10 :))
About promotion, I just don't know if FICGS is kind of a "real" poker site but one thing is sure, it was time to come back to fundamentals (chess). Now that things are going better, I'll focus this way for the moment to attract more and more players, then the next goal will be to increase prizes (a lot).
John Hadden (2018-04-12 09:54:00)
Design
Hi... don't want to be annoying to the developers - in general the new style is more inviting than the old - but it is still pretty busy. I had to search for quite a while to even find what was going on. Still not quite sure if it is possible to have a game outside of a tournament - or how the tournaments work. Fair play for making tournaments with prizes... but Im not likely to pay to join if I don't know what's going on...
PS... I had to press post twice there...
Thibault de Vassal (2018-04-12 22:24:54)
Design
Hello John,
You are right, many things are not easy for new players, particularly not used to the "correspondence chess style".
Tournaments are the main thing here by far for the moment... maybe this will evolve with some time but it is still difficult to find opponents for advanced chess games for a few years (but from time to time).
Just to know, did you read the Help section? I'll try to add some things there... to start.
Many thanks for the feedback!
John Hadden (2018-04-16 08:22:51)
Design
I would say if you make it easier to arrange Games then they would be more likely to happen. "I'd you book the bands they will come" bill and Ted ii
Eg. Right now I am unable to play any go games because I don't have the right rating. There is only one tournament open but because there are few players I won't ever play. If instead you make it easier for non tournament games then more players would be available for the tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-04-18 02:01:58)
Design
I understand but it all depends on the number of players connected and ready to play at a given time. Right now, it is not possible to make bullet games popular, we would need probably 10 times more players.
Anyway this Go category just re-opened (it was the Kyu category a few week ago) so this is not really the 14th Go tournament for this rating range. So it shouldn't take too long (a few days though) to start.
William Taylor (2018-05-01 23:52:16)
1st King Supertournament
One of the reasons I didn't enter this tournament is that it's not clear how to guarantee compliance with the 'no databases' requirement. What happens if I need to prepare for an OTB game against a King's Gambit player? Obviously I will consult my database and theoretical works, and cannot help but have my ongoing 'King Supertournament' games in my mind.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-05-02 00:03:56)
1st King Supertournament
I think we all realize that this is not a "usual" FICGS tournament (also that this is just for fun)... and that most correspondence/advanced chess players will not enter it. But I think that FICGS needs such events from time to time, that can attract more "regular" chess players (at least by its announcements). At the end, it seems it makes the job :)
William Taylor (2018-05-02 10:31:20)
1st King Supertournament
I'm sure it will be a fun event. :)
Thibault de Vassal (2018-06-09 19:39:18)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
This 1st chess cup just ended, time to comment :)
First of all, congratulations to Herbert Kruse for this nice win! The opposition was strong and the final result not so easy to guess until a few weeks ago, obviously...
Second of all, to end the cheating suspicion topic, I can only say this: correspondence chess is not soccer, round-robin tournaments are not knockouts, when participating in such a championship on the internet, we have to accept the risk that a few players may (for any rare and obscure reason here IMO) intentionally lose to another one. BUT there is definitely no way to be sure about that, no way to adjudicate games 100% fairly on such suspicions, whatever happening in any game. Of course, it would always be very easy to cheat discreetly enough. And once again, I designed the FICGS WCH to avoid as much as possible what happened during this tournament, it is players choice to accept this and to choose the tournaments they will play in the future.
Now let's see what the second edition will propose :)
Thibault de Vassal (2018-07-27 01:50:24)
On (almost) global forfeits in WCH
Hi all,
I'd like to gather opinions on several cases that may happen or have happened in WCH tournaments.
1) Let's say that one player lost on time 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 games out of 7 (for any reason) in a WCH tournament, after having won one or several games.
2) Let's say that one player resigned 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 games out of 7 (for any reason) in a WCH tournament, after having won one or several games.
3) Let's say that one player lost on time or resigned 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 games out of 7 (for any reason)in a WCH tournament, after having won one or several games.
Obviously, there may be possible unfair situations for one or several players, but it is not so easy to find a fair global solution for all cases. Should those wins (by the player who lost on time and/or resigned several games) not be taken in account? Any suggestions for a simple/clear rule?
I must say that I'm not so favourable to add such a rule at a first sight, but let's see how this discussion may lead.
Many thanks in advance.
Gabriele D Agostino (2018-07-29 15:11:21)
On (almost) global forfeits in WCH
In my opinion if a player lost on time more than 50% of their games in a round robin tournament, all game against him are considered as a win for the opponent.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-07-29 18:27:22)
On (almost) global forfeits in WCH
Thanks Gabriele for sharing your point of view (we always need more :-))... that's a part of the problem IMO, even a balanced percentage may/will not satisfy everyone as soon as any percentage below can suddenly decide the winner of the tournament. And of course, there are many reasons to lose only one game on time (or to have to resign it for personal matters).
Gabriele D Agostino (2018-07-29 20:48:31)
On (almost) global forfeits in WCH
Thank you Thibault for trying to improve the rules. There are good reasons in either case, consider all the results or give 1 point to everyone. Any decision will not satisfy anyone.
Such a rule is in the FIDE tournament regulations. (8.2)
https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/Competition_Rules.pdf
Obviously we can choose a different rule.
Christoph Schroeder (2018-08-16 03:25:38)
7 pieces tablebases
If the rule is introduced, the no-engine-tournaments obviously should be excluded. For all other tournaments (where engines, databases and tablebases are allowed) I see no reason for any exceptions.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-08-18 01:35:55)
7 pieces tablebases
I understand the comparison (quite funny by the way), but all players do not particularly race in all tournaments - maybe this would make more sense in WCH cycle than in regular tournaments.
@Rotom: Good question... maybe tablebases do not consider it while a software using tablebases could consider it. I don't know as I don't use it for a while.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-09-08 22:29:33)
Netiquette reinforcement
That's right. Still, it needs more actions & human decisions (that will probably be discussed). So let's try the current system before to envisage this one.
Also, I'm not sure what points 4) & 5) exactly mean in the context of a chess tournament, and if it would be fair in all cases?!
Garvin Gray (2018-09-09 02:43:30)
Netiquette reinforcement
4, 5 and 6 need to be read together.
4 and 5 are where the arbiter declared the game lost for the player who breached the rules. The arbiter then needs to decide what score to award the opponent.
So 4 is to increase the points scored in the game to the maximum available for that game. This usually is 1 point.
5 is reducing the offenders score to zero.
What these two provisions also cover is where an offence is found out later in the tournament. So for here on ficgs, the arbiter found out that late in a tournament that one player had been abusing opponents regularly.
4 and 5 allows you to adjusts the scores of those completed games.
6 declares lost the game by the offending player. But the reason for the provision of 'deciding the opponents score' is that a position on the board might arise where the non-offender might not be able to construct a checkmate position with the material they have (lets say just a bare king). Then the score would be (0 - 0.5). The offender scores zero and the non offender, who can not win the game because they can not checkmate their opponent, receives 0.5
7 and 8 should be 'self explanatory'.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-09-24 00:15:43)
Some questions to H. Kruse, WCH finalist
After that the last FICGS chess WCH final match finished, the choice was made again to ask a few questions to Eros Riccio's challenger: Herbert Kruse, for the 2nd time. He kindly accepted to answer it so let's learn a bit more on our top-ranked correspondence chess player.
______________________________
Hello Herbert, you're not really a player to introduce as you're very active here and at several chess websites for years, with outstanding ratings in each one (as far as I know), you're the 1st FICGS CUP winner & several times FICGS WCH challenger, each time facing "the wall" Eros Riccio, what could you tell us about yourself particularly as a chess & correspondence chess player?
- i began late with 16 to play my first tournament game, but with 18 i already was kicked out of a night club in company with tony miles ;) (dresscode) had vlastimil hort as trainer for a short time and played in teams with gutman, michalchisin, klovans, gipslis and some other GMs. corr chess i began, because i love to find the truth and because of freestyle, where i began to build very strong computers
What kind of computers do you build? Is it all dedicated to chess?
- i have several dual xeon e5 computers with 64gb ddr3 and 16 to 20 real cores and they all play chess ;)
Once again, GM Eros Riccio managed to draw the 12 games of the match. What are your feelings on these games? How did you estimate your chances to destabilize your opponent in the openings and to create complications enough with White (or Black)?
- this time my feelings were neutral. 1% chances to win, but i hoped he would lose his concentration if i began more games with him (we played 6 other games at the same time)
Doesn't "1% chances to win (the match)" mean about 0.17% to win only one game with White, even when losing one with Black? Isn't it a bit pessimistic after all, or is it the new so called Riccio-effect? :)
- if the strongest players face each other there is no win possible, except some has a mouse slep or forgot something during human interfacing
When did you start playing correspondence chess and what changed since that time? What attracted you most in the game?
- 2004 and evaluation of the position is the key point of improvement since then. attractive was to be better than actual world class players :)
Could you tell us anything on the way you work chess and play your correspondence games? Any tip or secret? (nothing to lose to ask :))
- with black i play for fastest way to 0.00 and with white i try every promising way to make a game for a longer time complicated
Do you use several ones at the same time when analyzing a game? (still grabbing some tips)
- i only use the newest stockfish versions of brainfish and corchess because the other engines are not so good. because i have many games i decide which one gets the most cores and time and let them run in infinity mode until i am happy that can be after 1 week or more sometimes.
You're not far to rank 2nd as a poker player at FICGS, you obviously started to take on Big Chess as well. What other games do you play? Did you consider to play Go already?
- i played go against the german champion and lost so i quit :)) played backgammon money game and internet (in fibs with kit woolsey i played over 100 matches) in bridge i was best bidder in germany 1994 to 1995, but dont play much nowadays
Do you have specific goals to achieve as a player?
- 2 goals, since a long time: be ficgs world champion and win one german bridge championship
How do you imagine correspondence chess evolution within a decade? What kind of engines/computers do you expect to use and what will look like centaur chess according to you? (in other words, what part will remain to the human player in the decision?)
- i think the engines today are already unbeatable, so in 20 years the would still not lose and chess is dead since about 4 years
What did you think about Google Deepmind's Alpha Zero performance vs. Stockfish?
- it was a joke because they let a bad version of stockfish play. i would not have lost one game against az0 and maybe won 2 til 5 out of 100
Conditions of this AlphaZero vs. Stockfish match were very specific (opening books, unbalanced hardware...) What weaknesses did you detect in AlphaZero play?
- it was the lack of precision, what would let it lose against stockfish in its tuned newest version but i look from a view of a player who is used to play with deep 60 :)
It seems that computers did not completely take on Bridge yet, what do you expect within a decade?
- i have not seen bridge programms, but the game is so easy that it must be already mastered by computers
Rotom Monotua (2018-10-08 23:33:28)
No engine tournaments, no, no
At the moment I am playing the King Supertournament which is great fun - but I have to say it seems there are a handful of players who arent playing by the rules - therefore I am a little disappointed....
To me it looks like no engine tournaments are not really possible.
Ilmars Cirulis (2018-10-18 14:41:44)
No engine tournaments, no, no
They can be enforced, yes.
They are possible, but only if all participants are honest.
Ilmars Cirulis (2018-10-19 02:44:17)
No engine tournaments, no, no
* can't be enforced
Thibault de Vassal (2018-10-20 03:06:28)
No engine tournaments, no, no
I understand but in my opinion we have to accept this... This kind of tournament is a question of fun (to make mistakes as well) and honor (not to win but to play it by the rules!), no need to shame anyone publicly or to bring a climate of suspicion as everyone can make an opinion by watching/analyzing the games. But yes, it is possible/probable that a few players use engines even there... why, this is quite a mystery but it is always possible to cheat in this kind of tournaments.
As there's no prize or rating points to win, best is to ignore it IMO.
William Taylor (2018-10-28 23:09:11)
World Championship Tie-breaks
I'm not sure that's appropriate for a chess event, but it has given me another idea: a mixed game tournament for the overall FICGS WC title.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-10-31 03:04:21)
World Championship Tie-breaks
Well, the 1 day per move rule has several reasons to remain (including avoiding more forfeits/losses on time), and coherence is really important IMO. I do not agree that Eros cannot be beaten (I couldn't do it by myself though ^^), I trust Murphy's law :) I see several reasons to all these consecutive victories, Eros explained many by himself, and I don't think it's enough to change the format, by the way we now have the CUP format for all players who prefer other parameters (thanks Garvin!).
As for Twitch & other good ideas like this, truth is that there should have been many Freestyle tournaments these last years but I couldn't organize it anymore and still can't at the moment :/ But most important is that despite of computers supremacy in correspondence chess, now Go & poker holdem, I'm convinced that the best years of FICGS are to come, and it will bring more competition, new champions & good things. Let's wait & see!
Thibault de Vassal (2018-11-18 01:32:48)
Carlsen Caruana wch match
At least the openings are interesting... games 5 & 6 are good examples. This Petroff line could be a thematic tournament soon here.
Herbert Kruse (2018-11-25 19:57:12)
cannot enter this tournament
i shall have too many running games (69/50)
but the intention of this rule was to avoid forfaist, what i never did
so my hard work to get rating over 2000 at big chess was for nothing?
Herbert Kruse (2018-11-25 20:11:43)
cannot enter this tournament
i play 150 games in the last 5 month and finished
Thibault de Vassal (2018-11-25 20:40:52)
cannot enter this tournament
(sorry for the forum bug, had to modify the topic name)
Yes, I fully understand your point here but this rule showed its efficiency over the years according to me.
Well, as you entered Big Chess A & B waiting lists already, I propose to delete your name from the B waiting list & add it to the M waiting list (so that the rule is not broken at the end). Is it ok for you?
Herbert Kruse (2018-11-25 20:52:14)
cannot enter this tournament
sure :)
Thibault de Vassal (2018-11-25 21:46:19)
cannot enter this tournament
ok, let's do this... now one last player needed to start the tournament.
Wilhelm Schuett (2018-12-18 04:36:46)
Thematic tournaments?
1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 offers choices for both
Wilhelm Schuett (2018-12-20 23:27:38)
Thematic tournaments?
Did we ever had the French Burn Variation?
Thibault de Vassal (2018-12-21 03:38:54)
Thematic tournaments?
I don't think so... now in the todo list :)
Yeturu Aahlad (2018-12-26 19:36:58)
poker: not enough chips to pay BB
https://www.cardplayer.com/rules-of-poker/tournaments
If a player lacks sufficient chips for a blind or a forced bet, the player is entitled to get action on whatever amount of money remains. A player who posts a short blind and wins does not need to make up the blind.
George Jempty (2019-01-19 22:33:44)
Thematic tournaments?
I propose Bishop's Gambit. If you play 1.e4 e5 as Black you probably need to know it. And if you play the same as White, it could be a good surprise weapon.
Garvin Gray (2019-01-24 08:15:24)
WCh groups...
The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage.
In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage.
If tournament entry ratings (TER) are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account.
Ilmars Cirulis (2019-01-24 10:19:24)
Thematic tournaments?
Najdorf Poisoned pawn - did we have that already?
Thibault de Vassal (2019-01-24 18:58:12)
James Romig
Hi all,
Well, it seems to me that a website administrator shouldn't intervene in players private life / ask for or discuss players private life if it does not come from players or players families (as it happens regularly, most often for bad news).
Of course general forfeits happen quite/too often, sometimes there are expressed concerns from other players, sometimes unexpressed concerns or nothing at all, whatever... so IMO the website administrator/referee shouldn't have to act according to such criteria.
Finally, it seems to me that we have to wait for news (but of course friends can contact each other).
As Garvin said, sometimes players make some choices (e.g. if not taking vacation days for any reason is considered as a choice) and there may be unfortunate consequences for themselves & for their opponents. That's what can happen on chess websites... more than in real tournaments, of course.
Wilhelm Schuett (2019-02-09 14:49:16)
Thematic tournaments?
I don't know. A good question. Sicilian offers a lot of possibilities.
Thibault de Vassal (2019-03-16 21:22:26)
World Championship Groups
@ Marcio : In a quarter final, the player with the highest Tournament Entry Rating is qualified for next stage.
@ Graham : My apologies, I didn't see your post before. It depends on the group... In most cases, the player with the highest Tournament Entry Rating is qualified for next stage.
Leon Pereira (2019-06-23 08:20:58)
Tournament
I did not receive any notification that the tournament was starting. Did not receive any notification when a games starts. WTF? Just keep getting emails that I have lost. Please drop me from the tournament. This is ridiculous.
Thibault de Vassal (2019-06-23 11:42:16)
Tournament
Hello Leon,
All games in a tournament start at the same time, indeed you should have received an email about this. Is there any chance that it was filtered in a spam folder?
Thibault de Vassal (2019-08-21 00:40:19)
Where is my finished go game?
Hi,
If you do not have any running game, you should be able to reach it by clicking "My tournaments", then "Display all tournaments"
https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournaments&nofilter=1
Thibault de Vassal (2019-09-24 21:33:24)
World Championship Groups
This is specified in the WCH rules (2nd paragraph):
"The knockout tournament is played into 8 games matches. The special rule (avoiding short draws) is that in case of equality (4-4), the winner is the player with the strongest tournament entry rating if all games are draw, the player with the lowest tournament entry rating if not all games are draw. The winner is qualified for the next stage."
I hope it is clear enough, maybe I should rewrite it.
Steven DuCharme (2019-11-17 17:28:43)
CC Server World Championship Tournament
I have contacted the top player from about 40 sites with the hope they will battle for global supremacy. A forum topic with the title name is at chesstempo.com where games will be played. Optional money play is available at chesshere.com...Herbert Kruse has accepted my invite but has not signed in at chesstempo yet. He is the first and hopefully not the last to respond.
Steven DuCharme (2019-11-24 20:12:57)
CC Server World Championship Tournament
Doesn't look like anyone else is going to join :(
Zeljko Cirovic (2020-01-16 12:36:22)
IECG chess-server.net
STILL NOT START...FICGS__CHESS__KING_SUPERTOURNAMENT__000006
(type : unrated round-robin, time : 30 days, increment : 1 day / move)
Deadline : 2019 september 1st
Thematic chess, first moves : e4 e5 f4
Christoph Schroeder (2020-01-28 23:00:27)
Waiting lists
Enabling to remove oneself from a waiting list should be given a higher priority.
Recently, I "played" a go tournament where all 6 opponents were non-starters. The high percentage of non-starters (not only in go but also in poker and chess) could AND SHOULD drastically be reduced by creating a possibility to step down before the tornament starts.
Charles Bovary (2020-02-19 17:09:29)
Game decided by tablebase
At ICCF the tournament director is the one whom you'll have to address your request to.All 6 and recently 7 pieces endgame tablebases positions are arbitrated automatically. If your request is correct.
Wilhelm Schuett (2020-02-28 05:34:25)
Thematic tournaments?
two english ideas: 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 c5 3.g3 d5 (and e6 4.Nf3 b6 5.Bg2 Bb7) 4.cd5 Nxd5 5.Bg2 Nc7
Bogoljub Teverovski (2020-02-28 12:00:41)
Thematic tournaments?
Norfolk 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 c5 3.e4 or Noteboom
Thibault de Vassal (2020-02-28 21:35:34)
Thematic tournaments?
Let's try Wilhelm's first english line... thanks!
Herbert Kruse (2021-06-26 22:13:03)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Is it too late to join the World Championship tournament? If not when will the first round begin?
Zbigniew Szczepanski (2020-04-10 08:03:33)
Wch groups, less than 7 players
In the "Tournaments" tab under "CHESS RAPID TOURNAMENTS" I miss "FICGS_CHESS_RAPID_GM".
Daniel Parmet (2020-04-28 22:59:06)
The State of correspondence chess
I have played correspondence chess now for 13 years. During that time, I have played 983 correspondence games. These days I mostly play at ICCF and some of these issues may be ICCF specific... but since ICCF has no forum and I want to get a sense of the health of correspondence chess in general... I posit my thoughts here.
First of all, I think the number of correspondence players and the number of correspondence games are decreasing across the board on all correspondence websites due to the things I want to talk about.
Second, I primarily shifted my playing to ICCF years ago for two reasons: 1) The higher level of competition available; 2) The norms available. Although I was concerned with their fees which are usually minor but, in many cases, certain organizers do construct outlandish tournaments that you need to be wary of (looking at you Venezuela).
On the first point, I think ICCF is a little more open to high caliber players competing up until a point (they really try to prevent you from playing a 2450+ player until you are 2450+ yourself). And the rating protections get tougher and tougher the further you go but they make it easy to play 2300 players. While most websites outside of ICCF, usually have one annual Cup / WCH or Thematics, these other websites usually make it impossible to play anyone more than a few hundred points above you no matter your rating outside of these few events.
On the second point, I think ICCF norms are somewhat of an illusion. They’ve always been hard and much harder to achieve than OTB norms which received a watering down of requirements of decades ago. In fact, ICCF norms are so much harder than FIDE norms that one actually needs to achieve two norms to receive the prerequisite title in ICCF vs the standard three norms required by FIDE. In the US, for example, there are 116 ICCF Titled players in history (13 GMs, 25 SIM, 78 IMs) vs 828 FIDE Titled players in present (101 GMs 166 IM 561 FMs) [https://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml]. Now however, there is a proposal, for the ICCF GM Title only, proposed by Dennis Doren, ICCF Rules Commissioner who really does a lot for correspondence chess, and SIM Uwe Staroske, ICCF Qualifications and Ratings Commissioner, to remove the requirement to have to play GMs to get the GM Title [leaving IM and SIM untouched] [https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1280]. This proposal states, “A search of the ICCF data indicates that 21 players obtained at least 2 GM norms across 24 games but failed to get the GM title because of the requirement of "5 GM" opponents. (Only 5 of those players are currently active).†Leaving aside the fact that this proposal violates the very definition of the GM Title, one must beat the club in order to join it, the proposal further outlines the real problems without addressing them, “The GM Title has already become far harder to earn than it used to be, due to the rating suppression caused by the increase in draws.†Wow, let’s unpack that one line because it is a doozy!
Really, this one line, that is easily overlooked, is two huge problems that correspondence is facing: 1) death by one thousand draw paper cuts and 2) rating deflation. I will argue later that there is a third huge problem but let’s start with the ones acknowledged by ICCF itself. Every correspondence player knows the draw rate is going up. As engines and hardware get stronger, players are able to save positions that in the past would have been lost and we are finding ever easier ways to head straight towards 0.00 as Black. I would love to see a detailed analysis that describes how much harder it has become to win as Black against a decent correspondence player (let’s say someone 2300+). In the last five years, I have beaten three 2300+ players as Black without counting mouseslips (one in 2015, one in 2016 and one any day now in 2020) despite playing extremely aggressive openings like the KID (for the record that’s three Black wins out 103 Black draws or 2.91% Win rate). That may be part of the draw problem, but I have witnessed my own draw rate skyrocket 2014: 82.4% 2015: 86.7% 2016: 90.2% 2017: 90.6% 2018: 91% 2019 is still in progress. Often for these norms, you need to score +2, +3, +4 or +5 despite the fact that +1 usually wins the event… and with the draw rate North of 90% in a 12-13 game event that means you are likely to win 1 game on average… but in many events the entire cross table often sees one to three entire wins (look at a recently completed tournament here where I scored my first IM norm that required +0 and I scored +1). My win was one of five wins in the entire tournament 100/105 = 95.2% draw rate! [https://www.iccf.com/event?id=73482]. People love to tell me that’s fine because we are talking about such a weak event as Category 8 [2449 was the rating average]. Fine, I do not accept your argument but let’s look at the World Championship then shall we? Let’s look at the most recently concluded World Championship 30 which finished on 10/2/2019, Category 13 [2562 was the rating average]. This event was won by the new World Champion SIM Kochemasov, Andrey Leonidovich 2540 [https://www.iccf.com/event?id=66745]. Congrats to the new World Champion on his two wins! The event had 8 decisive games out 136 or a draw rate of 91.2% (not far off my own). But wait did I say SIM? I did. In fact, congratulations to the World Champion on scoring his final GM norm as well! This World Championship saw 5 SIMs compete in a field with 12 GMs. While 3 of the SIMs finished 1st 2nd and 3rd, only our new World Champion scored a GM norm. The problem is with all the draws that norms are not just becoming hard, but maintaining or increasing one’s rating is becoming hard. And one’s rating is how one receives any decent invites to have a chance at a norm in the first place.
The draws are a death by one thousand cuts as I recently played one of the ICCF’s proposal’s outlined “21 players that could have obtained a GM norm.†My rating is 2389 and his rating is 2504 (although SIM, he is recognized by all his peers as a GM caliber player). As Black, I obtained an easy draw without ever being in any trouble at all. The player had a rather angry initial discussion with me post mortem about how he felt it was wrong that a 2504 should have to play a player as weak as 2389 where the draw would kill his rating. He felt that his rating was being destroyed by these draws with weaker players and that ICCF should protect him from us. He felt I have it easier as a lower rated player because I can gain rating from these draws. Let’s look at his argument that one is causing the other and it is only happening to those 2500+. At the time that draw occurred, I gained exactly 1.17915 rating points from it (and he lost the same); however, this was the first draw in over 40 games in which I *gained* rating points (this statement is no longer true as a few higher rated players have since given me draws but at the time of the game’s conclusion this was the case). Yes, that’s right, ICCF already does such a good job of protecting higher rated players that it actively hands out advice to new players to be very particular about what invites and events they play because the draws could kill their initial rating. I too have experienced a net negative loss of rating points from draws and still seen my rating going up only due to the fact that wins are easier and ever so slightly more common to come by at my level. However, it means I am not exempt from the draw problem. It is patently false that this problem is limited to those 2500+ as in my last 43 draws, I lost rating in 42 of them and gained rating from 1 of them. Therefore, it appears draws are causing rating deflation and this is the real problem in both norms and correspondence in general. With the exception of matches, perhaps there is a way to have draws not count against one’s rating since there are so many of them? It kind of blends the Chess rating concept with that of Bridge where one cannot lose rating points once earned. What we can see is that the player’s argument that draws are causing rating deflation is probably true. One problem is at least partly causing the other one.
There is a third more devious problem worse than the two outlined above in my opinion. While rating deflation, draws, less players and norms are real issues… they are dwarfed by the change in behavior caused by these issues. I know it is a bit overdramatic to talk about such issues in a time of COVID, but there has been a great increase in the number of players playing Dead Man Defense (often shortened by correspondence players to DMD+ and DMD=). It is important to note that the death rate in COVID for those in the elderly category is markedly higher and the correspondence community in general is also markedly higher. I have heard estimates of the average age of correspondence player being 70-75 range though I haven’t seen any data. Back to DMD, what is DMD and why is it such awful behavior? The players are hoping you die before you win so they can claim either a win on time or if it goes to adjudication then at least claim a draw. The other hope is that you might mouse slip by being forced to play more moves which while that would never happen over the board does surprisingly account for a large portion of wins in ICCF correspondence high-level play. One of the main problems this issue causes is that if someone takes an early draw against a player who then goes on to die, the entire rest of the field gets a free half point and you are punished for playing your game quicker than your peers. Often, players over the board resign once mate is unstoppable or a simple endgame is reached in which the result is known to players of all levels. In correspondence, often even sooner than these players will resign or offer draws, knowing that perpetual check is unavoidable should we play another 10 moves past the piece sac against a bare king? How about when the engine reads +25 +30 or +40? So, for the most, correspondence players draw or resign much earlier than one might over the board due to engine and tablebase assistance. On that note, depending on the tournament, players can outright claim wins and draws either on the 6-piece tablebase (always allowed) or the sometimes allowed on an event by event basis the 7-piece tablebase. It is considered out right rude to make a player play all the way to the 6-piece tablebase to claim. I recently claimed one win in a six piece tablebase up an entire piece where my jolly opponent wanted to discuss the game in a post mortem (rarely done in correspondence in general anyways). I declined to even respond to him even though I was already having a very lively and fun post mortem with a Venezuelan on our extremely interesting draw. A worse example is the 92 move game I played with opposite colored bishops where I had two extra pawns. I offered a draw as white and the higher rated player to my lower rated opponent who declined it, forcing me to play to a 7-piece tablebase claim to end the game. This kind of behavior used to be quite rare. In the past, I would say it happened in 1 out of every 100 games… these days it seems to happen in every other game (1/2!). I have seven different opponents right now that are DMD+ against me where the engine reads +148 (or in some cases even sees mate! The 2504 player that complained about my rating earlier also complained someone was DMD+ him… I remarked that I have no less than 7 players DMD+ me and if they would resign? My rating would be about 2450 right which sort of eliminates his claim about our “giant†rating difference). The issue is that due to rating deflation these players need to artificially keep their rating high as long as they can because that’s how they will get their next invite. With the new terrible time control that is not yet Official (although there is a proposal to make it Official: https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1282), players only need to make a move once every 50 days to pointlessly extend the game. I have a DMD= draw currently going on 16 months now where the player is just moving Kg1 Kf1 Kg1 every 50 days. This time control exasperates the DMD problem. When I contacted ICCF Officials to point out the severity of this problem, I was told that I should report it to the TD on a case by case basis only if it is DMD+ as they will not look at DMD= at all. However, it is usually the TDs that are the biggest offenders (6 of the 7 players described above were TDs). In fact, it is usually the same general casts of characters which allows for an easy black list to be created that bars these players from play until they can fix their atrocious behavior. This behavior needs to be punished. These players need to be reprimanded. In the end, lack of norms, rating deflation and the draw death will not make me quit correspondence chess. It is DMD+/DMD= that will make me quit. This experience is my personal experience with high level correspondence over thirteen years and I would love to hear from other correspondence players concerning these problems.
Steven DuCharme (2020-05-09 05:06:08)
CC Server World Championship Tournament
I am giving it another go. please can one and only one of you register at chesstempo.com...then add your name and site to the related forum topic there (under general discussion) tyvm
Steven DuCharme (2020-05-10 18:36:00)
CC Server World Championship Tournament
early entry may favor you
Bogoljub Teverovski (2020-05-13 15:29:45)
Thematic tournaments?
Once again: Norfolk 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 c5 3.e4, or Noteboom, or Traxler
Steven DuCharme (2020-05-14 16:55:03)
CC Server World Championship Tournament
deadline is 12 AM June 1 Wisonsin Time
Steven DuCharme (2020-05-15 18:13:25)
CC Server World Championship Tournament
If no one joins I will be champion.
Wilhelm Schuett (2020-05-19 11:14:21)
Thematic tournaments?
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Slav gambit 3...e6 4.e4
Tim Harding (2020-05-22 23:08:37)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?
The King Supertournament is supposed to be strictly no engines. What are you doing to prevent cheating?
Thibault de Vassal (2020-05-22 23:26:59)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?
Hello Tim,
From FICGS start, I always had the same politics for "no engines" tournaments:
- It is possible to punish obvious cheating, but it will not be possible to prevent intelligent cheating... There's always a way to round the system.
- There are no prizes or "titles" in these tournaments, only the dishonor that other players think that one can play with engines.
Knowing that, I think that honest players can play for fun anyway, I tried it and enjoyed to lose :)
As a conclusion and to make it clearer, no action is taken in any case of using an engine in no engines tournaments. Allowing obvious cheating will help players to make their opinion on their opponents.
Wilhelm Schuett (2020-05-24 14:04:07)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?
I fear that for white playing the Kings Gambit the Kings Gambit itself could be the problem. Our King Supertournament is a place to analyse a chance for white.
Exal Garcia Carrillo (2020-05-28 09:37:48)
Cancel joining a tournament?
Hi, I'm currently in the waiting list for two chess tournaments there is a way I can cancel this? (the tournaments are still waiting for more players)
Thibault de Vassal (2020-05-28 11:11:26)
Cancel joining a tournament?
Hello,
Please send me a private message or email (see About page) specifying the waiting list you would like to retire from.
Thibault de Vassal (2020-06-04 13:04:11)
chess archives in pgn
Hello Roberto,
Thanks for detailing your question here.
Yes, the "Go" function below the menu is very general and does not help much for what you would like to do.
The "Search games" option in the menu (below "Waiting lists" and "Tournaments") brings more specific ways:
Years ago, I considered that the complete PGN database was enough to build easily specific databases (player or any criteria, combinations of it, etc.) by using a database software.
Then I added a few search options, per player & per game (chess or Go), per opening, per rating (black or white) and per material for endgames... Of course, this will not replace a serious database like Chessbase.
I hope I was clear too... Does this help?
Miroslav Gazi (2020-06-09 15:34:02)
Chess DB
Hi Thibault,
thank you for your feedback.
Would you be interested in some sponsoring of FICGS tournaments by our DBs for some promo here?
Best regards
Miro
Wilhelm Schuett (2020-06-18 01:20:36)
Game 122565
now i see that the thematic chess tournament has a other increment than the kings gambit chess tournament and the go tournament.
Bogoljub Teverovski (2020-08-26 16:49:41)
Thematic tournaments?
i'm ready for Slav gambit 3...e6 4.e4 or Slav triangle
Wilhelm Schuett (2020-08-26 22:48:44)
Thematic tournaments?
Brooklyn defense 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ng8 or Alekhine Nd5. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 a6 or Slav gambit 3...e6 4.e4. Kalashnikov or Nc6 3.d4 cd4 4.Nxd4 Dc7
Wilhelm Schuett (2020-08-26 23:48:53)
Thematic tournaments?
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4
Bogoljub Teverovski (2020-08-28 13:06:04)
Thematic tournaments?
yes, i'm ready for any of these themes
Thibault de Vassal (2020-09-02 21:54:05)
Thematic tournaments?
Already two players in the waiting list for the current one... but I'll change it next time.
Wilhelm Schuett (2020-09-05 16:32:24)
Thematic tournaments?
i can wait and will play another English Rubinstein.
Bogoljub Teverovski (2020-11-19 07:56:21)
Thematic tournaments?
Endless English Rubinstein?
Thibault de Vassal (2020-11-19 12:15:31)
Thematic tournaments?
Let's go for the Bishop's opening...
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2020-11-20 14:36:34)
Thematic tournaments?
QID, Petrosian variation: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. a3 Bb7
5. Nc3 d5 6. cxd5 Nxd5
Daniel Parmet (2020-12-12 18:01:32)
What happened to all the players?
Here I quote LSS rule:
"Dear Chessfriends,
in the past there have been many complaints about games where one player started moving slowly esp in a lost position, partially using the 30-day-per-individual-move rule to its extreme. To my opinion, this is not a good attitude of sportsmanship.
I have therefore developed a measure against this. Depending on the position, the used time of reflection and the ratings of both players, the server can detect such games with a high probability. Actually, the delay of games is already part of the LSS Rules, but was not in effect so far.
Effective 1st October, 2020, such games will now be stopped by the server and the delaying player will be suspended for 3 weeks to start new tournaments. Further penalties might be introduced, if required.
The algorithm will not be revealed to avoid misuse and it might be due to change without notice.
Best wishes
Ortwin Pätzold"
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2020-12-12 18:39:05)
What happened to all the players?
And this is the reason why I will not start any tournaments at LSS after finishing my last game. It should not be the server's job to estimate and finish a game.
Stephane Legrand (2020-12-22 21:05:43)
Repeated draw offers
I find draw offers annoying when a player offers draw at every move...
I would keep that player's name! I don't play tournament with this player anymore...
Thibault de Vassal (2021-03-19 23:53:22)
Berlin Defense
Hmmm, it could be a nice thematic tournament soon :)
You're right actually! I searched games at FICGS, when white elo & black elo > 2300 there is no win for White since 2012 ! (and Black won regularly since then)
That's a good score for Berlin defense. To be continued.
Wilhelm Schuett (2021-03-26 18:23:14)
Berlin Defense
the Berlin Wall as a thematic tournament
Vadrya Pokshtya (2022-02-17 08:52:23)
Grand Dice Chess
Hello,
I am the author and inventor of chess variants. My chess variants are published on chessvariants.com and some of them can be played on Game Courier.
I would like to present to you a variant of chess with dice that I invented relatively recently and which can already be played on two sites on the Internet.
Grand Dice Chess
The Rules
The game uses a 12x12 board.
Each player has:
4 Kings
24 Pawns
8 Knights
8 Bishops
8 Rooks
4 Queens
White and black occupy the 1st-6th and 7th-12th ranks, respectively, as shown in the diagram.
Unfortunately I can't post an image here, but you can always find it here:
https://granddicechess.blogspot.com/2022/01/grand-dice-chess.html
https://www.chess.com/blog/Pokshtya/grand-dice-chess-battle
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-variants/grand-dice-chess
White starts the game first.
The game uses four dice.
Opponents make moves alternately, throwing 4 dice. The piece to move is determined by a die:
1 = pawn, 2 = knight, 3 = bishop, 4 = rook, 5 = queen and 6 = king.
The player makes four moves at the same time based on the indications of the dice and has the right to refuse (pass) any move that does not suit him, unless it is a pawn move. Unlike in regular dice chess it's allowable to pass moves. And this rule was already applied about a thousand years ago in old variant of Shatranj (Shatranj al-Mustatîla or Oblong Chess), the Arabic pre-decessor of modern chess. However it's not allowed to pass on pawn-moves, except when they are blocked.
Chess pieces move across the board as they do in ordinary chess - according to the standard rules of move and capture.
The only minor exception is for a pawn that is not allowed to move forward two squares from its starting position.
Upon reaching the last rank, the pawn can be promoted to any piece except the king and itself.
There is no castling, check and checkmate in the game.
The goal of the game is to capture four enemy kings.
The first test tournament was held on the site http://abstractgames.ru/index.php
The tournament is attended by 10 people and I received the most positive feedback from them.
The game has proven itself so well that regular tournaments have already been launched.
Yesterday the game was added to Dagaz server https://games.dtco.ru/map
And it's a great place to test the game in person, as registering on the site is very easy and doesn't require any personal information.
The game turned out to be extremely interesting and exciting, replete with puzzling combinations. Surprisingly, with this size of the board and the number of pieces, the average game lasts no more than 30 turns.
Tim Harding (2021-04-02 23:02:25)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?
But you said yourself you are not stopping anyone cheating, so I won't be entering another of these events I think. (Also because 90% of my games with Black I win very easily against weak opponents.) It's possible for White to avoid defeat in the KG if he chooses the safest lines but Black has a wide choice of playable defences. In some of these if White wants to have a real chance to win then he also increases the prospect of losing. I had some failed experiments in these tournaments.
Christoph Schroeder (2021-04-06 08:53:31)
Poker Rating
In OTB chess I once lost a tournament game in 10 moves, blundering a winning combination by my opponent. Was my resignation at move 10 non-sportsmanlike?
The reason for losing quickly is most probably a lack of skill or an oversight by one player. Both things happen every day and are part of the game. No reason not to rate the game.
The consequence of this rule is outright ridiculous: a player who has the chance to mate his opponent before move 10, would have to refrain from mating and intentially play weaker moves, hoping that his opponent will resign only after move 10. I think noone really wants to see games like that.
Don Groves (2021-04-14 05:38:21)
Poker Rating
I recently had a Go tournament in which all six of my opponents failed to make even one move. Shouldn't this affect their ratings?
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-20 13:42:49)
Thematic tournaments?
This one is now running... thanks for the suggestion :)
Wilhelm Schuett (2021-04-21 19:26:07)
Thematic tournaments?
Systems of the Alekhine like Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 or 4 Pawns
Misha Allport (2021-04-27 20:18:08)
Players ratings
When are players' ratings adjusted? After each game? After each tournament?
Thibault de Vassal (2021-05-07 01:34:51)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended
I understand your frustration Garvin, thanks for explaining your views once again and I'll try to answer each point (even if you do not answer anymore):
a) You were right on the Cup format Garvin, obviously. Probably on (many) other ideas... I just can't say.
b) I always thought & said that stable rules were important in many ways (that I explained), which is frustrating, I understand that.
c) As far as I remember, I added the possibility of double round-robin for 5-players groups after that discussion but indeed it was (probably) never used. Maybe the rule should be changed to "always double-robin for 5-players groups", that would be easy to do. A fact is that it is difficult to gather more than 3 or 4 opinions in this forum these times :/ By the way, if anyone can find this discussion where I agreeded something else than a possibility, then (my bad) I'll change it immediately.
d) I do think that a multi-stages tournament should have a pre-determined number of stages... (players should know what kind of engagement it represents) Maybe I just missed that point and a rule specifying that stage 1 groups will be built so that x to y players (no less, no more) will play round 2 could be added. Why not.
Garvin Gray (2021-05-10 11:44:13)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended
Groups with less than 7 players: https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=13002
FICGS__CHESS__CUP_CHAMPIONSHIP__000004
FICGS chess cup championship is a 2 stages round-robin tournament.
My wording: The two stage tournament is the basic design of the event and is hard wired into the event. The whole event was designed to be a two stage event, with large groups in the first stage, to ensure that the first round groups are competitive and also that no players received byes through to a second round based on rating.
I had to plead for years for this format and garner support from other players before you would agree to even run it as a trial in it's first year. And then in its first year, it received over 100 entries, a lot of top players entered and was a complete success.
So, I believe I have every right to be pissed off at you directly that it really does seem like you are attempting to unwind the format of this event.
The format is clearly described in the published rules, so for the site owner to so flagrantly ignore them can only be described as one of two actions:
1) Negligent
2) Deliberant
Thibault de Vassal (2021-05-17 23:24:20)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended
Garvin, that thread (13002) was about FICGS Wch, not FICGS Cup... I added the possibility only of double round robin in Wch because I was not sure it was necessary in every stages (obviously it finds more sense in a round robin final than in stage 1), but anyway I could make it more accurate.
But indeed I just saw it was specified in FICGS Cup rules: "There will be double round-robin tournaments in case of groups of less than 7 players." ... fact is I can't remember when it was added but I guess I could have forgotten to apply it. Usually I read the rules again & again while making pairings, so I may have been negligent here. My apologies to all participants...
Thanks Garvin for pointing it out.
I'll come back on changes soon, it is a pity not to be able to gather more opinions so I'll have to make a move anyway.
Herbert Kruse (2021-06-16 18:53:22)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?
b) When a player wins a tournament with an entry fee (not null) and prize, he can choose after the game(s) to keep E-Points (by default) instantly added in his FICGS account or, if he has E-Points enough in his account, a money prize. Entry fees and prizes in E-Points are published on the tournament page in "Waiting lists". If games in such a tournament have not been really played for a win, for example if a participant obviously lost quickly one or several games, these tournaments will not be considered as wins and the player showing this behaviour will lose his E-points involved in the tournament, that will be taken from the winner's account if necessary.
If you ask for a money prize, the tournament prize in E-Points will be taken from your account, then you'll be paid 70 % of the total entry fees in Euros, divided according to the number of winners in the tournament, ie. if you win your game(s) in a Gold 2-players tournament : 70 % of 200 = 140 Euros. This ratio may evolve anytime. (!!!)
is the last you are waiting for?
its 11 days since the first checkmate and my opponnet did not resign
Thibault de Vassal (2021-06-27 00:19:49)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Copy-paste? Is it a mistake? (anyway, you're in already)
Thibault de Vassal (2021-06-27 00:36:12)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Damn, it was 8 months ago already... thanks for the reminder! Waiting lists are open...
Misha Allport (2021-06-27 18:47:48)
Withdrawal from Standard Tournament
I respectfully request withdrawal from the Standard Tournament -Class E- #000239 for personal reasons. Thank You, Allport, Misha
Thibault de Vassal (2021-06-30 01:11:05)
Withdrawal from Standard Tournament
Hello Misha, your name has been removed (a few days ago already). My best wishes
Garvin Gray (2021-07-03 18:06:08)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
What is the situation for Groups of less than 7 players for this event?
Thibault de Vassal (2021-07-04 00:50:58)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
"Round-robin tournaments are groups of 5, 7, 9, 11 or 13 players, there may be double round-robin tournaments in case of groups of less than 7 players."
Garvin Gray (2021-07-04 03:40:06)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
So despite all the debates and assurances, nothing has changed for this rule. You are not changing from 'may be' to 'will be'.
As in - "Round-robin tournaments are groups of 5, 7, 9, 11 or 13 players, there will be double round-robin tournaments in case of groups of less than 7 players."
Thibault de Vassal (2021-07-04 13:31:17)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
In the other discussion I specified: "Garvin, that thread (13002) was about FICGS Wch, not FICGS Cup... I added the possibility only of double round robin in Wch because I was not sure it was necessary in every stages (obviously it finds more sense in a round robin final than in stage 1), but anyway I could make it more accurate."
So, in all ways, it sounds like I didn't specify that all 5 players groups in WCH should be double round robin.
Garvin Gray (2021-07-05 08:37:02)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
I added the possibility only of double round robin in Wch because I was not sure it was necessary in every stages (obviously it finds more sense in a round robin final than in stage 1), but anyway I could make it more accurate."
So, in all ways, it sounds like I didn't specify that all 5 players groups in WCH should be double round robin.
Garvin - Are you now specifying that ALL 5 player groups will now be double round robins?
As for the first part, I think actually a DRR (double round robin) in stage 1 is just as important, if not more so.
Here is why.
Players are seeded from 1 to the last player across the groups, going back and forth across the groups to seed the second seeds, third seeds and so forth.
This then can produce large differences in ratings between the players in some groups, and in others, very small differences between the top two seeds.
And it is for this fact, and then that players 3, 4 and 5 are then going to be very far rated below seeds 1 and 2, that a double round robin is necessary.
Otherwise, the number 1 seed gains a rather large advantage by being white against the number two seed.
A double round robin in all groups that are 5 player avoids all these issues. It is only 8 games total.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-07-09 01:59:50)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Of course you make a point there, but it also questions 7 players groups (after all, rating difference between seed 1 & seed 2 is not much lower in average, and 12 games is still feasible in regular groups).
When groups should be double RR or not? Well, I agree that simple RR is not the most fair way, but as I explained about a decade ago, the idea of this championship was not to be the most fair, it was to multiply occurences without loading a too large number of games (and keeping rules as simple as possible, which was not a great success there by the way ^^).
Anyway, I won't say you're wrong, I think it was just a choice like another one.
But we can give it a try (maybe it will be a way to get some impressions & comments), so we'll have 5 players double RR tomorrow if it has to happen.
Herbert Kruse (2021-07-10 13:23:16)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
when will the first round begin?
Thibault de Vassal (2021-07-11 01:21:11)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Sorry for the delay, I had to update a tie rule in the chess WCH (if tournament entry ratings are equal) to avoid to make the universe collapse ^^ More seriously, a special case occured and it was not ok with the former rule. The WCH will start on July 11th.
Don Groves (2021-07-11 02:25:26)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
In my opinion, the first tie breaker should be the result of the head-to-head match between the tied olayers. This is how it's done in all major sports.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-07-11 12:58:27)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Sure, result decides first, but when it cannot, then ratings have a role to play, finally there must be a clear algorithm to decide in all cases.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-07-11 17:49:37)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Here we are, for the first time in the FICGS chess championship, we have 5 players double round robin groups (regular groups, not M / SM groups)... Of course, players are invited to share their impressions on this matter.
Herbert Kruse (2021-07-18 11:23:11)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
when will the first round of poker and big chess begin?
Thibault de Vassal (2021-07-18 12:14:42)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Big chess championship just started... We'll have to wait a few more days/weeks for the poker championship.
@ DonGroves: hi Don, did you receive my messages?
Don Groves (2021-07-19 21:40:45)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
My new email is dgrovespdxATgmail.com
Garvin Gray (2021-07-20 01:10:16)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Thibault,
Are you able to give a start date for all the second stage and third stage chess events?
ie Semi Finals, Stage 2's and Ko's/Round Robin Finals
Thibault de Vassal (2021-07-20 15:17:19)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
No, we always have to wait for the end of all deciding games in previous rounds. This time, Ko's final & semi finals started just after the next cycle, but the candidates final is still to start.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-07-20 15:18:36)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
By the way, chess WCH rules have been updated: all 5 players groups will be double round robin from now.
Herbert Kruse (2021-08-14 06:33:57)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
when will the first round of poker begin?
Thibault de Vassal (2021-08-15 13:00:22)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
I still don't know but we cannot start with 13 players... we'll have to wait some more.
Juri Eintalu (2021-09-09 02:09:40)
Venezuela has been dismissed from ICCF
ICCF announced:
"Venezuela was dismissed from the ICCF (2021-028)."
The number is the number of the proposal accepted by Congress.
In the proposal, it was said that the Venezuelan organizer of several correspondence chess tournaments had vanished with the prize money:
"presumably absconded with the promised prize money".
(https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1341 )
I know that Venezuela organized several correspondence chess tournaments "in support of Venezuela". There are also rumours that because of the US sanctions, Cuba and Venezuela have difficulties with international money transfers.
Juri Eintalu (2021-09-09 19:32:44)
VENEZUELA HAS BEEN DISMISSED FROM ICCF
Of course, there are a lot of questions.
- Whether Venezuela politicized sport when organizing the correspondence chess tournament "in support of Venezuela"?
- Whether the International Correspondence Chess Federation (ICCF) has provided any evidence that the Venezuelan chess organizer has escaped with the prize money?
- Whether the country can be punished solely because of the behaviour of one sports official?
- Whether the problem was actually about the economic sanctions on Venezuela, hindering international money transfers?
- Whether the dismissal of Venezuela from ICCF has hidden political motives?
Thus, there are many questions for chess historians.
Garvin Gray (2021-09-11 11:56:08)
VENEZUELA HAS BEEN DISMISSED FROM ICCF
Juri - Quite a few of your questions contain quite a lot of accusations, or at least a tone of accusations, or that those who took actions in dismissing Venezuela has some kind of hidden motives.
The decision to dismiss Venezuela was made by the National Delegates of each Federation of ICCF, after considering all the evidence before them.
This included unpaid prize money, where entry fees were charged, over at least two years, unpaid affiliated fees to the ICCF (same time period) and the National Delegate of Venezuela was offered many opportunities to pay back the money.
The National Delegate ran the tournaments, handled the money through paypal and in the end was in debt to the ICCF and the players of their tournament to the tune of roughly 7 to 10 thousand euros.
So, yes, ICCF has provided plenty of evidence that the 'organiser' took off with the entry fees of the players and did not pay out the advertised prize monies.
Multiple attempts were made by the ICCF Executive Board to reach a satisfactory compromise with the National Delegate, but in the end the National Delegate cut off all communications and went completely silent to everyone.
All Federations pay an affiliation fee to be part of ICCF. This amount is levied in part based on the number of members a Federation has, and also that countries economic position (GDP).
After reading all this, what other option was there for the other National Delegates to vote for?
In another proposal, which you have not referenced, the ICCF Executive board has promised that the prize money that was not paid out by the Venezuelan National Delegate would be covered by the ICCF, which will cost roughly 10,000 euro and will be paid out to the players.
So, to answer your questions after all this information:
1) No. This issue and your question are not related at all. It is not even certain if the Venezuelan National Delegate lived in Venezuela.
2) Yes, plenty of evidence was provided. Players had also reported that they had not received their prize money. I can report this as fact as I got burnt as a player in one of their events. So I know first hand that this occurred.
3) This has nothing to do with 'sports'.
This is a common misunderstanding about how ICCF works. ICCF is an association of Federations ie ICCF only recognises Federations. Therefore, officially ICCF can only take action formally against Federations and only works with the National Delegate from that Federation.
How the Federation conducts their business 'behind the scenes' is up to them and is none of the business of ICCF. It would be highly improper for ICCF to have a say in how any individual Federation ran their Federation.
What now occurs is that the remaining Venezuelan players are treated as isolated players. They can not represent Venezuela in team events, by they are free to play in any individual events.
Some of these players might be picked up by other Federations, if another Federation wants them.
4) Money transfers - As I already alluded to, it is not clear if the Venezuelan ND was even in Venezuela, but anyways, he had no trouble receive the entry fees, so money transfers by paypal were no issue.
If there was an issue, then they should not have run prize money tournaments
5) No political motives - This was a straight up case of whether the Venezuelan ND had taken off with the entry fees of the players and failed to pay out the prize money from many tournaments, as well as the Federation failing to pay their affiliation fees, as well as being in debt for other fees as well.
These are basic responsibilities for all Federations. Even if you want to lay all the blame of the Venezuelan ND, a case can be made as to ask what happened to any oversight from anyone else?
Or was the Venezuelan ND just a rogue operator?
This experience has left a sour taste in everyone's mouth and remedy steps have been taken to try and avoid this occurring again.
See other proposals.
Garvin Gray
Australia ICCF National Delegate
Garvin Gray (2021-09-20 02:31:27)
Chess Cup final #4
One issue I am running into.
I am trying to download the pgn file.
Normally I download the 'my game' file to my desktop, then change the name, so it shows .pgn at the end, and then I can copy the games across to my database.
But for this tournament, I do not seem to be able to do this at this stage.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-09-20 02:36:19)
Chess Cup final #4
Yes, of course larger groups will be better that way, I agree.
About the download, it seems to work on the tournament page & game page, could you tell me where you download it from?
Stanislas Gounant (2023-07-23 14:23:08)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Hi Thibault, When start poker championship
Herbert Kruse (2021-10-19 09:53:24)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
the next world championship can not be played because two players in the Round Robin 20 are playing on forever a completely draw Position
Herbert Kruse (2021-10-19 09:54:22)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Round Robin 21
Ilmars Cirulis (2021-10-20 17:40:28)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Wow, indeed. Imho, that game could be adjudicated.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-10-21 00:25:35)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Yes, I follow this game. Well, it had to happen :) But don't forget that there is no 50 moves rule at FICGS, the game can continue some longer... if there is a forced mate in (e.g.) 157 moves at some point, then it can go on. If the defender has a clear plan to ask for a draw, then he can call the referee to explain it. To be continued.
Juri Eintalu (2021-11-29 11:09:53)
Unvaccinated correspondence chessplayers
During the epidemics, restrictions and quarantine are traditional and usual measures. If the restrictions are applied, it is natural that the OTB (over-the-board) chess tournaments are cancelled, and the coaches cannot give indoor lessons. However, such restrictions should not be applied to online chess or coaching as there is no such thing as "online coronavirus".
Suppose that wearing the masks reduces the probability of being infected and also the probability of spreading the virus. Then, it seems natural to demand that the OTB chess players should wear masks. Moreover, chess is not wrestling.
One can also plausibly argue that in the case of contacts with other people outside the home, at least one of the measures should be applied: masks, distance, negative result of the test recently made, or vaccination.
The question of vaccines involves scientific, moral, and political aspects. The scientific issues involve the effectiveness of the vaccine and its side effects. How probably the vaccine reduces the rate of infections, and how probably it reduces the rate of deaths among those infected. How severe is the virus, and how often and how serious are the vaccine's adverse effects. Some religious moral systems, in turn, reject vaccines produced in some specific way. International law rejects uninformed non-voluntary human experiments, etc.
Suppose that the aim is to reduce the rate of infections, and the vaccine is highly effective and without serious side effects. Suppose also that we are utilitarians and aim to maximize the wellbeing of society as a whole.
In the case of such presumptions, it seems natural to demand that the chess coaches giving indoor lessons be vaccinated or show the test results, etc. However, it still does not follow that the unvaccinated chess player cannot play online chess or give online lessons — because there is no such thing as "online coronavirus".
Thibault de Vassal: "Fortunately, the context of correspondence chess is not the same as parliaments."
— Yes, but this is precisely the question: what's the difference? Note that one might also argue that unvaccinated chess players should not play online chess, but the unvaccinated selected deputies should have the possibility to give speeches — because they are political representatives of the people.
Garvin Gray (2021-12-23 03:39:41)
Cross tables in score order
Currently the tournament cross tables are always shown in start order.
Would it be possible to give players the option to be able to show them in score order?
Stanislas Gounant (2022-01-18 22:12:07)
Chess engines in thematic tournaments
Are players using chess engibnes welcome in thematic tournaments?
Thibault de Vassal (2022-01-18 23:59:07)
Chess engines in thematic tournaments
Yes, engines, databases & so on... everything is authorized in thematic tourneys.
Stanislas Gounant (2022-01-19 02:39:00)
Chess engines in thematic tournaments
I know it's authorized, but is it welcome ?
Thibault de Vassal (2022-01-19 11:13:44)
Chess engines in thematic tournaments
Theorically at least, it is encouraged :) I hope it is welcome in practice...
Stanislas Gounant (2022-01-19 17:13:11)
Chess engines in thematic tournaments
ok i enter in the tournament
Vadrya Pokshtya (2022-02-19 06:11:11)
Grand Dice Chess
Thank you, Mr. Thibault!
This was facilitated by reducing the distance between the two armies to zero. Each move is a roll of 4 dice or a movement of four pieces. As soon as the pawn chain is opened, events develop at lightning speed. It is also interesting that the right of the first move is not an advantage here for the beginning side. The first games in the test tournament on one of the Russian gaming sites showed this. The balance of white and black victories is kept strictly around 50%. The game turned out to be one of the most strategic among all dice chess variants.
You can try playing against the AI ​​here
https://glukkazan.github.io/checkmate/grand-dice-chess.htm?fbclid=IwAR1Tt6sFmrK8KYRxwPPZJnrGujGss7to2jzdV8GxSons7Pmjdk7udHoJ0PA
This is a direct link to the game with the bot. Registration is not required. The bot is very weak but perfect for understanding the game.
Mr. Thibault, I would be glad if you would consider the possibility of holding a test tournament on your site. It would be interesting to see how many people would take part and what would be their opinion about the game. In any case, everyone would get an unforgettable experience.
Since I am doing this for the game and not for the money, you are free to dispose of Grand Dice Chess as you see fit on your site.
Thank you!
Brice Boucher (2022-02-27 14:09:41)
Ukrainian players clocks during war
we can actually see on the ICCF home page that all TDs have stopped the clocks of tournaments involving Ukrainian players,
good luck to all.
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2022-02-27 14:31:00)
FICGS support to Ukraine
Maybe it is possible to organize a beneficiary tournament with entrance fee for Ukraine.
Bahadir Ozen (2022-02-27 16:34:37)
FICGS support to Ukraine
-1 Messages of love, hope and light can be shared for people in Ukraine. Although the situation seems political, what is happening is happening to humanity...
-2 During this period, the "Special Leave" feature can be given to Ukrainian - resident players.
-3 During this process, the Russian flag may be suspended. (Of course, it is not the fault of the Russian players, but the flag does not comply with the rules of "Gens una Sumus", as it is to represent.
-4 A special tournament can be organized on behalf of Ukraine.
We are going through difficult times. No to war for humanity.
Best regards,
Bahadir
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2022-02-28 12:29:24)
FICGS support to Ukraine
Let me explain about the idea of a beneficiary tournament: the entrance fee, will ensure immediate money for refugees. While there could be no prize.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-02-28 21:33:03)
FICGS support to Ukraine
That is a nice idea from LSS server. Though I'm still not sure about what to do on this point.
The idea of a beneficiary tournament remains interesting but is it time for chess games during these trouble times (that might extend to Europe) while there may be other ways to help... I'll think about it further.
I'm also thinking about postponing WCH tournaments, any opinion is welcome.
Herbert Kruse (2022-03-02 09:14:03)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
i am ready, why delay?
Patrick DeBonis (2022-03-03 02:54:02)
FICGS support to Ukraine
This reminds me of the 1939 Chess Olympiad in Buenos Aries. In the middle of the tournament, World War II broke out. The participants on both sides managed to put their differences aside and finished the tournament. After the tournament was over, many players from both sides chose to stay in Agrentina and sit out the war. I wish things were that simple today.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-03-03 22:45:26)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Now 20 of your next games started already :)
Clodomiro Ortiz (2022-03-05 15:03:10)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
as i rememner i lost my last participation in past cch stage i championship,i didnot participate in the waiting list this year yet,then i ask why i was included in stage2 group1
Clodomiro Ortiz (2022-03-05 15:04:34)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
remember
Thibault de Vassal (2022-03-06 00:46:16)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Clodomiro, you qualified from SM group stage 1. Only one player from this group does not qualify for stage 2 (or stage 3)... Please read chess WCH rules for full explanation.
Clodomiro Ortiz (2022-03-06 12:51:04)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
thank you,nice to remind me
Thibault de Vassal (2022-03-11 02:34:40)
FICGS support to Ukraine
After a few days of observation, the whole situation in Europe may not evolve much, so WCH tournaments should start very soon.
Juri Eintalu (2022-03-23 04:30:48)
FIDE BANS KARJAKIN
I am sure that not everyone can competently decide whether Ukrainian war is a justified war or not. My personal feeling is that this war is unjustified, however, I do not know all the facts and I have not read the Genova Convention and other such documents either. The case of the Iraq war is much easier to decide because know we do know there were no chemical weapons in Iraq. Also, Iraq posed no threat to the US whatsoever as the US is on the other side of the planet and Iraq did not have intercontinental missiles.
As for myself, I will never participate in any tournaments or events of FIDE after FIDE has chosen a side in the West/Russia controversy and has allowed to weaponized itself.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-05-06 16:25:43)
Chess.com blocked in Russia
By the way, I'm still not sure what to think about the exclusion of russian teams (at chess.com) or russian players (even more significant, at Wimbledon e.g.) from certain tournaments... many argue not to melt games & political stuff, but it is probably not as simple as this.
Definitely I'm not in favor to exlude russian players from any competition, BUT if they display their political views in favor of this "special op", just like FIDE did for Sergey Karjakin.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-05-08 02:18:53)
FIDE BANS KARJAKIN
"A few minutes ago it was announced that the Court of Appeals of the Ethical and Disciplinary Commission (EDC) of the FIDE has rejected the appeal filed by Grand Master Sergey Karjakin against the 6 month disqualification he had been given for having embarrassed the TRUST because of his own Declarations in favor of Russian invasion into Ukraine.
“According to the FIDE Card and the Code of Ethics and Disciplinary FIDE, such a decision can be contested before the Arbitral Court of Sport (CAS) within 21 daysâ€, the sentence reads.
The disqualification, as it is known, will prevent Karjakin from participating in the Madrid nominees Tournament, where he will most likely be replaced by Ding Liren. The Russian player, born in Crimea, said he is considering the possibility of a new International Federation in competition with FIDE."
Juri Eintalu (2022-05-09 19:58:15)
FIDE BANS KARJAKIN
Karjakin's Appeal was Dismissed by FIDE
Thus, Karjakin still cannot play in the candidates tournament because he publicly approved the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Karjakin, in turn, writes (on his Telegram channel) as a response that he is proud that his grandfather was a great soldier, also, that there are Nazis in Ukraine.
He criticises Kasparov.
Kasparov demands that Russian chess players who want to play in international tournaments should publicly disapprove Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Juri Eintalu (2022-05-09 20:00:46)
FIDE BANS KARJAKIN
I am worried about Kasparov's demand that only those Russian players should be allowed to participate in international tournaments who publicly disapprove Russian invasion of Ukraine. This demand seems to be extremist, like Lenin's and Stalin's slogans.
First, not every Russian sportsman can have the luxury of being a dissident.
Second, Kasparov is notoriously inconsistent (outside of the chessboard). From his logic, it follows that FIDE should have banned all the US chess players who did not publicly disapprove of invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Christoph Schroeder (2022-07-30 23:20:26)
poker reflection time
A single stage of a poker tournament lasts 3-5 years, as discussed in this thread. Preliminaries and finals combined, we are at 6-10 years per tournament.
Is "last man standing (being alive)" really the guiding principle of these tournaments? And does this annoy nobody?
It is very sad to see that this topic is another example where discussion is encouraged, an obvious solution is possible, but nothing happens.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-08-08 01:16:17)
poker reflection time
FICGS__POKER_HOLDEM__WCH_TOURNAMENT_01__000016 :
2 years and 10 months
FICGS__POKER_HOLDEM__WCH_TOURNAMENT_02__000016 :
2 years and 4 months
FICGS__POKER_HOLDEM__WCH_TOURNAMENT_03__000016 :
2 years and 5 months
FICGS__POKER_HOLDEM__WCH_TOURNAMENT_01__000015 :
2 years and 11 months
FICGS__POKER_HOLDEM__WCH_TOURNAMENT_02__000015 :
2 years and 9 months
FICGS__POKER_HOLDEM__WCH_TOURNAMENT_03__000015 :
2 years and 5 months
Well, as the final stage will be statistically shorter than stage 1, a complete cycle should take about 5 years, or almost 6 years.
I still agree that it is very long but I never found or read a solution that does not create a bigger problem... tough :/
Thibault de Vassal (2022-08-15 02:37:37)
poker reflection time
Among those who will have 5 days left regularly, some will lose games on time, that will bring some trouble in ratings (some will consider this is a problem, others not), but yes, that's a possibility, it may shorten tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-08-20 18:35:27)
poker reflection time
Well, after some thinking and the help of another player who told me about that discussion, I have to add or specify several points:
- There is a "max time per move" rule (60 days)
- There is a "max accumulated time" rule (100 days: chess, 60 days: poker)
- The "max time per move" shouldn't be less than 45 days, because of the 45 days of vacation (or we should lower this number of days too).
- The "max accumulated time" can be 30 days while we have 45 days of vacation, there is no problem with that.
Nevertheless, it can be observed that players like me, who play about 1 move per day in each game, never reach the max accumulated time and keep the same rhythm all time long, so I'm afraid it will not change the game duration (sometimes about 1000 days) for us at least. And unfortunately, tournaments follow the rhythm of the slowest players.
Anyway, I'm ok to test that change and we'll look at the result after 1 year or so...
Thibault de Vassal (2022-09-27 00:01:21)
Chess Cup-1st Stage
Hello Misha.
It depends on the results in each tournament. Rules can be found on the waiting list page.
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2022-09-27 15:28:37)
Next thematic tournament
Hi,
What is the theme of the next thematic tournament? Any change?
Thibault de Vassal (2022-09-29 21:36:29)
Next thematic tournament
Change has been done:
Anti-Stonewall [Dutch: Alapin] 1.d4 f5 2.Qd3 d5 3.g4
Patrycja Zerowska (2022-10-08 00:56:47)
Threefold repetition
Mr. Thbault de Vassal, you say that this case is treated the same way on most chess websites. This is not true. At the ICCF website, which is the standard for correspondence chess, the draw must be claimed (this in agreement with the Laws of Chess):
" ICCF:
9.2.1 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
9.2.1.1 is about to appear, declares to the tournament director (or the server) the intention to make this move, or
9.2.1.2 has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.
At other websites, the rule is also correctly applied:
chess-mail.com
"8. To check the draw ( threefold repetition ; the fifty-move rule ) : Click on "Send and offer the draw". "
Gameknot:
"To declare the draw in a game due to the threefold repetition rule, please use "Declare draw" link located directly below the game board."
None of these sites violates the correct rule.
The FICGS way of handling this case involves several violations of the rules. First of all, the draw must be claimed. This rule exists for more than 100 years, and the advent of server chess hasn't changed it. Secondly, you require me to make a move, thereby taking back my claim and my intended move. Every beginner is told that it is forbidden to take back a move, a draw claim or a draw offer. Thirdly, you refuse to stop the clocks, allowing a player to lose on time by your inaction. This "inaction" constitutes interference in the course of the game by a third party, which is forbidden. Fourthly, your bot wants to automatically end the game when there is threefold repetition (or 50-move rule). Again this is forbidden by the rules! A bot can only act upon a claim, and never when there is no claim. With all these violations, we are no longer talking about chess, but about an undesirable chess variant.
It would be so easy to add a button under the chess board, where a player can make a draw claim. Why isn't this done?
You or your referee still hasn't taken action, and a whole week has passed since my claim.
I have always - since 1972 - played according to the rules and I refuse to violate the rules here and now. Therefore I won't make a move; it is forbidden.
Scott Ligon (2022-11-22 14:53:59)
I did not win a game since 3 years
As for ways to address this, if engines are allowed you could have tournaments from a starting position where the game theoretic value isn't clear. Where maybe it's a win for one side or the other, or maybe it's a draw, but it's right on the border and it's not obvious which side we're on. Then you play two games from that position against each opponent, once as white and once as black.
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2022-11-25 10:20:51)
I did not win a game since 3 years
I think you don't have to go as far as to play dubious variations, as long as the chosen variations (for a thematic tournament) still have some 'music' left in them. I also have two suggestions: the Rio gambit against the Berlin wall and the following transposition into the Rubinstein variation of the French defence: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4. Besides, lately I still have won a game against the King's gambit with black. But this is much harder than holding a draw with white, so I would not define success for white as a draw and for black as a win in this case.
Scott Ligon (2022-11-25 16:20:13)
I did not win a game since 3 years
The problem with the two opening you suggested is that they're too good. Neither side made a mistake, so the engines will hold the draw every time (barring human error). The King's Gambit is a step in the right direction for a thematic tournament (with engines), and as long as everyone has an equal number of whites and blacks that's fair enough. I still think it's too easy for white to draw in the KGA with Nf3. The KGA with Bc4 is a bit more treacherous though I've explored it enough to be confident that white holds the draw. Anyway, I do think the openings need to be somewhat dubious or it's too easy for engines to draw.
Stanislas Gounant (2022-11-27 21:46:50)
I did not win a game since 3 years
I think it's better to play a position with players can't open the center. But i'm ok to play a thematic tournament with black and white on bishop's gambit. Rated if it's possible Thibault
Scott Ligon (2022-11-27 22:06:35)
I did not win a game since 3 years
If you mean John Shaw's book on the King's Gambit, I have that book and he did say that the Bishop's Gambit is refuted. But he qualifies what he means: "In this context I define the term 'refutation' as Black being better in all variations, not winning by force." Not much of a refutation. If you search my game history, I have played the Bishop's Gambit several times and I haven't lost. That's why I'm confident white can hold the draw.
I'd be willing to play in that thematic tournament, and I'd be very well prepared.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-11-30 00:51:58)
I did not win a game since 3 years
I still believe that Traxler counter attack could bring really good matches, tournaments & championships :)
Thibault de Vassal (2022-11-30 00:59:29)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Did anyone "calculate" what opening leads to the lowest rate of draws in engines tournaments? (or Stockfish vs. Stockfish)
Ilmars Cirulis (2022-11-30 01:06:20)
I did not win a game since 3 years
> I still believe that Traxler counter attack could bring really good matches, tournaments & championships :)
I'm currently using my e-points for Big Chess matches, but when I get enough of them (Big Chess matches), I would like to play white against Traxler (for e-points, draw counts as loss for white). :D
Thibault de Vassal (2022-11-30 22:12:10)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Of course, it is rarely played (and maybe you count thematic tournaments)... but the aim is to find complex lines that decrease the rate of draws, right?
Stanislas Gounant (2022-12-04 23:28:09)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Thibault, is it possible to have thematics tournaments, double round robin and in a starting position unbalanced ?
Thibault de Vassal (2023-03-21 04:49:08)
Chess Cup-1st Stage
Finally... I was waiting for the last game ending :) It should start today. It will be a (very) big tournament.
Pavel Hase (2023-05-23 13:57:57)
Problem players.
Why are players still accepted into tournaments who overwhelmingly fail to finish their games or lose on time? A tady zase jednoho po pár letech vidÃm - stále to samé. Plus nÄ›kolik dalÅ¡Ãch.
Thibault de Vassal (2023-05-27 03:36:48)
Problem players.
Hello Pavel, please send a private message to me mentioning the tournaments you think about... I'll have a look at it. Many thanks in advance.
Herbert Kruse (2023-07-06 09:44:07)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
all tournament started only the half
final didn't
Herbert Kruse (2023-07-06 11:57:47)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_SEMI_FINAL_1+2__000026
i meant
Thibault de Vassal (2023-07-06 18:10:05)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
It will start today, but not all stage 2 tournaments can start yet.
Stanislas Gounant (2023-07-23 15:53:11)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
18 players now. 3 groups of 6 players ?
Thibault de Vassal (2023-07-27 18:47:42)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Poker WCH : 19 players in the list... 2 missing
Go WCH : 8 players in the list... 1 missing
Let's be patient, it shouldn't last much.
Stanislas Gounant (2023-07-29 04:30:46)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Il faut refaire des annonces sur le chat sinon personne ne va s'inscrire. Et ne pas oublier de fermer la waiting list une fois que le tournoi aura démaré
Stanislas Gounant (2023-08-09 00:42:36)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
I try to ask the players of my chess club to join FICGS and the poker championship
Bogoljub Teverovski (2023-08-09 13:46:12)
Next thematic tournament
I offer new thematic Fajarowitz d4 Nf6 c4 e5 de Ne4
Scott Ligon (2023-08-10 00:48:11)
Next thematic tournament
The Budapest's less respectable cousin. Might just be losing for black but I'm not entirely sure. If engines are allowed, I'm interested.
Garvin Gray (2023-08-10 15:20:00)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
When will Round Robin 25 be starting, and which 8 players be playing in it?
Looking at the three groups from Stage 2 25, what a mess.
I can see arguments for about 12 qualifying from those 3 groups.
Thibault de Vassal (2023-08-13 02:11:55)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
The 25th round-robin final just started... 7, 9, 11 or at most 13 players should qualify (2 from stage 1 SM group, 1 from each stage 1 M groups, so 4 in total from stage 1, added to the winners of stage 2 groups, 3 in total).
According to the stage 2 results, I added one co-winner (best TER) from each stage 2 groups + the next best TER cowinner (3rd in his group).
Total : 11 players (good luck everyone!)
Garvin Gray (2023-08-16 14:17:48)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Thank you for starting RR 25. I think for future Wch RR's, that the RR section should be 9 players instead of 8 to ensure that each player gets 4 whites and 4 blacks.
Thibault de Vassal (2023-08-17 03:52:00)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Did it ever start with 8 players? I think I always make the necessary in this way (and to follow rules that specify groups of 5, 7, 9, 11 or 13 players).
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2023-08-18 14:32:53)
Next thematic tournament
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 h6 5. c3 d6 6. Nbd2 g5
Two knights defence, pianissimo invitation, declined. Played by some top gm's like Caruana. Seems to give white an edge, but is it winning?
Herbert Kruse (2023-09-02 06:59:44)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
2 Month later ...
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2023-09-02 07:39:02)
Next thematic tournament
Smyslov Nimzo-Indian: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 a5 5. a3 Bxd2+ 6. Nbxd2 O-O 7. e3 d6 8. Nb1 b6 9. Nc3 Bb7 10. Bd3
The knight manoeuvre on moves 8 and 9 is unexplored.
Thibault de Vassal (2023-09-05 02:32:16)
Next thematic tournament
Thanks for the suggestions (will be applied for next tournaments).
Thibault de Vassal (2023-09-05 02:33:30)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
It started, finally.
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2023-09-10 13:00:12)
Looking for opponent in 1v1 match
see: https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=entry_tournament&tournament=ficgs_chess_rapid_silver
Bogoljub Teverovski (2023-11-28 12:23:28)
Next thematic tournament
I offer new thematic - Scandinavian 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6
Thibault de Vassal (2023-11-30 01:19:44)
Next thematic tournament
Let's go for this... Thanks for your suggestions!
Thibault de Vassal (2024-01-01 01:10:03)
Fried Liver analysis on rybkaforum.net?
Hmmm... should be a thematic tournament some time ;) Happy new year Ilmars!
Garvin Gray (2024-02-09 07:25:21)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
The 2023 Version of this started July 1st. That is the starting date I have gone off for 2024
Thibault de Vassal (2024-02-13 02:26:33)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Next FICGS WCH will start on March 15th, 2024 (initial date was March 1st). Waiting lists are now open!
Reason for this is that FICGS apps encounter technical problems on Play Store. I hope I'll be able to solve it before these next WCH tournaments start.
Ilmars Cirulis (2024-02-18 18:00:07)
Fried Liver analysis on rybkaforum.net?
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Qf3+ Ke6 8. Nc3 Nb4 9. O-O c6 10. d4 Qf6 11. Qd1 Ke7 12. Re1 h6 13. Rxe5+ Kd8 14. Ne4 Qg6 15. a3 Bf5 16. Ng3 Bxc2 17. Qf3 Nd3 18. Rf5 Bd6 19. Bxd3 Bxd3 20. Qxd3 Kc7 21. Bd2 Rhf8 22. Rd1 b6 - still don't know for sure if this is a draw or maybe white can win somehow...
When is thematic tournament(s) happening? :sweat_smile:
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2024-03-16 20:34:57)
message for Thibault regarding...
... the tournament that I withdrawed from.
Dear Thibault,
February 25. I sent you an email that I had accidentally enrolled in two standard class M tournaments, by clicking a second time before the next page loaded.
This night I saw some new games and assumed it was the new WCC cycle. But upon closer inspection, it was the second Class M tournament that I thought I had withrawn from.
Added to the imminent new WCC this will be a bit much. So is it still possible to fix this?
Bogoljub Teverovski (2024-03-26 11:40:41)
Next thematic tournament
I'd like to offer an old Philidor Defence 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 as the next thematic tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2024-03-27 02:33:38)
Next thematic tournament
Let's wait for the current waiting list to finish, then we'll try Fried Liver attack (e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 d5 exd5 Nxd5), and then we'll try Philidor Defence...
Herbert Kruse (2024-04-22 12:44:57)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
World Championship Poker 16 and 17 could go in next stage
Herbert Kruse (2024-04-22 12:46:07)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
i meant 15 and 16, 17 is one game not finished
Herbert Kruse (2024-04-22 12:49:02)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
but the last game in 17 doesnt matter, first place in that is also clear
Bogoljub Teverovski (2024-06-15 12:06:38)
Next thematic tournament
Yes, Philidor is upcoming
Herbert Kruse (2024-06-16 11:10:54)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
New Poker wch should start 3 month ago and 33 Players are waiting
Wilhelm Schuett (2024-06-22 20:23:39)
Next thematic tournament
Which way to Philidor? Or 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Sf6 3.Sc3 e5 for another thematic tournament?
Herbert Kruse (2024-10-10 08:28:05)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
its almost time for the next ;)
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2024-11-08 09:32:10)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
All first round games have been completed. What policy will be applied to ties? In my group, we have a three-way-tie.
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2024-11-15 09:37:54)
stage 2 WCH 000028
I made some earlier post about this WCH. Now I was wondering when stage 2 of WCH 000028 would start (and if I would be in it ;)). I looked up the first stage tournaments of this WCH and I noticed that there seems to be a bug. For my group it says that there's only a leader and no definitive winner. Only by now all games have been completed. So it seems this is a bug, which potentially is the cause of the hold-up.
Thibault de Vassal (2024-12-11 03:09:53)
New Tie Break System
Hi Garvin,
I can only say: Yes, this tie break system is good (probably better even if it remains subjective) & interesting.
But I don't think that changing this rule would be so good, it would lose in coherence & simplicity, and complexify the understanding of past tournaments... So, I'll go to the 2nd option, let's make 9+ players round-robin groups (as far as possible).
Stanislas Gounant (2024-12-29 21:33:40)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Les prochains championnats débutent quand? Je pense que si il n'y a pas d'annonces régulières sur le chat les gens ne vont pas s'inscrire sur les waiting lists. De même si les waitings lists restent ouvertes alors que les tournois ont commencés cela peut pauser des problèmes
Garvin Gray (2024-12-29 22:32:22)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
When do the next championships start? I think that if there are no regular announcements on the chat people will not register on the waiting lists. Likewise, if the waiting lists remain open even though the tournaments have started, this can cause problems.
Stanislas Gounant (2024-12-29 23:49:39)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Thank you for the translation
I think Thibault has a better command of the French language than I do. (google translation for this sentence)
Garvin Gray (2024-12-30 00:05:14)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
On this site, Forum topics are meant to be discussed in English
Herbert Kruse (2025-01-10 19:03:27)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
when will it start?
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.
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2025-02-14 18:58:33)
I did not win a game since 3 years
I want to share my latest win with you (in a tournament full of draws): https://ficgs.com/game_145717.html
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.
Wilhelm Schuett (2025-02-27 01:05:45)
Next thematic tournament
https://shop.chessbase.com/en/products/fernandez_the_modern_sicilian_surprise_in_60min?Ref=RF70-5OH0EFN840 5...h5!? in the 2…Nc6-Sicilian
Bogoljub Teverovski (2025-03-10 15:15:34)
Next thematic tournament
Alternatively Caro: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 de4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6 exf6
Wilhelm Schuett (2025-03-13 15:11:13)
Next thematic tournament
gxf6 was popular in the 80's. Nowadays it would be a surprise weapon
Bogoljub Teverovski (2025-03-15 19:19:07)
Next thematic tournament
OK on gf6 got thematic
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2025-03-15 19:42:24)
Next thematic tournament
You mean exf6? I think I got something interesting against that Caro Kann line. I am in.
Bogoljub Teverovski (2025-03-16 19:04:40)
Next thematic tournament
we can stay at 5.Nxf6 with a free choice exf6 or gxf6
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2025-03-17 10:20:41)
Next thematic tournament
That's fine by me.
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.
There are 15 results for tournament in wikichess.
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
e4 e5 Bc4
The Bishop's Opening is one of the oldest openings to be analyzed; it was studied by Lucena and Ruy Lopez. Later it was played by Philidor. Larsen was one of the few grandmasters to play it often, after first using it at the 1964 Interzonal Tournament. Although the Bishop's Opening is uncommon today, it has been used occasionally as a surprise by players such as Kasparov and Nunn.
White attacks Black's f7-square and prevents Black from advancing his d-pawn to d5. By ignoring the beginner's rule, "develop knights before bishops", White leaves his f-pawn unblocked allowing the possibility of playing f4. This gives the Bishop's Opening an affinity to the King's Gambit and the Vienna Game, two openings that share this characteristic. In fact, the Bishop's Opening can transpose into the King's Gambit or the Vienna Game, and transpositions into Giuoco Piano and Two Knights Defense and other openings are also possible. In particular, White should remain alert for any chance to transpose into a favorable variation of the King's Gambit, but with careful play Black can avoid this danger.
According to Chessbase, white chances are about 55%
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
d4 d5 c4
The Queen's Gambit is one of the oldest known chess openings, as Lucena wrote about it in 1497 and it is mentioned in an earlier manuscript in Göttingen. During the early period of modern chess queen pawn openings were not in fashion, and the Queen's Gambit did not become common until the 1873 tournament in Vienna.
As Steinitz and Tarrasch developed chess theory and increased the appreciation of positional play, the Queen's Gambit grew more popular. It reached its peak popularity in the 1920s and 1930s, and was played in 32 out of 34 games in the 1934 World Chess Championship.
Since then Black has increasingly moved away from symmetrical openings, tending to use the Indian defences to combat queen pawn openings. The Queen's Gambit is still frequently played, however, and it remains an important part of many grandmasters' opening repertoires.
With 2.c4, White threatens to exchange a wing pawn (the c-pawn) for a center pawn (Black's d-pawn) and dominate the center with e2-e4. This is not a true gambit since if Black accepts the pawn he cannot expect to keep it.
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
e4 Nf6
Alekhine's Defence is named after Alexander Alekhine who first used it in two games in the 1921 Budapest tournament: one against Andre Steiner (which he won) and the other against Fritz Sämisch (which he drew). Another early exponent of the defence was Ernst Grünfeld. The opening is considered hypermodern because Black provokes White to attack Black's knight and occupy the centre with his pawns, hoping to prove that White's imposing mass of pawns in the centre (which often includes pawns on c4, d4, e5, and f4) is in fact weak.
According to Chessbase, black chances are about 39%
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Tim Bredernitz (1100)
e4 e5 Qh5
This is called the Parham Attack. It's used commonly in lower scholastic tournaments. If used against a player who has the ability to see multiple moves ahead, however, the early over-development of the Queen will result in either the loss of the white Queen, or the loss of a tempo. The move is deceiving, because white is actually putting the e5 pawn under attack. If black counters by attacking the queen with 2. ... g6?, they lose a rook a rook to 3.Qxe5+. The most effective way to counter against this attack is to protect the e5 pawn. After the King pawn is protected, white's queen is left overdeveloped and subject to attack. Overall, the Parham Attack is only effective against beginning chess players.
============
Contributors : Tim Bredernitz
Thibault de Vassal (2424)
e4 c5 f4 d5 Nf3
A provocating move I didn't see before SM Wladyslav Krol played it at several occasions in FICGS tournaments. (Game 864, Game 876, Game 1750)
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Normajean Yates (1946)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3
The Catalan opening.
According to MCO-14 (p. 509, second paragraph), the organisers of the 1929 Barcelona Tournament asked Tartakower to invent a variation and name it after that region.
If this is true, it is most interesting chess history: an opening - like a dish - invented on request!
============
Contributors : Dirk Jan Van Dijl, Normajean Yates
Adam Goodwin (1365)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O c3 d5
Frank Marshall analyzed this move for at least 9 years before he played it against Capablanca in 1918.
============
Contributors : Marshall Gambit
chess thematic tournament, Adam Goodwin
Ingo Schwarz (1824)
e4 c5 Bc4
An idea, which I have tested in some tournament games. I often played Bc4 in other Sicilian systems, so I asked me, why not play it as soon as possible.
This move works against d5 and sometimes a Bxf7+ combination is possible like in other openings with sharp play.
============
Contributors : Ingo Schwarz
Telmo Escobar (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Ng4 Bb5 Nc6 Nxc6 bxc6 Bxc6+ Bd7 Bxa8 Nxe3 fxe3 Qxa8
A critical position. In order to understand why a single tempo will be decisive for the evaluation of the position, it's advisable to remember that Siegbert Tarrasch postulated that "two bishops plus a rook are better than two rooks plus a knight". According my oddly uneven experience of near forty years of tournament play, during which I lost to many patzers but beat many masters -and a few grandmasters- as well, I think Tarrasch's axiom is correct most of the time. Indeed, *as most players seem to not know about Tarrasch's axiom*, one of my dirty tricks has been to look for these positions, when my adversary think he -one exchange up- is better, but I -one exchange down- usually know better.
In this position, both Black bishops seem to have excellent prospects and, should my dark bishop be already at g7, I'd be sure that Black has winning prospects.
But it's White turn to move, and...
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Telmo Escobar (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 Bc4 Ng4 Bb5+ Kf8 O-O Nxe3 fxe3 Nd7 Ne6+
And, naturally, Black resigns. This was Giorgi-Escobar, Buenos Aires (Club tournament) 1976. Please not make it into a "famous game"! It was the only game I lost at that tournament- and the only game my adversary won! In fact I finished 1st, my adversary finished last :)
It's true that i was playing the game after a (memorable) night without sleeping, so I was not precisely awake while playing. But the position is not as easy to play with Black, otherwise I would be able to outplay my adversary anyway. I'm sure that this blunder 10...Nd7?? has been played by other people as well- alas even now I find difficult to renounce to such a natural move...
As you see, both moves I suggest in this position
(10...Nc6!? that sacrifices a pawn, 10...e6!? that sacrifices the square d6) are not trivial.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Wilhelm Schuett (1800)
Nh3
1/Played by French amateur chess player Charles Amar in the 1930s, this opening is also known as the Drunken Knight Opening, or the Ammonia Opening (NH3 is the chemical formula of the ammonia).
There is no particular interest in choosing to play NH3, and it is therefore considered as an irregular opening. It prepares for kingside castling, but so would NF3...
2/Here is the "Sodium Attack", an very rarely opening played in profssional tournaments,the interest of this
Non-orthodoxe opening,is to control cells g5
and f4 in One also move... to prépare the attack on column f, with bishop on c1 at thé 3th.move, and to prépare the casting, so of course!
Paul,Emma& Sandra Brand-Lyard. 2021/07/24th.
============
Contributors : Benjamin Block, Normajean Yates, Florian Cafiero, PaulSandra Brand-Lyard
aka "The Sandra Lyard13061975-03081997 Inventor
Chess variants Annapurna' séries., Wilhelm Schuett
Terry Godat (2088)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 Nf6 Bc4 d5 exd5 Bd6 d4 Nh5 O-O O-O Rxf4
============
Contributors : Terry Godat
I'm involved in a thematic King's Gambit tournament and came across this game (Boehme-Whitman) during my research. I'm astonished that no one ever considered this move before. Rybka considers this move to be at least as good as 10.Nxg4, which is known to be good for Black after 10...Qxh4 11.Nh2 Ng3!
Wilhelm Schuett (1800)
a4
============
Contributors : Benjamin Block, Ruddy Franco, Kostis Megalios, Paul Brand Lyard
This opening is the Ware" opening A4
Mr. Ware, US champion in his time, had
won very much games in tournaments with his
rarely,amazing opening....
What do you play after one a opening a4?
Best move isn' t it to play pawn e5 for blacks?
Blacks to play.
Nota bene
Mr.Paul-emmanuel Brand FRA, Aka
"The Sandra LyardVers13061975",
Inventor Annapurna' chess séries variants said
about this Non- orthodoxe, rarely uses in tournaments by players,afer a long time to try and studied this,that was a precious opening because she can create an big surprise attack on column A,for the oponnent after only twelve moves....
Thé " Meadow Hay" Ware opening' is most strongest than WE believe...2021 July 20th.
Paul,Emma&Sandra Brand-Lyard., Wilhelm Schuett
Telmo Escobar (1929)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Qd2 Qxb2 Rb1 Qa3 f5 Nc6 fxe6 fxe6 Nxc6 bxc6 e5 dxe5 Bxf6 gxf6 Ne4 Qxa2 Rd1 Be7 Be2 O-O O-O Ra7 Rf3 Rd7 Bd3 f5 Qh6 Kh8 Ng5 Bc5+ Kh1 Qa5 Rh3 Qc7 Nxe6 Qd6 Nxf8 Qxf8 Rf1 Rf7 Qh5 Qe7 Rhf3 f4 Be4 Rg7 Rb3 Ba7 Rd3 Bg4 Qh6
Incredibly White saves the skin, as after 33...Be2 34.Rc1! Bxd3 35.cxd3 White regains at least a pawn and his King is absolutely safe thanks to his unassailable control of light squares.
This game was decisive for the result of the tournament, as should Anand win it, Vassily Ivanchuk would be the winner of the contest. After this lucky escape -take into account that White had to make several difficult moves in one minute- Grischuk shared first position as was even declared the winner because of an absurd rule.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Niklas Hallqvist (1438)
d4 e6 Nf3 c5
Of the common moves in the preceding position, c5 is the one with the best statistics, at 42% (i.e. good for black), according to TWIC's tournament database (110406).
============
Contributors : Niklas Hallqvist
FICGS : tournament , Wikipedia : tournament , Dmoz : tournament , Google : tournament , Yahoo : tournament
It is the aim of the modern school, not to treat every position according to one general law, but according to the principle inherent in the position. (Richard Reti)
Chess is really ninety nine percent calculation. (Soltis)
All I want to do, ever, is just play Chess. (Bobby Fischer)
Back to FICGS , Wikichess